2006 Water Comprehensive Plan - City of Bellevue

Consistency w/SPU forecast for water supplied by SPU, if an SPU customer:N/A. Please state whether the supply forecast is the same as that within the Cascade TSP,or explain any differences.SPU contract (quantities, rates): N/A.Reasonable time frames for proposed new sources of supply: To be addressedin discussion of TPU supplies.Adequate storage: Appears to be OK, including discussion of possible needsrelated to areas of growth.Distribution problems (pressure, leaks): Appears to be OK. Very good job onanalysis, and on system operation. Are there any distribution problems with WaterDistricts 1, 20, and/or 117? Have the issues with regard to Cougar Mountain beenresolved?Water rightsClaims, certificates, permits: Appears to be OK.Primary vs. supplemental: Appears to be OKInstream flow constraints: Appears to be OKSufficient to meet supply needs: Appears to be OK.DOE opinion/comments on water rights assessment: Has Bellevue gottenEcology comments? If so, please provide.ID any potential issues with place/purpose of use: Per Section 5 of MunicipalWater Law, is Bellevue claiming any changes in place of use?Tribal issues: Have any tribes received, reviewed, or commented on the plan?ConservationDocumented conservation measures: References to regional conservationprogram; please define (e.g., SPU 1%; current Cascade; projected Cascade?). Pleasedescribe relationship to Cascade conservation program (e.g. does it partially meetBellevue’s obligations, or completely meet?), and the conservation assumptions made inthe Cascade TSP. Note also that the new DOH WUE rule will require Bellevue to adopta conservation goal before the next iteration of the Water System Plan (see bottom of p.4-9 in terms of conservation assumptions). Good discussion (Table 5-5) on conservationsavings. Any thoughts on why commercial conservation savings are not as high asresidential?Consistency w/DOH guidance: Appears to be OK.Aggressive pursuit (per KC Comp Plan): Good discussion of plannedconservation program, and Table 5-6, linked with Cascade’s CPS. Statements with regardto conservation (see p. 4-9) seem to imply that water conservation measures may notcontinue because of cost; is this correct? Good language on p. 5-2 re intent to meetsubstantive requirements and be proactive.Rate structure (RCW 43.20.235): block rates, subsidies: Good block ratestructure (p.5-11).Cost-effective evaluation; measures not implemented (per Section 5(2)MWL) : Could not find this evaluation, as required by MWL and in DOH checklists;please provide or cite page. Are there cost-effective conservation measures that Bellevuehas not implemented? (Not clear on p. 5-4).