Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0003~~ <br /> <br />To discuss metropolitan water supplies in an aggregate sense, which <br />may show very adequate supplies for years to come, fails to recognize the <br />extent to which supplies are adequately matched with demand throughout <br />the metropolitan area. Some jurisdictions have done an excellent job in <br />insuring that their particular community has an adequate supply of <br />water. In other parts of the metropolitan area, including some areas <br />which are subject to considerable growth, there has been too little <br />planning, too little coordination, and quite likely a heavy reliance on <br />Two Forks for future supplies. <br /> <br />B. Future suoolv. Future water supplies may come from several <br />sources. <br /> <br />Recent focus has been on the decision to permit the construction of <br />the Two Forks project. Many providers have placed considerable reliance <br />on this project as a source for future supply. <br /> <br />With or without Two Forks, alternative supplies include: <br /> <br />o Windy Gap water could serve parts of the norther metropolitan <br />area. <br /> <br />o A Clear Creek reservoir is being promoted by some communities. <br /> <br />o Some large providers have been exploring projects on the <br />Arkansas and Gunnison Rivers. <br /> <br />o Smaller providers will likely continue to rely on ground water. <br /> <br />o Agricultural water may be diverted to municipal uses. <br /> <br />o Various interim supplies have been identified as part of the <br />Two Forks EIS process. <br /> <br />o Conservation can effectively enhance metropolitan area yields. <br />