My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150243 feas study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
C150243 feas study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2015 11:57:12 AM
Creation date
7/26/2011 11:39:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150243
Contractor Name
Aurora, City of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Adams
Bill Number
SB 07-122
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
the demand rates to calculate total treated water demands. Population projections, based on <br />an annual growth rate of 1.7 percent, indicate that Aurora's current population of <br />approximately 300,000 will increase to over 600,000 by 2050. <br />Water Supply and Water Rights <br />Aurora Water, through the PWP, will re-divert legally re-usable water. As a general rule in <br />Colorado, appropriators are allowed one use of water and the water left over after that use <br />goes downstream to the next user. The exception to this rule is legally re-usable water. <br />Legally re-usable water is water from trans-basin sources (Aurora's Colorado River and <br />Arkansas River water rights), deep wells (Aurora's Denver Basin wells) or previously court <br />changed water rights (Aurora's South Park water rights). Colorado water law does not <br />require approval to re-divert legally re-usable water if the water is withdrawn through a <br />ditch diverting from a stream (excerpted from BHF, 2006). <br />To maximize the natural purification processes that occur in the river s alluvium, Aurora <br />Water plans to divert its legally re-usable water through tributary wells consiructed close to <br />the South Platte River, rather than through ditches. Tributary wells affect stream flow on a <br />delayed basis, and as a result, Colorado water law requires all tributary wells in over- <br />appropriated basins (the South Platte River is over-appropriated) to obtain water court <br />approved plans for augmentation. The water court will approve a plan for Augmentation if <br />Aurora Water demonstrates that the time, location, and amount of well depletions equal the <br />re-usable water sources Aurora Water has available at the same location on the stream. <br />Aurora Water has ample re-usable water resources to obtain the plan for augmentation, and <br />its counsel anticipates water court approval of the augmentation and pumping plan. There <br />are no legal impediments to obtaining the required water court approvals to operate the <br />Prairie Waters Project (excepted from BHF, 2006). <br />Water Storage <br />Storage within the raw water supply system is extremely important to meet annual <br />operational needs as well as demands during extended dry periods. Aurora Water utilizes <br />its storage facilities annually to meet fall and winter water demands. The need to use <br />reservoirs for annual operation will continue into the future and will become even more <br />critical with additional City growth. <br />During dry years when direct diversions do not satisfy annual water demands, water <br />demands are met by water delivered from long-term reservoir storage. A review of supplies <br />versus demands shows that this hydrologic situation occurs about 15-percent of the time, or <br />on average about once every seven years. <br />Development of the Prairie Waters Project <br />In development of the PWP, Aurora Water initially considered 37 raw water supply project <br />elements. These elements were screened down to 24 potential project components, and <br />subsequently evaluated using a decision analysis tool. Evaluation criteria used in the <br />decision analysis tool included permitting, institutional, public, schedule, cost, yield, <br />flexibility, and sustainability considerations. The criteria were assigned a weight and each <br />project component was scored and ranked. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.