Laserfiche WebLink
<br />sideration of a permanent right to 70% of its storage <br />capacity and the payment of S10,000.00, which was <br />considered to be about 30% of the entire cost. <br /> <br />The capacity is estimated at 18,279 acre-;eet. The <br />Company is now desirous of developing and using the <br />reservoir, primarily to store the water which it is entitled <br />to receive yearly from the Queen Reservoir, to the ex- <br />tent of 5,483 acre-feet. By having this reservoi~ improved <br />the Company wouid be able to avo~d its proportion of <br />the cost of maintaining the Queen Reservo:r, and the <br />loss by evaporation and seepage, which is charged up <br />to the Fort Lyon Canal Company at the rate of 200 acre- <br />feet per month as long as the water stays in Queen <br />Reservoir. The proportion of maintenance cost charged <br />to the Fort Lyon Canal Compary in the past four years <br />was as follows: <br /> <br />1906. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S ~ 59.82 <br />1907. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 297.38 <br />1908. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 3,258.60 <br />1909. . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. 3.968.33 <br />A total in four years of. ..... S7,684.13 <br /> <br />Assuming that water stored in July was not wanted for <br />use, say, until the following April, the charge for seep- <br />age would be 1600 acre-feet, which being deducted <br />would reduce the supply available to about 3900 acre- <br />feet. With a maintenance tax of over S3,900.00 a year <br />the cost of the water would become very high, exceed- <br />ing one dollar per acre-foot. It is felt that if sLlch cost <br />can be avoided by the development of the independent <br />reservoir the outlay would be justified. The King Res- <br />ervoir could not be filled from the Fort Lyon Canal, ex- <br /> <br />52 <br />