My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150237 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
C150237 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2016 2:32:35 PM
Creation date
3/28/2013 12:42:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
CT2015-040
C150237
Contractor Name
Penrose Water District
Contract Type
Loan
County
Fremont
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.
/
135
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
Loan Feasibility Study for <br />Raw Water Acquisition and Utilization <br />Page 15 <br />The no action alternative involves continued reliance on the lease agreement with BPW. This option <br />does not satisfy the needs of the District. The BPW water portfolio includes various water rights <br />with a total direct flow right of 162.897 cfs. Of this amount, only 5.36 cfs is decreed for domestic <br />use. The domestic use component of the BPW water right portfolio is not sufficient in time or <br />amount to legally satisfy the District's municipal demand for water. The no action alternative does <br />not improve the reliability of the existing system. The drought of 2002 and the response to the <br />drought in 2003 showed the unreliable nature of the Beaver Creek supply. Since the BPW water <br />rights portfolio is solely reliant on the Pike's Peak watershed for its supply, the no action alternative <br />does not provide any diversification of water source. The no action alternative does not provide the <br />protection from an alternative raw water source should the supply from the Pike's Peak watershed be <br />insufficient or become contaminated. Changes to the water treatment and distribution system would <br />not be required with the no action alternative since the source of water and inclusion of the water <br />into the existing system would not change. Since the District only leases from BPW, the no action <br />alternative is completely reliant on BPW; the no action alternative does not provide the District <br />independence from other entities. No additional environmental impacts would be caused by the no <br />action alternative. While the no action alternative is more cost effective than the other utilization <br />project alternatives evaluated, the no action alternative does not satisfy the needs of the District and <br />is therefore not feasible. A comparison of Alternative 1 to the other water utilization projects is <br />presented in Table 4. <br />Alternative 2 <br />The second alternative evaluated was to construct a storage facility under the Lester and Attebery <br />Ditch, utilize the Lester and Attebery Ditch to divert and convey the historical consumptive use <br />component of the Pleasant Valley Ditch water right to the new storage facility, and construct a <br />pipeline to convey the stored raw water up to the District WTP. A diagram of Alternative 2 is <br />shown on Figure 5. <br />This project would satisfy a portion of the District's base municipal demand by allowing for the <br />storage of the Pleasant Valley Ditch water right when it becomes available and the ability to utilize <br />the water on a year round as- needed basis. When operated properly, the storage facility can be used <br />to firm the direct flow water rights and provide a reliable water supply, even in drought years. <br />Through the inclusion of the Arkansas River source, this alternative provides diversification in the <br />system. <br />Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. August 2006 — 1018PEN05 <br />GMS, Inc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.