HomeMy WebLinkAbout851239.tiff Table 46
Descriptive Statistics of the
Alternative Pooled Water Demand Model
Standard
Variable!/ Mean? Minimum Maximum Deviation
Total water use per
household per day (gal) 491.2 229.6 968.2 148.2
Median household income
(1,000's) it lot size 7.08 1.49 28.15 4.95
Service sector employees
per household 0.165 0.00 0.66 0.149
Non-service sector
employees per household 0.998 0.00 4.61 0.759
Percent single family
household a lot size 22.5 0.0 91.7 16.1
(lot size)2 0.099 0.02 0.84 0.149
Number of days of
measurable precipitation 44.0 31.0 57.0 7.8
Three day, three hour
watering restriction 0.071 0.00 1.00 0.257
Marginal price (1982
dollars) 1.12 0.00 2.34 0.44
1/ See Chapter 3 for detailed definition of variables.
?/ Number of observations = 254.
Appendix 2
130
851239
elasticities for the complex model are similar to the elasticities for
these variables in the linear model as shown in table 47. The coef-
ficient of determination (R2) is 0.63, which approximates the explana-
tory power (R2 of 0.64) of the linear model. Statistical tests for
multicolinearity, heteroscedasticity and serial correlation reveal
approximately the same characteristics as the linear model. Correlation
among the interaction from variables exceeds the highest correlation
found among variables in the linear model. Heteroscedasticity is likely
to be present for several independent variables. As with the linear
model, tests of serial correlation are inconclusive.
The results of this model are similar to the simple linear model
presented earlier. The explanatory power of the complex model is com-
parable to that of the linear model. Because the more complex model
form fails to improve upon the results of the simple linear model, and
because variable interaction exceeds that seen in the linear model, the
simple linear model is considered preferable to the more complex form.
Appendix 2
131
Table 47
T-Statistics and Elasticities for the
Alternative Pooled Water Demand Model
Standard T- Elas-
Variable Coefficient Error Statistics ticity
Median household income
(1,000's) * single family
lot size 28.8 3.6 8.07 1/
Percent single famly *
single family lot size 1.21 1 .29 0.93 1/
Lot size?/ (393.6) 125.7 (3.13) 1/
Number of days of measurable
precipitation (3.51) 0.77 (4.59) (0.31)
Presence of third day, three
hour restrictions (33.6) 22.8 (1.47) (0.01)
Marginal price (57.7) 14.0 (4.12) (0.13)
Persons per household 41.2 16.8 2.45 0.25
Service sector employment per
household 213.0 54.1 3.93 0.07
Non-service sector employment
per household 44.9 10.0 4.50 0.09
1/ In these forms, elasticities cannot be meaningfully described. Income
elasticity is 50.39. Percent single family elasticity is 0.05. Lot size
elasticity is 0.38
Appendix 2
132
CHAPTER 5
USE FACTOR WATER DEMAND FORECASTING !MODEL
•
CHAPTER 5
USE FACTOR WATER DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL
INTRODUCTION
The pooled water demand model described in Chapter 4 was prepared
in aggregate form, that is, without segregation by customer class. A
thorough conservation analysis is believed to require a water demand
forecast and model which disaggregates by customer class. GKY and
Associates developed a forecasting model to meet this requirement.
The logic of the use factor demand forecasting model is two-tiered.
The first tier is represented by use factors for different classes of
water consumers. These use factors incorporate average or typical water
demand and can be used to make respectable first approximations of
demand forecasts. Total water demand for a water supplier is, there-
...-.
Appendix 2
133
fore, primarily driven by demographics; the number of households, the
number of employees, and total population.
The second tier of logic recognizes that there are differences in
the socioeconomic characteristics (for example, lot size and family
income) of water suppliers which affect water demand. This observation
allows fine-tuning of the first approximation estimates. This tier is
added to the model by regression analysis of household level data.
The use factor model was developed using several data sources
(described in Chapter 3) both at the water supplier level and the house-
hold level covering the period 1974 through 1982. The method:
. Isolates SF metered, SF flat, MF, commercial and industrial, and
public use sectors as well as unaccounted for water (losses).
. Is applicable to individual water districts with differing
socioeconomic characteristics.
. Utilizes DRCOG independent variable projections.
. Is consistent and compatible with the conservation analyses.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Each of the two parts of the use factor water demand forecasting
model were developed separately. These analyses are outlined below.
Appendix 2
134
USE FACTORS
Use factors for each of the five water consuming sectors were
developed as described in Chapters 2 and 3. These use factors represent
typical average use for the particular sector in the absence of any con-
servation programs. They are reviewed in table 48.
SF households (metered) typically demand water at a rate of 478
gallons per household per day and taken together account for approxi-
mately 42 percent of demand in the EIS area. Forty-six percent of this
is estimated to be used indoors and 54 percent outdoors, primarily dur-
ing the summer months. Similarly, SF households (flat-rate) demand
water at a higher rate of 630 gallons per household per day and account
for 23 percent of total demand. However, only 37 percent is indoor use.
The final residential use sector, MF households, demands water at a rate
of 217 g.h.d and represents 16 percent of total demand. Eighty-three
percent of this is used indoors.
The two nonresidential sectors account for smaller portions of
total EIS demand. Commercial and industrial users demand 12 percent of
the total at a rate of 45 gal/employee/day. Similarly, public use
accounts for seven percent at a rate of 14 gal/person/day. Neither of
these factors were divided into indoor and outdoor usage.
SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The second portion of the model development was to incorporate
individual district characteristics (lot size, family income, marginal
price, household size) which would contribute to variations in water
demand from district to district. However, this analysis was only per-
formed for the largest sector: SF households (metered). It is reason-
Appendix 2
135
Table 48
Review of Use Factors
Use Factor (gal/unit/day)
Sector Indoor]/ Outdoor?/ Total
Single family households
(metered) 220 258 478
Single family households
(flat rate) 230 400 630
Multifamily households 180 37 P17
Commercial and industrial
(employment) NA NA 45
Public (population) NA NA 14
if Indoor use is estimated from winter use assuming no outdoor consumption.
2/ Outdoor use is the difference between total use and indoor use. Although
this use primarily occurs in the summer at greater magnitudes, these num-
bers represent that use evenly spread throughout the year.
NA a not available.
Appendix 2
136
able to suspect that analogous adjustments might be made to the other
four use factors: SFF, MF, E, and P. However, it is less certain that
the improvements in model sophistication would justify additional analy-
sis. Such analysis on the SFM use factor was justified because this
class of consumers demanded more water (42 percent) than any other
class. SFF customers are the next largest group at 23 percent of total
demand. However, since decline in the number of SFF households will
occur in the future, this class of customer will become decreasingly
important. The other three classes of consumers currently represent 35
percent of demand with the MF class being the largest of the three at 16
percent. The relative absence of data in the literature for these cus-
tomer classes support the claim that these classes are difficult to ana-
lyze. This combined with their smaller contributions to current SEIA
area demand led to the decision not to go beyond simple demographics in
the model for these customer classes.
IDENTIFICATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES
Several factors influence water demand at the household level; some
are important, others are not. To identify the most relevant variables,
a correlation analysis was performed, using the merged household level
data base of EDF and Entercom data as described in Chapter 3. The cor-
relation between seven variables was performed: SFM water demand, lot
size, marginal price, income, household size, impervious area ratio
(impervious area/total area) and assessed valuation. Results of the
analysis on the disaggregated (household) and aggregated (household by
district) data bases are shown in tables 49 and 50.
For both data bases, the highest correlation occurred with demand
and income followed by assessed lot and house value, which itself is
highly correlated with income. For the disaggregated data base, the
Appendix 2
137
Table 49
Socioeconomic Variables - Water Use
Correlations 1982 EDF and Entercom Database
(Disaggregated)
Correlation Coefficients/Number of Observations
DEMAND LSIZE MARPR INCOME HHSIZE Cl/ ALHV?/
DEMAND 1.00 .268 -.132 .396 .249 -.0457 .371
592 592 592 592 592 530 561
LSIZE 1.00 .118 .215 .0337 -.542 .290
592 592 592 592 530 561
MARPR 1.00 .0793 .0283 -.00480
592 592 592 530 561
INCOME 1.00 .0947 .102 .357
592 592 530 561
HHSIZE 1.00 .0294 .139
592 530 561
C!/ 1.00 .0411
530 526
ALHV?/ 1.00
561
?/ Impervious area ratio (impervious area/total area).
V ALHV Assessed lot and household values.
Appendix 2
138
Table 50
Socioeconomic Variables - Water Use
Correlations 1982 EDF and Entercom Database
(Aggregated)
Correlation Coefficients/Number of Observations
DEMAND LSIZE MARPR INCOME HHSIZE Cil ALHV?/
DEMAND 1.00 .0537 -.309 .777 .209 .459 .689
15 15 15 15 15 15 15
LSIZE 1.00 .0696 .0952 -.306 -.554 .397
15 15 15 15 15 15
MARPR 1.00 .141 .0145 .151 .153
15 15 15 15 15
INCOME 1.00 .177 .611 .826
15 15 15 15
HHSIZE 1.00 .169 .0411
15 15 15
C 1.00 .470
15 15
ALHV 1.00
15
1/ Impervious area ratio (impervious area/total area).
?/ ALHV Assessed lot and household values.
Note: Aggregation is to water district.
Appendix 2
139
remaining variable correlation coefficients ranked as followed: lot
size, household size, marginal price (inversely) and impervious area
ratio (inversely).
The remaining variable correlation coefficients for the aggregated
data base differed in their ranking: impervious area ratio, marginal
price, household size and lot size. The correlation coefficients for
lot size and impervious area ratio showed the greatest deviation from
the correlation coefficients computed using the disaggregated data base.
An additional correlation analysis was performed using the 1982
demands from the EDF and Entercom aggregated data base and 1982 socio-
economic variable values from the historical supplier level data base.
Results are shown in table 51. Tables 50 and 51 represent aggregations
to the same sample size using different data sources; they do not agree
particularly well. The highest data correlation was found between
demand and lot size followed by income, marginal price (inverse) and
household size. Income and lot size were also highly correlated.
These analyses do not provide clear indication of the superiority
of any of the variables over another. However, because of the rela-
tively high correlations between ALHV and Income, ALHV will be dropped
from further analysis to avoid later multicollinearity problems. Simi-
larly, C will be dropped in deference to LSIZE. This leaves four socio-
economic variables for further consideration: LSIZE, MARPR, INCOME, and
HHSIZE.
OLS !MODELS
Once selection of the meaningful variables had taken place, several
alternative OLS mdoels were reviewed and still others were tried using a
variety of data bases.
Appendix 2
140
Table 51
Socioeconomic Variables - Water Use
Correlations 1982 EDF•and Entercom and 1982 Historical
Supplier Level Database
Correlation Coefficients/Number of Observations
DEMAND LSIZE MARPR INCOME HHSIZE
DEMAND 1.00 .583 -.309 .540 .258
15 15 15 15 15
LSIZE 1.00 -.084 .551 .164
15 15 15 15
MARPR 1 .00 .232 .190
15 15 15
INCOME 1.00 .756
15 15
HHSIZE 1.00
Note: Aggregation is to water district.
Appendix 2
141
Prior Denver analyses. Two econometric models, on based on aggre-
gated data (Model I) and the other on disaggregated data (Model II),
were developed by Morris and Jones (1980). Both models were estimated
by OLS and specified the linear relationships between household water
consumption and a number of socioeconomic variables. The analyzed data
base included 384 households in 21 water districts.
In Model I, an OLS multiple regression procedure was applied to
explain the average annual household consumption within each of the 21
water suppliers as a linear function of income, lot size and marginal
price.
Model II also estimated annual demand by ordinary least squares.
Individual household data within the sample of SFM households was used
in specifying the model. The model included 11 socioeconomic variables,
eight more than Model I. Of the two models, Model I had less varince
within the error terms since aggregation by district tends to reduce
variation found at the household level.
Each model assumed the linear specification:
D = a0 + at dP + a2W + a3 Z1 + .... + an+2 Zn + e.
D = Water Demand.
dP = Marginal Price.
W = Wealth
Zi = Other Influences on Water Demand.
Appendix 2
142
e = Error Term.
Both models confirmed the significance of family income and mar-
ginal price (as found in literature reviews) on water consumption in the
Denver metropolitan area, and identified lot size as an equally impor-
tant variable. Except for the income variable, the estimated parameters
of Model II on specific household data are similar to the parameters
estimated in Model I when the same variables are included in both speci-
fications. The Model I resultant equation is as follows:
D (g.h.d.) = 188 - 263 dP($1/1000 gal) + 11.8 W($1000) + 697 A
(2.1) (-2.3) (3.7) (2.8)
(acres)
R2 = .65 F statistic = 10.55 A = Average lot size
The numbers in parentheses are the t-statistics of the estimated
parameters.
Current analyses. 0LS analyses of the water use and socioeconomic
descriptors in the various data bases were performed in order to deter-
mine the sensitivity of the demand to the socioeconomic variables. Each
model estimated residuals and assumed the linear specification:
D - = a1 (A - A) + a2 (dP - dP) + a3 (I - I) + aq (HH - HH) ± SE
A = lot size; I = income; HH = household size.
The models forced the intercept to zero; however, an intercept is
implicit in determining residuals.
Table 52 summarizes various models tested, their resultant coeffi-
cient (ai) and t-statistics, and the coefficient of determination (R2)
for the equation as a whole. Also shown are the model developed by
Appendix 2
143
T
CO
N a
II a e I a • S.
a .y • a " •
O O o.1 O L pa
" ' Cl...O .i.i po
Sp 001. G O
I N a S a > a LOG
S O OOO3 •
6 a 2• AZIta
h i ='s0 •
• E•
H 31 fla 8
MI IN ' P in r1 a a
a in N� IT CO ' N N t a N p y ,
•►-I
N
en ^1
• NI N a a MI O a •p
. •
ai a U1 I N I 10 a 9
e CO ! T m m Co M m C
Z .m.. .m.. .m. a, .m. .T.. w y c
a ' I� .O If1 ��pO N O�• • • �p• S II 0S
�T m N f'f T N O a C q
_ _ $ O.ai
NI N 0 N N - a
y O. •, N P IA T a S
8 a Al CO 0 ;, In 5 w •
i 8 •m m •
v m v •
N ate. I.
N .ai G 'H w e• �.
N • h Y a G
Q -I ern CO N• N, in O. CO p In a • O y
�. G 0C.11r CJ r M O — 76 O t I pp� •
' O vo
NI N NIVI
O 1;.1 O 1.1 b H
e a
•
• y 1I N I I N nI N N CO. a n.
it .. a a • C
m 5 y
...0 .- N T O Cr. L.i
.. •
S.
y
tl
i ■(
I O N P CO CO T P 16
1I O. N 01 .O a a
N
M tI I 1 1 I I I1 1 a
N5 p
•+ NI O T in N O CO 0 ..4i4 .... 5
•
O a 1 N in N a, ■
O tr
a ® •
>
O .1
• N N N 01
N N N in
N ~ y p
a to G
g .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Cr. Q a• r.
3 a'lar N in .0N0 T b 01 P Y Y 3a a 2
a aa
■ 1I1�'f CI
nil !.
I I pa CC a FC f m le
f l V a 9
a e .4 ■a t O
yp8] a a y ■
N
pQ• ..1 11 • ..4i
O T ON I. q ■m O y I. i s
6 .5P ® •
a ® i is p 0
^I NI .. 1l
Appendix 2
144
Morris and Jones-EDF (1980), and the residuals model using the histori-
cal supplier-level data base. The R2 value is the percent of the vari-
ation of the annual demand as explained by the given regression. In a
two tailed test at a five percent level of significance, a t-statistic
greater in magnitude than 1.96 implies significance for large n.
