WSP09428 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . . . . . . I I . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andy Moore Jim Pearce Chris Schuyler-Rossie Colorado Water Conservation Board Colorado River Water Conservation District Denver Water The Peer Review Committee raised many concerns during the process. The Consultants made considerable effort to address those concerns with additional analysis where appropriate. Not all issues were resolvable and Dr. Van Brederhoeft resigned from the Committee during the process. Late in the study, the Peer Review Committee deemed it important for a subcommittee of the group to spend more time examining the materials presented by the Consultants and the modeling. This subcommittee made up of Dr. Banta, Dr. Chadwick, and Mr. Mefford spent significant time reviewing the models and providing additional input. A memorandum was prepared by this subcommittee discussing the procedures and results of the modeling and is included as Appendix 3C of this report. In general, the subcommittee was supportive of the work completed with reservations regarding the many assumptions that had to be made because of a lack of data. Many of the issues raised by the Peer Review Committee are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. Hydrosphere also developed a water management model to assess how each water provider may best utilize its water supplies to meet the projected water demands. The water management modeling analyzes each provider's water supply to predict the source and the timing of water development necessary to meet demands. The results of the water management modeling are input to the regional ground water modeling, the local well analysis, and the infrastructure plan and cost modeling. The primary model output for each alternative is a summary showing how each water provider will meet its demands at ten- year increments from the year 2000 through the year 2050. Specifically, this model identifies the amount of water to be developed from surface supplies, from non-tributary ground water supplies, through augmentation plans, and through water reuse. Black and Veatch, Inc. ("B& V") prepared the infrastructure plan and costing for each alternative. B& V developed a plan for the infrastructure required to produce and deliver the identified water supplies into each water providers' system. Their planning identifies facilities including storage reservoirs, wells, pipelines, pump stations, water treatment, and all other significant infrastructure items. B&V developed an extensive infrastructure costing model using Excel spreadsheets. The costing model considers capital costs, replacement costs, and operation and maintenance costs for each ten-year period, for each individual provider. Maps of infrastructure have been developed for the regional cooperative alternatives, and project costs are identified and sununarized for use as input into the economic and financial modeling. Rick Giardina and Associates, Inc. ("RGA") prepared an economic analysis comparing each of the alternatives, and interpreting the costs in terms of projected tap fee and service fee increases. This economic model compares each of the alternatives and assesses the alternatives based on the present value of all costs associated with each alternative. Finally, the scope of work of the study includes an initial review of potential environmental and regulatory issues that will be faced through the implementation of this project. At this stage of Page 1-19