WSP05451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

lJ003,"7 V. Closino Thouohts A. Review of context. o Few dominant suppliers, but considerable fragmentation. o Many special districts as distributors. o Planning and coordinating within and between water entities genera 11 y poor. o Municipal/district coordination uneven. o Water rights are a function of historical presence. o Development of raw water supplies have not been conducted in a coordinated manner. o Denver supplies adequate -- for Denver. o Denver has developed a solid, even visionary, water system. o Growth in metropolitan area has slowed. o Rate structure between Denver and suburbs (which receive Denver water) reflect marked differential and are a source of Denver/suburb controversy. o Existing contracts with Denver assure water will be delivered to districts, but also limit flexibility for metropolitan area. o Adequacy of supply varies throughout metro area (i.e., some has independent systems; some are entirely reliant upon Denver; some are hybrids). B. Alternative scenarios. 1. The "Balkanization" model. Given concerns about securing adequate water supplies, each entity will -- in its own self interest -- pursue its independent solutions (e.g., separate storage facilities, groundwater, agricultural water rights, alternative water management strategies). 2. The "Front Range Water Authority" model. The creation of a water authority to provide treated or raw water on a wholesale basis has been discussed by the metropolitan counties and municipalities (i.e., Adams, Arapahoe and Jefferson counties plus the cities of Arvada, Aurora, Denver, Lakewood, Littleton, Thornton and Westminster). This voluntary approach would rely upon these entities negotiating and entering into intergovernmental agreements concerning growth, annexation, the role of special districts, and the provision by the Authority of water to suppliers or distributors. 3. The "Denver Service Area Authority" model. This would be an extension of the wholesale and retail role of the Denver Water Board. It would service the area presently being served by the Board and would allow for a logical extension of the service area over time. Denver would maintain control over the system. Fees for taps and water rates would be equalized. New supplies would be funded by growth areas.