2008-11-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 Mr. Rooker said he wants a better understanding of what it means to revisit the demand projections and how it would impact the permit applications filed for the water supply plan. He said he felt that the projected population numbers and the starting point for the computation of the demand analysis are also too high. However, those arguments did not prevail, the plan was approved, and the permits were obtained. He said he never believed that the plan was 100% accurate and was based on a series of assumptions. A lot of time and money could be spent attacking the demand analysis to possibly find out that instead of 18.7 million gallons of water per day of safe yield only 17.2 million gallons of water per day of safe yield would be needed. Dredging by itself will not satisfy the entire projected future water need of this community, so additional measures would need to be undertaken in conjunction with a dredging operation Dr. Brown pointed out that one of the differences between the Board of Supervisors and City Council is that the majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors participated in creating the water supply plan. He said he is the only current member of City Council that participated in that process. He noted that Kevin Lynch, who served on City Council during that time, is now a vocal critic of the plan. Mr. Norris said the City was very clear in its resolution about endorsing the framework of the water supply plan but felt the plan did not go far enough in terms of conservation. Mr. Rooker said he feels there were two different issues being discussed. The first entails what the community does in order to improve its conservation efforts, which does not necessarily by itself impact or hold up the water supply plan. The second part related to whether City Council is stating that the demand analysis should be redone and population figures revisited since it is felt that better conservation efforts could be achieved than the number included in the plan environmentally sound way. He then asked Mr. Frederick how a new demand study would effect the existing permit approvals Mr. Frederick said if this community wants to conduct a study and hire a strong consultant who understands how to implement water conservation programs through educational programs, he feels this could be undertaken without affecting the water supply plan. He said he has been advised to use a great deal of caution when considering redoing the demand study, since proposing a smaller figure could put into question whether the right alternative has been chosen based on federal regulations, which could require that the alternative review process be undertaken again. Mr. Martin said he was involved as a citizen during the water supply planning process since about 1998 and it is very frustrating that the demand analysis and the water conservation issues are being addressed again as they were both thoroughly discussed a long time ago. He said he feels it would be irresponsible to plan water supply capacity on assumptions that the public will theoretically cooperate in the future and actually conserve. Ms. Thomas said that since a City-County combined entity will need to produce a water conservation plan by 2011 as part of our regional water plan, it is appropriate for the City, ACSA, as well as the County to be involved in water conservation planning because well users and residents in the rural areas of the County in addition to residents on the public water system will be affected by this plan. Dr. Brown said he agrees with the comments by Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker that the issues of water conservation and demand were studied in depth and were challenged to the satisfaction of a lot of the people who were present at that time. He suggested having RWSA look at the best water conservation practices and the degree to which they are being met, and consider hiring an outside consultant only if it was found that an additional resource would be needed in this area. Mr. Boyd asked if he is hearing agreement on placing the water conservation responsibility back to the City and the ACSA.