Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"';0- <br />'/ <br />;,~ <br /> <br />to substantiate future water needs. with respect to the <br />Bureau's figures Black and Veatch state: <br /> <br />Based upon demography performed by the U.S. Bureau <br />of Reclamation and the Animas Regional Planning <br />Commission and starting with the 1980 U.S. Census <br />Bureau figures, the population to be served by the <br />Durango Water utility will gro~ to an estimated <br />21,420 by 1990; 32,600 by 2005; and 45,520 by 2020. <br />This is a very larae and raoid increase in oooulation <br />for Duranao and its service area. considerina its <br />oast arowth and the land area actual Iv suitable <br />for develooment. A more realistic future arowth <br />oroiection may onlY result in a oooulation near <br />20.000 by 1990. 24.700 bY 2005 and 29.300 bY 2020 <br />(emphasis added). <br /> <br />According to project documents, the Indian population in the <br />project area (1979 figures) is as follows: <br /> <br />,?:, <br /> <br />ii <br />.:_, <br /> <br />Total <br /> <br />870 <br />1,325 <br />6,530 <br /> <br />8,725 <br /> <br /> <br />Southern Utes <br />Ute Mountain utes <br />Navajos <br /> <br />Projected Water Usage <br /> <br />The USBR should place more emphasis on estimates of the <br />study area's future water need. and reasonable means of <br />satiSfying those needs. conservation measures appear to have <br />great potential for Obtaining maximum benefits from present <br />supplies and reducing future storage and treatment needs. <br />This is particularly evident in the case of Durango and <br />Farmington, who.e daily per capita use rates are extremely <br />high. The USBR has undertaken no real consideration of water <br />conservation in its EIS, thus giving no consideration to the <br />least cost alternative. <br /> <br />'I <br />I <br /> <br />;'{ <br />~if.! <br />(i <br />r;~ <br /> <br />'~l.;;f' <br /> <br />The USBR estimated average per capita daily water use at 220 <br />gallons per capita daily (qpcd) adjusted for the tourist and <br />student populations. This projection appears to be in error. <br />In arriving at the adjusted figure of 220 qpcd , it appears <br />that no adjustments were made to account for the fact that <br />tourists and students use less water on a per capita basis <br />than permanent residents. Since day-use visitors may use 25 <br />to 40 gallons per capita per day and. seasonal visitors can <br />be expected to use approximately 35-60 gallons per capita <br />per day it appears that much les. of the EIS's 280 qpcd for <br />Durango's consumption can be attributed to the demands of <br />tourists and students. <br /> <br />~/! <br />, '~'1 <br />f!:" <br />~,~, <br />,:"".- <br />>t'::- <br /> <br />20 <br />