Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />II <br />II <br />I <br />II <br />II <br />I <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />PLAN OF STUDY <br />LOVELAND VATeR SUPPLY STUDY <br />PHASE II - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />December 11, 1986 <br /> <br /> <br />1.0 INtRODUCTION <br /> <br />The City of Loveland engaged Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) to perform an <br />engineering study which compared the water supplies available from the <br />City's four (4) major water sources to forecasted water demand for three <br />(3) growth rates. This effort was tile "Phase I" portion of the planned <br />three-phase Vater Supply Study. <br /> <br />The four water sources evaluated in phase I were: <br /> <br />1. Big Thompson River direct-flow water rights owned by the City of <br />Loveland. <br /> <br />2. City ownership in a number of private irrigation ditch and <br />reservoir companies. <br /> <br />3. City ownership of Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) units. <br /> <br />4. City ownership of Vindy Gap Project (VGP) units. <br /> <br />The total quantity of water available from these sources was compared to <br />projected demand to determine the magnitude of the water supply surplus or <br />deficit for recurrence intervals of 25, 50, 100, and 200 years. COM <br />recommended that the City develop sufficient water supplies to eliminate <br />projected deficits at the 100-year recurrence interval. The City <br />determined that the projected demands and deficits for the year 2015 under <br />the moderate growth rate (i.e., 3.5 percent per year) should be used as the <br />basis for evaluating alternative water supply options. <br /> <br />1-~ <br />EXHIBIT A <br />