In all of the disaggregated models, lot size, income and household
size were highly significant at the five percent level. Marginal price
was negatively correlated with demand in all of the tested models and
was highly significant except when the Entercom data base was analyzed
separately. The R2 values ranged from .154(Entercom) to .326(EDF).
Results using the aggregated models of the same data bases deviated
greatly from the results of the disaggregated models. While the R2
values improved, the t-statistics indicated less predictive success and,
in some cases, the sign of the coefficients were revised probably due to
the small sample size. The aggregated EDF (1976) model determined lot
sizes, marginal price (inverse) and income to be significant and
resulted in a R2 value of .65. Analysis of residuals in the historical
supplier level data base resulted in lot size and marginal price
(inverse) being significant. Income and household size were not sig-
nificant. Income and lot size were highly correlated in the supplier
data base. An R2 value of .290 resulted from using this data base.
The combined EDF and Entercom disaggregated model is the preferred
model based on the following:
. The disaggregated models are all consistent in that the coeffi-
cients for the four independent variables are all significant. The com-
bined model (EDF & Entercom) coefficients are between the coefficients
found using EDF and Entercom data sets alone, as one would expect. The
Appendix 2
145
disaggregated models incorporate lot size, marginal price, income and
household size effects on water use.
. The combined EDF and Entercom disaggregated model implies elas-
ticities that are consistent with values found in the literature.
. The combined EDF and Entercom model utilizes all the available
data, has a large sample size, and offers coefficients that are con-
sistent with values found in the literature.
YODEL SELECTION
The use factor water demand forecasting model is a combination of
the use factor and OLS analyses. However, several adjustments were made
to account for differences in the data bases used in the analyses and to
ensure accurate forecasts of the entire EIS area demand.
INITIAL FORMULATION
Applying the results of the OLS analysis directly to the use factor
base of the model yields the following equation for predicting demand of
a water district.
Let:
SFM = number of single family households (metered);
SFF = number of single family households (flat-rate);
Appendix 2
146
MF = number of multifamily households;
E = number of employees;
P = population
f = single family household (metered) use factor (g.h.d.);
A = mean lot size (A = 0.241 acres)
dP = mean marginal price (dP = $1.17/1000 gallons);
I = median household income (I = $20.6 thousand);
HH = mean household size (HH = 2.71 people) ; and
D = district demand (gallons/day)
Then,
D = f * SFM + 630 * SFF + 217 * MF + 45 * E + 14'P(l )
Where,
f = 478 + 350 (A-A) - 118.7 (dP-dP) + 3.59 (I-I) + 31.2 (HH-HH)(2)
The model is applied by first calculating the SFM use factor (f)
using equation (2). This adjusts the factor for the particular socio-
economic characteristics of a district. Then this factor along with
those for the other customer classes are applied to the demographic pro-
jections of households, employment, and population to arrive at a fore-
cast district demand using equation (1). These are then summed for all
districts arriving at the projected water demand at a given time for the
entire EIS area.
HEFIN@ffiiTS
The use of multiple data sources is an asset toward building the
use factor model, but it also requires that some refinements be made to
the initial formulation. Four are described here:
Appendix 2
147
. adjustment household size and income coefficients to reflect
only metered SF households rather than all households;
. adjustment of all OLS coefficients to 1974 through 82 averages
rather than 1962 data;
. addition of an intercept to the OLS to force closure on the EIS
area demand; and
. adjustment of the SFM use factor for those districts without
outdoor watering.
The first refinement is required because data in the historical
supplier level data base for household size and income reflects all
households. Table 53 and 54 show calculation of the adjustment to only
metered SF households. For income and household size, respectively, the
ratios are 1.67 and 1.25.
The second refinement is required because the OLS was performed on
1982 data while the model itself was built on 1974 through 82 averages
(1977 excepted). The adjustments were based on the following assump-
tions:
kA afoutdoor A
kdP afoutdoor 1/dP
kI aftotal I
kHH afindoor HH, where k = OLS coefficient.
Therefore, gg
kavg. = k'82 • (outdoor + Aavg.
A A
(outdoor A
Appendix 2
148
Table 53
Household Income Adjustment for
SFM Homes
EDF & Entercom Metered Historical Supplier
HH Data (1982) Level Data (1982)
Median
Income
Geometric Arithmetic for Number
Water Supplier Mean Median Mean all HR!/ of SRC/
Arvada 35.9 33.0 36.3 23.9 24,447 -
Aurora 36.9 33.0 37.2 22.8
35,640
Bancroft-Clover 39.4 33.0 39.5 25.9 6,856
Cherry Creek Valley 46.1 437 46.8 21.5 752
Cherry Creek Village 59.8 61.8 60.5 42.4 483
Consolidated Mutual 44.9 43.7 45.2 21.3 17,171
Crestview 25.3 25.6 25.4 19.5 3,650
Denver City & County 37.7 33.8 38.0 14.1 27,987
Denver Read & Bill 47.2 43.7 47.7 30.1 24,820
Denver Total Serve 39.7 33.0 40.0 26.7 20,932
Green Mountain Park 35.7 33.0 36.1 27.3 6,154
Kelton heights 16.8 18.1 17.0 17.7 220
Northglenn 37.4 33.0 37.8 23.0 7,221
South Adams County 26.2 27.4 26.4 17.3 5,580
Westminster 30.4 25.6 30.8 21.8 13,082
(EDF & Entercom Geometric Mean) (Number SFM Households)
RATIO = Districts
(Supplier Level Median) (Number SFM Households)
Districts
= 1.67
1/ HE = household.
?/ SFM = single family metered.
Note: 648 observations were used in the analysis.
Appendix 2
149
Table 54
Household Size Adjustment for Single Family Metered Homes
Historical Supplier
Level Data (1982)
EDF & Entercom Mean
Data (1982) Mean HH Size Number
Water District Metered HH1/ for all HEW of SFM?/
Arvada 3.42 2.97 24,447
Aurora 3.30 2.55 35,640
Bancroft-Clover 4.00 2.70 6,856
Cherry Creek Valley 3.38 2.08 752
Cherry Creek Village 3.71 3.37 483
Consolidated Mutual 3.04 2.41 17, 171
Crestview 3.17 2.58 3,650
Denver City & County 3.24 2.26 27,987
Denver Read & Bill 3.42 3.03 24,820
Denver Total Serve 3.04 2.78 20,932
Green Mountain Park 3.88 2.91 6, 154
Kelton Heights 2.83 2.19 220
Northglenn 3.83 2.90 7,221
South Adams County 4.00 2.86 5,580
Westminster 3.16 2.68 13,082
e (Mean EDF & Entercom) (Number of SFM Households)
RATIO = Districts
e (BBC Supplier Level) (Number of SFM Households)
Districts
= 1.67
1/ HH = household.
2/ SFM = single family metered.
Note: 703 observations were used in the analysis.
Appendix 2
150
with analogous results for the other three variables. The final ratio
for marginal price is inverted. The calculations are summarized in
table 55.
Table 55
OLS Coefficient Adjustments
Ratio of
1982 1974-82 1982 Applicable
Variable k average Value Demand kavg.
A 350 0.241 0.241 1.22 427
dP 118.7 1.17 1.14 1.22 141
I 3.59 20.64 22.92 1.11 3.59
HN 31.2 2.71 2.68 1.00 31.5
Note: 1974- through 1982 (1977 excepted) average water use was
478 g.h.d. with 220 estimated as indoor use. Use for
1982 was 431 g.h.d. with 220 estimated as indoor use.
An intercept was added to the socioeconomic adjustment to the SFM
use factor because the above modifications resulted in an error in total
EIS area demand. The subtraction of 17 gallons per household per day
brought the OLS equation back to zero for closure on the SEIS area
demand.
Finally, an adjustment was made for those districts which have zero
lot size in the data base because there is no irrigation. In these
cases, f was set to 230 gallons: 220 gallons for estimated indoor uses
plus 10 gallons for miscellaneous outdoor uses such as car washing.
r Appendix 2
151
The revised model formulation is as follows:
D = f * SFM + 630 * SFF + 217 * MF + 45 * E+14 * 'P
f = 478 + 427 (A - A) - 141 (dP - dP) +
3.59 (I - I)rI + 31.5 (HH - HH) ry,
Where:
rI = 1.67
rag = 1.25
MODEL PERFORMANCE AND LIMITATIONS
MODEL RELIABILITY
The motivation for the model presented in the previous section was
to produce a reliable water demand forecasting model. The reliability
of the refined model is shown by the following:
. The model is developed from a diverse data base utilizing sound
engineering judgment and is consistent with previous analyses.
. The coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.998, indicating that
it explains 99.8 percent of the variation in water demand from district
to district (R2 = R2D + R2SE (1-R20); where R20 = 0.997, R28E = 0.271).
. The model predicts the total EIS area demand within 0.04 percent
of the actual demand over the 1974 through 1982 period.
Appendix 2
152
. The model predicts demand for DC&C which represents over 45 per-
cent of the total demand, within 6.2 percent of the actual demand. The
predicted demand for the 12 largest districts, representing 86 percent
of the total demand, is within 15.4 percent. The average departure from
the actual district demand for all districts is 23.5 percent.
Results from applying the model to historical data are shown in
table 56. The number of districts with overestimated demands does not
equal the number of districts with underestimated demands. This is due
to the fact that three of the largest districts are underestimated and
the model is designed to predict overall EIS area demand. A district by
district adjustment would increase the accuracy on the historical data,
but would not add to forecasting accuracy. Such an adjustment would
represent the addition of unknown factors which may change an unknown
extent over time. Only those factors which were well understood were
incorporated into the demand model so that a high level of confidence
could be placed in the models forecast.
IMPLIED ELASTICITIES
The elasticities of the independent socioeconomic variables [mar-
ginal price (dP), income (I), lot size (A) and household size (HH)] for
SFM households are defined as:
x = ax x X
f
where, ex = elasticity for variable x;
e X = the mean value of variable x;
f = the SFM use factor;
ax = OLS coefficient for variable x.
Appendix 2
153
Table 56
Water Supplier Model Predictions ---
Compared with Actual Demand
Water Supplier SPM Use Factor Projected Demand Actual Demand Percent Error
(g.h.d.) (g.p.d.) ii —
Arvada 497 14,833,180 12,099,927 -22.6
Aurora 454 24,746,468 24,386,327 1.5
Bancroft-Clover 497 4,370,311 3,700,029 -18.1
Bow-Mar 836 257,315 243,979 -5.5
Brighton 971 2,606,988 2,325,225 -12.1
Broomfield BSA 481 1,968,950 1,801,601 -9.3
Broomfield DSA 513 1,751,629 1,418,190 -23.5
Castle Rock 542 793,294 699,285 -13.4
Cherry Creek Valley 503 978,892 1,237,316 20.0
Cherry Creek Village 659 373,405 365,947 -2.0
Con. Mutual 445 10,664,120 9,334,950 -14.2
Crestview 529 2,799,663 2,120,211 -32.0
DWD MUM 461 112,918,451 120,287,474 6.1
DWD Read 8 Bill 602 15,252,941 18,420,208 17.2
DWD Total Serve 517 12,418,738 13,355,856 7.0
East Cherry Creek Valley 486 345,101 329,177 -4.8
Edgewater 362 745,572 529,370 -40.8
Englewood PAM 430 8,028,046 7,710,179 -4.1
Erie 328 170,781 107,905 -58.3
Florence Garden 320 8,949 7,327 -22.1
Glendale 410 789,860 613,604 -28.7
Golden 490 3,019,683 2,394,348 -26.1
Green Mountain 519 3,873,580 3,137,290 -23.5
Hazeltine Height 660 46,494 32,844 -41.6
Hi-Land Acres \ 602 64,548 47,467 -36.0
Holly Mutual 1,041 27,454 26,280 -4.5
Kelton Heights 407 110,928 79,442 -39.6
Ken Caryl 482 681,004 797,720 14.6
Lakehurst 500 1,413,401 1,165,740 -21.2
Lakewood 387 490,638 436,970 -12.3
Louisville 472 1,515,852 922,117 -64.4
Meadowbrook 560 206,615 139,157 -48.5
Northglenn 289 3,292,132 4,326,960 23.9
Northaide 434 801,375 822,810 2.6
North Table Mountain 532 1,183,610 1,110,773 -6.6
North Washington 492 1,797,899 2,231,431 19.4
Panorama Park •
501 16,535 9,364 -76.6
Parker 718 220,149 176,115 -25.0
Sable 439 2,065,964 1,300,034 -58.9
Sedalia 635 44,063 24,633 -78.9
Silver Heights 743 90,398 63,390 -42.6
South Adams County 515 4,253,073 3,384,480 -25.7
Thornton 367 7,039,762 6,693,898 -5.2
Valley 373 850,192 912,496 6.8
Westminster 437 8,036,446 6,737,454 -19.3
Wheatridge 396 2,181,801 2,100,559 -3.9
Willowbrook 418 232,014 184,125 -26.0
Willows 564 1,337,143 1,231,106 -8.6
Appendix 2
154
The combined EDF and Entercom disaggregated model implies elastici-
ties of:
e dP = -141 1.17 = -.345
E I = 3.59 34.4 = .258
478
e A = 427 .241 = .215 and
478
c Hi = 31.5 3.39 = .223
478
The elasticities define the sensitivity of SFM water demand to the
respective independent variables. Defining a value of one as moderate
sensitivity, the calculated elasticities should be relatively insensi-
tive to the independent variable.
The implied elasticities for marginal price and income are consis-
tent with literature values and in agreement with the COE Institute for
Water Resources Report (1984). Literature values do not exist for lot
size and household size.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR CONSERVATION MEASURES IN PLACE
The model is intended to forecast unrestrained water demand, that
is, in the absence of water conservation measures. Three principal pro-
grams were in effect over the period 1974 through 1982 (table 57). The
model has been implicitly adjusted to remove the effects of the manda-
tory 3 hour-3 day watering restrictions by omitting the year 1977 from
the data base. Although effects of this program may have carried over
to later years, 1977 was the only year omitted.
Appendix 2
155
Table 57
Conservation Programs
Mandatory
3-hr/3-day 3-day Voluntary
Watering Watering Evapotranspiration
Year Restriction Restrictions Program
1974
1975
1976
1977 X
1978 X
1979 X
1980 X
1981 X X
1982 X X
The effects of the voluntary 3-day watering restrictions and the
evapotranspiration (ET) program have been estimated by the DWD. Their
analysis showed that the voluntary three day watering restrictions
reduced peak demands, but did not affect average annual demand. There-
fore, no adjustment to the model was necessary for this program. Analy-
sis of the ET program in 1981 showed that, at most, the program reduced
average annual demand by twelve percent. Assuming the same effective-
ness in 1982, the greatest influence this might result in is an under-
prediction of three percent. This is because the use factors are based
on eight years of data, only two of which were affected by the ET pro-
gram. Considering the uncertainties and size of this influence, it was
decided that an adjustment was not necessary.
LIMITATIONS
The developed model is reliable and accurate in forecasting water
demand for the SEIS demand area. However, several limitations should be
noted:
. The accuracy of the forecasting is dependent upon the accuracy
of the input data.
Appendix 2
156
^ . Model application to historical data indicate that forecasts for
individual water districts may err by 23.5 percent on average. District
managers should consider their special circumstances for planning pur-
poses.
. The values used in the model are based on current conditions and
should be reevaluated should significant changes occur. For example,
long term changes in marginal price or the occurrence of more water sav-
ing devices in households (natural retrofit) would require adjustments
in the model.
Appendix 2
157
CHAPTER 6
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS
FOR THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
CHAPTER 6
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS
FOR THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
INTRODUCTION
Projections of population, employment and households are required
for each water supplier in order to develop the EIS water demand fore-
casts. Projections were generated for 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2035. These
projections are the focus of this chapter.
Forecasts developed by DRCOG are applied for 1990 and 2000.
