Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <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 Yindy Gap Project units. <br /> <br />Population growth rates considered in the study were 2.0 percent per year <br /> <br /> <br />(low), 3.5 percent per year (moderate), and 5.0 percent per year (high), as <br /> <br />shown in Table 1-1. The City's annual water use in 1985 was 7,575 <br /> <br /> <br />acre-feet (AF). Yith a population of 36,000, this corresponds to an <br /> <br /> <br />average daily use of 188 gallons per person, or 188 gallons/capita/day <br /> <br /> <br />(gped). The City's usage of water was assumed to remain constant at 188 <br /> <br /> <br />gped for all growth rates considered. This rate of use is low in <br /> <br /> <br />comparison to neighboring Front Range communities; in 1986 and 1987 Fort <br /> <br /> <br />Collins' per capita use of water was 215-233 gallons/day and Greeley used <br /> <br />292-297 gpcd. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />The total quantity of water available from these sources was compared to <br /> <br /> <br />the demands shown in Table 1-1 to determine the magnitude of the water <br /> <br /> <br />supply deficit, if any, at recurrence intervals of 25, 50, 100, and 200 <br /> <br /> <br />years. CDM recommended that the City develop sufficient water supplies to <br /> <br /> <br />eliminate projected deficits at the lOa-year recurrence interval. Based on <br /> <br /> <br />the recommendation of the Loveland Yater Board and concurrence of the City <br /> <br />Council, Loveland directed that an annual demand of 21,261 ac-ft and <br /> <br /> <br />projected supplies as defined in the Design Conditions be used in Phase II <br /> <br /> <br />as the basis for evaluating alternative water supply options. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />1.1.2 PHASE II - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />The second phase of the study assesses, in detail, applicable alternatives <br /> <br /> <br />with respect to water yields, economics, social and environmental impacts, <br /> <br /> <br />and design/construction constraints. It should be noted that the principal <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />1-3 <br /> <br />I <br />