My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00121
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00121
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:25:14 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:36:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153702
Contractor Name
Silt, Town of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
39
County
Garfield
Bill Number
HB 95-1155
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 />. <br /> <br />,- ,,;. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.- .....,. <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />721 State Centennial Building <br />.1313 Shennan Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone (303) 866,3441 <br />FAX (303) 8664474 <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />James S, Lochhead <br />Executive Director. DNR <br />Daries C. Ule. P.E. <br />Direetor. CWCB <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />The Town of Silt File <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Bill Green <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />July 7, 1995 <br /> <br />. SUBJECT: Review of Feasibility Report <br /> <br />I have reviewed the Feasibility Study for the Town of Silt Raw Water Irrigation System by <br />Jerome Gamba & Associates dated June 12, 1995 and have the following C<:lmments and <br />questions: <br /> <br />1. In Chapter II, more information should be provided regarding existing water supply <br />facilities. A map or schematic diagram of the general area with point(s} of diversion(s), <br />transmission lines, ditches, storage, and treatment facilities locations would be very helpful, <br />The Zone District Map provided with the report provides virtually no nsefuI information with <br />regard to either existing facilities or the proposed project. <br /> <br />2, Historic water demands should be provided along with a comparison of demands and <br />the capacities of existing facilities, in particular the water treatment plant. The description of <br />water demands given on page 6 is very diffieult to follow. What are the current average <br />annual and peak demands? Are treatment and treated water storage capacities presently <br />adequate for fire flows and emergency situations? How do current raw water supplies, <br />treatment capacity, storage and demand all relate in the context of the total system? <br /> <br />3, On page 6, in the last sentence of the. first paragraph, is the 1,150 gallon per day figure the <br />historic rate of use (if so is this the maxhnum day?) or is this the treatment capacity of the <br />plant? . <br /> <br />4, In the ,econd paragraph on page 6, it's again not clear if the discussion is about treatment <br />capacity and operational problems or demands. It appears as if both are discussed here and <br />the discussion appears to be contradictory or at least unrelated, <br /> <br />\ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.