2008-11-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 Mr. Gaffney addressed the request to review the 50-year demand projections. He noted that previous discussion related to looking at the assumptions used for the demand projections and conform that the method used is correct. Mr. Frederick said TNC’s hydrologic modeling work confirmed GF’s safe yield figure. Mr. Rooker noted that demand and safe yield are two different concepts. Mr. Norris clarified that this issue arose from the discussion on whether the demand projections could be adjusted based on increased water conservation efforts in this community. Previous discussion reflected interest in increasing the community’s water conservation goal, but there is uncertainty as to how this might impact the demand analysis. Mr. Slutzky asked if the group wants to formally stop the forward movement of the water supply plan due to adjustments to the demand analysis based on water conservation studies, or accept the numbers, move forward with the water supply plan and be thrilled that we have been able to scale back our demand number going forward. Mr. Norris responded that he is not prepared and he does not think City Council is ready to take action until they have more concrete information about what the impacts will be on revisiting the demand analysis. Mr. Wagner, speaking on behalf of the ACSA Board of Directors, stated that ACSA will be paying most of the cost of the 50-year water supply plan and they would not want to do anything that would hold up the progress of this plan. He said he thinks the water conservation studies are very appropriate, but he would not like to delay implementing the plan by revisiting the demand analysis and making changes to the plan. Mr. Norris said the question on the table for City Council concerns whether there is interest to see if increased water conservation can impact the demand analysis or should these be considered separate issues. Mr. Huja said he wants to know the water conservation figures for the City and the County before he makes that determination. Dr. Brown said he would personally be very leery about holding up the plan or taking action that might result in having to redo the water supply planning process. He said he does not believe that was the intent of any of the City Councilors by expressing their interest in looking at water conservation measures. He said he does not know if anyone could answer the question about the demand analysis by looking at water conservation, which was a small piece of the City’s resolution. He said he feels it depends upon the experts’ opinion about the cost of the dam and the SFRR Task Force’s recommendations about undertaking a dredging study, as he feels all these items interlink. He said he is interested in learning how this community can conserve more water, but he cannot not envision a role for this item in the creation of a new water supply plan. Mr. Gaffney reminded everyone that the purpose of this meeting is to provide RWSA with direction and not to cause City Council to make a decision before they are ready to take action on this matter. Dr. Palmer asked if agreement can be reached to allow RWSA to move forward with the expert panel to review the cost of the dam. She said she also feels it would be very helpful to give RWSA direction about retaining an expert panel to review the costs of the dam, which would assist the board members in addressing citizen inquiries about this issue. Mr. Huja said he wants the expert panel to address the pipeline issue as well.