9 issues for discussion and resolution n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
9 Issues for Discussion and Resolution PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
9 Issues for Discussion and Resolution

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 10

9 Issues for Discussion and Resolution - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

9 Issues for Discussion and Resolution. Brought forward by SRP and City of Mesa. 1. Portrayal of high–low range forecasts is chaotic when some sectors only provided single point forecasts.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '9 Issues for Discussion and Resolution' - reid

Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
9 issues for discussion and resolution

9 Issues for Discussion and Resolution

Brought forward by SRP and City of Mesa

1. Portrayal of high–low range forecasts is chaotic when some sectors only provided single point forecasts
  • High-low range forecasts should be required of all sectors to alleviate the question of why it was done differently
  • All sectors should be required to provide single point forecasts
  • All summary forecast data should be displayed with high-low values regardless of whether they change
2. Industrial use is characterized as a principal driver in state water planning due to its use in column headings, this is not the case
  • Future versions of WRDC tables should label column headings for industrial use differently, such as just “water demands”
3 two sets of data for 2110 is confusing why do we need two sets of data
3. Two sets of data for 2110 is confusing, why do we need two sets of data?
  • The forecast that was developed by the Population Committee should be selected to avoid confusion and criticism that “the committee couldn’t make up its mind”

4. HB 2661 asks the WRDC to develop information based on counties, not basins. The power sector provided data for counties as well as basins. Non-water business experts are not likely to be able to identify with basins

  • County projections should be required of all sectors/subsectors

5. Some of the information being displayed for years between the 25, 50 and 100 year targets identified by HB2661. Subsector experts/representatives have not been involved in the development of this data.

  • Data information for intervening years should not be developed or displayed without subsector expert/representative involvement

6. We cannot have the data displayed the current way with negative numbers for half of the basins in 2035 even though there is more than enough water for current and future demands in those basins and call it unmet demands.

  • During each time step it will be very important for the reader to know what the total balance of water is, and for the most part the balance should be positive for most basins through 2110. For example, Basin X has 10,000,000 AF of groundwater in storage and 20,000 AF of annual natural recharge. Therefore, the current snapshot would be 10,020,000 minus the current total demand. Continue this through time and if the basin has 8,000,000 AF in 2110, then the reader knows that the basin can meet all future demands through 2110 and that the basin has surplus water.
  • Describe basins that meet all current and future demands as basins with water supplies that meet or exceed current and future demands through 2110. Describe basins that will not meet current and future demands as basins with water supplies that will not meet demands unless alternative actions occur.

7. We should not create solutions or scenarios on a basin-by-basin manner for those basins where water supplies will not meet future demands. We need to be very careful with any recommendations regarding unintended consequences or negative backlash, which is the exact opposite this report was original intended to do.

  • An exhaustive list of potential alternatives should be created which describes what each activity may entail to acquire new water supplies for a basin where all water supplies do not meet future demands. I also think as part of this exhaustive description that the current or potential legal, regulatory, and political issues (per the bill requirements) also be described here. We just do not know how things are going to change within each basin 25, 50, or 100 years recognizing a one size does not fit all.

8. Our recommendation should include a strong and proactive ADWR that is funded strongly by the State, emphasizing strategic planning that includes the legislators, Governor’s office and planning areas to address issues.


9. Recommend thatcounties get more involved by recommending a Water Advisory Commission be established with representatives from the various stakeholders within that county and strictly from a water resources planning standpoint with understanding water resources, supplies, demands, and alternatives. Basically, expanding the idea of the GUAC in the AMA’s beyond the AMA boundaries. These planning commissions could conduct the necessary studies that give the stakeholders the best options for their future.