Because of the inherent uncertainties associated with long term economic
and demographic forecasts, three alternative projections were developed
for 2010 and 2035: Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3. This presentation
Appendix 2
158
discusses the basis of the projections through 2000 and the three
alternative series for 2000 through 2035. Figure 10 illustrates past
and projected population trends according to these three series.
DRCOG played an important role in the development of the economic
and demographic projections by water supplier which drive the water
demand model. DRCOG is the regional planning agency for the Denver
metropolitan area which prepares forecasts utilized by Federal agencies
including U.S. Department of Transportation, E.P.A. and R.U.D. Local
governments and private industry also rely on DRCOG. DRCOG prepares
forecasts for the Denver metropolitan area as defined by Adams,
Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties. (The EIS
demand area, however, includes all of Denver County but excludes
portions of the other counties.)
DRCOG prepared forecasts of population, employment and households
for the Denver metropolitan area for the year 2000. These projections
have been adopted by DRCOG as their "policy forecasts" which have been
generally recognized as the appropriate forecasts for use in metro-
politan-wide planning activities. DRCOG also developed forecasts for
1990. The EIS project team thoroughly reviewed the DRCOG policy
forecasts and they were accepted as appropriate for purposes of the EIS.
This evaluation of the DRCOG forecasts for 1980 to 2000 is summarized in
this chapter.
The three alternative projection series for the period beyond 2000
were developed with the assistance of DRCOG, but do not represent DRCOG
policy forecasts. As is the nature of any long-term forecasts, the
relative accuracy associated with each projection declines the greater
the time frame. The premise for the development of each of these
Appendix 2
159
CO,
W M O4 M
M _ O
W •
Vf
O
_ M
O
_ N
O
N
O
_ 4-4
O
04
O
O
O
Q
W
C
Q
2
ra
J O
O _ o+
C. O1
O .r
H
La ICI
O $
.+ O
C N
W W O C
>O _ CO
C W l- C't- W
0
r-- C O ' t
W M
W Ct
I-
f
C
O O
n
O ti
H
I-
Q
J
O
C.
O
C. O
C,
O
a
O
v
a
N
C =
la O M
JO VI 1 1 I 1
H W O O O O
Appendix 2
projection series was the assumption that the Denver metropolitan area
would gradually lose its historic competitive advantage over the nation
as a whole. As a result, annual in-migration to the metropolitan area
would decline. The three projection series are differentiated by the
rate of decline assumed for in-migration for the years beyond 2000.
The following discussion presents the Denver metropolitan area
forecasts and the projections by water supplier. The methodologies
applied in developing the forecasts are then detailed. The final sec-
tion is a summary of the evaluation conducted for each component of the
forecasts.
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS
FOR THE EIS DEMAND AREA
DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA FORECASTS
Historical population growth in the Denver metropolitan area
(Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties) from
1930 to 1980 with forecasts through 2035 is illustrated in Figure 10.
Population is forecast by DRCOG to increase from 1.6 million residents
in 1980 to 2.5 million residents in the year 2000. Series 1 forecasts
population in 2035 to increase to 3.5 million while Series 3 projections
show population reaching 3.9 million by 2035. These forecasts are
exhibited in table 58.
The DRCOG population forecasts are largely based upon employment
projections. As shown in table 59, employment is forecast to increase
Appendix 2
161
Table 58
Population Forecasts for the
Denver Metropolitan Area 1980-20351/
Year Source Series 1 Series 2 Series 3
1950 Census 615,600 615,600 615,600
1960 Census 934,200 934,200 934,200
1970 Census 1,238,300 1 ,238,300 1,238,300
1980 Census 1,618,500 1,618,500 1,618,500
1990 DRCOG Policy 2,019,600 2,019,600 2,109,600
2000 DRCOG Policy 2,513,000 2,513,000 2,513,000
2010 Series Forecasts 2,948,000 2,963,700 2,979,400
2020 Series Forecasts 3,265,500 3,332,300 3,399,100
2030 Series Forecasts 3,444,300 3,600,800 3,757,500
2035 Series Forecasts 3,471 ,200 3,687,800 3,904,700
1/ The Denver metropolitan area encompasses the Counties of Adams,
Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson. This is a larger
area than the EIS demand area.
Source: DRCOG, Series 1 , 2 and 3 population proejctions; Denver Regional
Council of Governments, "Task 2.1 Report, Population and Employment
Projections," Regional Water Study, February 28, 1983; U.S. Bureau
of the Census, selected years.
r-
Appendix 2
162
Table 59
Employment Forecasts for the
Denver Metropolitan Area 1980-2035
Year Source Series 1 Series 2 Series 3
1950?/ Census 235,500 235,500 235,500 _
1960?/ Census 354,700 354,700 354,700
1970 Census 542,800 542,800 542,800
1980 Census 869,500 869,500 869,500
1990 DRC0G Policy 1 ,208,600 1,208,600 1,208,600
2000 DRC0G Policy 1 ,525,000 1,525,000 1 ,525,000
2010 Series Forecasts 1,666,600 1 ,677,300 1 ,688,100
2020 Series Forecasts 1,750,500 1 ,794,400 1 ,838,500
2030 Series Forecasts 1,752,300 1 ,852,800 1 ,953,400
2035 Series Forecasts 1,752,300 1,877,000 2,014,700
1/ The 1950 and 1960 employment data are not exactly comparable with
later data.
Source: DRC0G, Series 1, 2 and 3 population projections; Denver Regional
Council of Governments, "Task 2.1 Report, Population and Employment
Projections," Regional Water Study, February 28, 1983; U.S. Bureau
of the Census, selected years.
Appendix 2
163
from 869,500 jobs in 1980 to 1,524,700 jobs in 2000. Series 1 forecasts
show employment to stabilize at 1,752,300 in 2030. Employment under the
Series 3 forecasts exceeds 2.0 million by 2035.
Projections of number of households are derived from population
projections. Households in the Denver metropolitan area increase from
608,400 in 1980 to 1,074,300 by 2000. Forecasts for 2035 range from
1,496,200 for Series 1 to 1 ,683,100 for Series 3. These projections are
set forth in table 60.
Population, employment and households projections exhibit declining
growth rates from 1980 to 2035. This is consistent with a gradual loss
of regional competitive advantage and convergence of Denver metropolitan
area growth rates with those for the nation. As demonstrated in table
61, absolute population growth for 1980 to 2000 is expected to increase
from 1970 levels. After 2000, growth steadily declines for each
forecast series.
Employment growth is projected to remain between 316,100 and
339,100 per decade until 2000. As shown in table 62, employment growth
is forecast to markedly slow after that point in time. The annual
employment growth rates exceed the population growth rates for 1980 to
2000 because of aging of the population into the prime working years.
After 2000, the growth rates decline below population growth rates
because of movement of the population into retirement years.
The projected growth of number of households given in table 63
parallels the population forecasts. Growth rates for the 1980 to 2000
period are higher than the population growth rates as average household
sizes continue to decrease. With the stabilization in household size
projected after 2010, growth in the number of households mirrors pro-
jected population growth.
Appendix 2
164
Table 60
Households Forecasts for the
Denver Metropolitan Area 1980-2035
Year Source Series 1 Series 2 AttLtEJ.
1950 Census 187,200 187,200 187,200
1960 Census 287,900 287,900 287,900
1970 Census 394,700 394,700 394,700
1980 Census 608,400 608,400 608,400
1990 DRCOG Policy 841,800 841 ,800 841,800
2000 DRCOG Policy 1,074,300 1,074,300 1 ,074,300
2010 Series Forecasts 1,270,700 1 ,277,500 1,284,200
2020 Series Forecasts 1 ,407,500 1,436,300 1 ,465,100
2030 Series Forecasts 1 ,484,600 1,552,100 1 ,619,600
2035 Series Forecasts 1,496,200 1,589,600 1 ,683,100
Source: DRCOG, Series 1 , 2 and 3 population proejctions; Denver Regional
Council of Governments, "Task 2.1 Report, Population and Employment
Projections," Regional Water Study, February 28, 1983; U.S. Bureau
of the Census, selected years.
Appendix 2
165
Table 61
Population Growth Forecasts
for the Denver Metropolitan Area, 1980-2035
Average Annual
Absolute Growth Growth Rate
All Series All Series
1950-1960 318,600 4.3%
1960-1970 304,100 2.9
1970-1980 380,200 2.7
1980-1990 401,100 2.2
1990-2000 493,400 2.2
Series 1 Series 2 Itata_2 Series 1 Series 2 §tri. 3
2000-2010 435,000 450,700 466,400 1.6% 1.7% 1.7%
2010-2020 317,500 368,600 419,700 1.0 1 .2 1 .3
2020-2030 178,800 268,500 358,400 0.5 0.8 1.0
2030-2035 26,900 87,000 1 ,472,200 0.2 0.5 0.8
Source: DRCOG, Series 1 , 2 and 3 population proejctions; Denver Regional
Council of Governments, "Task 2.1 Report, Population and Employment
Projections," Regional Water Study, February 28, 1983; U.S. Bureau
of the Census, selected years.
Appendix 2
166
Table 62
Employment Growth Forecasts
for the Denver Metropolitan Area, 1980-2035
Average Annual
Absolute Growth Growth Rate
All Series All Series
1950-1960 119,200 4.2%
1960-1970 141,500 3.4
1970-1980 326,700 4.8
1980-1990 339,100 3.3
1990-2000 316,100 2.3
Series 1 Series 2 AtElla_a Series 1 Series 2 Series
2000-2010 141 ,600 152,300 163,100 0.9% 1.0% 1 .0%
2010-2020 83,900 117,100 150,400 0.5 0.7 0.9
2020-2030 1,800 58,400 114,900 0.0 0.3 0.6
2030-2035 0 24,200 61 ,300 0.0 0.3 0.6
Source: DRCOG, Series 1, 2 and 3 population proejctions; Denver Regional
Council of Governments, "Task 2.1 Report, Population and Employment
Projections," Regional Water Study, February 28, 1983; U.S. Bureau
of the Census, selected years.
Appendix 2
167
Table 63
Households Growth Forecasts
for the Denver Metropolitan Area, 1980-2035
Average Annual
Absolute Growth Growth Rate
All Series All Series
1950-1960 100,700 4.4%
1960-1970 106,800 3.2
1970-1980 213,700 4.4
1980-1990 235,400 3.6
1990-2000 232,500 2.5
Series 1 Series 2 IgAts_a Series 1 Series 2 Series
"' 2000-2010 196,400 203,200 209,900 1.7% 1.7% 1.8%
2010-2020 136,800 158,800 180,900 1.0 1.1 1 .3
2020-2030 77,100 115,800 154,500 0.5 0.8 1 .0
2030-2035 11 ,600 37,500 63,500 0.2 0.5 0.8
Source: DRCOG, Series 1 , 2 and 3 population proejctions; Denver Regional
Council of Governments, "Task 2.1 Report, Population and Employment
Projections," Regional Water Study, February 28, 1983; U.S. Bureau
of the Census, selected years.
Appendix 2
168
Based upon the forecasts for the six county area, DRCOG projected
population, households and employment (by place of work) for EIS demand
area water suppliers. DRCOG forecasts for 1980 and 2000 are presented
in tables 64 and 65 respectively. The three series of population,
households and employment forecasts were developed for each water sup-
plier for 2010 and 2035. Series 1, 2 and 3 projections for 2010 are
shown in tables 66, 67 and 68, respectively. Alternative projections
for 2035 are presented in tables 69, 70 and 71. In sum, tables 64
through 71 present the population, households and employment forecasts
which form the basis of the EIS water demand forecasts.
DESCRIPTION OF THE FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
DRCOG FORECASTS FOR 1980-2000
The regional forecasting techniques which produced population,
household and employment forecasts for the six county Denver metro-
politan area through 2000 are described in a June 1982 DRCOG publication
entitled Employment and Population Policy Forecasts for the Denver
Region--1980-2000. The forecasting methodology employed by DRCOG relied
upon the integration of employment forecasts (labor demand) with popula-
tion forecasts (labor supply). Underlying this methodology was the
assumption that labor demand will call forth its own supply through
inter-regional migration (DRCOG, 1982). This methodology was fully
evaluated and is further discussed in this chapter.
Appendix 2
169
Table 64
Population, Households and Employment
by Water Supplier Districts in the
EIS Demand Area, 1980
Employment
By Place
Name of Supplier Population Households of Work
Arapahoe W&S 140 50 910
Arvada 88,630 29,440 18,220
Aurora 141,090 52,220 39,400
Beverly Hills MWA 70 20 0
Brighton 13,190 4,340 4,610
Brook Forest WD 490 170 20
Broomfield 21,230 7,030 7,550
Castle Pines MD 1/ 1/ 0
Castle Rock 4,120 1,420 2,240
Chaparral W&S 0 0 0
Charlou Park WD 360 100 0
Consolidated Mutual 61,250 23,730 27,560
Cottonwood W&S 270 80 90
Crestview W&S 15,310 5,560 6, 110
Denver SE Sub. W&S 2,700 790 360
Denver Water Department Service
Area 792,130 313,870 551 ,360
Dolly-O-Denver W&S 0 0 0
Eastlake W&S 130 50 0
East Cherry Creek Valley W&S 2,270 740 80
East Valley W&S 110 30 0
Englewood 31 ,400 13,230 24,240
Erie 1,250 440 190
Evergreen MD 10,520 3,190 4,030
Florence Gardens WD 50 20 50
Forest Hills MD 230 80 0
Genesse W&S 560 230 20
Glendale 2,950 2,020 6,470
Golden 16,820 6,500 7,630
Greenwood Plaza WD 0 0 2,080
Hazeltine Heights W&S 160 50 0
Hi-Land Acres WA 300 100 0
Holly Mutual WD 80 20 0
Idledale WD 120 50 10
Inverness W&S 0 0 6,060
Lafayette 9,050 3,460 1,300
Lincoln Park West MD 0 0 0
Louisville 5,810 2,250 7,710
Louviers MS Co. 370 110 170
' Maple Grove WA 50 10 0
Mission Viejo (Highlands Ranch) 100 30 40
Morrison 650 200 220
�., Mt. Carbon W&S 0 0 0
North Table Mountain W&S 5,800 2,000 2,770
Northglenn 29,880 9,540 6,040
Orchard Hills WD 170 50 0
Parker W&S 570 170 590
Appendix 2
170
Table 64 (Continued)
Employment
By Place
Name of Supplier Population Households of Work
Roxborough Park MD 170 50 0
Sedalia WD 160 50 240
Silver Heights W&S 270 90 0
South Adams County W&S 25,260 8,280 11,580
Stonegate MD - 0 0 0
Thornton 53,090 17,770 10,760
Thunderbird W&S 310 100 0
View Ridge WA 210 70 0
Weisner Estates WS 80 30 0
Westminster 63,860 22,150 16,740
Willows WD 11,860 3,460 930
Water Supplier Totals 1,415,350 535,430 768,380
Adams County 2,020 670 1 ,730
Arapahoe County 3,290 1 ,020 800
Boulder County 780 240 770
Douglas County 9,380 2,900 1,810
Jefferson County 5,360 2,080 9,940
Balance of Study
Area Totals 2/ 20,830 6,910 15,050
Total EIS Demand Area 1 ,436,180 542,340 783,430
1/ Less than 10.
Z/ Hillcrest is a mobile home park, and Hilltop is a nine-home single family
development. Water demand for these suppliers is accounted for on an
individual household basis with other self-supplied consumers.
Note: The following abbreviations are used in this table: WO = water and
sanitation; MWA = mutual water association; WD = water district; MD
= metropolitan district; WA = water association.
Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver Water Department,
1983.
