Laserfiche WebLink
*What is the role of technical subcommittees in CRDSS decision-making? <br />? <br />How is user membership established in CRDSS development and implementation? <br />? <br />- Data trades? <br />- Resource contributions? <br />- Cooperative agreements? <br />- Licensing for third-party users? <br />Is collaborative decision-making for state water policy to be obtained? <br />? <br />- Within DNR/CWCB/DWR? <br />- Third-party users? <br />- "Big issues" being addressed (basinwide) <br />How is consensus on CRDSS defined and obtained? <br />? <br /> *- For model selections? <br /> *- For CRDSS functionality? <br />- For membership and licensing? <br />- For collaborative decision-making? <br />How will the CRDSS be integrated into agency operations? <br />? <br />*How can the CRDSS project be "sold" to the Legislature? <br />? <br />How can CRDSS assist in conflict resolution? <br />? <br />Issues on Scenarios . Issues on scenarios relate to how the CRDSS will provide answers for <br />identified water management and planning purposes. A scenario details an objective (i.e., <br />question to be answered) and sequence of actions taken to answer the question. The Project <br />Feasibility Report provided an initial definition of candidate scenarios as part of the needs <br />analysis. That information was used to select the three primary scenarios for: (1) Interstate <br />Compact Analysis, (2) Water Resources Management, and (3) Water Rights Administration. <br />The scenarios defined for USBR annual operation plan evaluation, impact on threatened and <br />endangered species, and near real-time water rights administration provided details on <br />model/utilities and database support functions required to accomplish the actions. <br />During Phase I, a number of questions were raised which relate to refinement of the Project <br />Feasibility Report scenarios and extensions. Some of the questions relate to the protocols <br />addressed above, such as how the CRDSS will be integrated into procedures for water policy <br />formulation. Other questions concern the specifics of a particular scenario. For example, the <br />specific sequence of actions such as database retrievals and model invocations described in the <br />Project Feasibility Report are apparently not detailed enough. These questions range from those <br />concerned with underlying procedures for addressing the objective, to those concerned with the <br />formats of computer displays. <br />*What are water policy information needs? <br />? <br />*What is the scope of CRDSS functionality vis-à-vis user needs? <br />? <br />*What are the underlying procedures for addressing the scenario objectives? <br />? <br />- What is the "best" procedure (e.g., consumptive use, water rights administration)? <br />*What do users expect to see? <br />? <br />*How to involve users in model development, ...? <br />? <br />How can CRDSS be structured to reflect "actual" system operations? <br />? <br />*What constitutes a model calibration? <br />? <br />*How can a common understanding of the water issues and alternates actions be developed? <br />? <br />*How can management of expectations be accomplished? <br />? <br />*What specific topics and subtopics will the CRDSS address? <br />? <br />3 <br />A275 05.10.94 1.05-26 Johnson <br />