My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01732
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01732
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:06:25 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:01:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/20/1974
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />against the NED and see what kind of trade offs we have.- ~hat are you <br />giving up in benefits. So we have to consider both. <br /> <br />(slide) This is a summary chart. We start out with the projections <br />such as the population projections, the water need projections, and from <br />that we can determine what our problems and needs are. We have a lot <br />of input in that area, the local government, state water plans, public <br />meetings in the special interest groups, the laws and policies, all <br />of these things. From these problems and needs then we can specify <br />what components we have to work with. If we see a need for recreation, <br />we know that we can serve some given amount of recreation, M & I water, <br />whatever it is. So from those components then we develop two plans. <br />One, the National Economic Development, and the other the Environmental <br />Quality. So we have two separate plans that are designed from two <br />different points of thought. And from that then we come down to a <br />recommended plan. The recommended plan might be one, the NED, or it <br />might be the EO, but more probably it will be a combination, a mixture, <br />a trade off, to corne up with a recommended plan and have good features <br />from both. So that is kind of a quick run-through of what MOP is about <br />and how it is affecting our planning. <br /> <br />Now (slide) we will move on and take a quick look at the Two Forks <br />study itself. As I said in the beginning of that last slide that the <br />whole thing is based on projections, the projections of the need. And <br />of course when you are dealing with M & I water, the population pro- <br />jection is the essential factor. Here are a series of projections <br />that were done by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. The <br />heavy red line in the middle is 2.35 million people in the metropolitan <br />area by the year 2000. This is the population that was adopted by <br />DRCOG. It has been used in several studies in the metropolitan area. <br />The Regional Transportation District has used it. The metro sewer <br />studies are based on it, and several others. So we felt that it was <br />a good projection. It has wide support, and we feel it is reasonable <br />for this study as well. <br /> <br />(slide) Okay, now, the 2.35 million is the top line there on this graph. <br />Here we are talking about changing populations into water service, and <br />I might point out that the SMSA is the five-county area of Boulder, <br />Denver, Arapahoe, Adams and Jefferson counties. That was our basis for <br />the projection, but we have to make some adjustments because obviously <br />we can't serve much of Boulder county. So we took the Boulder popula- <br />tion out, except for a small portion of Broomfield. We put in a popula- <br />tion for Douglas county and then we adjusted certain areas sudh as <br />Castle Rock, Evergreen, Deertrail, some of the rural areas, and we <br />adjusted down to the heavy black line, total M & I service of about <br /> <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.