Section5_Gap_11-7-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 5 Addressing the Gap Roundtable 5.5 Recommendations The Gap TRT recommended that the future work should evaluate the water supply alternatives using similar assumptions and the group suggested that a more detailed evaluation of the options be performed. Development of comparable costs would be beneficial since there were differing assumptions on capacity, capital and O~eM costs, yields, water rights, delivery locations, water treatment, etc. for each water supply alternative. The general direction of the Gap TRT was to perform a detailed evaluation of each option using the following assumptions and approach: ~ Delivery of similar water quality. ~ Common or comparable storage areas should be included for all options. ~ Common or comparable termination points should be included for all options. ~ Information and suggestions regarding base options (options that would be added to the major structural options) be obtained from the BRTs. ~ Conservation be considered in developing alternatives. ~ The Decision Support System be used to perform additional analysis of supply availability. ~ Additional information be included regarding existing storage and infrastructure opportunities. ~ Additional information be developed on: storage requirements, miles of tunnels required, river crossings, permitting considerations (i.e., Federal Lands, Wilderness Areas, 1041 considerations, wetlands etc.). ~ Refinement and development of critical agricultural needs and solutions. ~ Environmental and recreational enhancements. ~ There should be a range of water delivery; the suggested range was 100,000 -175,000 - 250,000 AFY. The TRT also suggested the following evaluation elements be included: ~ Include Capital and O~eM costs as net present worth and annualized cost (infrastructure and operation and maintenance) and cost per AF. ~ Additional information be added to the matrices that outline some of the initial benefits, impacts, and attributes of the options. ~ Refinement and development of local basin projects and needs in conjunction with the major structural options. At the time of publishing this report, there bas not been a final decision on how and when to proceed with the further definitions and refinements of the seven major structural projects. The CW CB is working with BRTs, the Interbasin Compact Committee, and other stakeholders to identify the best venue and time to complete additional analysis. FINAL DRAFT 5-47