My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00004
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:03:32 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 9:58:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2003
Title
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
CWCB Section
Administration
Author
Land and Water Fund
Description
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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
<br />.36. <br /> <br />The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Meeting Water Demand Without Gunnison Water <br /> <br />Information on the cost of these con- ~ <br />servation and supply-side efficiency measures · <br />is variable but the measures compare quite <br />favorably with cost estimates for a pipeline <br />from Blue Mesa. <br /> <br />N>'~W'~$;r~t$ '"* <br /> <br />For example, in 1997 the Denver Water <br />Department, through its Integrated Resource <br />Plan ("IRP") estimated that the cost of con- <br />junctive use was $5,400/AF for 20,000 AF. <br />Water rights purchases to develop a few thou- <br />sand acre-feet were estimated at $2,600 to <br />$3,200/AF. This suggests that dry-year leases <br />may cost considerably less. Enlarging Gross <br />Reservoir, west of Boulder, might cost <br />$3,900/AF to develop 7000 AF and $6,600/AF <br />to develop 20,000 AF more. Re-use to devel- <br />op almost 300,000 AFA was estimated to cost <br />from $4,900/AF for one small project to as <br />much as $9,600/AF for a larger project. The <br />IRP cautioned that its cost estimates were <br />"preliminary," but the estimates did include <br />estimates of permitting, mitigation, engineer- <br />ing, construction and aperation and mainte- <br />nance costs. '" Estimates af the costs for water conservation, by comparison, range <br />from nearly costless (changing watering schedules) to as much as $4,500/AF (rebates <br />to encourage irrigation efficiency improvements). '''' <br /> <br /> <br />m iJ;,' % <br /> <br />The Gunnison River: too precious to divert <br />--photo by Jeff Widen <br /> <br />2, Water Conservation <br /> <br />The drought of 2002 has been a reminder, for water providers and citizens <br />alike, that we live in an arid climate with an unpredictable water supply. Some have <br />argued that we, as a community, have done as much as we can to conserve water and <br />that we must build more dams as soon as possible. <br /> <br />There is considerable evidence to the contrary. Based on a review of metro- <br />area conservation programs as well as the conservation strategies of other urban water <br />providers in the southwest, the Denver area clearly can do much more. Indeed, we <br />likely can conserve 100,000 AFA or more (beyond what providers already plan to con- <br />serve within the next several decades) through a mix of outdoor and indoor water <br />conservation measures, making it possible to meet most of our incremental needs for <br />"new" water completely through water conservation. <br /> <br />a. Brief Comparison <br /> <br />An initial indication that we can do more is available from comparing per <br />capita water use between Denver and other regional water providers. We note that <br />the data for "Denver" is taken from the Denver Water Department, a provider that has <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.