Laserfiche WebLink
? <br /> <br />The water activity promotes water efficiency. Currently, to supply water to the upper members <br />requires overflow at the headgate. This projected will eliminate overflow providing for maximum <br />utilization of state waters. <br />? <br /> <br />The project rehabilitates an existing facility. <br />? <br /> <br />The project helps preserve agriculture and open space. <br />? <br /> <br />The project has state benefits through its connection to salinity control. The primary motivation for <br />the conversion to pipe from the existing ditch was in support of the Salinity Project. Its effectiveness <br />in this effort has been reduced by the inability to control flow rates. <br /> <br />Funding Overview <br />Engineering has put the cost of this project at $110,000. The applicants are asking for $87,500 in grant <br />funding with members providing $22,500 in matching funds (approximately 20%). <br /> <br />Discussion: <br />The members have existing debt of approx. $25K on the reservoir from earlier work and $85K from the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board loan for the recent pipeline construction. This is their previous <br />contribution to constructing and maintaining the dam. They have also voted to take on an additional $22K to <br />accomplish this work. This project will resolve control and safety issues with the current structure. The <br />project meets some of the evaluation criteria such as benefiting agriculture and furthering an important water <br />project that is struggling for funding. <br /> <br />While it appears that this project is of great value to the Bauer Lake Company it does not meet multiple <br />needs (24 members of the Company) or multiple purposes or multiple basin needs. The funding request does <br />not put new water to beneficial use and appears to primarily focus on resolving operating difficulties with <br />and existing pipeline/ditch delivery system. <br /> <br />Issues/Additional Needs: <br />The application does not explicitly address the Threshold Criteria. It is clear from different parts of the <br />application that all 4 threshold criteria are met. However, it would be helpful to have an explicit articulation <br />from the applicant. <br /> <br />The Scope of Work is insufficient and the applicant did not provide a budget or a schedule. The applicant <br />should refer to page 12 of the Criteria and Guidelines for information that should be included in the scope of <br />work, budget, and schedule. <br /> <br />The application does not describe the source of water supply for the reservoir. The source should be <br />described in terms of location, yield, and water rights involved. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />The proposed project meets some of the evaluation criteria as outlined in the discussion. The proposed <br />project would help improve the operations of a local agricultural water project. However, based on the <br />above discussion, at this time staff does not recommend funding the Bauer Lakes Water Company Dam <br />Outlet Structure Upgrade. The proposed project does not meet enough of the evaluation criteria to justify <br />funding from the Statewide Account. <br /> <br />If the applicant and Basin Roundtable wish to pursue the project, staff recommends that they reexamine the <br />amount of money requested from the Basin and Statewide Accounts (mix of basin, statewide and local <br />match), explore a revision/increase in their loan, and/or look to additional shareholder participation. <br /> 3 <br />