Appendix 2
171
Table 65
Year 2000 Population, Households and Employment
by Water Supplier in the
EIS Demand Area
Employment
By Place
Name of Supplier Population Households of Work
Arapahoe W&S 7,950 3,340 26,360
Arvada 123,770 46,050 29,340
Aurora 280,460 116,040 100,450
Beverly Hills MWA 70 20 0
Brighton 32,050 11 ,810 12,340
Brook Forest WD 490 190 20
Broomfield 45,100 16,730 32, 100
Castle Pines MD 4,000 1 ,490 600
Castle Rock 36,400 14,050 13,500
Charlou Park WD 430 130 0
Chaparral W&S 2,390 900 0
Consolidated Mutual WC (-MG) 20,960 8,350 11,180
Consolidated Mutual WC (-DWD) 55,910 23,250 24,680
Cottonwood W&S 12,080 4,010 13,020
Crestview W&S 26,400 10,740 8,040
Denver SE Sub. W&S 13,000 4,260 1,400
Denver Water Department 949,860 417,210 834,060
Dolly-O-Denver W&S 200 70 0
Eastlake W&S 130 50 0
East Cherry Creek Valley W&S 42,840 17,450 1 ,460
East Valley WAS 340 100 0
Englewood 37,590 18,790 29,320
Erie 2,730 1, 120 340
Evergreen MD 17,580 5,870 5,950
Florence Gardens WD 430 180 340
Forest Hills MD 230 80 0
Genesse W&S 1 ,900 830 800
Glendale 4,400 2,890 27,000
Golden 24,410 10,000 20,630
Greenwood Plaza WD 0 0 4,500
Hazeltine Heights W&S 180 60 0
Hi-Land Acres WA 330 120 0
Holly Mutual WD 150 40 0
. Idledale WD 190 80 20
Inverness W&S 0 0 18,270
Lafayette 21,400 9,160 3,700
Lincoln Park West MD 0 0 15,100
Louisville 17,300 7,080 23,300
Louviers MS Co. 600 200 400
Maple Grove WA - 50 10 0
Mission Viejo (Highlands Ranch) 53,600 18,010 20,600
Morrison 1,000 340 1 ,020
Mt. Carbon W&S 750 250 2,500
North Table Mountain W&S 8,310 3,210 5,410
Northglenn 31,300 11 ,250 8,500
Orchard Hills WD 240 80 0
Parker W&S 9,400 3,140 4,700
Appendix 2
172
Table 65 (Continued)
Employment
By Place
Name of Supplier Population Households of Work
Roxborough Park MD 4,500 1,480 100
Sedalia WD 600 210 0
Silver Heights WAS 270 90 0
South Adams County WAS 41,030 15,060 15,430
Stonegate MD 5,490 2,390 6,530 _
Thornton 97,640 36,540 17,720
Thunderbird WAS 310 100 0
View Ridge WA 210 70 0
Weisner Estates WS 100 40 0
Westminster 109,150 42,400 24,720
Willows WD 15.110 4,940 10,570
Water Supplier Totals 2,163,310 892,350 1 ,376,420
Adams County 5,400 2,010 2,400
Arapahoe County 8,870 3,070 1,250
Boulder County 780 270 770
Douglas County 22,530 7,800 2,750
Jefferson County 8.060 3,320 12,280
Balance of Study
Area Totals 11 45,640 16,470 19,450
Total SETS Demand Area 2,208,950 908,820 1 ,395,870
11 Hillcrest is a mobile home park, and Hilltop is a nine-home single family
development. Water demand for these suppliers is accounted for on an
individual household basis with other self-supplied consumers.
Note: The following abbreviations are used in this table: WAS = water and
sanitation; MWA = mutual water association; WD = water district; MD
= metropolitan district; WA = water association.
Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments and Denver Water Department,
1983.
Appendix 2
173
^ Table 66
Population, Households and Employment
by Water Supplier in the EIS Demand Area,
2010, Series 1 Projections
Employment
by Place
Water Supplier Population Households' of Work
Arapahoe 7,950 3,490 31,858
Arvada 139,738 55,895 31,742
Aurora 343,209 150,108 113,638
Beverly Hills 70 20 0
Brighton 41,430 16,150 14,010
Brook Forest 490 200 20
Broomfield 53,067 21,227 37,403
Castle Pines 5,485 2,180 730
Castle Rock 51,016 20,947 15,932
Chaparral 2,390 940 0
Charlou Park 430 140 0
Consolidated 75,689 32,970 37,653
Cottonwood 11,870 4,110 15,813
Crestview 26,194 11,210 8,457
Denver SE Sub 17,201 5,993 1,625
DWD 1,054,335 483,640 883,620
Dolly-0-Denver 265 100 0
Eastlake 130 50 0
E. Cherry Creek 50,000 21,530 1,758
East Valley 340 100 0
Englewood 41,556 19,328 30,417
Erie 3,126 1,421 372
Evergreen 20,627 7,369 6,365
Florence Gardens 607 262 403
Forest Hills 230 80 0
�.., Genesee 2,493 1,140 968
Glendale 5,025 3,442 31,435
Golden 27,662 12,087 23,438
Greenwood Plaza 0 0 5,023
Hazeltine Heights 180 60 0
Hi-Land Acres 330 130 0
Holly Mutual. 150 40 0
Idledale 230 90 22
Inverness 0 0 20,908
Lafayette 25,332 11,600 4,218
Lincoln Park 0 0 18,362
Louisville 22,896 9,557 26,668
Louviers 598 210 450
Maple Grove 50 10 0
Mission Viejo
(Highlands Ranch) 74,815 26,600 25,041
Morrison 1,175 427 1,193
Mt. Carbon 936 370 3,040
W. Table Mtn. 9,655 3,919 5,980
Worthglenn 29,350 11,740 9,031
Orchard Hills 240 80 0
Parker 12,293 4,286 5,588
Rozborough Park 6,009 2,168 122
Sedalia 784 292 435
Silver Heights 270 90 0
S. Adams Co. 47,105 18,842 16,262
Stonegate 7,000 3,200 7,941
Thornton 122,625 49,050 19,223
Thunderbird 310 100 0
View Ridge 210 70 0
Weisner Estates 100 40 0
Westminster 128,785 52,841 26,444
Willows 15,110 5,150 12,652
Adams Co. 20,727 7,972 3,816
Arapahoe Co. 18,481 7,108 2,666
Boulder Co. 772 297 770
Douglas Co. 43,027 15,936 4,166
Jefferson Co. 9.150 3.850 12.785
Total 2,581,320 1,112,254 1,520,463
Appendix 2
174
Table 67
Population, Households and Employment
by Water Supplier in the EIS Demand Area,
2010, Series 2 Projections
Employment
by Place
Water Supplier Population Households of Work
Arapahoe 7,950 3,490 32,273
Arvada 140,417 56,167 31,924
Aurora 345,507 151,113 114,634
Beverly Hills 70 20 0
Brighton 41,430 16,150 14,136
Brook Forest 490 200 20
Broomfield 53,067 21,227 37,804
Castle Pines 54,85 2,180 739
Castle Rook 51,016 20,947 16,116
Chaparral 2,390 940 0
Charlou Park 430 140 0
Consolidated 75,689 32,970 37,788
Cottonwood 11,870 4,110 16,024
Crestview 26,194 11,210 8,488
Denver SE Sub 17,355 6,046 1,642
DWD 1,054,335 483,640 887,365
Dolly-O-Denver 268 101 0
Eastlake 130 50 0
E. Cherry Creek 50,000 21,530 1,781
East Valley 340 100 0
Englewood 41,691 19,391 30,500
Erie 3,148 1,431 375
Evergreen 20,747 7,412 6,396
Florence Gardens 613 264 407
Forest Hills 230 80 0 ---
Genesee 2,513 1,149 981
Glendale 5,046 3,456 31,770
Golden 27,794 12,144 23,650
Greenwood Plaza 0 0 5,062
Hazeltine Heights 180 60 0
Hi-Land Acres 330 130 0
Holly Mutual 150 40 0
Idledale 230 90 22
Inverness 0 0 21,107
Lafayette 25,332 11,600 4,258
Lincoln Park 0 0 18,608
Louisville 23,076 9,632 26,922
Louviers 598 210 453
Maple Grove 50 10 0
Mission Viejo
(Highlands Ranch) 74,815 26,600 25,377
Morrison 1,182 430 1,206
Mt. Carbon 945 373 3,081
M. Table Mtn. 9,703 3,939 6,023
Northglenn 29,350 11,740 9,072
Orchard Hills 240 80 0
Parker 12,293 4,286 5,655
Rozborough Park 6,070 2,190 123
Sedalia 791 294 437
Silver Heights 270 90 0
S. Adams Co. 47,376 18,951 16,325
Stonegate 7,000 3,200 8,047
Thornton 122,625 49,050 19,337
Thunderbird 310 100 0
View Ridge 210 70 0
Weisner Estates 100 40 0
Westminster 128,785 52,841 26,574
Willows 15,110 5,150 12,810
Adams Co. 21,258 8,176 3,923
Arapahoe Co. 24,118 9,276 2,773
Boulder Co. 773 297 770
Douglas Co. 42,141 16,208 4,273
Jefferson Co. 9,150 3.850 12.824
Total 2,590,776 1,116,661 1,529,875
Appendix 2
175
Table 68
Population, Households and Employment
by Water Supplier in the EIS Demand Area,
2010, Series 3 Projections
Employment
by Place
Water Supplier Population Households of Mork
Arapahoe 7,350 3,490 32,692
Arvada 141,086 56,434 32,107
Aurora 347,772 152,103 115,640
Beverly Hills 70 20 0
Brighton 41,430 16,150 14,263 _
Brock Forest 490 200 20
Broomfield 53,067 21,227 38,208
Castle Pines 5,485 2,180 749
Castle Rock 51,016 20,947 16,302
Chaparral 2,390 940 0
Charlou Park 430 140 0
Consolidated 75,689 32,970 37,925
Cottonwood 11,870 4,110 16,237
Crestview 26,194 11,210 8,520
Denver SE Sub 17,506 6,099 1,659
DWD 1,054,335 483,640 891,145
Dolly-O-Denver 271 102 0
Eastlake 130 50 0
E. Cherry Creek 50,000 21,530 1,803
East Valley 340 100 0
Englewood 41,823 19,453 30,584
Erie 3,170 1,441 377
---- Evergreen 20,865 7,455 6,428
Florence Gardens 619 267 412
Forest Hills 230 80 0
Genoese 2,533 1,158 994
Glendale 5,067 3,471 32,108
Golden 27,923 12,201 23,865
Greenwood Plaza 0 0 5,102
Hazeltine Heights 180 60 0
Hi-Land Acres 330 130 0
Holly Mutual 150 40 0
Idledale 230 90 22
Inverness 0 0 21,308 '
Lafayette 25,332 11,600 4,297
Lincoln Park 0 0 18,857
Louisville 23,253 9,706 27,179
Louviers 598 210 457
Maple Grove 50 10 0
Mission Viejo
(Highlands Ranch) 74,815 26,600 25,716
Morrison 1,188 432 1,219
Mt. Carbon 955 377 3,122
M. Table Mtn. 9,751 3,958 6,067
Northglenn 29,350 11,740 9,112
' Orchard Hills 240 80 0
Parker 12,293 4,286 5,723
Rozborough Park 6,129 2,211 125
Sedalia 797 297 440
Silver Heights 270 90 0
S. Adams Co. 47,644 19,057 16,388
Stonegate 7,000 3,200 8,155
Thornton 122,625 49,050 19,452
Thunderbird 310 100 0
View Ridge 210 70 0
Weisner Estates 100 40 0
Westminster 128,785 52,841 26,706
Willows 15,110 5,150 12,969
Adams Co. 21,780 8,377 4,031
Arapahoe Co. 24,640 9,477 2,881
Boulder Co. 775 298 770
Douglas Co. 42,838 16,476 4,381
Jefferson Co. 9.150 3.850 12.862
Total 2,596,629 1,119,071 1,539,379
176
Table 69
Population, Households and Employment
by Water Supplier in the EIS Demand Area,
2035, Series 1 Projections
Employment
by Place
Water Supplier Population Households of Work
Arapahoe 7,950 3,490 35,185
Arvada 162,256 64,902 33,196
Aurora 419,413 183,437 121,620
Beverly Hills 70 20 0
Brighton 54,786 21,915 15,020 Brook Forest 490 200 20 -
Broomfield 65,688 26,275 40,613
Castle Pines 5,485 2,180 808
Castle Rook 74,427 30,559 17,404
Chaparral 2,390 940 0
Charlou Park 430 140 0
Consolidated 75,689 32,970 38,738
Cottonwood 11,870 4,110 17,504
Crestview 26,194 11,210 8,709
Denver SE Sub 19,030 6,630 1,761
DWD 1,107,155 513,640 909,330
Dolly-0-Denver 320 120 0
Eastlake 130 50 0
B. Cherry Creek 55,039 23,700 1,939
East Valley 340 100 0
Englewood 41,220 19,490 31,082
Erie 3,802 1,755 392
Evergreen 23,491 8,393 6,616
Florence Gardens 650 280 441
Forest Hills 230 80 0
Genoese 3,170 1,450 1,070
Glendale 5,250 3,640 34,119
Golden 28,860 12,610 25,138
Greenwood Plaza 0 0 5,339
Hazeltine Heights 180 60 0
Hi-Land Acres 330 130 0
Holly Mutual 150 40 0
Idledale 230 90 23
Inverness 0 0 22,504
Lafayette 31,780 14,552 4,532
Linooln Park 0 0 20,336
Louisville 28,857 12,045 28,706
Louviers 598 210 480
Maple Grove 50 10 0
Mission Viejo
(Highlands Ranoh) 84,096 29,900 27,729
Morrison 1,210 440 1,297
Mt. Carbon 1,190 470 3,367
N. Table Mtn. 11,264 4,573 6,325
Northglenn 29,350 11,740 9,353
Orchard Hills 240 80 0
Parker 12,293 4,286 6,125
Rozborough Park 7,040 2,540 135
Sedalia 860 320 455
Silver Heights 270 90 0
S. Adams Co. 49,000 19,600 16,765
Stonegate 7,000 3,200 8,794
Thornton 159,579 63,832 20,133
Thunderbird 310 100 0
View Ridge 210 70 0
Weisner Estates 100 40 0
Westminster 154,843 63,533 27,487
Willows 15,110 5,150 13,913
Adams Co. 58,205 23,757 5,530
Arapahoe Co. 50,484 20,638 4,380
Boulder Co. 822 316 770
Douglas Co. 89,320 35,728 5,880
Jefferson Co. 9,506 4,000 13,091
Total 3,000,302 177 1,295,826 1,594,154
Table 70
Population, Households and Employment
by Water Supplier in the EIS Demand Area,
2035, Series 2 Projections
Employment
by Place
Water Supplier Population Households of Work
Arapahoe 7,950 3,490 40,027
Arvada 171,583 68,633 35,311
Aurora 450,976 197,241 133,234
Beverly Hills 70 20 0
Brighton 60,321 24,128 16,491
Brook Forest 490 200 20
Broomfield 70,521 28,208 45,283
Castle Pines 5,485 2,180 922
Castle Rock 83,418 34,251 19,547
Chaparral 2,390 940 0
Charlou Park 430 140 0
Consolidated 75,689 32,970 40,317
Cottonwood 11,870 4,110 19,963
Crestview 26,194 11,210 9,076
Denver SE Sub 19,030 6,630 1,958
DWD 1,107,155 513,640 947,275
Dolly-0-Denver 320 120 0
Eastlake 130 50 0
E. Cherry Creek 55,039 23,700 2,201
East Valley 340 100 0
Englewood 41,220 19,490 32,048
Erie 4,102 1,893 421
Evergreen 23,491 8,393 6,981
Florence Gardens 650 280 496
�-. Forest Hills 230 80 0
Genesee 3,451 1,578 1,219
Glendale 5,250 3,640 38,025
Golden 28,860 12,610 27,611
Greenwood Plaza 0 0 5,800
Hazeltine Heights 180 60 0
Hi-Land Acres 330 130 0
Holly Mutual 150 40 0
Idledale 230 90 ' 25
Inverness 0 0 24,827
Lafayette 34,256 15,686 4,989
Lincoln Park 0 0 23,209
Louisville 31,325 13,075 31,672
Louviers 598 210 524
Maple Grove 50 10 0
Mission Viejo 84,096 29,900 31,641
Morrison 1,210 440 1,450
Mt. Carbon 1,190 470 3,842
W. Table Mtn. 11,931 4,843 6,828
Horthglenn 29,350 11,740 9,821
Orchard Hills 240 80 0
Parker 12,293 4,286 6,907
Rozborough Park 7,040 2,540 154
Sedalia 860 320 486
Silver Heights 270 90 0
S. Adams Co. 49,000 19,600 17,497
Stonegate 7,000 3,200 10,037
Thornton 173,771 69,508 21,457
Thunderbird 310 100 0
View Ridge 210 70 0
Weisner Estates 100 40 0
Westminster 164,851 67,639 29,005
Billows 15,110 5,150 15,747 •
Adams Co. 81,203 33,144 7,917
Arapahoe Co. 83,898 34,244 6,767
Boulder Co. 843 324 770
Douglas Co. 114,350 48,880 8,267
Jefferson Co. 9.506 4,000 13,537
Total 3,172,406 1,369,834 1,701,602
178
Table 71
Population, Households and Employment
by Water Supplier in the EIS Demand Area,
2035, Series 3 Projections
Employment
by Place
Water Supplier Population Households of Work
Arapahoe 7,950 3,490 45,373
Arvada 180,920 72,368 37,647
Aurora 482,573 211,061 146,058
Beverly Hills 70 20 0
Brighton 65,868 26,347 18,115
Brook Forest 490 200 20 -
Broomfield 70,521 28,208 50,440
Castle Pines 5,485 2,180 1,048
Castle Rock 90,437 37,133 21,912
Chaparral 2,390 940 0
Charlou Park 430 140 0
Consolidated 75,689 32,970 42,061
Cottonwood 11,870 4,110 22,680
Crestview 26,194 11,210 9,482 .
