Section5_Gap_11-7-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 5 Addressing the Water Supply Gap Technical Roundtable pursued first; before storage and other structural projects are constructed. Since water projects take almost a decade and in some cases much longer to design, permit, and implement, conservation will likely be pursued as part of an integrated water resources strategy with structural alternatives. Water demand beyond the year 2030 will continue to grow and both conservation and storage are needed to address future needs beyond 2030. Clearly both perspectives raise valid points. The differences in the approaches are closely tied to goals and the objectives of each group. Water providers have an affirmative responsibility to provide water supplies and reliably meet the needs of their citizens. Environmental/conservation interests sometime see this as causing unnecessary impacts. The TRT process developed a greater understanding of these issues but significant differences in perspective still exist and are likely to play out on acase-by-case basis. 5.3.2 Water Reuse in Colorado As competition for Colorado's limited water supplies increases, reuse of legally consumable water bas become increasingly prevalent At the same time, new water management constraints are becoming evident Recent events in the western United States and in Colorado in particular, have brought significant interest in water reuse. Perhaps the most influential event was the intense drought conditions of 2002, drawing significant attention from utilities and the public to reuse as an available resource. Colorado's water needs and supply challenges mimic those seen across much of the growing West. As Coloradans look to meet major increases in water demands in the urbanized Front Range areas, many Western Slope groups vigorously oppose more trans-basin diversions of raw water supplies from their basins. This philosophy is often augmented with a call for Front Range entities to fully reuse their water supplies. Water providers along the Front Range are projecting significant increases in nonpotable and indirect potable reuse as water supply strategies. In investigating reuse options, there are many impacts and tradeoffs to consider, such as: ~ Interplay between conservation and reuse. Stronger conservation programs reduce inflows to wastewater treatment plants and reduce reuse opportunities. Conversely, reuse can be an effective means to fully utilize supplies. ~ Limitations on the legal ability to reuse supplies due to water rights issues. ~ Impacts of additional urban reuse on streamflows, flow availability for downstream users and the associated impacts on water rights administration. ~ Implications of urban and agricultural irrigation efficiency projects on reusable flows. ~ Mismatches between peak summer demands for water and the relatively constant wastewater and irrigation return flows. ~ Most Front Range water providers have already included maximization of reuse opportunities in their future water supply estimates. ~ Management of water treatment waste streams from indirect potable reuse treatment processes, such as concentrate (brine) from reverse osmosis treatment. ~ Potential constraints on reuse related to endangered species flow considerations and federal permit conditions requiring maintenance of return flows, even if they are legally reusable. Authorization and Regulation of Reuse in Colorado 5-16 FINAL DRAFT