PUB00029 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. invol ved in distributing it to the customer. Thus, the fact customers use less water during a given time frame does not necessarily save a water utility significant money because fixed system costs remain relatively the same over the short term, however much or little water customers use. . The Integrated Resource Planning Approach . As Denver Water began the IRP process, it had no preconceptions or preferred projects it wished to pursue. While it was clear aggressive conservation measures would have to be a part of any future resource scenario, the slate was otherwise wiped clean. All previously proposed projects were to be reviewed, as were the assumptions underlying those proposals. Denver Water was ready to embrace those options and alternatives which ultimately would prevail in the public process after numerous screenings subjected each proposal to extensive examination. So little "Vas preconceived in the process that some of the preferred project proposals which have ultimately emerged from the IRP- for example, private initiatives in outdoor conservation or conversion of certain Denver Water ditch rights-were scarcely mentioned in early IRP discussions. . . With the completion of the IRP "Scope of Work" in mid- I 994, Denver officially initiated the three-year IRP process. That Scope of Work defined the ten tasks which would be central to the conduct of the IRP. The ten tasks are: Task I - Study Objectives/Scope of Work Task 2 - Resource Decision Guidelines/Evaluation Criteria Task 3 - Treated Water System Analysis Task 4 - Evaluation and Selection of Supply Options Task 5 - Water Demand Forecast Task 6 - Evaluation and Selection of Demand Management Options Task 7 - Resource Strategy Formulation ana Evaluation Task 8 - Development of Options for Remaining Resources Task 9 - Report Preparation and Review Task 10 - Public Information and Involvement Program . . . While the "Public Information and Involvement Program" is listed tenth among the tasks, staff working on the project realized that this task had to be central to all that transpired in the IRP. It was clear that unless the products of the IRP had public understanding and support, those products would not be credible and would end up on the cutting room floor. As a result, throughout the IRP, staff engaged in numerous rounds of meetings with interested groups and citizens. These included four general public meetings, active task forces within the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Water Board, and literally scores of meetings with entities such as environm~ntal groups, the Governor's Front Range Water Forum, Denver Water's distributors, the Colorado River Water Conservation District and other Western Slope groups, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and suburban entities outside Denver's service area. The result was that while differing opinions and project preferences were present throughout the . . 8 .