Denver SE Sub 19,030 6,630 2,177
DWD 1,107,155 513,640 989,125
Dolly-0-Denver 320 120 0
Eastlake 130 50 0
E. Cherry Creek 55,039 23,700 2,491
East Valley 340 100 0
Englewood 41,220 19,490 33,115
Erie 4,402 2,032 452
Evergreen 23,491 8,393 7,384
Florence Gardena 650 280 557 "-...
Forest Hills 230 80 0
Genesee 3,630 1,660 1,383
Glendale 5,250 3,640 42,337
Golden 28,860 12,610 30,342
Greenwood Plaza 0 0 6,308
Hazeltine Heights 180 60 0
Hi-Land Acres 330 130 0
Holly Mutual 150 40 0
Idledale 230 90 27
Inverness 0 0 27,392
Lafayette 36,738 16,823 5,493
Lincoln Park 0 0 26,381
Louisville 33,797 14,107 34,94
Louviers 598 210 57
Maple Grove 50 10
Mission Viejo
(Highlands Ranch) 84,096 29,900 35,96
Morrison 1,210 440 1,61
Mt. Carbon 1,190 470 4,36
N. Table Mtn. 12,598 5,114 7,38
Northglenn 29,350 11,740 10,33
Orchard Hills 240 80
Parker 12,293 4,286 7,77
Rozborough Park 7,040 2,540 17
Sedalia 86o 320 52
Silver Heights 270 90
S. Adams Co. 49,000 19,600 18,30
Stonegate 7,000 3,200 11,40
Thornton 187,995 75,198 22,92
Thunderbird 310 100
View Ridge 210 70
Weisner Estates 100 40
Westminster 170,605 70,000 30,68
Willows 15,110 5,150 17,77 ---..
Adams Co. 98,708 40,289 10,56
Arapahoe Co. 101,403 41,389 9,41
Boulder Co. 864 332 77
Douglas Co. 152,446 66,578 10,91
Jefferson Co. 9.506 4.000 14.02
Total 3,325,111 179 1,435,198 1,820,225
r
EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS
Employment projections by sector for the Denver metropolitan area
were formulated by applying a top-down approach. National employment
forecasts formed the basis for State of Colorado forecasts, which in
turn formed the basis for Denver metropolitan area forecasts.
National employment forecasts were projected for economic sectors
by Chase Econometrics through a comprehensive series of 150 econometric
equations. The number of new jobs was defined or constrained by
national population growth and labor force participation rates. The
forecasts utilized were last updated in July 1981. The Chase
Econometric forecasts are well-respected and widely used throughout the
United States.
The Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel projected Colorado employment
based upon the Chase Econometric national forecasts. Colorado's share
of national employment in each sector was estimated from regression
models which relate past Colorado employment to historical U.S. employ-
ment for each sector. Employment for some Colorado sectors, such as
mining, are independently forecast based upon the knowledge of local
industries.
In the third stage, DRCOG used regression equations to relate
Denver employment to Colorado employment. The regression statistics
from this analysis are provided in table 72. This regression analysis
was based on 1970 to 1980 data and since the Denver metropolitan area
has accounted for such a large share of Colorado employment, the tech-
nique produced high correlation coefficients.
Taking Denver metropolitan area mining employment as an example,
the level of Colorado mining activity is one influence which explains
Appendix 2
180
0
O C
.-1 0 a CO •- N
0 M S 0 7 0 ' M 0^ in
a0 .o O 0` CO
0) 0 S 0 11110 40 .0 .0 1!1 %a N O U\ 0.
L 4. 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 • O 4- 0 ....
OD 4-4 0 0) I
.
cc o 0
O
O
N
1
O
0'
0.
0 C
0 O
v ,-1
120 i.) m Vp al aU)
al
1 C. a 4 C a N C 0
0 in Opp
) 4 .el a
0 +i C .0 C a
07 C Cs.
O
.2i
O i.) a'.1 a
i-0 N U 3 a1 0 4.3 ..
U yE B> g.
0p 0L O U U 0) 0 0 a /0 6 O .i C 0 0)
0 N C !0 0 el
0. L 60. C 4013 vOi Dal -.A 0 4 O. L CO MI 0.
W .0 "I 1 8 a) 7 00 > C a) .i 0 6 a7 7 >, 0 0
C .C C 0 C C C .0 Co al ,i ,C0 > 0 V a. O O) .i
a
0) 0 C >. 0 X � [r] b] F -.-I 3 C07 D 0 0 O. C e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .7 0 0 D 0
0 O O M -.1 >3 0
>. 'C V .i 'C V *Ord V 'C V V 'O 1 L V C
0 H Cd N ca td al a) 0 N Ia U of al al C. 00 >. al 0
el
L L 0 4 L C. a L L +l L 0 L L 0 C L C. .i
0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .i O V 0 0 > 1 RI0 .0
8 .i .i 'O Mel .i .i 'O el .i .0 .-I O .-1 .i C C .i .i a)
W 00C C -HO 0 OC 0 00 OF. 0 0 0 0 03 0 .i
Coed FU U OM U U0., 06. oon 2 V) 0 0
N8 0
t-- U D
a
0 0
.i U
a
Cd a° en
U M in 1011` N N S 0 N a.
0 L 10 .0 CV M N O N L[1 N
ri i01 I O N N m I a0..
4.3 G
.01 I-I N
a) 9
0 C
a) 4
V) al
O
vv) al a as
co
P 00' 0• T 00`. 00`. 01 n. Cr,
CO ON ON 0
d
L el
b0 el
0
a) 0
CC C
0
0 0
C U '0 .i
0 m v-i L CO
.l aa ' C C .0 F n-I
O
000iO .01 of °' ''11 a
CO
0 0 �" U U V +> 0
9 L
iL1 _I
C td a O 0
S B C m 00 0 0 C '0 C. 0
0 0 7 • 0 LC N .0 al aN 00 0 i.043 C 0
C
0 i0. a1 a) a -W 0 4 a .-I C CC)) yg,
O C m U 0 0 0) 0 M N g C 0
C 0 C al la 0 .i U Cu.i V) C 0 .i N
v L W CM M 0 .l 0 L 'O 0. U
+i N 7 0 0 > C a .i 41 .i 8 4 "�
C C C C a L ai 7 0 > m 0) 0
,i 0 O .l 0 L .C 0 0 C 0
E U E CU V) F 3 0 a D V)
Appendix 2
181
local area mining employment. These two variables together accounted
for 99.9 percent of the historical variation in Denver metropolitan area
miing employment. Colorado nonagricultural wage and salary employment
in part explains the level of mining employment in the Denver region as
an administrative center for the mining industry. DRCOG has developed
several alternative forecasts for each employment sector based upon
different Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel employment assumptions reflecting
Colorado's regional competitive advantage and oil shale development.
POPULATION FORECASTS
Population forecasts begin with a projection of labor supply based
upon natural population growth calculated by a cohort-survival model.
Migration in or out of the metropolitan area is related to the differ-
ence between labor supply and projected jobs:
. The base year population, in five year age groups, is multiplied
by the assumed death rates for each age group. Those deaths which would
occur during year are then subtracted from the initial population.
. The number of women of childbearing age (the 15-44 age groups)
is multiplied by a birth rate forecast for each age group to produce the
expected number of births during the time interval. These births are
then added to the surviving population to obtain the total population at
the end of the year. This new population becomes the base population
for the next time interval.
. The labor force available under the cohort-survival population
forecasts constitute the natural labor supply in the absence of migra-
tion.
Appendix 2
182
. Labor force demand is projected from the employment forecasts
described previously. Unemployed persons in the labor force are also
considered. The difference between labor demand and labor supply rep-
resents jobs to be filled by persons migrating into the region.
. Indicated migration into the region is calculated by adding
estimates of migrating workers and their nonworking family members and
other persons not in the labor force migrating into the region.
. The in-migrants are then added to the population base. Births
and deaths for this group are calculated in subsequent years. This pro-
cedure is reiterated for each year in the forecast period.
. A constraint on the DRCOG population forecasting approach is the
adjustment of net in-migration. DRCOG and an outside panel of economic
experts, the Economic Planning Task Force, concluded that the comparison
of labor demand to labor supply created an excessive level of future in-
migration resulting in excessive employment and population forecasts,
and a limitation or cap was established on in-migration population of
30,000 per year. The Economic Planning Task Force, which met several
times in early 1982, consisted of several knowledgeable individuals from
universities, banks, a private firm and state government.
HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS
Household forecasts for the Denver metropolitan area were based
upon the population forecasts by age and sex. The forecasts are
detailed in the July 1982 DRCOG publication entitled Household and
Household Size Forecasts for the Denver Region--1980-2000. Rates of
household formation were estimated for each age group for men and for
women. Household forecasts are then derived by multiplying household
formation rates by population in each age group. The household size
Appendix 2
183
estimates follow the same trend as the D.S. Census Bureau's Series D
projections. Population in group quarters such as dormitories, repre-
senting about two percent of the total population, are excluded from the
household size assumptions for both the national and local household
forecasts.
WATER SUPPLIER ALLOCATIONS
DRCOG allocated population, households and employment to each water
supplier in the EIS demand area. The initial step was the determination
of water supplier service area boundaries, primarily based upon the
information received from the DRCOG Regional Water Study questionnaire.
The latter survey, conducted by DRCOG in coordination with the EIS
research team, was completed in April 1983.
The 1980 and 2000 forecasts of population, households, and employ-
ment were developed through DRCOG's small area allocation procedures.
DRCOG utilized two small area measures to allocate the economic and
demographic variables: urban service areas and traffic analysis zones.
Urban service areas are defined as areas where residential or economic
development will take place and urban services such as water will be
provided. The urban service area boundaries are determined in conjunc-
tion with local governments and generally coincide with jurisdictional
boundaries. The allocation of Denver metropolitan area forecasts to
urban service area is accomplished through interaction with local pro-
jections. The smaller traffic analysis zones take into account road
transportation plans which reflect specific areas where future develop-
ment might occur.
The allocation process or splitting of these small areas between
water districts is based upon geographic distributions adjusted to
reflect concentrations of residential and employment activity. Aerial
Appendix 2
184
photographs and a knowledge of the area were applied in this refinement
process. Where projected water provider boundaries overlap or were
inconsistent, interviews were conducted with local officials and modi-
fications were made. The 1990 projections are a simple interpolation
between the 1980 and 2000 forecasts.
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY FOR 2000-2035 PROJECTIONS
BACKGROUND
In support of this study, DRCOG originally developed population,
households and employment forecasts for the Denver metropolitan area and
for water suppliers for 2010. Based upon the 2010 forecast, DRCOG then
generated three alternative population projections for 2035 assuming
different rates of decline in annual migration.
The original 2010 and 2035 forecasts were evaluated in light of
widely held views of the Denver metropolitan area's future growth pros-
pects. Eventual convergence of regional growth trends with national
growth trends is generally accepted by forecasters as the basis for
developing Colorado and Denver metropolitan area projections. DRCOG in
Employment/Population Policy Forecasts 1980-2000 states that growth in
manufacturing, a key basic sector, will approach that of the nation.
The Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel forecasts assume that by the late
1980's, both population and jobs growth in Colorado will slow. Accord-
ing to these studies, the future will bring a weakening in the Colorado
competitive advantage due to higher relative wages, rising land costs
and possibly deterioration of the quality of life. The U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) states that eventually state economies will' tend
over the long run to reduce disparities in growth rates. The BEA OBERS
forecasts for the Denver metropolitan area are based upon this premise.
Appendix 2
185
Examination of the original 2010 Denver metropolitan area forecasts
found that, by several measures, the 2000 to 2010 growth patterns did
not reflect the expected trends toward convergence with the nation. The
growth projections assumed net migration to the Denver Region of about
30,000 per year for 2000 to 2010. This is the same level as projected
for the 1990 to 2000 time period as part of the DRCOG Policy Forecasts.
The net migration of 30,000 per year was higher than average migration
for any decade since 1940. Anticipated migration appeared excessive in
light of the declining pool of persons in the U.S. most likely to
migrate (persons ages 20 to 34).
Unlike the year 2000 projections, the 2010 projections had not been
adopted by DRCOG as policy forecasts and were developed solely for the
purposes of the EIS and the DRCOG Regional Water Study. It was
determined that these projections did not follow the generally accepted
concept of convergence with national trends and that they should not be
applied in the EIS. Thus, the original projections beyond year 2000
were rejected for the EIS.
POPULATION FORECASTS
Modified projections for 2010 and 2035 were developed with the
assistance of DRCOG by altering one demographic assumption: the year at
which the migration decline commences. As in the previous forecasts,
DRCOG applied a cohort survival model to generate population projections
for males and females by age group. The forecasts applied projections
of fertility rates and mortality rates previously generated by DRCOG.
Modified projections for 2000 to 2035 were developed by DRCOG. The new
forecasts are:
. Series 1, net annual migration declining from 30,000 in 2000 to
0 by 2035. (Straightline interpolation assumed for interim years.)
r
Appendix 2
186
. Series 2, net annual migration declining from 30,000 in 2000 to
10,000 by 2035.
. Series 3, net annual migration declining from 30,000 in 2000 to
20,000 by 2035.
EMPLOYMENT AHD HOUSEHOLDS FORECASTS
Employment and households projections were developed from the
modified 2000 to 2035 population projections generated by DRCOG. The
approaches were designed to be consistent with the methods applied to
the forecasts through 2000.
Employment. Denver metropolitan area employment was forecast by
first projecting civilian labor force and then adjusting for military
employment, self-employment and unemployment. The U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics has projected labor force participation rates for men and
women for each age group for the United States which were applied to
generate civilian labor force for each series. The rates by cohort were
held constant; any differences in overall labor force participation
rates among forecasts over time result because of differing age
distributions. The civilian labor force was adjusted to approximate
total employment by applying the adjustment factors utilized by DRCOG
for 2000 as reported in DRCOG, Hnployment/Population Policy Forecasts
1980-2000.
