Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Section 3 <br />SELECTION OF STUDY 'COMMUNITIES <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />The goals and objectives of this study have been clearly delineated in <br />Section 2. In the broadest terms, there is serious concern regarding the water <br />quality of supplies, particularly ground water supplies, used by many small <br />municipalities in the State of Colorado. In order to improve this situation, <br />and coincidentally evaluate the economic impact on the community, various de- <br />salting techniques have been examined in an effort to determine a method by <br />which to enhance existing water supplies. <br /> <br />As an initial step in the investigation, it was necessary to select six <br />communities having water quality characteristics representative of the poor <br />quality available to a large number of cities and towns in Colorado. <br /> <br />CANDIDATE COMMUNITIES <br /> <br />Using information available from the State Planning Office and from the <br />State Health Department, a list of candidate Colorado communities (having a <br />population in excess of 500) was assembled for potential consideration in this <br />investigation. This list is shown in Table I. A total of 91 cities and towns <br />located in 37 counties were screened in terms of their population and the dis- <br />solved solids and total hardness content of their water supplies. <br /> <br />The information on each of the communities identified in Table I was re- <br />viewed in terms of the basic criteria of population in excess of 500, a total <br />solids content greater than 1000 mg/l, and a total hardness content exceeding <br />500 mg/l. Applying these criteria, a reduced list of 15 candidate communities <br />was generated, as shown in Table II. <br /> <br />These communities were then reviewed from the standpoint of population <br />growth, both of the community and the county in which the community was located. <br />Information concerning county population growth. is reported in Table III and <br />community population growth in Table IV. <br /> <br />Other considerations which led to the final selection of the six candidate <br />communities included the geographical location (see Fig. I), the present and <br />future sources of water, and the importance of the community to the county in <br />which it is located (five of the six communities are county seats). Applying <br />these criteria, the study communities were selected. SpeCific information on <br />these communities is tabulated in Table V. A population projection to 1980 <br />was made for these communities; it is found in Table VI. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />0201 <br />