Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Jan-20-98 01:4BP IDEAL VALLEY REALTY LTD <br /> <br />719 462 5755 <br /> <br />P.02 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />.... <br /> <br />ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VALUE <br />OF <br />1,007 SHARES OF STOCK <br />IN THE <br />EXCELSIOR DITCH COMPANY <br />PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO <br /> <br />l1 <br />"I <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />Dick Evans has offered to sell 1,007 shares of the Excelsior Ditch Company to the <br />Arkansas Groundwater Users Association (AGUA) for their replacement plan for well pumpage <br />under The Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Diversion and Use of Tributary <br />Groundwater in the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. There are 3,333 shares outstanding for the <br />Excelsior Ditch Company: AGUA is proposing to permanently incorporate the 1,007 shares of <br />the Excelsior Ditch historic consumptive use of irrigation water into their Arkansas River <br />replacement plan. <br /> <br />The purpose of this report is to estimate the capital value of the 1,007 shares of the <br />Excelsior Ditch. AGUA has been leasing 1,187 shares of the Excelsior Ditch for several years, <br />1,007 shares from Dick Evans and 180 shares from Southwest Ready-Mix who are, at present, <br />the only share holders in the Excelsior Ditch Company. The lands which were irrigated with the <br />Evans' 1,007 Excelsior Ditch shares have been removed from irrigation by virtue of the sale of <br />the lands to others without water rights in the Excelsior Ditch. <br />The Colorado Division of Water Resources have allowed a 60.6 percent replacement <br />credit for the dry up of the land formerly irrigated by the 1,007 shares (McLean) et a1.. 1997). <br />Criteria for the utilization of the Excelsior for the AGUA replacement plan has been established <br />with the Colorado Department of Water Resources. The basic diversions, crops, and water <br />supplies and basic analysis of the water balance of the Excelsior Ditch system were established <br />by the Arkansas River Basin Study (Boyle) et al., 1990) for the Kan~c: v Colorado litigation. <br /> <br />1 <br />