Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />2>' (' <br />Ofl..'6t " <br /> <br />"Because the water conserved is calculated on high con~umption esti- <br /> <br />mates, the conservation could be even, greater if the reduction began from <br /> <br />the 1974 six month average use of 224 GCD by the Denver Water Depart- <br />ment's customers. Thus, demand could possibly be reduced to below <br /> <br />200 GCD.... <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />" Two Program Mix Alternatives have been drawn UP to demonstrate that <br /> <br />the Denver Metropolitan Area can have an adequate water supply without <br /> <br />the construction of the Two Forks Reservoir. There are many possible varia- <br /> <br />tions of these and other components which would result in different mixes <br /> <br />that could supply the water. The timing of different components could be <br />changed. The recycling plant could come on line, at an earlier date or in <br /> <br />Program Mix I some of the Dillon supply could be utilized before 2000., <br /> <br />The Metropolitan Water Authority could be formed in the 1980's in Program <br /> <br />Mix II, so a more efficient water distribution system would be in operation <br /> <br />five to ten years sooner. <br /> <br />'~'If implementation of a state land use, plan results in a reduced popu- <br /> <br />lation for the metro area, there is flexibility to adjust the water supply or <br /> <br />let the demand rise. However, maintaining water use at 200-206 GCD should <br /> <br />not be either an economic or social hardship for the people of the Denver <br /> <br />Metropolitan Area. <br /> <br />(1) 1972 Planning Program, Board of Water Commissioners, May 1972 <br /> <br />(2) Bureau of Reclamation's 1972 Operations Study on Two Forks. <br /> <br />-26- <br /> <br />[)~:~;~~t.~ <br /> <br /> <br />~.i~i'4 <br />i~: -~~~~ <br />~~. ;.;~~;:r~ <br />