Households. Household forecasts for the region were developed
utilizing the household size projections developed for 2010 by DRCOG,
Households and Household Size Forecasts for the Denver Region 1980-2000
and Task 2.1 Report: Population and Employment Projections. The DRCOG
forecast of 2.32 total persons per household is utilized for 2010.
Appendix 2
187
r
The DRCOG 2010 forecast of household size is also applied for 2035.
Although an aging population tends to reduce average household size and
increase the number of households, it is not evident that this trend
would continue from 2010 to 2035. No national projections of household
formation rates were identified for this period. For these reasons,
average household size for the region was assumed to remain stable from
2010 to 2035. -
WATER SUPPLIER FORECASTS
Year 2010 and 2035 population, households and employment forecasts
were developed for each water supplier area within the EIS demand area
for the Series 1, 2 and 3 projections. The water supply area projec-
tions were developed in light of the urban growth and development pro-
cesses at work in the Denver Region. In the next fifty years, develop-
able land will become more scarce in the central areas of the metropoli-
tan area. At some point in the future, growth in these areas will
result from redevelopment of existing lower density residential and
commercial districts. For example, DRCOG foresees very limited growth
beyond 2010 for Denver and Jefferson Counties.
Several suburban water supply areas are also expected to be fully
developed by the year 2000 or 2010. These water districts include
Eastlake, Orchard Hills and Weisner Estates. In some cases, buildout
has already occured. Beverly Hills, Forest Hills, Maple Grove, Silver
Heights, Thunderbird and View Ridge water districts are examples of
these areas.
Development potential for other parts of the Denver metropolitan
area are high, however. DRCOG estimates that the corridor from Cherry
Creek Reservoir to Franktown in Douglas County could develop into a
residential community of 700,000 persons. The area to the north and
Appendix 2
188
east of Thornton has a capacity of 260,000 residents (Henningson, Durham
and Richardson, Inc., 1984). The land around Brighton has similar
development potential. Aurora is also likely to continue to grow to the
east. Broomfield, Louisville and Lafayette are additional growth
centers.
It is expected that areas within the six county region but outside
the EIS demand area will capture a larger share of Denver metropolitan
area growth beyond the year 2000. Longmont and areas south of Castle
Rock are two such areas with high growth potential. The City of
Boulder, the largest population center outside the EIS demand area, has
a policy of limiting growth, however.
Methodology. DRCOG has developed population, households and
employment projections for each water supply area for 1980, 2000 and
2010. The 1980 and 2000 projections are adopted for use in the System-
wide EIS. These forecasts with the 2010 projections also form the basis
for the water supply area forecasts applied beyond 2000. Other key
inputs into the forecasting process are the projections reported by
individual water districts in the 1982 DRCOG Regional Water Study
Questionnaire. Preliminary results from the 1984 Denver Water Depart-
ment Land Use Survey are applied. Finally, DRCOG assisted in reviewing
the 2010 and 2035 projections.
Unconstrained and constrained household estimates were generated.
Unconstrained household growth represents household growth in the
absence of constraints such as land availability or local ability to
provide services. Unconstrained projections were calculated by assuming
each district captured the same share of regional 2000 to 2010 growth
and 2010 to 2035 growth as DRCOG projected for the 1980 to 2000 period.
Appendix 2
189
Based upon a review of the projections with DRCOG, the growth rates
were increased for the following water supply areas: Brighton, Castle
Pines, Castle Rock, Cottonwood, Parker, Thornton and the unincorporated
areas of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties.
Maximum household potentials were also generated for each water
supply area for 2010 and 2035. These estimates represent reasonable
development capacity for that point in time. DRCOG's original projec-
tions of households in 2010 formed one estimate of development capacity.
Projections reported in the DRCOG Regional Water Study questionnaire
were also examined. The lower of these two forecasts was assumed to be
the development potential in 2010.
Long term projections were available from the DRCOG questionnaire
for the following areas:
r
. Broomfield, Castle Pines, Castle Rock, Consolidated Mutual,
Crestview, Denver Water Department (from Land Use Survey) , East Cherry
Creek Valley, Englewood, Erie, Evergreen, Highlands Ranch, Lafayette,
Lincoln Park, Louviers, North Table Mountain, Northglenn, Parker,
Thornton (HDR report), and Westminster.
These forecasts were applied as the 2035 maximum household potentials.
For several other districts DRCOG has projected buildout in the
following districts. They include:
. Arapahoe, Beverly Hills, Brook Forest, Chaparral, Charlou Park,
Cottonwood, East Valley, Eastlake, Forest Hills, Hazeltine Heights, Hi-
Land Acres, Holly Mutual, Maple Grove, Orchard Hills, Silver Heights,
Thunderbird, View Ridge, Weisner Estates, and Willows.
i-. Appendix 2
190
The original DRCOG 2010 household forecasts were assumed to repre-
sent maximum 2035 development for the following districts:
. Denver Southeast Suburban, Glendale, Golden, Greenwood Plaza,
Mt. Carbon, North Table Mountain, Roxborough Park, and Sedalia.
Based upon available information and DRCOG review, the following
districts were forecast to grow at 1980-2000 rates without any cap:
. Arvada, Aurora, Brighton, Louisville, and South Adams County.
The population per household ratios developed by DRCOG for 2010
were utilized to calculate 2010 and 2035 population for each water sup-
ply area for Series 1, 2 and 3. Slight decreases in household sizes
were applied for water suppliers in the northern portions of the Denver
Region and for the areas outside any water district. These modifica-
tions were necessary to maintain the overall population to households
ratio of 2.32 in 2010 and 2035.
The 1980 to 2000 share of employment growth projected for each
water supply area by DRCOG was applied for the 2000 to 2010 and 2010 to
2035 time periods. Slight decreases in the DWD growth rate and
increases in the balance of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties growth
rates were the only modifications made.
Appendix 2
191
EVALUATION OF THE POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSEHOLDS FORECAST COMPONENTS
This section of the chapter examines each important underlying com-
ponent of the projections. Population, employment and households fore-
casts are discussed in turn.
POPULATION FORECASTS
Three key components of the 1980 to 2035 population projections are
examined in this section: net migration, fertility rates and mortality
rates. An overview of Denver's projected population growth relative to
the nation initiates the discussion. Projected age distributions for
the Denver metropolitan area are also presented.
OVERVIEW
Each of the three population projection series assume convergence
of the Denver metropolitan area growth trends with national trends.
Absolute population growth and population growth rates for the Denver
metropolitan area are forecast to decline from historic levels under
each projection series.
As shown in table 73, the Denver metropolitan area has been
steadily increasing in share of U.S. population.
Appendix 2
192
Table 73
Denver Metropolitan Area as a Share
of U.S. Population
Year Series 1 Series 2 Series
1950 0.41 0.41 0.41
1960 0.52 0.52 0.52
1970 0.61 0.61 0.61
1980 0.71 0.71 0.71
•
1990 0.81 0.81 0.81
2000 0.94 0.94 0.94
2010 1.04 1.05 1.05
2020 1.10 1.12 1.15
2030 1.13 1.18 1.23
2035 1.13 1.20 1.27
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Projections of the
Population of the U.S.: 1983-2050.
Under Series 1, the Denver metropolitan area's share stabilizes at 1.13 _
percent of the U.S. population. At this point, there would be an
approximate equilibrium of Denver's relative attractiveness relative to
the nation. Under the Series 2 projections, Denver metropolitan area's
share of U.S. population increases to 1.20 percent. While the rate of
increase in share slows, it does not stabilize by 2035. Denver's share
of national population increases to 1.27 percent under Series 3. No
equilibrium is evident for Series 2 and 3.
Another measure of convergence with national growth trends is to
express projected absolute population growth by decade for the metro-
politan area as a share of national population growth. As shown in
table 74, the Denver metropolitan area captured 1.68 percent of national
growth in the 1970's. The 1980 to 2000 projections reflect significant
increases in Denver's share of national population growth.
Appendix 2
193
Table 74
Denver Metropolitan Area Growth as a Share of
U.S. Population Growth 1950-2035
Denver Metropolitan Area Share of
U.S. Population Growth
Period Series 1 Series 2 Series 3
1950-1960 1.13% 1.13% 1.13%
1960-1970 1.24 1.24 1.24
1970-1980 1.68 1.68 1.68
1980-1990 1.72 1.72 1.72
1990-2000 2.70 2.70 2.70
2000-2010 2.87 2.97 3.08
2010-2020 2.41 2.79 3.18
2020-2030 2.24 3.36 4.49
2030-2035 1.21 3.90 6.60
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Projections of the Population
of the U.S.: 1982-2050.
Denver's share of population growth peaks in the 2000 to 2010
period for Series 1. The growth share under this series declines 1.21
percent for 2030 to 2035.
Series 2 and Series 3 projections exhibit increasing shares of
national population growth from 2000 to 2035. In the 2030 to 2035 time
period, the Denver metropolitan area would capture 6.6 percent of U.S.
population growth during this period under Series 3. This brings into
question the consistency of the Series 3 projections with the common
assumption of convergence.
MIGRATION
Projected Migration Levels. Over one-half of Denver's population
growth since 1940 is attributed to in-migration. The forecasts are very
sensitive to the migration rates. For example, the DRCOG net migration
cap of 30,000 persons per year begins to constrain growth by 1990.
Appendix 2
194
Without the migration cap, projected in-migration would average 42,000
persons per year during the 1990's. By year 2000, the migration cap
causes a five percent reduction in the Denver region's population and a
seven percent reduction in employment.
Table 75 presents past net migration levels into the Denver metro-
politan area. Peak net in-migration was experienced from 1971 to 1974,
wiht net in-migration exceeding 51,000 persons in 1972 to 1973. Net
migration averaged 21, 100 for the last two years for which data are
available.
Table 75
Net In-Migration Rates Into the
Denver Metropolitan Area, 1940-1982
Annual
Period Migration
1940-50 10,600
1950-60 18,800
1960-70 16,300
1970-80 25,200
1970-71 23,500
1971-72 36,700
1972-73 51,200
1973-74 40,400
1974-75 24,900
1975-76 18,200
1976-77 20,600
1977-78 14,000
1978-79 12,700
1979-80 9,600
1980-81 27,400
1981-82 14,800
Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments,
Employment and Population Estimates for the
Denver Region, 1980-2000, p. C-1, January
1982.
Appendix 2
195
Projected annual net migration is presented in table 76 for each pro-
jections series. DRCOG 1980 to 1990 forecasts shows net migration
averaging 21,900 per year, roughly on par with the most recent experi-
ence. DRCOG projects annual net migration to increase to 29,800 for
1990 to 2000. The DRCOG cap of 30,000 person net migration per year
limits the migration during this period.
For the Series 1 projectins, it is assumed that net migration will
decrease from 30,000 for 2000 to zero by 2035. In other words, the
number of persons moving to Denver metropolitan area in 2035 will equal
the number of individuals moving out of the metropolitan area.
Table 76
Average Annual Net Migration
to the Denver Metropolitan Area, 1940-2035
Period Series 1 Series 2 Series
1980-1990 21,900 21,900 21,900
1990-2000 29,800 29,800 29,800
2000-2010 26,000 27,400 28,700
2010-2020 17,400 21,600 25,700
2020-2030 8,900 15,900 22,900
2030-2035 2,600 11,700 20,800
Source: DRCOG, Population/Employment Policy Forecasts, 1980-2000.
The assumption of 10,000 persons annual net migration to Denver in
2035 is made for Series 2, while 20,000 persons net migration in 2035 is
implicit in the Series 3 forecasts.
A key method which DRCOG has applied to evaluate migration projec-
tions is to calculate the Denver metropolitan area's "capture" of the
Appendix 2
196
nation's pouplation most likely to migrate. The pool of most likely
migrants consists of persons ages 20 to 34. From 1970 to 1980, Denver
captured 2.9 net migrants between the ages of 20 and 34 for every 10,000
person in this age group in the nation. Table 77 shows the historic and
projected capture ratios.
Table 77
Net Migrants to the Denver Metropolitan Area
Per 10,000 U.S. Population, Ages 20-34, 1940-2035
Period Series 1 Series 2 Series
1940-1950 1.9 1.9 1 .9
1950-1960 3.2 3.2 3.2
1960-1970 2.6 2.6 2.6
1970-1980 2.9 2.9 2.9
1980-1990 2.1 2.1 2.1
1990-2000 3.1 3.1 3.1
2000-2010 2.9 3.0 3.2
2010-2020 1.7 2.1 2.6
2020-2030 0.9 1.7 2.4
2030-2035 0.2 1.2 2.2
Source: DRCOG, Population/Employment Policy Forecasts 1980-
2000; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Projections of the
Population of the U.S.: 1982 to 2050.
Under Series 1 projections, the capture rate declines to 2.9 for
2000 to 2010 reaching 0.2 for the 2030-2035 period. Relative net migra-
tion also declines after 2000 for Series 2. Under Series 3, however,
the capture rate increases to 3.2 net migrants per 10,000 population.
This is equivalent to the highest historical capture rate experienced
for the Denver metropolitan area and appears to be in conflict with the
concept of convergence.
Appendix 2
197
Caparison with Recent Trends. Long-term migration assumptions can
be cautiously compared with recent short-term trends. Population fore-
casts and recent estimates for 1983 are presented in table 78.
Table 78
Comparison of DRCOG Forecasts and
Estimates of 1983 Population for the
Denver Metropolitan Area
1983 Population
DRCOG Long-Term Forecast i/ 1,703,600
1983 Estimate 1,717,850
Difference (14,250)
Percent Difference (0.8)%
1/ Population forecast interpolated from 1980 Census
figures and 1985 DRCOG forecasts. Assumes constant
natural population increase during this period and
net migration as reported in DRCOG, Employment/Popu-
lation Policy Forecasts 1980-2000, 1982.
Source: DRCOG, Employment/Population Policy Forecasts 1980-
2000, 1982.
DRCOG has estimated Denver metropolitan area population for January
1983, based upon the methodology explained in DRCOG, County Population
and Household Estimates, 1980-82, July 1982. DRCOG 1985 population
forecasts were interpolated to January 1983. The population forecast
underpredicts 1983 population by 14,250 people or 0.8 percent. The
DRCOG forecast of 1980 to 1983 natural population growth, about 18,000
persons per year, is similar to estimated births and deaths over this
period. Net migration was underpredicted, however. Estimated net
migration was 27,400 persons for 1980 to 1981 and 14,800 persons from
1981 to 1982. Migration from 1982 to 1983 is not available. DRCOG
forecast net migration to average 16,700 persons per year from 1980 to
1983.
Appendix 2
198
FERTILITY RATES
DRCOG used the total fertility rate; births per woman in seven dif-
ferent age categories between the ages of 15 and 49 are summed to obtain
this measure. DRCOG assumes that the fertility rate will increase to
2.1 by the year 2000. This rate is uniformly applied for each projec-
tion series for 2000 to 2035. A fertility rate of 2.1 children per
women is known as the replacement rate.
Fertility rates in the Denver metropolitan area fell from 2.15 in
1970 to 1.67 in 1980. This decline is attributed to several factors:
urbanization of counties surrounding the core city, unpromising economic
conditions or prospects, increased participation of women in the labor
force, and delayed marriage of women in child bearing ages.
U.S. Census Bureau projections assume fertility rates for the
nation will increase from 1 .83 births per woman in 1980 to 1.96 in 2000.
Fertility rates are then projected to decrease to 1.9 by 2050. Chase
Econometrics also assumes that fertility rates will stabilize at 1.9 by
the year 2000. The Colorado Division of Local Governments forecasts
project a 1.8 fertility rate in 1998.
