My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01584
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP01584
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 8:52:25 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:32:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8040.200
Description
Section D General Studies-Energy
Date
10/1/1976
Author
CWCB
Title
Montrose Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />J-;J <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />During the Gunnison tunnel operation each year (approximately <br />i1arch 1 to November 1), the Fairview reservoir is maintained with at <br />least 7.00 acre-feet of water, regardless of the remainder available for <br />agricultural use in the South canal. Thus the raw water available for <br />Hontros~ is considered to be sufficient for the proposed Phase I develop- <br />ment which, according to projections, will suffice the city until the <br /> <br />year 1~83. <br /> <br />CURREIIT STATUS <br /> <br />On Karch 26, 1976, the city of Montrose submitted an apFlication <br /> <br /> <br />to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for state assistance in <br /> <br />improvi_ng its existing water system. Subsequently, the board and the <br /> <br />city ent~red into a contract with CH2H Hill to prepare a feasibility <br />report fOl: improvements to the present city water system. <br />The feasibility report has now been completed and constitutes the <br /> <br />basis fc~ this summary. <br /> <br />PROPCS~D PROJ~CT <br /> <br />Based on the existing water system and the present needs, and pro- <br /> <br />jectinb ~o the year 1983 for extra population and necessary expansion <br />of the system, the consultants recommend the project. <br />UnJe~ Phase I of the project, two alternates were studied, both of <br />which included treatment plant expansions. The first alternate included <br />metering throughout the system, while the second assumed continuation <br />of the present way of charging customers. <br />The alternate recommended is the first one because, apart from it <br /> <br />being che~per (it only proposes an expansion of 5 mgd instead of 10 mgd), <br /> <br /> <br />the operation and maintenance costs are less. The estimated cost is <br /> <br />$2,460,000. <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />Od! <br />if <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.