Laserfiche WebLink
Section 5 <br />Projected Water Use <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 />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. Basin Roundtable members <br />and local water providers provided input that can be used <br />to refine the per capita water use estimates for certain <br />counties in future SWSI efforts. <br />assumed to come online in 2005 was determined to have <br />negligible consumptive water use. Data for the Mesa <br />facility were also excluded from the analysis due to the <br />negligible level of CU. Current water use levels for these <br />facilities are assumed constant in future years unless <br />future water use information was obtained. Estimated <br />annual water use for power generation for these counties <br />is shown in Appendix E. <br />Two dozen regional water use studies were reviewed to <br />identify estimates of current and future projected water <br />use for snowmaking in Colorado counties, with a wide <br />range of conclusions regarding typical rates. Ultimately, <br />the recent Upper Colorado River Basin Study ("UPCO" <br />study) was determined to have the most up-to-date and <br />thorough assessment of snowmaking use at ski areas. <br />Data from this study were used to derive an average <br />snowmaking use per ski area and applied to known or <br />anticipated ski areas in each basin. The estimates for <br />some ski areas were supplemented and refined by <br />directly contacting and interviewing representatives of <br />selected ski areas on an individual basis. <br />5.1.1.4 Self-Supplied Industrial Use <br />SSI uses were estimated for baseline and projected <br />future water needs in order to more accurately <br />characterize the state's anticipated increase in water use <br />between 2000 and 2030. The CWCB Drought and Water <br />Supply Assessment database of SSI uses was used as <br />an initial source of information for this analysis. These <br />data were supplemented in SWSI with calls to major <br />industrial water users to verify, update, and expand the <br />information used in the SWSI analyses. <br />SSI water uses estimated in SWSI include: <br />^ Coal-fired and natural gas power generating facilities <br />that consume significant quantities of water <br />^ Snowmaking facilities <br />^ Other identified industrial facilities with significant <br />water use such as brewing, manufacturing, and food <br />processing <br />Estimates of baseline and future water use at various <br />power generation facilities in Colorado were sought. <br />Current water use data were obtained for several <br />facilities. These data were for facilities in Adams, <br />Boulder, Denver, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Montrose, <br />Morgan, Pueblo, Routt, and Weld Counties. A facility <br />currently under construction in Arapahoe County and <br />~ <br />$~ole'ri~ice Wo~e' $upplY Initia~ive <br />An attempt was made to identify other large self-supplied <br />water users throughout the state. These water users are <br />typically large industrial facilities not associated with <br />municipal or public water supply systems. Quantifiable <br />information was only available for large SSI water users <br />located in Jefferson and Pueblo Counties. The Yampa <br />Valley Water Demand Study (BBC Research & <br />Consulting 1998) provided self-supplied water use <br />estimates for current and future mining and golf course <br />water use. Other SSI water users may exist throughout <br />the state, which were not identified during the Basin <br />Roundtable process or SSI water use evaluations. <br />5.1.1.5 Effect of Level 1 Conservation <br />Naturally-occurring water conservation savings are <br />defined as water savings that result from the impacts of <br />plumbing codes, ordinances, and standards that improve <br />the efficiency of water use. These conservation savings <br />are called "passive" savings because water utilities do <br />not actively fund and implement programs that produce <br />these savings. In contrast, water conservation savings <br />resulting from utility-sponsored water conservation <br />programs are referred to as "active" savings. For the <br />purposes of SWSI, passive conservation is also termed <br />Level 1 conservation. Active conservation measures - <br />beyond those currently in place - were evaluated in <br />~~ <br />S:\REPORT\WORD PROCESSING\REPORT\SS 11-7-04.DOC ~J-~J <br />