National and local forecasts are consistent with DRCOG in assuming
an increase in fertility rates from the present levels. DRCOG projected
higher fertility rates than other forecasts, reasoning that economic
growth and increasing incomes in the Denver metropolitan area would lead
to increasing expectations of those in the child bearing years about
their future prosperity and quality of life. Because birth rates have
been demonstrated to vary directly with adult's perceptions of the
future, birth rates in the Denver metropolitan area are forecast to
increase. However, even if the Denver metropolitan area fertility rate
stabilized at the U.S. Bureau of the Census projection of 1.96 rather
Appendix 2
199
than the higher rate of 2.1, DRCOG population forecasts for the year
2000 would decrease by only one percent.
While the DRCOG rates are not entirely in concurrence with other
projections, the reasoning behind the projections appears reasonable and
the forecasts are relatively insensitive to these differences.
MORTALITY RATES
DRCOG projections of mortality rates are based upon Census projec-
tions for males and females by age group. Differences in mortality
rates among various state and national forecasts are minimal. Large
changes in mortality rates are necessary to significantly alter fore-
casts.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Differences in the age distributions account for many of the dif-
ferences among DRCOG demographic assumptions and Bureau of the Census or
other assumptions for the nation. The projected age distributions for
the Denver metropolitan area are presented here to provide the necessary
information to evaluate other forecasting assumptions.
Table 79 compares the 1980 and projected year 2000 age distribu-
tions for the Denver metropolitan area and the United States.
Appendix 2
200
Table 79
Age Distribution of
Denver Metropolitan Area and United States Population
1980 and 2000
(percent)
1980 2000
Age Denver Denver
Group Region U.S. Difference Region U.S. Difference
0-9 14.5 14.6 (0.1) 14.0 13.6 0.4
10-19 16.7 17.4 (0.7) 13.1 14.4 (1.3)
20-29 21.1 18.0 3.1 13.2 12.9 0.3
30-39 16.7 13.9 2.8 17.5 15.2 2.3
40-49 10.5 10.0 0.5 18.1 15.6 2.5
50-59 9.1 10.3 (1.2) 11.5 11 .4 0.1
60-69 6.1 7.9 (1.8) 6.2 7.3 (1 .1)
70-79 3.5 5.4 (1 .9) 4.1 5.9 (1.8)
80+ 1.7 2.5 (0.8) 2.3 3.8 (1.5)
Total 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.1
Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments Employment/Population -�
Policy Forecasts 1980-2000, June 1982. U.S. Department of Com-
merce, Bureau of the Census, Projections of the Population of
the United States: 1982 to 2050, Series P-25, No. 922, October
1982. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1984.
Denver metropolitan area population in 1980 is heavily concentrated in
the 20 to 39 year old age groups. Almost 38 percent of Denver's 1980
population was in this age group compared with 32 percent nationwide.
Only 20.4 percent of the Denver metropolitan area population was 50
years of age or older compared with 26.1 percent of the nation's popula-
tion in this age group.
Differences in the age distribution are expected to persist through
the year 2000. Over 35 percent of the Denver population will be between
the ages of 30 and 49, compared with 30 percent for the United States.
Twenty-four percent of the Denver metropolitan area population will be
Appendix 2
201
,.—
over 50 years old, while this age group will account for 28.4 percent of
the national population. The reason for the young ages of Denver resi-
dents is the tendancy for migrants to be 20 to 40 years of age.
The aging of the Denver metropolitan area population into the 60
years and over age groups after the year 2000 is demonstrated in table
80. In 2000, less than 13 percent of the population will be 60 or over.
Over 25 percent of the population is projected to be in this age group
by 2035 under Series 1 . Because of the greater influx of young migrants
assumed in Series 3, the 60 and over age group increases to about 23
percent by 2035. The aging of the population during this period has a
profound effect on several of the components of the economic and demo-
graphic measures which are incorporated into the water demand forecasts.
Table 80
Percent of Age Distribution of Denver
Region Population, 1980, 2000 and 2035
Age 2035
Group 2000 2010 Series 1 Series
0-9 14.0 13.1 12.6 12.8
10-19 13.1 13.0 12.6 12.6
20-29 13.2 13.0 12.1 12.4
30-39 17.5 14.6 12.5 13.8
40-49 18.1 15.7 12.9 13.5
50-59 11.5 15.0 12.2 12.0
60-69 6.2 8.9 11.1 10.2
70-79 4.1 4.1 9.0 8.1
80+ 2.3 2.5 5.1 4.6
Total 100.0 99.9 100.1 100.0
Appendix 2
202
EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES
The labor force participation rate is defined as the ratio of per-
sons in the civilian labor force divided by the population 16 years of
age or older, whereas the Denver metropolitan area labor force in 1980
was 70.5 percent of the population 16 years of age and older. The U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) rate for the nation was 63.8 percent.
As shown in table 81 , BLS and DRCOG forecast continued growth in labor
force participation rates.
Table 81
United States and Denver Metropolitan Area
Percentage of Population
16 Years and Over
In the Labor Force, 1980-1995 1/
U.S. Department of
Labor (BLS) Medium
Growth Scenario DRCOG Projections
Year Male Female Total Male Female Total
1980 actual -- -- 63.8 80.3 61.1 70.5
1985 77.7 56.5 66.5 82.0 65.8 73.8
1990 77.2 59.6 67.9 82.2 69.9 76.0
1995 76.8 61.2 68.6 82.0 71.4 76.7
1/ BLS and DRCOG rates are not strictly comparable since BLS
measures participation of the civilian labor force whereas
DRCOG includes the military population.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Eco-
nomic Projection to 1990, Bulletin 212, March 1983.
DRCOG projects Denver metropolitan area rates to remain well above
national rates. One main reason for this is the concentration in the
Denver metropolitan area of young adults in the prime working years (see
table 30). Also, Denver has a high proportion of in-migrants which tend
to have very high labor force participation rates.
Appendix 2
203
• C'� C 00I a^ U> .O N MN? .O 0 N CO el 0 0 d d
�O mf.IN N M MMN MO C N .N id C
N L 4 d
\, 4)0 L 0
a I K -. a d 0 d a>
It 0I O .-CO M 0 —.OM 01.0 CO U >' O .0
0
O �a ^ ui •Cr) ? in .• O.O ? OM ? C
el d m L
o 0 •-•
O°• a CO 0 0 4°.
N 0 0 CI at.. CO d I L K .. N a..O 0 C'7 CO
OD N N CO N C.-.OMOl a
'0 a la
01 '-I .DO UN NN N S ? UN O . C• M C L 0 O•- 7 a vz 2 a d 40, a 0
C L U L Of
O L
0i a �,9-I a � w y
I. a ..
C DOI CO? •" in C1 O..ON U1 a
.C co >+ -
C ^0,01 O1 N .O la N U1? U1N • • S d col 0 d .0i d
43 �2 2 10 0 O el U
.'I c C) G. d
e▪ l 0 000 0 0 000000 O O It .C am
5 C C)
0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) 0. 0 0 d
L 0 .O S ? S .0 OC0NNOO &- O id. d ate...
+2 0 Cr)U1 S N C- .7- N N S l- N ? d L 00 rat d d
E N MCON O. M OMN '- ON CV y4. 0 .0 .-1 7
4a> 0) 4' 7 C
L O V O d
d 0 C al P. 0
0
C 00 C O
d C
Ca 000 0 0 000 00 O 0 0 a> 0 as
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
CO _N M S U1 01 CO Ul CO ON IllC ,0 a-1 4.
▪+ CO 10 7' U1 t- M N N In .- In 01 d a
N + 0
C O
a
N L. .0- C in 01 UI.O ^ . U1 .O .di W 0 w B 7
9
i-.. d W N 0 C p d
-. .01 C 000 0 0 000000 0 a� U 0 0 0 02 44 8P°
F W d 000 0 0 000000� O 4) 0 L. G
d 0 0. OU1 S 0 CO? UN UN a CO 04. .0 C' L CI)
C O
d .Oa a ? CO U1 .O CO 01 CO O CO N ON CO 4. a 0
4 NCO M .- NCO ON la ? S 01 d d .0 W a.2
bO rd r U1 ..l L 0 'd0 C N d
8 t
a NO
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a CO d N 0 0 C
CC N 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O d a.1 g B >
f] O M 00 0% 0 Co I� O M C' CO C- .0 4 0 0 d
'O .0 mSC� O U1 OU1.ON ^▪ S C Net N
C O. NCO M Na0 N 2 m G d L B O O.
yN O d = B d d
gt 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O a,In 0 el
tor—
Off. Y 0 7
0 NI M.O0 .O0 0 N NS .00 ? N inn O y a 0 ^J
8 U01 r 0. M N 1`0/1 la IS f1 Ill ON ▪ in Z • d D\ t la O U O
4 .. y 0
fr7 N CO W •'1 p
N
It C '0 .0,1 N •.Uj .01 O
-.01 0 C V 0 a.3 00)) > 3 m rn
0 0 C it d-I CC 0 .0 u ID 4) d 6.. 1/4O a. � ••• x �
W 4 '0 d Oat C at T, d m W L C
.l 4 0 C .i VOL a) gdg .-I0. O 'O CO CD O
a01 yp C C el 'rl 4 0 07f m A O. 4 d • d C
0 ..-I d O >. e s. .C >,.C d d
d O L 07 0 +i .i .> 4 .i 07 W d E O .0 O CC
CO 7
-0 a. L d
Oral el 0 d 0 .0 >. B C
ID B
0 0 0 +l d .-I d 4 d .i 4 is] W a. O
CC CO CO O..-I O CI O 0 C 7 CO 4 01 4 4)
C 4 4-. 0 .0 0 .0 C C .-1 L 0 4) 4 .a 0 .-1 4. 0
.-I a> 7 C 7 .Il d 0 C > d +1 •.1 d it a m L
,�. C C C d O. O 4 C d L > L .i ,C a1 U CO 7
EUEF 3 tr, Ca0CM O 0 ^I NI m ml U Ld fj
Appendix 2
204
DRCOG projections also assume higher participation rates for
elderly persons than BLS forecasts. Based upon the most current BLS
information, DRCOG expects decreases in mortality rates, improved health
and removal of employment barriers to persons beyond the age of 65.
This also accounts for some of the differences between the BLS and DRCOG
projections.
Beyond the year 2000, the BLS forecasts for men and women by age
group are directly applied to projected population by age group. The
rates during this period by sex and by age group are held constant
during this period. This assumes convergence of Denver metropolitan
area labor force participation rates and rates for the nation.
If Denver Region labor force participation rates declined more
rapidly toward national rates, fewer residents would be in the labor
force resulting in a substantial increase in job-related in-migration.
In the absence of a migration cap, the effect of reducing DRCOG labor
force participation rate assumptions would be to increase the Denver
metropolitan area population forecasts, because more people would be
necessary to support the same number of jobs.
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY SECTOR
Sectoral projections. Historical employment levels and the DRCOG
forecasts for the Denver metropolitan area are presented in table 82.
The annual growth rate during the three decades from 1950 to 1980
exceeded four percent. Hence, the 2.8 percent annual growth rate pro-
jected for 1980 to 2000 is conservative compared with past trends.
Projected employment growth is balanced among most economic
sectors. Mining employment, largely headquarters or administrative
staff, will experience slow growth, construction growth will be moderate
Appendix 2
205
and manufacturing employment is expected to exhibit rapid early growth.
Later erosion of the region's competitive advantage is anticipated.
Manufacturing will account for only 13.4 percent of regional employment
in the year 2000. Trade, finance and real estate, and services
employment growth is forecast to be strong; as Denver continues to
benefit from its role as the commercial and finanical center of the
rapidly growing Rocky Mountain Region. Jobs in these sectors will
represent over one-half of employment in the Denver Region in 2000.
Moderate growth in government employment is expected, compared with past
years.
Comparison of DRCOG Employment Forecast with Recent Trends. The
Colorado Division of Employment and Training estimates nonagricultural
wage and salary employment on a monthly basis for the Denver-Boulder
Labor Market Area. This region includes Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties
as well as the six county Denver Region. The 1980 and 1983 employment
growth rates are examined for each economic sector in table 83. Com-
parison of the annual 1980 to 1983 growth rates with DRCOG projected
growth rates reveals significant differences in two areas. Manufactur-
ing employment actually declined from 1980 to 1983 as this sector con-
tinued to exhibit the effects of the national recession. Government
employment also declined from 1980 to 1983 reflecting cutbacks in
Federal, state and local government jobs. In absolute terms, actual
total employment levels were less than those projected by DRCOG during
this three-year period. However, the adverse economic conditions
prevalent during the early 1980's led to short term declines that should
not contradict long-term DRCOG employment projections.
Appendix 2
206
Table 83
Estimated 1980 to 1983
Employment Growth Rates for the Denver-Boulder LMA 1/
DRCOG
Actual Forecast
Annual Annual
Growth Growth
• Sector Rate Rate?/
Mining 12.3 8.6
Construction 1.5 6.3
Manufacturing (0.5) 4.1
Transportation,
Communications and
Public Utilities 3.1 2.2
Wholesale and Retail
Trade 2.4 3.5
Finance, Insurance and
Real Estate 4.5 4.7
Services 4.5 3.4
Government (0.4) 2.2
Total Non-agricultural 2.3% 3.6%
Wage and Salary
Employment
1/ The Denver-Boulder Labor Market Area includes Gilpin
and Clear Creek Counties.
?/ Annual growth rates as projected for 1980-1985.
Source: Colorado Division of Employment and Training,
unpublished data, March 1984, Colorado Division of
Employment Training, Colorado Manpower Review, Vol.
18 No. 1, January 1981. DRCOG, Employment/Population
Policy Forecasts 1980-2000, June 1982.
State of Colorado Assumptions. Assumptions related to economic
conditions in the State of Colorado have an important influence on the
DRCOG forecasts because of the interrelationship of the Colorado and
Denver metropolitan area employment forecasts. The State of Colorado
Office of Management and Budget has developed the following assumptions
associated with its Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel forecasts:
Appendix 2
207
. Colorado will experience increased coal production and a decline
in conventional oil and gas output. Moderate oil shale development is
assumed for Colorado's Western Slope.
. Irrigated agriculture will gradually decline as groundwater
diminishes state-wide and the cost of pumping and fertilizer increase.
. Colorado's manufacturing sector will continue to expand faster
than the U.S. as a whole. The difference between the growth rates will
gradually narrow. It is assumed that there will be considerable
expansion of the high technology component.
HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
DRCOG's projected household size for the Denver Region by applying
household formation rates to population forecasts for each age group.
These rates follow the Census Bureau's Series D household formation
rates. Compared with Census Bureau Series A, B and C forecasts, Series
D forecasts project the smallest decline in household size. The U.S.
Series D and Series A forecasts are presented in table 84.
Appendix 2
208
Table 84
Persons Per Household for the
Denver Metropolitan Area and the U.S., 1940-20101/
Denver Metropolitan Area U.S.2/
Year Series D Series A Series D Series A
1940 -- -- 3.67 3.67
1950 -- -- 3.37 3.37
1960 -- -- 3.33 3.33
1970 3.05 3.05 3.14 3.14
1980 2.61 2.61 2.75 2.75
1990 2.35 2.21 2.58 2.41
1995 2.32 2.11 2.55 2.31
2000 1/ 2.29 2.02 -- --
2000 3/ 2.27 -- -- --
2035 2/ 2.27 -- -- --
1/ Does not include persons in the group quarters which
account for 1.9 percent of the population.
?/ Assumes U.S. Bureau of the Census Series II population
forecasts. ^
1/ DRCOG extrapolation of trend.
4/ Assumed constant household size.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Projec-
tions of the Number of Households and Families: 1979 to
1995, Current Population Reports Series P-25, No. 805, May
1979; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census; Denver Regional Council of Governments,
Household and Household Size Forecasts for the Denver
Region, 1980-2000, July 1982.
