Stop Groundwater Plan - Save $8 Billion by Majdi & Manaugh
Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Thank you for submitting a final proposal. The judges appreciate what appears to be a refocus of your proposal at the local / state level, since there was some concern over the national focus previously. It will also be interesting to see how the new projects that have been added (Piermont) will go. As you move forward with your proposed actions, you are strongly encouraged to continue using the judges’ feedback to help guide your work. There is always room for improvement, and the judges would like to see you respond further to the questions and comments that were raised during semi-finalist selection. For ease of reference, the judges’ initial suggestions have been summarized by a contest fellow below:
- Provide more detail
o Technical issues need to be addressed
o Method of collaborative problem-solving (e.g. independent technical or scientific advisory panel)
o Possible sites for the desalination plant and power plant
• Costs involved with acquiring said sites?
• Modeling of supporting infrastructure and its costs?
o Analysis of what it would take to amend current agreements regarding the use of the Colorado
- Better annotated reading list to support the work in Phase 1
Congratulations on a strong proposal, and the adaptation contest team wishes you the best of luck!
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Thank you for your submission to the Climate CoLab adaptation contest. This is a strong and well-thought-out proposal. The judges like the 3 stage approach and are very positive about the idea of shifting to a regional instead of a city-by-city approach to providing potable water. The notion of adding a desalination plant rather than suggesting it as an alternative for LA makes a great deal of sense. Providing energy for the desalination plan through a massive solar plant is appealing, although there are (as in Israel) many technological issues that need to be addressed. It would be nice to see this idea get a lot of visibility. In stage 1 to produce informed public support, it will be necessary to suggest some method of collaborative problem-solving that goes beyond the current set of institutional arrangements. So, please consider what the design of a multi-stakeholder dialogue might look like: Should it be put in motion by the US Department of Interior? Who would need to be at the table (in a problem-solving, not decision-making mode)? The judges suggest creating an independent technical or scientific advisory panel to support the problem-solving effort. It would help if possible sites for the desalination plant and the power plant were listed in the proposal. What cost is involved in acquiring these sites? There needs to be some careful modeling of the supporting infrastructure and its costs (and what those are likely to mean for water users under different scenarios). Desalination has now been used in other parts of the world and costs are coming down, but the proposal can use more detail. There should also be an analysis of what it would take to amend the current agreements regarding the use of the Colorado. There are a lot more compelling and instructive references with regard to the history of Colorado water sharing, integration of desalination into larger water systems and the use of renewable energy to operate desalination plants. It would be good to put together a better annotated reading list to support the work in Phase I. Congratulations on advancing to as a semi-finalist, and the adapation contest team looks forward to seeing your revised proposal for the final submission.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
