Laserfiche WebLink
WATER RESOURCES STUDY <br />Page 2 <br />October 13, 1981 <br />ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: (Cont'd.) <br />1. These activities are anticipated to be completed in 24 months, at <br />a cash cost to the County of $38,000 per year or $76,000 for the <br />Phase I development. This program also includes participation <br />by St. John's Water Management District in cash and services of <br />$22,000 per year or $44,000 for Phase I. This combined yearly <br />contribution of $60,000 would be matched by U.S.G.S. for a total <br />yearly expenditure of $120,000 or $240,000 for Phase I. <br />2. Solicit proposals from private firms for doing a two -phased <br />type of project, the geographic scope of which could be simila_- <br />to that of the U.S.G.S. proposal. This investigation could <br />concentrate on the areas expected to need municipal services as <br />projected in the Comprehensive Plan. As is pointed out in the <br />letter from G&M, much of the data already exists and a concen- <br />tration of manpower could complete the Phase I portion in a . <br />far shorter time than projected by U.S.G.S. proposal. Again, <br />utilizing the information submitted by G&M, it would appear that <br />the expected cost to the County could be well within a reasonable <br />range; approximately $60,000 for Phase I. <br />3. A combination of the private and government sectors talents could <br />produce the most comprehensive and usable information. Such a <br />program could provide for short range decision making data more <br />quickly, while a longer monitoring program contributed to by <br />government agencies, with existing resources, would give a more <br />in-depth analysis based on new data. <br />An analysis on these alternatives presents an awareness of time <br />and cost. The scope of work presented by U.S.G.S. in overall <br />content is a good, detailed one, but with regard to making decisions <br />about the immediate use of our water resources, appears to be <br />costly in time, money and interpretive information. A Phase I <br />proposal such as that presented by G&M is more -need oriented and <br />from a time standpoint, indicates the ability to apply manpower <br />economically to achieve the ends sought. <br />Phase II presents a different set of parameters, developing an <br />in-depth inventory and analysis for long range planning purposes. <br />The urgency for information is no longer a major factor in Phase <br />II and the resource of multiple governmental agencies coordinating <br />efforts over a longer period could produce a more than adequate <br />planning tool. While the cost of this effort has not been <br />determined, whatever it may be could be allocated over the longer <br />period involved. <br />NOV 4 1981 BOOK 48 PAGE 31 <br />