Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002~go <br /> <br />CHAPTER 5 - EVALUATION OF ALT:.:RNATIVES <br /> <br />Hydrologic Evaluation, Page 6l.. The last paragraph on Page 60 <br />is unclear regarding just how the assumption regarding <br />municipal and industrial water supply and municipal and <br />industrial consumptive use are applied. It appears that <br />municipal and industrial consumptive use may have been <br />estimated, and that project water supply was assumed to <br />be three times that amount, or that project water supply <br />was eauivalent to three times the municipal and industrial <br />demand. It is stated that "the return flows from municipal <br />and industrial diversions averaged 67 percent of the water <br />delivered," and a Metcalf and Eddie reference is cited. We <br />would prefer to see more local data used for the South Platte <br />Basin, i.e., a little additional research into what actually <br />occurs ih the South Platte regarding return flows from municipal <br />and industrial diversions. In the future, of course, not <br />all return flows will be returning to the river as some, i.e., <br />transbasin diversions, may be reused by the agency owning the <br />water. The assumption regarding agricultural water demand (as <br />projected by water supply) will average 1.5 times the <br />agricultural consumptive use appears to be low for the South <br />Platte Basin. What is meant by consumptive use in this section? <br /> <br />In general, much more thought and discussion is needed <br />concerning how water supply~lternatives were evaluated ln <br />light of: <br /> <br />1. Impact of agricultural return flows as part <br />of the supply equation; <br /> <br />2. Impact of municipal and industrial return flows <br />as part of the supply equation; <br /> <br />3. The role and benefits from return flows from all <br />sources which result from new project development, <br />i.e., new return flow sources, and their impact <br />on the agricultural economy particularly. <br /> <br />It is noted on the second paragraph, Page 61, that some <br />resizing of reservoirs was made. Some assumptions are made <br />regarding carry-over size, and the revised storage estimates <br />are being based on annual reservoir operational studies. <br />We need a good explanation of how this information was <br />applied to specifio alternative projects. <br /> <br />In the third paragraph on Page 61 it is stated that "more <br />information exists on Alternative 2 (Two Forks) and <br />Alternative 8 (Narrows) than for other alternatives. In <br />such cases, the inequality should be kept in mind." This 1S <br />with respect to evaluation criteria. If the more <br />information causes an inequity in the evaluation criteria, <br />the bias should be eliminated in the methodology to insure <br />uniform evaluation of all projects. <br /> <br />6 <br />