|
<br />Feasibility Report for Improvement of Paonia's Water Supply System
<br />Town of Paonia
<br />April 21, 2000
<br />
<br />4.2 Future Demands
<br />
<br />Planning Horizons
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />The study planning horizon was discussed and agreed upon by the Town representatives during
<br />a meeting in August 1999, The population and water demand projections represent approximate
<br />20- and 30-year planning horizons to the years 2020 and 2030,
<br />
<br />Future Population Growth Scenarios.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />'", <
<br />.J', -~'i;"/.:_'ht!:. :.
<br />',,'.(':-_ ,.,,<';:,;7<':
<br />BBC developed three alternative population growth scenarios'for the Piorua water service area"
<br />These scenarios represent BBC's estimate oflower bound,inost likely, and upper bound gro,~,
<br />Each of these scenarios could be described as a market~d[iven projection, reflecEng th~ n1,iffiber
<br />of people who would like to live in the Paonia water se[v.i.~t':lliea, without regard to potential
<br />constraints due to water and wastewater availability, Otheti:'6nstraints due to land availability
<br />and institutional limitations are described SUbSeqUently",>::r~;;:'" .
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />. _" .-~' v, . ~. ''',' .~
<br />Growth Scenario A assumes that the Town will !p:o~ at a rat~:of ab~ut 1.5 percent per year
<br />""'I" "','" .
<br />during the 20- to 30-year planning period, This is:i~i!irilar to the histoncal growth rate in the
<br />Town since 1970. The past three decades..:inPadhlaha.ve included"more than 20 years of
<br />,-'. ,"f , .', ,," '_"_
<br />regional prosperity and less than IO year1io(recessloii:..ItTh:~.E!,q'sopinion that Scenario A is
<br />a reasonable lower bound for estimating population gro~.iiftI1e next 30 years,
<br />._j';.,..._:}' . ~. .~~";.7~~ ,"..
<br />Growth Scenario B is based on tq.~'~~sumptio... 'p'that paonla will grow at the same rate as Delta
<br />, ,- '.
<br />County in the next 30 years, ,[~!3ased o~~;p,elta C,~unty projections prepared by the State
<br />Demographer, this representsar,i\iiverage aI)i).tl.~1 groWth rate of less than 2 percent per year, The
<br />State deIlJogfa.p.her's projectio~ incIude~6piiistica.ted demographic modeling, both state and
<br />regional'~:~?v:?~gprojectiop.s~!pcal input 'It is BBC's opinion that Scenario B is the most
<br />likely groWthsceiiario for the platuimg period,
<br />'~~t~:~~~~:j;:~... '~lt~~j:-~~o.>-~' .
<br />Growth ScenarioCas~l:imes that ari"tihii'llticipated event occurs that would dramatically increase
<br />',,:': ..'j'.,? ,0,,,.:,_ .,'~: 'Y
<br />the population in andliround Paonia, For example, ifPaonia became a "hot spot" for a new
<br />~. _ ,'_, ' . -'" ,...t<,
<br />sports"jCtivity like Moab,\U~h; has become for mountain biking, there could be dramatic
<br />impa,(;ts on growth in tb.e Town's water service area, The average growth rate under this
<br />sct,;gano is about 3 percent per year, representing what may be an upper bound of the population
<br />pl'bj.~ctions, This growth rate is lower than recent growth rates in other Colorado counties, like
<br />Dotlgl.1ls County, ~d is not unrealistic based on BBC's research, BBC recently compared
<br />pO'ptla~on increases in 62 Colorado communities with populations between 750 and 3,000
<br />..., ."".~-:,,:. "', ",,,'
<br />people::;Ofthese communities, 16 have grown at an average rate of over 3 percent per year since
<br />", . c':7l'.',., .
<br />1970,'"
<br />
<br />1:\PROJECTS\99368\Repons\FeasibililY.wpd
<br />
<br />4-5
<br />
<br />~ GEl Consultants. Inc.
<br />
|