PUB00029

• Year: 1997
• Title: Water for Tomorrow An Integrated Water Resource Plan
• Author: Denver Water
• Description: Water for Tomorrow An Integrated Water Resource Plan
• Publications - Doc Type: Water Resource Studies

.

.

II. Integrated Resource Planning Process: Overview

.

In 1993, Denver Water mmed to formulating more precisely its long-range resource
plans for building out its service area. That meant exploring a series of options and
alternatives for water supply and demand on the Denver system. The primary objective
of the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process called for putting together an overall
plan defining the additional supplies Denver Water would have to develop or demand
management measures it would have to institute to meet the future water needs of
customers in its service area.

.

The cost and complexity of water supply planning today require that water utilities
periodically revisit their assumptions and options so that these are better able to meet the
exigencies of the day. As the 1980s drew to a close, it became abundantly clear that
"business as usual" could no longer be usual. The old assumptions would have to be
examined anew; proposed projects which had long held an honored position on the
drawing board would have to be reassessed. Rather than the single focus, utility dictated
strategy of a bygone day, the new era required a delicate balancing of projects, interests,
values, politics, geography, economics, social concerns, and the legal issues involved.
When all of these were carefully weighed, measured, and sorted out, the ensuing mix of
projects would have to be assessed against the water demands on the system. And all of
this would have to be done in the light generated by the public eye, with interested
parties being heard and having an opportunity for full participation. The whole IRP
process would have to proceed in a logical fashion so that it could be replicated,
reviewed, and revised periodically. The result would ultimately be a blend of
conservation, reuse, system modification, conjunctive use, and cooperati ve action
projects the likes of which Denver Water had never addressed as a package before.

.

.

.

.

The role of IRP for water utilities is relatively new. Its use has come from the electrical
energy industry. There are, of course, some marked differences between electric and
water utility planning. The starkest of these is that when a western water utility is short
of water, it cannot simply turn to a regional or other network to buy water until the
shortage is alleviated. A water utility only has available that water to which it has rights,
for which it has constructed facilities to divert and store the water, and for which nature
decides to provide. Its obligation at that point is to use the water as efficiently as
possible. Since in the West a water shortage is likely to affect many water suppliers
simultaneously, there is no quick bailout if planning has fallen short. An electric utility,
in contrast, can buy power from the inter-connected regional and national grids.

.

.

An electric utility may also view power conservation and a resulting decline in demand
differently from a water utility. If an electric utility buying power off the grid sees
demand falling, it can discontinue buying or producing power. That cuts the utility's
expenses as a reflection of the declining demand because it costs money to acquire
electrical power. Given rights to it, water has no cost in itself; but there is cost in its
storage, transmission, treatment, system operations and maintenance, and overhead

.

7