Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Tunnel Water Co. Agenda Item 11. <br />September 25-27,2000, (Updated September 27, 2000) <br /> <br />shareholders that fail to pay their assessments, and the power to offer stock for sale to pay <br />back assessments. <br /> <br />Water Riqhts <br />The water rights diverted through the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel consist of 4 rights with priorities <br />ranging from IF 71 to IF 75 and totaling 300 cfs. Table 1 is a summary of these rights. <br /> <br />Table 1: Summary of Water Rights <br /> <br />Name of Right Name of Ditch Priority IF CFS <br />Ditch No. 72 Rawah 71 <br />Ditch No. 73 Rawah and Lower SupplV 72 <br />Ditch No. 74 Mcintyre 73 <br />Ditch No. 76 Laramie River Tunnel 75 300 <br />Total 300 CFS <br /> <br />The maximum annual volume that may be diverted was set by U.S. Supreme Court case <br />Wvominq v. Colorado case May 13,1957, and totals 19,875 acre-feet. Records of the State <br />Engineer's Office indicate that the average annual volume has been 15,085 acre-feet. <br /> <br />Proiect Description <br />Five alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study: <br /> <br />1. The no-action alternative. <br />2. Rebuild only the collapsed portion of the tunnel ($1 million.) <br />3. Rebuild the collapsed portion of the tunnel, and other sections of the tunnel that are <br />found to be in need of immediate reconstruction. ($1.77 million.) <br />4. Bore a new tunnel ($22 million.) <br />5. Completely rehabilitate the entire tunnel ($2.33 million.) <br /> <br />Alternative 2, rebuild only the collapsed portion of the tunnel, was ruled out because it is not a <br />reliable approach. There are several other areas in the tunnel that are in imminent danger of <br />collapse. These areas must be repaired to ensure the tunnel operates satisfactorily through the <br />2001 irrigation season and until additional repairs can be completed. Therefore Alternative 3, <br />rebuild the collapsed portion of the tunnel, and other sections of the tunnel that are <br />found to be in need of immediate reconstruction, was selected, since it is considered to <br />be the least costly reliable approach. The no-action alternative was considered unacceptable <br />since it means the TWC could not deliver water to its shareholders. Alternative 4, bore a new <br />tunnel, was ruled out due to cost. <br /> <br />Alternative 5, completely rehabilitate the entire tunnel, is the ultimate goal of the TWC. <br />However, the Company's only source of immediate financing is the CWCS Emergency <br />Infrastructure Repair account, and loans from that fund are limited to $2 million in any given <br />year. (A $1 ,600,000 loan to the TWC will leave $400,000 in the CWCS Emergency Loan <br />Account for any other emergency loan requests through May 2001.) For this reason, the TWC <br />has decided to do the project in phases. Phase 1 deals only with the emergency, and is the <br />subject of this request. Phase 2 will be completed in fall 2001. A separate application will be <br />submitted lor a standard Construction Fund loan to cover Phase 2 construction. That loan <br />request will be approximately $560K and is tentatively scheduled for consideration November <br />2000, or January 2001. <br /> <br />2 <br />