PROJC02411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Metro Water Supply Authority March 10, 2009 (UPDATED March 18, 2009) Page 4 of 8 Water Rights Agenda Item 14b Members of the Authority have individual portfolios of water rights including: extensive Denver Basin groundwater rights, direct flow and storage rights on the South Platte and its tributaries, alluvial ground water rights and leasing/exchange/recapture of reusable effluent. The Authority itself does not own any water rights but will allow its members to convey their own rights through the ECCV system. In the Authority's Regional Water Master Plan dated June 2007, peak water demand projections were estimated for the interim (2010), mid-term (2020), and long-term (2030). Table 2 shows the estimated interim water demands for the members participating in the Project. Per these projections, it is estimated that Project participants will need 41 mgd by 2010. Through the acquisition of space in the ECCV Northern Pipeline, they will have the means to convey nearly 32 mgd of water towards that need. Table 2. 2010 Peak Water Demands Member Acre-Feet/Year MGD Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority 3,680 3.3 Meridian Metropolitan District 2,644 2.3 Pinery Water and Waste Water District 3,833 3.4 Stonegate Village Metropolitan District 2,770 2.5 Castle Pines North Metropolitan District 2,290 2.0 Centennial Water and Sanitation District 19,500 17.4 Cottonwood Water and Sanitation District 1,264 1.1 Inverness Water and Sanitation District 1,626 1.5 Town of Castle Rock 8,600 7.7 Total 46,207 41.2 Project Description In order to address the needed infrastructure to meet the Authority's overall Master Plan, the Authority considered the following options: 1. Participating in Aurora's Prairie Waters Project; 2. Building a dedicated Authority transmission system; 3. Purchase the excess capacity in the ECCV Northern Supply Pipeline. Alternative No. 1- The Authority considered partnering with Aurora on the Prairie Waters Project. It would have been dependent on sharing costs: capital investment, and sharing operations and maintenance costs. In addition, it would have had to negotiate the terms: peak/off peak delivery schedules and quantities, raw versus treated water deliveries, and the inclusion/exclusion of water rights. Because of these significant uncertainties, this alternative was not selected.