The 1970's exhibited sharp increases in age and sex specific rates
of household formation for both Denver and the nation. DRCOG projec-
tions, based upon U.S. Census Bureau Series D estimates, reflect a
gradual stabilizing of the rates. Even so, the number of Denver house-
holds are forecast to increase at a higher rate than population, because
of the aging of the baby boom generation into the prime household form-
ing age groups. As a result, average household size for the Denver
Appendix 2
209
Region is expected to decrease sharply between 1980 and 1990, and
gradually thereafter.
Denver metropolitan area Series D based household size projections
remain below the Series D forecast for the nation because the effect of
migration will increase the portion of Denver metropolitan area popula-
tion in the prime household forming age groups. Denver Region household
size under the Series D forecasts reaches 2.29 persons per household in
the year 2000 compared with 2.02 persons per household for the Series A
based forecast. The Series D based forecast produces 147,500 fewer
households or 12.1 percent less than the year 2000 Series A based fore-
casts.
COMPARISON WITH RECENT TRENDS
DRCOG estimated that Denver metropolitan area households total
655,050 in 1983. The DRCOG long-term households projections inter-
polated for that year is 671,800. This exceeds the actual 1983 figure
by 16,750 households or 2.6 percent. The substantial reduction in
household size expected between 1980 and 1985 has not fully
materialized. One explanation is poor economic conditions in the early
1980's which would tend to depress the rate of household formation.
OTHER FORECASTING ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions or caveats which DRCOG has applied during the fore-
casting period are provided in Table 85.
•
Appendix 2
210
Table 85
Other DRCOG Forecast Assumptions for
the Denver metropolitan area, 1980-2000
Factor Assumption
Taxation/Regulation No major change in the region.
Power/Water No long term shortages.
Productivity 2.0% annual growth, 1985-2000.
Inflation 6.1% annual increase 1985-2000.
DRCOG also reiterates other caveats of the national forecasts,
including a positive foreign trade balance, restrictive fiscal policies,
and temporarily high Federal deficits. These assumptions are very
tenuous, given recent trends national trends and conditions. Incorrect
assumptions of this nature would affect the Denver economic and demo-
graphic conditions, but the local projections are expected to be rela-
tively insensitive to these trends.
Other considerations specific to the Denver Metropolitan Area have
not been considered by DRCOG in their long-term forecasts. Air pollu-
tion, transportation restraints, crime rates and other quality of life
factors are simply not addressed.
Air quality is a prominent public issue in the Denver area as local
officials and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have been in
almost continual debate over Denver's air quality and what can be done
to improve it. AN EPA monitored State Implementation Plan including
inspection and transit options has been developed to achieve appropriate
attainment levels by 1987. It is highly uncertain whether recent gains
will be maintained or attainment levels achieved by 1987 or later.
Air pollution is only one of many quality of life (QOL)
considerations which make up the business and human environment as
Appendix 2
211
perceived by present and prospective employers and residents have not
been addressed by DRCOG. QOL measures include:
. climate
. air quality
. economic opportunity
. demographic characteristics
. housing availability and costs
. transportation systems
. shopping opportunities
. health and other public service levels
. educational services
. tax rates
. crime rates
. cultural opportunities
. leisure time opportunities
. cost of living
. general aesthetics
Denver has traditionally been perceived to have a positive quality
of life (QOL) when compared with other major metropolitan areas. During
the 1970,s, a number of QOL measures became less favorable, including
air quality, housing costs, crime rates and transportation, while
others, such as shopping opportunities, cultural amenties and leisure
time opportunities, improved. The effects, if any, of the changing QOL
levels upon the Denver economic and growth prospects are highly uncer-
tain. It is noted, however, that Denver continued to experience rapid
growth despite QOL measures during the early 1970s.
Appendix 2
212
COMPARISON WITH OTHER FORECASTS
The DRCOG Denver metropolitan area forecasts are based in part upon
the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel Colorado projections and the Chase
Econometrics U.S. forecasts. In order to fully analyze the Denver
metropolitan area forecasts, these state and national forecasts are com-
pared with alternative state and national projections. Finally, alter-
native economic and demographic forecasts for the Denver metropolitan
area identified, described and evaluated.
NATIONAL FORECASTS
The Chase Econometrics population and employment forecasts were
developed in July 1981. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Office of
Business and Economic Research Services (OBERS) forecasts were developed
based upon 1977 Census Bureau Series II population forecasts. Table 40
compares these national population forecasts. The Census projections
were formulated in 1982. Table 86 compares these forecasts.
Appendix 2
213
Table 86
Population Forecasts for the United States, 1980-2030
Chase
Year Census OBERS Econometrics
1980 (actual) 221,000,000 221,000,000 221,000,000
1990 249,731,000 242,979,000 240,000,000
2000 267,990,000 259,845,000 253,000,000
2010 283,141,000 274,803,000 N.A.
2020 296,339,000 289,583,000 N.A.
2030 304,330,000 299,817,000 N.A.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Projections of the Population of the United States:
1982 to 2050 (Advance Report), Series P-25, No. 922,
October 1982; Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel, Colorado:
Investing in the Future, Volume Two: Forecasts, July
1981; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Eco-
nomic Analysis, Regional and State Projections of
Income, Deployment and Population to the Year 2000,
Survey of Current Business, Volume 60, No. 11, Novem-
ber 1980, pp. 44-70.
COLORADO FORECASTS
DRCOG Denver metropolitan forecasts are based upon the Governor's
Blue Ribbon Panel projections for Colorado developed in 1981 by the
State Office of Planning and Budgeting. These forecasts linked the
Colorado economy to that of the nation. Colorado population forecasts
were then derived from the state employment projections. The Blue Rib-
bon Panel projected Colorado population to grow from 2,865,000 in 1980
to 3,592,000 in 1990 and 4,552,000 by the year 2000.
The Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel forecasts were developed in
conjunction with the State Office of Planning and Budgeting in 1981 .
The State Office of Planning and Budgeting in turn worked with the State
Demographer, and the State Department of Agriculture and Department of
Appendix 2
214
National Resources. Forecasts were also developed through projecting
Colorado's share of U.S. employment as forecast in 1981 by Chase
Econometrics. The Blue Ribbon Panel applied the state employment and
population forecasts to project state-wide public infrastructure needs,
including public water system investment requirements.
Colorado nonagricultural employment is projected to grow from
743,000 in 1980 to 2,529,000 in 2000. Compared with Chase Econometrics
U.S. forecasts, Colorado employment increases from 1.4 percent of U.S.
employment in 1980 to 1 .7 percent in 1990 and 2.0 percent in the year
2000. Growth rates are projected to decline to 3.8 percent annual
growth from 1980 to 1990 and 3.3 percent growth for 1990 to 2000.
Table 87 presents the 1981 Blue Ribbon Panel employment forecasts
by economic sector. Trade and services sectors account for over one-
half of 1980 to 2000 employment growth. Annual growth in manufacturing
--•
is projected to decline from 4.5 percent for 1980 to 1990 to 1.7 percent
beyond 1990. Slow growth is anticipated for government employment.
In table 88, the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel population and
employment projections are compared with three other forecasts prepared
for Colorado. Figure 11 depicts these alternative Colorado forecasts.
The Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel and OBERS population projection
differences reflect the underlying employment growth assumptions. Blue
Ribbon Panel forecasts of annual employment growth are 3.8 percent for
1980 to 1990 and 3.5 percent for 1990 to 2000. OBERS forecasts are 2.9
percent annual employment growth for 1978 to 1990 and 1.5 percent annual
growth for 1990 to 2000.
Appendix 2
215
,---, O N • > N C.• a• T IA
M aN N •
' - O '- 0
1
C 02
00 0 m 1 ..• 10• •w•• l•• a• co t—• 10• T
O '� SNP,
N en T T - N• 0
L Id
TSQI O 0t- IO OJ O. T T T 0
R T en - N en T a N en 0e
• C O
Q y 0 N • O• •1 T N O1 O•
0 a Jr •O a N en a a .- T m
t., a 0 T N T N T O1 m a a .
O C O•._ P 0a a 10 10 .0 T In 0
Cam}C ~m 1 !. N O1 in aCO kg) CO
• l`
•O• N N • r en a m a T at
a
p ei
T
O S S O 00 N N 'J
0 0 O N a l- P at a N
N In ' P ' O a N N 0 0
N N In T •
N O
0
p p L
2O O O S SO OOi
00 m
a N a On O9 M N m a u
N •O N a a CO 2
b r
8 p S at O
O
a 0O- cc O P b m CI CI 0 0 O N 0
tl O I y
CON N T CO T N
IN IT ' l- O L• OJ OJ 0
y T N N T 1.
�` t- 0 3 •
m
O i-
t. 8 p d co
Fo a a0 a S u.
S S S S S S O S 8 . el
O O ..- a r a IA a N N 0 0
O N P en - b - N m N "'i
L A N O
O
N pp pp 88 8 a
C S O O a S 0 0 ; >
I. T •O •O a l� O1 •O N C
in i- N 0 a .• Ie.1 N en C
O
• .4
O• la
8 8 S O O
S o S O S S S O O O O ONE
C aD Clm lT- lN— lP- CO a N NI ` U .y
H ^I •I
m O •a
O
0 8 U8 8g § 9g
- s - In ' a a 8R
le
bl lak8 § § § ll § 1O
°� L. 1 m
▪ T m a ' in
N O tn
N •
L •
0N
N E SL
g {� 405 0i
N is b Y •II:: V Y '' a
O
^ 1• 8 0 `0 .�a w 0001 0 U w° 5
O G Y C 3. 844 C • O DO N A f• •
Z V i F N 28 03 0 1 m
Appendix 2
216
4. C 6 4.
I 0 0 0 43 +°-I CO 3 �..�
C 4 M O C 0 y
i-i cc
a3 e CM CM 8 O. y
C 0 O C
O
co
co cm o
0- maE
0 ON.-I ^ -I a T
G 0 In In o
�+ a C .I O O O I ° al o
c >sCG
O 0 O
4-1
tc.. .-71 .0 3 O N In � ' c -II
O_ > IO CC CO N In °`
COO tn +-I a3 C
O C7 1- ^ N 43 C0 O 40
N 0
�1
I t. 0 0
CO O a >
0
r` w � w L.
CO
4. 0 m
0
0 I 00 00 00 C) °
L v] In O .- . ° c
o aCa a ay .43
•'I M
U COO 4 0 In 0
O COO N
4„4 en S S 0 +']
0 a C O
O ' L
0
o° 0 o a
O .i N W
aO CO .-I ..-Ie6 0
coco a) co
y .C 0 0 0 I 0 d O 0
0 0 O0 I L '°O U
F O C 60. ON In t- S.
w 0 7 co in u1 0
U CO CO [ '° 43
C CO CM en S 0 0 9 0'
0
>,
0 „I 0 .mil a O
a 0 a 0 'a
6 w m I- A
tl
'O O C .+ G O O O O V — N O
a1 °• i of
0 O NO ON 0 0 O
C O +01 ..a L. O� V— N L.
•
al �1
O .-I > 0 CO IL 0' N 4+ p' min'74
CO MD en • CO
O U CI O 6° N RI S N0
7 O ,
0 m a m
oo 0 a 0 ,°�
M
W O 0 C O rn
a
0 > 0 .-
0 Ci2 L ..
L 0 .-I 0 0 0 I o
0 0 OW 0 0 0 c 0) -�'
4 .--I .O a 0 ON N N O4 L N .-I Ill
O W .,1 G. CO ON In O CO Wa
> CC CO an In C L 0 0 0
N R1 ? 00 +-I J-1
''.4 in ow co
O+
= m
CO .- 0
O
all co° •0. 0 0 0^ 0
N
ON ON N0 N0 \ 0
I-I
Appendix 2
217
O
Cl
Otn o
W - in
co (7
o N
O
CO
c
!rot 0
- N
0
N
M 0 0l—
.W G •
0
cn I c `0
c -J
- U v as 0
r 0
0
w O v- �CC o N_ O V
CD m;,.40 i
O s
w 2
cn
0in
0
O N
•� Lkj
RC I
r-1 i z
m \ 0
cn
u...
rn
O I m
a
0
co
1 1 01
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t0 to 4 M N .- O
suoiflm ui uoilolndod
Appendix 2
218
In sum, the Blue Ribbon Panel employment forecasts are based upon
long term historical data, individual analysis for each economic sector,
and flexible use of independent forecasts. Analysis of alternative
population forecasts demonstrate that the Blue Ribbon Panel's expecta-
tions for state economic growth are similar to the U.S. Census Bureau
and Colorado Division of Local Government. However, economic growth
forecasts are substantially higher than OBERS forecasts for the state.
DENVER REGION FORECASTS
Alternative population forecasts for the Denver metropolitan area
are illustrated in Figure 12. The DRCOG population forecasts for the
Denver metropolitan area resemble projections of the Colorado Division
of Local Government. As presented in table 89, DRCOG population fore-
casts are 1.6 percent below Division of Local Government projections for
1990 and 1.6 percent above for the year 2000. The Division of Local
Government utilized a cohort-survival model with constant levels of
migration evident during 1970 to 1982 to develop these forecasts.
DRCOG population forecasts are substantially higher than the BEA
OBERS forecasts for the Denver metropolitan area. DRCOG projections are
7.8 percent higher than OBERS forecasts for the year 2000.
DRCOG's "medium" forecasts for 2000-2035 previously developed for
the EIS are represented by the dashed line in figure 12. The year 2035
forecast is lower than Series 3 and higher than Series 2.
Comparison of DRCOG projections with the Governor's Blue Ribbon
Panel forecasts for Colorado shows that the Denver Region accounts for
55.2 percent of Colorado's year 2000 population. As indicated in table
89, the DRCOG projections of the Denver metropolitan area's share of
Appendix 2
219
1
F
0 .
Q My
M � : -
N
W
O _ In
C f] fJ rr
C1/41vi in
1 = N
I , c,c N
z O
o N Ml
O
CO ' w N
m
o
-
Y
V) Q %, c N
"Si C - O
V) ..r N
w i
N Cd 0 0'� -
v U o o� o
L
Jo }
w O 2 N
C14 t.
> -
C
ZO O
O O
,,� - O
4..? N
CIS -
O
a 01
. O
a
O
I I I 01
O O O O O O
U1 4 P) N .- p
suollin u! uogoJndod
Appendix 2
220
C J.Oi a O O
• Y 0 .- P 0 a
Et0. • 3 •
N OW as a
ga g a ;
•
8 8 8 in
8
0 cc ll co▪ in co a
0O O N
O •-• N ■ p• en
O Pi
• '= t a
I0 ... u $• e L
al 0 1 0
■ LI
D.06 •a
rym� •
O M O 3 V `•a
8 2I • 8 e .L°a° q 0.
Sa co ; c• >'
d b P N V • L
▪ .. N al 8 ■ C TCC
.L p �Lor a
p •a a
Jr l. • o la
.q k a•i C
G L%.-I
N N N >.4 •• O
2�, ol S. 0
N ON ma LO • ^
O. ₹co L. _ • 8 8 8 cc . ~Li
>• C in N L • S'
• �
^i O A co b N > 0 "4 •C
C i • b P T & g
•••. N •L.
—•a .cL Y O
fO
• O D• Oy
a O a y �. N in L aC of
re
q
b Lam , N N in
'0 ~"S "
L a d�W Y � 0.
aO
b ••N • C y
8 gal 8 8 8 0a ga
d V O O O O) a - § O • a i O
C • ca T WI Uri t. Di•
C • .• O D Y y O• 1
0. F •- N N • „•j C C f
C 8 a " e
• C S . i e v Q
C J J N N S a ! a I
pp IL� in N in
O " O O
G I. Oi al O3 g '
8L III
O l•44 ci a
w
c s s i Le
pp 0 W .a al N v •U CiI
O
9 8
3I S.' . 8
Appendix 2
221
Hello