PUB00048

• Year: 1992
• Title: Systems Integration as a Water Supply Source for the Denver Metropolitan Area
• CWCB Section: Water Conservation & Drought Planning
• Author: Hydrosphere Resource Consultants
• Description: Overview of water supply alternatives and suggestion for process to address future water supply needs of the Denver Metro Area
• Publications - Doc Type: Historical

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

DRAFT 8/24/92, Page 2

In addition to all of these efforts, there have been several major entrepreneurial efforts to
develop and market new water supplies to front range cities including those advanced by
American Water Development, Inc. (San Luis Valley/Baca Project), Colorado Water Supply
Co. (Arkansas River/Fort Lyon transfer), Natural Resources Energy Co. (Gunnison
RiverlUnion Park Project), PureCycle Corp. (Rangeview groundwater project) and the Third
Creek Corp. (South Platte/BaIT Lake Plan). To date none of these proposals have been proven
to be sufficiently viable to be accepted in the marketplace, but they illustrate a perception that a
vacuum exists in water supply development and that one result is an opportunity for profit.

B. The Prospects for the Future

The Metropolitan Denver Water Supply Environmental Impact Statement (Army Corps
of Engineers 1988), includes an exhaustive review of the existing water supplies and projected
needs through the year 2035 of approximately 50 Metro area water suppliers. This analysis
concluded that without conservation or development of new supplies, water supply shortfalls
can be expected to occur for some communities almost immediately and for the metro area as a
whole within the next decade. At this time it is impossible to predict the magnitude or the
timing of shortfalls for the entire metro area because of uncertainties regarding the sharing of
supplies, drought conditions, population growth rates, and economic development.

The Metropolitan Denver Water Supply EIS also determined that the total water supply
available to the metro area is not available to all of the water suppliers within that area because
of physical and institutional constraints. Integration of existing water supply systems should
address concerns that have prevented such integration in the past.

The effort on the part of metro area water suppliers to pursue the Two Forks project was
a first step toward more cooperative water supply planning, but the consequences of events in
recent years surrounding the Two Forks veto are that the cooperative process appears to be
fragile if not broken. At this time, the Denver Water Department is focusing its efforts on
meeting the needs of its existing service area. While Denver is recognized as a key player in
water supply planning because of its unique technical capabilities and physical plant, the
Denver Water Board is not likely to assume responsibility for a leadership role in planning for
areas outside of its existing service area.

There is little doubt that the metropolitan area will somehow achieve the development of
additional water supply, with or without cooperative planning and development. However,
with cooperation there is an enhanced opportunity to achieve the following advantages:

I. more timely implementation of the most cost effective water supply sources;

2. greater opportunities for near-term sharing of existing supplies pending development
of new supplies;

3. reduction of the external adverse effects of transferring existing agricultural supplies
to urban use;

4. greater assurance of the compatibility of future water development and management
activities with public support for enhancing environmental quality and recreational
resources;

5. increased likelihood that future projects are acceptable under state and federal
regulatory requirements.