My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C153773 Misc Communications
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
C153773 Misc Communications
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2014 11:59:40 AM
Creation date
4/5/2007 9:55:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153773
Contractor Name
Morrison, Town of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
9
County
Jefferson
Bill Number
HB 95-1155
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />" <br />of <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />8. The report indicates that the project would develop about 625 af of firm yield and that <br />present water use by Morrison is about 165 afper year. It is proposed that the excess 460 <br />af per year might be sold to other diverters in the metropolitan area or be used to expand <br />the Morrison service area and provide for growth. In either case, the issue may be <br />controversial with the Board. <br /> <br />9.. The recommended alternative consists of two major components:(I) replacement of <br />the existing diversion structure, grit chamber, and the transmission line to the existing <br />raw water reservoir, and (2) a new reservoir with an associated transmission line. The <br />report clearly indicates that both improvements are badly needed, especially component <br />(1). It may be possible to structure a recommendation for the Board to consider the two <br />projects separately and to recommend, in effect, component (1) with further analysis and <br />discussion needed for component (2). <br /> <br />10. The preceding recommendation, however, skirts a whole gamut of issues such as; the <br />question of subsidizing growth and expansion, the terms of the Cool~y annexation, the <br />issues of water conservation and metering (or use of meters), whether the applicant has <br />really looked at the alternatives thoroughly and, if it turns out that provision of water by <br />another supplier is really the best option, any improvements to the existing system may no <br />longer be needed. <br /> <br />11. I would suggest at this point a qualified recommendation to the Board for component <br />(1) of the project (at an estimated cost of $635,000) at the Nov. Board meeting with a <br />discussion of at least some of the preceding concerns. A final decision on component (1) <br />could be made after submission of a completed feasibility study and a staff finding of <br />feasibility. A decision on component (2) could be made at the Nov. 1995 Board meeting. <br /> <br />cc: Bill Stanton <br />John VanSciver <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.