Final Minutes
Water Management Committee Meeting
Associated Issues Workshop
The Water Management Committee (WMC) Workshop No. 7 regarding Associated Issues with the Boyle Team began at 10:00 a.m. in Lakewood, Colorado. The types of comments the Boyle Team is seeking with regard to their evaluation memoranda were briefly discussed. The Boyle Team wants comments specific to the alternatives described in the evaluation memoranda. For example, are the alternatives scored too high or too low, are there any additional alternatives for evaluation, were the alternatives adequately formulated for the evaluation, etc. The draft Study Report, due in August, will contain information regarding the comparison of the different alternatives.
It is anticipated a portion of the July 13 WMC meeting will be used to discuss the comments received by the Boyle Team and how the Boyle Team may respond to those comments. All comments received will be provided to the WMC.
Blaine Dwyer of the Boyle Team reviewed with the WMC the agenda for the workshop. Mr. Dwyer reviewed the Screening Criteria Memoranda dated September 25, 1998, with the WMC. This memorandum was provided to the WMC by letter from the WMC Chair dated October 14, 1998. The scoring of the alternatives was discussed. The Boyle Team distributed the Summary of 7 May 1999 Meeting re: Ranking Tables memorandum dated June 7, 1999, to the WMC that was developed to ensure the alternatives were evaluated consistently with respect to the subcriteria. The memorandum provides a brief narrative of the numeric score an alternative would be assigned, given a subcriterion.
The subcriterion of scalability under the Physical Category was discussed. Scalability, as used by the Boyle Team, provides a measure of an alternative's ability to be implemented at a larger size or implementing several similar projects to obtain an increased yield at the site. Some alternatives only had existing information for small scale implementation, but were identified as having a potential to be implemented at a larger scale and were assigned a high value of scalability.
The fatal flaw criteria, those subcriteria for which a score of zero could be assigned, identified in the memorandum were reviewed. These subcriteria were:
- Reduction to Target Flow Shortages;
0 < 500 AF/yr
- Time to Yield Realization;
0 > 10 yrs
- Ease of Permitting;
0 Already Failed NEPA Process
- Consistent with Interstate Compacts, Federal Laws and
Decrees;
0 Not Consistent
- Initial Implementation and Capital Costs; and
0 > $50 Million
- Direct Economic Impacts, Secondary Impacts, and Fiscal
Impacts.
0 Devastating negative impacts
The following changes were made to the Summary of 7 May 1999 Meeting re: Ranking Tables memorandum. Under the Legal/Institutional Category, the subcriterion named Ease of Permitting the score assignment for "Already failed NEPA" was changed from 0 to 1. Under the Social Category, the phrase "decimates a community" was replaced with "substantial negative impacts." Under the Economic Category, delete "Devastating negative impacts" with the score of zero, as the condition was not applied to any alternative.
Tables summarizing how the alternatives were scored by the seven categories were provided by the Boyle Team and reviewed. The alternatives were analyzed by the Boyle Team with the assumption that any water provided by an alternative at the Wyoming/Nebraska or Colorado/Nebraska state lines would be protected from diversions by Nebraska and would only be subject to the appropriate conveyance losses. While alternatives located in the States of Wyoming and Colorado were analyzed for both with and without diversion losses, the tables showing the alternatives' scores are based on routing an alternative's contribution with diversion losses in Wyoming and Colorado, and without diversion losses in Nebraska. This was assumed to reflect the current legal climate of river administration in the three states.
The WMC asked the Boyle Team to provide scoring tables associated with the alternative scored for the without diversion losses condition. Scoring the alternatives for this condition may include more alternatives, as a higher target flow reduction is expected. The Boyle Team will evaluate the amount of effort to produce these tables and advise the WMC Chair.
The WMC provided the following comments at the meeting.
The Groundwater memo, page G-63: If a subcriterion (Average Annual Total Cost per Acre-Food [sic] Delivered) receives a score of zero, the alternative is set aside from further consideration. If an alternative's score is truly zero for one of the subcriterion, revise the table to show only the zero score and eliminate the alternative from further consideration. Otherwise, assign the subcriterion a score greater than zero and revise the alternative's overall score assigned in the table. Also, replace the "Acre-Food" with "Acre-Foot."
Will all contributed water be protected from diversion in the State of Nebraska?
The Agricultural Water Conservation memo, page C-1: Provide a copy of the Shortlist of Alternatives memorandum dated March 19, 1999, that is referred to in the text to the WMC.
Why do the subcriteria under the Social and Economic Categories for some of the Incentive Based Reductions in Agriculture Water Use Alternatives score lower than the same categories under Reservoirs?
The individuals providing these comments will reiterate them in their written comments. The Boyle Team is working to create a master file containing all the alternatives that can be sorted by a number of parameters such as cost per acre-foot, score, target flow shortage reduction, etc. The Boyle Team anticipates providing a sample of this master file in hardcopy output at the July 13 WMC meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
For further information about the Partnership,
contact any Governance Committee member.For comments and questions about this website, please email Buck Feist or call 406-247-7607