My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FtLupton_WCPlan_ApprvlLtr (2)
CWCB
>
Water Efficiency Grants
>
Day Forward
>
FtLupton_WCPlan_ApprvlLtr (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2011 9:33:51 AM
Creation date
8/1/2007 2:11:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Efficiency Grants
Water Efficiency Grant Type
Water Conservation Planning Grant
Contract/PO #
OE PDA 07-17
Applicant
City of Fort Lupton
Project Name
City of Fort Lupton Water Conservation Plan
Title
Approval Letter for Fort Lupton Water Conservation Plan
Date
7/23/2007
County
Weld
Water Efficiency - Doc Type
Approval Letter
Document Relationships
Fort Lupton WCPlan 2007
(Message)
Path:
\Water Conservation\DayForward
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />Conservation Plan Submittal Required Plan Elements Checklist <br /> <br />Name of Entity: City of Fort Lupton <br /> <br />Date Submitted: May 15, 2007 <br /> <br />Required Conservation Plan Elements Completed? <br />1. Name and contact information Y es ./ No <br /> Comment: <br />2. Organizations and individuals assisting with Y es ./ No <br /> plan development Comment: <br />3. Quantified retail water delivery? Yes ./ No <br /> Comment: <br />4. Identified population served by retail water Y es ./ No <br /> delivery? Comment: <br />5. Public comment period completed? Y es ./ No <br /> (60 days or local regulation) Comment: <br />6. Signature with authority to commit resources Y es ./ No <br /> of the submitting entity? Comment: <br />7. All required water saving measures and Y es ./ No <br /> programs considered? Comment: Although the plan considers all of the required <br /> measures many are fairly quickly rejected without <br /> substantial analysis making it difficult to determine how <br /> seriously measures have really been considered. Given the <br /> $20.2 million in planned construction projects outlined in <br /> the plan (some of which could probably be substantially <br /> delayed or eliminated through conservation and significant <br /> cost savings to Ft. Lupton rate payers) conservation would <br /> appear to be a desirable option for more serious <br /> consideration. <br /> I. Fixtures and appliances - toilets, Y es ./ No <br /> urinals, showerheads, faucets, etc.? Comment: <br /> II. W aterwise landscapes, drought Y es ./ No <br /> resistant vegetation, removal of Comment: <br /> phreatophytes, efficient irrigation, <br /> etc.? <br /> III. Water efficient industrial and Y es ./ No <br /> commercial processes? Comment: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.