C153719 Misc Corespondances - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"'" ..... prepared by the Division of Local Government (DLG). The 1993 feasibility study is 12 pages in length and, for the most part, describes the proposed project. While the report is fairly succinct, it fails to provide a substantial amount of information required by the Guidelines for FinCUlcial A ssistCUlce through the Colorado Water Conservation Board Construction Fund. Some of the major deficiencies I noted in reviewing the feasiblily study are: There is very little information regarding the project sponsor or the project service area including: type of organization with which the Board would be contracting, description of existing facilities, service area, and population or number of customers. No maps are provided of the service area or of the existing facilities. The demand projections used in the report are based entirely on peak demands and do not provide average day or the peaking factors used in the analysis for maximum day or max hour. Annual demands in acre-feet are not given. Population growth is based on a growth rate obtained from a previous report with no explanation as to how the rate was derived. Since average day or average annual demands as well as population figures are not given, it's difficult to assess the current rate of water use but it appears to be on the high side. There is also no indication as to whether the Town is metered. Some consideration of water conservation may be indicated if, in fact, the gallon per capita per day water demands are as high as they appear to be based on the information at hand. No information is provided regarding the water rights to be used for the project or the firm yields for those water rights. Water rights firm yields should be compared with existing and projected water demands in acre-feet per year for the life of the project. The water rights question raises an additional issue with regard to alternatives. The alternatives presented in the report are for alternative pipelines and pumping stations to bring water from Lonetree Reservoir to Johnstown. No alternative sources of water were apparently considered. Was this because the Town already owns water rights or shares in the Consolidated Home Supply Ditch and Reservoir Company system? The report states that pipeline alignment alternatives were documented in a separate report to the Town. The alignment alternatives should also be documented in the feasibility report. The rationale for the selection of the pipeline alignment on page 11, Section 5.2, of the report does not necessarily appear to justify the selected alignment. More detail in the cost estimates would be desirable. 2