My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1992 06 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1992 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1992 06 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:34 PM
Creation date
8/1/2005 10:58:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/2/1992
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1992 06 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
can better analyze and manage potential water purchases to meet <br />future water demands. In the existing system in the water rights <br />they looked at the conveyance facilities, the storage facilities <br />that the City had, ability to store water in Harper Lake, <br />Louisville Reservoir, Marshall Reservoir, and to a more limited <br />extent South Boulder and Coal Creek ditch storage in Marshall <br />Reservoir itself. They also looked at about 20 decrees that the <br />City has and summarized those in two tables. <br /> <br />Davidson asked that the record show that Councilwoman Hornbostel <br />(8:16 p.m.) is now present. <br /> <br />Hobbs stated that the last time he talked with them about hydrology <br />he talked about drought periods and what flows actually come down <br />South Boulder Creek. Phare had asked how those actual flows <br />compare to what the Soil Conservation Service is forecasting for <br />the Creek. They show the flow for South Boulder Creek for 1986. <br />The flow is just under 40,000 acre feet. In 1987, it was just a <br />little above 30,000 acre feet, and 1988, it was about 40,000 acre <br />feet. (Hobbs referred to drawings.) <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />Hobbs: <br /> <br />How much of a variance is due to the <br />variability of participation vs. the <br />survey technique involved? <br /> <br />I think much of it is the change in <br />snow pack during the year that <br />they're making the forecast in. <br />Part of the problem is that in <br />Colorado with the varieties of <br />weather, you're going to get that <br />depending on the moisture received. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />Hobbs: <br /> <br />I was trying to get the breakdown <br />between how much the sampling <br />technique might have been at fault. <br />Have they made an estimate of that? <br /> <br />Not at this time. As they get <br />better with their sampling and <br />forecasting techniques, then we can <br />say if there was 28,000 acre feet <br />coming down in 1958, we can assume <br />that's the kind of run-off we can <br />get for our water rights. Having <br />looked at the hydrology, then we <br />went through the water demands. The <br />water demands changed somewhat. We <br />looked at conservation and how they <br />affected the demands. (REFERRED TO <br />CHARTS) In Table 46, Page 424, which <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.