|
<br />00632
<br />
<br />building Two Forks, That is untrue, Foothills stands
<br />alone, It is needed whether or not Two Forks is
<br />ever built,
<br />
<br />What About Alternatives
<br />
<br />If the metropolitan Denver area is to continue as
<br />a pleasant place to live and raise a family, an in,
<br />creased water supply is essential. As noted before,
<br />this is a naturally water short area, and only through
<br />imaginative and courageous action can water be
<br />provided,
<br />Early in this century Denver's leaders, supported
<br />by the citizenry, decided that the city should be as
<br />beautiful and livable as possible, Their suburban
<br />colleague. over the yeaJ:s have followed suit. As a
<br />result we have a rich heritage of a natural environ.
<br />ment 'of grass, flowers, shrubs and trees in the
<br />Denver area, If the shortage of water is artificially
<br />created by lack of adequate water treatment, or
<br />adequate storage, the alternative to the Foothills
<br />project and other needed facilities will be the loss
<br />of that wealth of natural environmental resources,
<br />For example, if additional treatment capacity is
<br />not provided as population increases, more water
<br />will be needed for personal use and less will be
<br />available for the natural environment near our
<br />homes,
<br />1rrigation of residential lawns and other plant
<br />life in the Denver area uses almost one,half of the
<br />available water during the summer, However, that
<br />is only about 19% of the total yearly residential
<br />amount used in the Denver Water Board system -
<br />about one-fifth, Tables 1 and 2 show uses by cate,
<br />gory, Reside:1tial use accounts for 49% of water
<br />use, of which 39,8% is for irrigation, If Foothills is
<br />not built, and this water is used by others, an
<br />extremely valuable asset will be lost, Some addi-
<br />tional water is used to irrigate public parks and
<br />open space, but a substantial part of that comes
<br />from sewage treatment effluent ditches and wells,
<br />rather than from the Denver Water System, The
<br />19% of water used for residential irrigation and the
<br />public irrigation water represents a "reservoir"
<br />which is available for other uses during drought
<br />years, 1n other words, we could more easily tolerate
<br />
<br />TABLE 1
<br />Water Use by Category 1
<br />
<br />Use
<br />
<br />Residential
<br />Commercial
<br />1ndustrial
<br />Government
<br />Losses
<br />
<br />Percentage
<br />49,0
<br />24,6
<br />12,2
<br />8,2
<br />6,0
<br />100,0
<br />
<br />Source 1. Denver Water Board
<br />-1973 Annual Report
<br />
<br />a drought period without undue hardship because
<br />we would have water for cooking, bathing and other
<br />domestic purposes, though our lawns would suffer,
<br />Without that reservoir, a drought year would imme,
<br />diately mean restrictions on household use, This
<br />year we do not have severe indoor restrictions
<br />because we have a lawn irrigation "reservoir" to
<br />tap, With Foothills and continued lawn irrigation,
<br />we will have a protective reserve against future
<br />droughts,
<br />
<br />TABLE 2
<br />
<br />Residential Water Use2
<br />Family of Four
<br />
<br />Use
<br />
<br />1rrigation
<br />Toilet Flushing
<br />Bathing
<br />Life Functions
<br />Cleaning and Laundry
<br />Miscellaneous
<br />
<br />Percentage
<br />39,8
<br />26,7
<br />17,8
<br />7,3
<br />5,8
<br />2,6
<br />100,0
<br />
<br />Source 2, Denver Water Board
<br />-1974 Environmental Assessment
<br />
<br />Other, more physical alternatives to Foothills
<br />are possible, Locating the plant near the Chatfield
<br />Reservoir has been frequently mentioned, Chatfield
<br />was designed to control floods, however, not for
<br />water storage, and there could be some difficulties
<br />at this late date, Also, some investment in new,
<br />hardly used recreational facilities would be lost.
<br />There are severe energy penalties associated with
<br />the Chatfield alternative, The Foothills location at
<br />a relatively high elevation would permit treated
<br />water to move throughout virtually all the system
<br />of water lines by gravity flow, Because of the lower
<br />Chatfield elevation, water from that source would
<br />have to be pumped through much of the system,
<br />This uses large amounts of energy, The Foothills
<br />location would yield a small bonus of electricity
<br />annually from the dam for other purposes after all
<br />its energy needs are met, but a treatment plant
<br />located at the Chatfield Reservoir would instead
<br />require very large amounts of electricity for pump-
<br />ing water, 1n this time of concern about energy,
<br />higher costs for energy at the Chatfield location,
<br />instead of a small surplus, is a major difference,
<br />1n addition, because the Chatfield Dam and Res-
<br />ervoir are Corps of Engineers facilities, and Envi-
<br />ronmental 1mpact Statement would undoubtedly
<br />be required for that location which would cause
<br />another period of delay and extend the water short
<br />period well beyond 1981.
<br />There are other alternatives to Foothills for
<br />treating water, but all of them include penalties of
<br />higher cost and delays beyond 1981 to make water
<br />available than that is needed in 1977,
<br />
|