PROJ01952 ‎(2)‎

• Contract/PO #: C150131
• Contractor Name: Paonia, Town of
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 0
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

plant from 1996 through 1999. WestWater's analysis indicated that if the average
monthly treatment plant inflows were lagged by about one month to mpresent the lag
time from the Town's springs there is a very good correlation between stream flow data
and treatment plant inflows. The following regression equations were found to have
Regression coefficients that exceeded 97 percent:

1 MG treatment plant: y
2 MG treatment plant: y

== 0.0754x + 232,79
0.7739x + 83.335

y Average monthly inflow in gallons per minute

x Average monthly stream flow on the North Fork of the Gunnison River at
the Somerset gage.

WestWater reviewed stream flow records at the Somerset gage from 1934 through
1999 and determined that the driest years of record were the years 1989 and 1991.
These years are consistent with the period in recent history when the Town had
difficulties providing water to its customers. Mr. Norris reported that during the hottest
months of the summer of 1989, the treated water storage tanks were nearly drained.
Using the regression analysis approach described above, WestWater determined that
the average annual inflow to the treatment plants during this representative two-year
drought would be about 203 million gallons (623 acre-feet). As indicated in the Draft
2000 Study, better information would help refine the firm yield estimate like obtaining
several years of monthly flows for all the springs, However, until this and other data is
available, it is our opinion that the regression analysis provides a reasonably
conservative estimate. It is our opinion that after additional data is collected and
collection system spills are better defined, Paonia's firm yield will likely increase.

Comparison of Firm Yield and Future Water Demands

Figure 10 indicates that during very dry years, the Town's water supply system
would meet or exceed the estimated firm yield in about 2005, 2007, and 2010 based
on respective average annual water demand increases of 2.0-percent, 'I .5-percent, and
1.0 percent. The figure also indicates that under conditions represented by the years

21