In reviewing an appraisal investigation, Reclamation will apply the following criteria to determine whether at least one of the alternatives identified is appropriate for further analysis through a feasibility study, or whether the investigation should be terminated without conducting a feasibility study, including:
(a) Whether a reasonable range of alternatives (structural or non-structural) have been formulated and evaluated;(b) Whether the recommendation for further study of one or more alternatives is clearly supported by the analysis in the appraisal investigation; and(c) For each alternative considered in the investigation, whether the alternative:(1) Identifies viable water supplies and water rights sufficient to supply the proposed service area, including all practicable water sources such as lower quality waters, non-potable waters, and water-reuse-based water supplies;(2) Has a positive effect on public and health and safety;(3) Will meet water demand, including projected future needs;(4) Provides environmental benefits, including source water protection;(5) Applies a regional or watershed perspective and promotes benefits in the region in which the project is carried out;(6) Implements an integrated water resources management approach;(7) Enhances water management flexibility, including providing for local control of water supplies and, where applicable, encouraging participation in water banking and markets;(8) Promotes long-term protection of water supplies;(9) Includes preliminary cost estimates that are reasonable and supported;(10) Is cost-effective and generates national net economic benefits as required under the Principles and Guidelines (incorporated by reference at § 404.4 );(11) For each alternative proposed for further evaluation in a feasibility study, whether the project sponsor has the capability to pay 100 percent of the costs associated with the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the facilities constructed or developed; and(12) Other factors that Reclamation deems appropriate.