S9_11-15-04

• Basin: Statewide
• Title: SWSI Phase 1 Report - Section 9 Evaluation Framework
• Date: 11/15/2004
• Author: CWCB
• SWSI - Doc Type: Final Report

Section 9
Evaluation Framework
^ objectives than a strictly numeric or "voting" approach
^ Performance (Keeney 1992).
Measures
Quantitative scoring provides guidance to
decisionmakers, but it is not intended to
-
, "make" the decision. Depending on the
;
~
;
~
- - - weights placed on the objectives, the
, .
~
,
~~~ quantitative comparison will differ from
person to person and illuminate the
Basin Roundtables ^ Basin
Re
orts & Studies Roundtable tradeoffs associated with each option.
p
sws~ conce ts Preferences Figure 9-3 illustrates the overall evaluation
Figure s-2 framework used in SWSI. By deliberately
Ovet°viewr of Evaluation Framework
The approach to developing alternatives for each basin
in subsequent phases of SWSI could be based on the
use of options - individual projects or solutions - as
"building blocks" for basinwide alternatives. Alternatives
could be developed using options that have the likelihood
of being preferred by the stakeholders in each basin, as
described more specifically below. This approach
consists of the following steps:
^ Develop options based on Basin Roundtable
Technical Meeting discussions
^ Group options into families of options, as described in
Section 8
^ Evaluate families of options against objectives and
sub-objectives using performance measures and
Basin Roundtable member preferences
^ Identify preferred families of options and use them
(with specific options from those families as
available/appropriate to the basin) to construct
alternatives to meet the demand gaps for each basin
in subsequent phases of SWSI
These options were evaluated against a set of
performance measures, developed by the SWSI team
and confirmed by CWCB and Basin Roundtable
members. Stakeholder preferences (weights of
importance assigned to each objective) were also
factored into the evaluation as described below.
The unique aspect of this approach for SWSI is that the
preferences (or objective weights) for each individual
Basin Roundtable member are maintained. In other
words, this evaluation method was applied to all of the
participating stakeholders. This helps allow for discovery
of common ground through facilitated discussion, rather
~
$~ole'ri~ice Wo~e' $upplY Initia~ive
first analyzing the ob~ectives (our goals in
water management) separately from the
options (specific projects or solutions intended to meet
those goals), we are better able to draw out interests
over positions, illustrate tradeoffs, and identify creative
solutions that might otherwise not come forward.
Additional discussion about interest-based dialogue
versus position-based debate is provided in Section 9.4.
The "why" portion outlines which aspects of water
management are important to someone, as illustrated
through the objectives. The "how" portion describes how
one addresses a water management need - specific
projects or ways in which the objectives could be
accomplished.
~~Why~~ ~~How~~
Objectives Options
I I
~ ~
M
on
~
~
Figure 9-3
Evaluation "Road Map"
~~
S:\REPORT\WORD PROCESSING\REPORT\S9 11-10.04.DOC 9-.~