A defensible comparison keeps physical deliverability, legal clarity, reliability, energy, flexibility, and irrigation compatibility visible as separate dimensions.
A single price or volume hides the different risks attached to groundwater, surface supply, stored credits, and reclaimed water.
That distinction matters because irrigation decisions cross several boundaries: a water record becomes a physical delivery, a delivery becomes a hydraulic condition, and that condition becomes a root-zone response. A number at one boundary cannot automatically prove performance at the next.
The mechanisms to keep visible.
Weighted scores are useful summaries but cannot erase a critical failure in one dimension.
Public datasets have different dates, resolutions, definitions, and confidence.
The receiving farm can change the usability of the same source.
Turn the pain point into a defined operating question.
Compare the component scores first; use the combined score only as a screening signal.
Start with the decision the analysis must support. Then identify the smallest set of inputs capable of changing that decision. Keep source facts, calculations, model outputs, estimates, and operator observations distinct throughout the workflow.
Make the result reviewable.
Preserve every input, weight, source date, and confidence label with the scenario.
What this analysis cannot establish by itself.
The Water Usability Score is a planning index, not a market valuation or legal opinion.
SIM treats an honest limitation as part of the result. Where evidence is incomplete, the correct status is inconclusive or unverified—not a more confident sentence.