Laserfiche WebLink
A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: <br />1. Don't build the project: <br />Continue using the pota.ble water supplied by Mid Valley Metropolitan District <br />and disregard raw water imgation and water conservation efforts. <br />2. Limit the area of lawn per homeowner: <br />This doesn't address the watering of the open space. Water rights could be lost. <br />This is not feasible as water rights are so valuable. <br />3. Xeriscaping for the open space, parks and owners' lots: <br />This is not economical as the majority of lots are landscaped in accordance to our <br />CC&R's as well as the open space. This would in no way utilize the water rights <br />and they would be forfeited. <br />4. Sell water rights and use the proceeds to offset other water deWeries: <br />This alternative does not allow the use of ra.w water and therefore does not <br />promote water conservation. This is not a feasible alternative. <br />5. Open ditch irrigation: <br />Flood irrigation as is currently designed throughout the PUD will not adequately <br />water even the open spaces. <br />6. Surface pipe irrigation: <br />This is an alternative, however, not aesthetically pleasing. We wish to preserve <br />the beauty of the neighborhood, and surface pipe irrigation would detract <br />tremendously. This is not a feasible alternative. <br />Page -2- <br />