My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
MetroSouthPlatteInterimBasinWaterSupplyNeedsReport (2)
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
Backfile
>
MetroSouthPlatteInterimBasinWaterSupplyNeedsReport (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:16:24 PM
Creation date
7/6/2007 8:05:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
South Platte
Additional Roundtables
Metro
Title
Water Supply & Needs Report for the South Platte and Metro Basins
Date
6/1/2006
Author
CDM, CWCB, DNR
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Needs Assessment Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
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 />Section 5 <br />Consumptive Water Needs in the South Platte Basin and <br />Denver/South Metro Counties <br /> <br />IIIII <br /> <br />Several sources of information were consulted in <br />estimating per capita M&I water use. The CWCB's <br />Drought and Water Supply Assessment study's database <br />was used as an initial data source, and was <br />supplemented in SWSI by sending a follow-up survey to <br />more than 200 water providers. Including the responses <br />to the follow-up survey, the resulting database used in <br />SWSI includes nearly 250 water providers covering most <br />of the state, as indicated in Figure 5-2. Regression <br />analyses of available data indicated that location was the <br />dominant factor in determining the variation of per capita <br />water use among the sample data. <br /> <br /> <br />~.: <br /> <br />'. <br />........ ... <br />~.4 .. <br />.. .,:. .. <br />.. &.t.. <br />..... <br /> <br />. (\~.---' <br />'. <br /> <br />~ ~ :..~.. <br /> <br />.....~~............ <br />."..... .. <br />.. .. - .. - <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 5-2 <br />Providers in SWS/ per Capita Demand Database <br /> <br />The provider per capita values in each county were <br />weighted by their respective populations to produce a <br />weighted average per capita value by county. In addition, <br />the weighted average per capita water use per basin was <br />also calculated. The basin weighted average per capita <br />rate was used for areas of the county that did not have <br />representation in the sample database. The underlying <br />assumption is that water use will be similar <br />throughout the county. The estimated <br />county gallons per capita per day (gpcd) <br />water use rates were multiplied by the <br />county population projections to derive the <br />estimated M&I water forecast for each <br />county. These M&I forecasts are shown in <br />Section 5.2. <br /> <br />population-weighted average per capita M&I water <br />demand for the state was estimated to be 210 gpcd for <br />the year 2000. <br /> <br />This estimation of county per capita water use assumes <br />that all residences, businesses, and industries <br />throughout a county (including most self-supplied users) <br />use water at the same rate as the provider-supplied <br />residences, businesses, and industries as represented in <br />the sample database. Where data were available <br />regarding unique large self-supplied water users in <br />specific counties, these self-supplied water uses were <br />added to the county M&I water demand estimate, as <br />described in the following section. <br /> <br />Due to wide variations in the factors presented above, <br />per capita use rates are difficult to directly compare <br />between counties or basins. High per capita rates are not <br />necessarily indicative of inefficient use, much as low <br />rates do not necessarily imply efficient use. For example, <br />water use related to tourism is reflected in historical <br />demand data but not in census data, thus increasing the <br />calculated per capita demands. Major industrial water <br />uses supplied through municipal water systems could <br />also drive per capita values upward. Residential or <br />commercial properties such as golf courses might be <br />irrigated from non-municipal sources, such as wells or <br />ditch rights, lowering the calculated per capita demand. <br /> <br />Changes in per capita rates might also be anticipated if a <br />community's park system is essentially "built out" but <br />population growth is still anticipated, or in cases where <br />changes in industrial use do not directly correlate to <br />changes in residential use. SWSI Basin Roundtable <br /> <br />Arkansas <br />Colorado <br />Dolores/San Juan/San Miguel <br />Gunnison <br />North Platte <br />Rio Grande <br />South Platte (Total) <br />Yampa/White <br /> <br />214[ <br />244 <br />220 <br />226 <br />267 <br /> 332 <br />1206 <br />230 <br /> <br />The sample data provided a per capita <br />water use rate for 58 of the 64 counties <br />within the state. The aggregated basin <br />average per capita water use estimates are <br />depicted in Figure 5-3. Overall, the <br /> <br />CONI <br /> <br />5-4 <br /> <br />o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 <br />Average Per Capita M&I Water Use (gpcd) <br />Figure 5-3 <br />Estimated Year 2000 Average per Capita M&/ Water Use <br /> <br />S:\1177\Basin Reports\South Platte\S5_South Platte.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.