PUB00108

• Year: 1986
• Title: St. Vrain Basin Reconnaissance Study
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Author: Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority
• Description: Extensive study for future study and development toward meeting the water-related needs of residents with the St. Vrain Basin
• Publications - Doc Type: Brochure

1A
1B
2A
3A
3B
3C

M&I Fi rm Yield
(ac-ft/yr)

22,300
17 ,400
22,300
22,300
22,300
24,000

Est imated M&I
Water Cost (1985)
($/ac-ftJ

480
320
390
480
410
600

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

Page 6

f. Preservation of environmental resources and compliance of
water development structural programs with the Boulder County
Comprehensive Plan are significant issues.

g. The reuse of reclaimed wastewater for irrigation use and, by
exchange, the augmentation of M&I suppl ies is an important
issue.

h. The implementation and use of non-structural measures to
reduce demands and improve the efficiency of water use for
both the M&I and agricultural sectors wi II be an issue of
increasing significance. This issue includes changes in
existing water management institutions or establishment of
new institutional structures which could faci litate implemen-
tation of various non-structural and structural measures.

6. Water Resource Management Plans

a. Estimated Yield and Costs of New Water Supply

Six water resources management plans were evaluated in the Study
for which the estimated fi rm M&I yield developed by structural measures and
new purchases, and estimated cost of water for each plan are tabulated below.
Plans 1A and 1B address M&I supply fully and include only non-structural meas-
ures for agricultural supply, whereas the other four plans include a struc-
tural component for agricultural water management ranging from in-season
regulation of existing supplies to development of limited quantities of new
supplies, in addition to non-structural measures. Firm yields of the plans as
shown in the tab I e do not meet the fu II forecast def i c it of 26,000 ac-ft in
year 2020. In each case, the remaining defici t would be offset by demand-
reduction measures.

Plan

Care must be exercised in comparing the above M&I water costs because where a
structural agricultural component is included certain costs for joint-use
facilities are allocated between agricultural and M&I supply. If the agricul-
tural water supply features were eliminated, Plans 2A, 3A, and 3B would revert
essentially to Plan 1A. Plan 3C would become a single purpose M&I water