Laserfiche WebLink
<br />This analysis does provide a reasonable framework within which <br />permit requests for future water supply developments will be evaluated. <br />Because it is a technical analysis of unconstrained demand, no adjust- <br />ments were made to reflect a safety margin or conservation beyond that <br />expected to occur naturally. The inclusion of safety margins or addi- <br />tional conservation to increase or decrease the projected water demand <br />is a decision to be made by local suppliers. <br /> <br />SIlMHARY OF ISSUES <br /> <br />The major concerns raised during the public review of draft Tech- <br />nical Appendix 2, Future Water Demands, are summarized below. The COE <br />has reviewed each issue and has reached general decisions concerning <br />whether Task 2 will be modified with respect to each issue and how such <br />modifications will be made. l>1here possible, technical modifications <br />are described under each concern. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATE FEDERAL INTEREST <br /> <br />Summary of Comments <br />Several people who commented have questioned whether water demand <br />forecasts are an appropriate COE concern within the Metropolitan Denver <br />Water Supply EIS. Opinions have been expressed that water demand fore- <br />casting may fan outside the requirement that an EIS briefly specify <br />the need for a project (40 CFR 1502.13) and that it is the role of the <br />"Public Interest" review to balance public and private need for a pro- <br />ject (33 CFR 320.4(a)(2)(i)). Furthermore, it was pointed out that the <br />Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is the local authority <br />charged with planning for future growth to meet public needs including <br />an adequate and efficient means of supplying water to the Denver metro- <br />politan area (CRS 30-28-106, CRS 30-28-107). Several people also asked <br />the COE to explain the role of Task 2 in the EIS and in the Task 4 con- <br />servation analysis. <br /> <br />3 <br />