Laserfiche WebLink
<br />for the previous interim drafts could be expanded and used for the <br />preliminary draft. <br />. Tom Browning (CWCB) added that he would like to leave the door open to <br />cooperators who would not be comfortable commenting with all the Water <br />Users as a group. <br />. Eric summarized by saying that everyone's overall goal is February 2009 <br />and he doesn't want to get wrapped around actual dates in the interim- <br />he just wants everyone to focus on getting the work done. <br />. Rick McLoud asked about what was the lagging piece that was keeping <br />the Draft from going to further review. Gary said that there is no single <br />lagging piece that is affecting the whole schedule and that the status of <br />individual pieces would be discussed further in the Chapter Updates. <br /> <br />3) Economic Analysis <br />. Chuck Hillerson (Tetra Tech) opened by saying there are still concerns <br />about groundwater being a reasonable alternative to the reallocation. <br />Gene Sturm (CO E) said that all the information he needed to make a <br />decision was not in the South Metro study. For example, the study did not <br />have projected supplies for Aurora. <br />. Rick McLoud reminded Gene that he sent him an email with an Excel <br />spreadsheet attachment on September 17 with projected demand for 19 <br />communities. <br />. Eric Laux asked if groundwater is used in coming up with the projected <br />yield for the entities that are using groundwater. Gene wanted to know if <br />they can project the current number through time to get future sustainable <br />supplies. Rick stated that they are not considering groundwater as a <br />sustainable supply and Katie Fendel added that as soon as Chatfield is <br />online that most entities can begin to wean themselves off groundwater. <br />. Rick said that it is a certainly that every entity with rights to the Chatfield <br />water would take it as soon as it is available. The entities that will be <br />obtaining water would be using the surface water immediately upon its <br />availability in lieu of groundwater. <br />. Ann Bonnell (Audubon Society and Sierra Club) question: If the Chatfield <br />Reallocation comes online will any of the involved entities sell their <br />groundwater to someone else? Rick and Teresa Jehn-Dellaport (Castle <br />Pines North) agreed that their entities would not sell groundwater but <br />would use it as a backup during periods of drought. <br />. Gene had planned on phasing in the use of the Chatfield water in his <br />projections but Rick reiterated that all entities would begin using the water <br />as soon as it was put online. Gene feels that this might change the <br />designations of groundwater as the least cost alternative. <br />. Katie Fendel added that Brighton looked into all alternatives (Chatfield, <br />gravel pit storage, large pipeline) and concluded that the gravel pits were <br />the least cost alternative that would work for them. Teresa added that she <br />has new well drilling estimates based on post-Katrina impacts (steel, <br /> <br />2 <br />