Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />BLACK & VEATCH <br /> <br /> <br />11900 East Cornell Avenue, Suite 300, Aurora, Colorado 80014 (303) 671-4200 Fox (3031671-42 <br /> <br />Fort Lupton, Colorado <br />CWCB Application <br /> <br />B&V Project 25325.100 <br />B&V File A <br />December 21, 1994 <br /> <br />Mr. John Van Sciver <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />Subject: Draft Feasibility Study for <br />Potential New Water We11(s) <br />in Fort Lupton <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Van Sciver: <br /> <br />Transmitted herewith for your review and comment is a draft of the <br />feasibility study for the proposed Fort Lupton water wells. Also <br />enclosed is unbound information concerning the description of the City. <br />This information has just been received from Fort Lupton and is being <br />submitted as part the CWCB Guidelines Section 4.4.2 information <br />requirements. I have been informed by the City that the other <br />information listed in this section was submitted with the original <br />application. If you require additional information, please advise as <br />soon as possible. <br /> <br />As we have discussed, the City decided at the latest possible moment to <br />pursue CWCB funding for the wells and accurate documentable cost <br />estimates were not available at the time Fort Lupton submitted its <br />application. The enclosed report lists the options available to Fort <br />Lupton to maximize its current water supply capabilities until the end <br />of 1996 when the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's Southern <br />Water Supply Project will deliver an alternate source of supply to the <br />City. Based on City policy direction and development City leaders wish <br />to pursue before then, it appears that one or possibly two new wells <br />will be required, however. <br /> <br />The primary concern your office had with the City's application was with <br />the cost estimates, which we acknowledge were very rough due to the lack <br />of time that was given to develop a good estimate. The previous <br />estimates included large contingencies to cover the numerous unknowns <br />that existed at the time the estimates were developed. While some <br />unknowns still exist and are still 2 to 3 weeks from being resolved, the <br />cost estimates included in the report are much more accurate than those <br />