Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />The Union Ditch Company also filed for an application for water rights in December 2003 (Case <br />No. 03 CW 404). Water that is available through this new junior appropriation, and any other <br />additional water sources that can be used for recharge, are expected to serve as the water <br />source for the recharge project. Water will be delivered through the ditch and into the recharge <br />ponds where seepage will occur through both the canal itself and recharge ponds. The water <br />recharged to the aquifer will eventually return to the river, in a time lagged manner, where it will <br />be used to augment stream depletions. <br /> <br />Project Description and Alternatives <br /> <br />The purpose of this project is to examine the feasibility of the Union Ditch Company to develop <br />a recharge project, which is expected to provide replacement water for the augmentation of <br />tributary ground water wells. Three alternatives to providing for well augmentation water were <br />considered: <br /> <br />1. The no-action alternative <br />2. Purchase, acquire, and/or make use of existing water rights or irrigated land dry-up options <br />3. Develop a recharge project including the acquisition of a new junior water right <br /> <br />Alternative No. 1 was not selected because Union chose to develop their own augmentation <br />plan so as to provide replacement water to shareholders that make use of tributary wells. If <br />Union were not to develop an augmentation plan, well owners would have to: (1) discontinue <br />well usage, (2) join other existing augmentation plans, or (3) develop individual augmentation <br />plans. <br /> <br />Alternative No.2 was not exclusively selected because the cost of acquiring or purchasing <br />alternative water sources is particularly high in the South Platte River basin. Union has decided <br />to make use of water rights that they currently own (5.75 shares of Union Reservoir), has leased <br />some water in the short-term (for the substitute water supply plan), and has applied for a <br />change in use of the Union Ditch shares with the option to temporarily dry-up irrigated land. <br /> <br />Alternative No.3 was selected, since it is considered to be the least costly approach to <br />developing augmentation water. This alternative was also viewed as an added value to the <br />Company, which benefits the shareholders, in general, and the well users in particular. <br /> <br />The selected alternative, Alternative No.3, involves the development of several recharge <br />structures in the Union service area. Of the ten potential recharge locations, three have been <br />identified as priority sites and are listed as follows with the top priority site listed first: Mercure <br />#1, R. Alles, and J. Alles. <br /> <br />Aqua Engineering has prepared a more detailed engineering analysis for the project, which is <br />included as an attachment to this study. The estimated cost of fully developing the three priority <br />recharge structures is $261,100 on a low side to $343,725 on a high side. The cost breakdown <br />is summarized in Table 2. <br /> <br />Union Ditch Company <br />Recharge Project Feasibility Study <br />March 2004 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br />