FLOOD02847 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Metropolitan Water Supply Investigation Executive Summary THE BROADER BENEFITS OF THE COLLABORATIVE MWSI PROCESS The MWSI has been both a technical evaluation of cooperative water supply opportunities and a continuing process of dialogue, mutual education, joint inquiry, and collaboration among over 60 Front Range water providers and representatives of other key stakeholders including environmental organizations, agriculture and the West Slope. While this diverse group has focused principally on the opportunities and limitations associated with the four cooperative water supply categories, participants also developed and shared considerable information regarding the future water needs of the metro Denver area and individual water providers' plans that are in place for meeting those needs. This information, summarized in the table and text below by sub-region, provides valuable context that enhances understanding of the roles and benefits of the cooperative water supply opportunities evaluated through the MWSI. Projected Reasonably Future Water ~~ of Certain Fulure Future Unmel Applicable Cooperative Supply Sub-~ion Demand AF clion SUDDjv AF (1\ Needs AF 12' Onnnri"nities 131 CClIljunclive use with South sub-region, 14,OOOtc effluent management with Northeast sub- Denver Central 454 000 14\ region. system integration with Northwest Sub-renion build-oul 410000 44 000 '5 sub-renion and Aurora oonjunctive use with Denver, effluent South MeIrO Sub- management within Cherry and Plum Ir/illnion 127 000 build-out 127000 0 Creek basins effluent management with Northeast sub- Cilv of Aurora 105 000 161 30 000 '6 region, coordinated reservoir operations 2030 75 000 with Denver system integration and eIIluent management among Denver, Aurora. Northeast Metro 61,000 to 25,000 to Brighton. South Adams County WSD, Sub-~ion 125 000 bulld-out 100 000 17\ 64 000 17\1 Thornton and the Barr Lake comoanies system integration with Denver, effluent Northwest Melre management within Clear Creek and Big Sub-~ion 100 000 bulld-out 90 000 10000 D~ Creek basins 763,000 to 79,000 l<l Total 911000 802 000 148 000 (1) Based on their planning efforts to date, water providers have a relatively high degree of CClIlfidence in these suppiles. (2) Providers have a relatively lower degree of confidence in their plans to meet these needs, based on uncertainty factors and the comparatively tonger time frames before these supplies would be needed. (3) Cooperative supply opportunities could be used to meet future unmet needs or as an altemative to reasonably certain future suppUes. (4) Includes Denver Water and Englewood; includes Denver Water's 30,000 AF safety factor. (5) Based on the expected range of Denver Watefs future safety factor. (6) Includes Aurora's 10,000 AF planning reserve. (7) Depending on the degree of ifTlllementation of Thornton.s Northern Project. The table illustrates that most Denver area water providers have planned for the future very well and currently have strategies in place to meet projected water needs to the year .2030 and in some cases considerably beyond that date. As described further below, the cooperative water supply opportunities evaluated in the MWSI could supplement or partially replace the plans individual water providers already have in place. Prepared for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Colorado Oeparbnent of Natural Resources by Hydrosphere Res"""", Consultants, 1002 Walnut Stre.t, Suite 200. Boulder, co 80302 ... IX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I