Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Stratus Consulting <br /> <br />Private Nonprofit Water Systems in Colorado <br /> <br />loans to pay for improvements, then water rates increase drastically when they take on projects. <br />Many of these systems are not metered, and these systems are less likely to be tracking water <br />use. As a result, these systems are less able to understand the cost-reduction benefits of making <br />the system more efficient. <br /> <br />Addressing some of these capacity development limitations through programs such as CDPHE's <br />Capacity Development Program and through technical assistance providers throughout the state <br />will be critical to building the long-term sustainability ofPNPWSs. As is discussed in greater <br />detail in Chapter 3, requiring TMF capacity demonstration before loan approval, such as is done <br />with the SDWRF, seems a beneficial step for entities that are considering targeting PNPWSs for <br />loans. <br /> <br />2.5 How Are the Numbers of Private Nonprofit Water Systems <br />Changing over Time? <br /> <br />We surveyed county planners to help understand the potential growth ofPNPWSs in Colorado. <br />We were interested in the potential effect of different land use regulations and approaches on <br />PNPWS growth. We prioritized the counties to contact using two guides: (1) the current number <br />of PNPWSs in the county, and (2) the projected population growth rate in 2005-2010 for that <br />county taken from DOLA's population growth projections by county. <br /> <br />Table 2.2 shows the counties that we assigned the highest priority based on the above criteria. <br />We were able to make contact with 11 of the 23 counties on the list. Table 2.2 shows the county, <br />the number of existing PNPWSs identified from SDWIS, the projected population growth rate <br />for 2005-2010 from DOLA, the likelihood that the rate of growth ofPNPWSs will be greater <br />than the projected rate of population growth, and notes from discussions with planners. We used <br />information from the counties on the number of new applications for developments with <br />PNPWSs and compared it to the existing number of PNPWSs in that county to estimate the <br />current rate of PNPWS growth. Once we approximated the PNPWS growth rate, we determined <br />whether or not that growth rate is faster than the projected population growth rate, and marked <br />this yes or no. In most instances, few developments with PNPWSs were being processed or <br />anticipated. However, a few counties such as Garfield, Routt, and Rio Grande had existing or <br />anticipated applications from developments with PNPWSs as well as land use policies that <br />allowed for PNPWS growth. We marked these counties as likely to have PNPWS growth rates <br />greater than the existing population growth rate projection. <br /> <br />Page 2-6 <br />SCll199 <br /> <br />