Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i~'" <br /> <br />~) "I; " Q. <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />72l State Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone (303) 866-3441 <br />FAX (303) 866-4474 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />James S. Lochhead <br />Executive Director, DNR <br /> <br />Danes C. Ule, P.E. <br />Director, CWCB <br /> <br />TO: The Fort Lupton File <br />FROM: Bill Green ~ to/' <br />DATE: April 4, 1995 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Review of Consultant Submittals <br /> <br />I have reviewed: (l)Feasibility Study City of Fort Lupton, Colorado Water Supply Evaluation, <br />December 1994 and (2)Amendment No.2 to Preliminary Engineering Report City of Fort Lupton, <br />Colorado Water Supply and Treatment Project, March 1994, both by Black & Veatch. The two <br />documents were submitted in support of Fort Lupton's request for funding for two municipal wells. <br />Following are my comments and questions on the two reports: <br /> <br />Feasibility Study CitY of Fort Lupton, Colorado Water Supply Evaluation <br /> <br />1. On page 2-9 under a. Historical Water Demands, the report states that "Demand will exceed I <br />billion gallons in 1994 with Thermo going on-line. Of the I billion gallons, Thermo will have <br />accounted for about 20 percent of this demand with the City using the remaining 80 percent." This <br />implies City usage of about 800 million gallons but earlier in the same paragraph the report states that <br />"the daily demand has averaged about 1.6 million gallons per day (mgd)". The 1.6 mgd figure implies <br />an annual demand of 584 million gallons. No explanation is given for the apparent increase in a short <br />period of time. <br /> <br />2. In the second sentence of the next to the last paragraph on page 2-12, it appears as if the sentence <br />should read "This value represents a [residential] per capita water demand of 249 gpcd,". <br /> <br />3. On pages 3-21 to 3-24, what kind of modifications were made to Well Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 13 to <br />increase their capacities? <br /> <br />4. In the first full paragraph on page 3-24, two different dates are given for the installation of well <br />screen and casing in Well No.4. <br /> <br />5. In the cost estimates for Wells No.9 and No. 11 on pages 4-12 and 4-14, the costs to drill and <br />develop the 16-inch, 60-foot deep wells amounts to $500 per foot. This seems very costly on a per- <br />foot basis. <br /> <br />6. The pump design criteria for Wells No.9 and No.11 on page 5-5 specifies 100 hp pumps for a <br />total dynamic head of 220 feet and a flow rate of 1,000 gpm. Assuming.75 percent pump efficiency, <br />it appears as if somewhat smaller pumps might be adequate particularly if the aquifer is unable to <br />sustain the 1,000 gpm pumping rate as suggested in the report. <br />