Laserfiche WebLink
deliveries are achieved. <br />The LLDC owns four priorities in the Lower Latham Ditch and one priority in the Lower Latham <br />Drain. Table 1 suinxnarizes the priorities owned by LLDC. <br />TABLE 1 <br />Summar of Water Ri hts owned b LLDC <br />Water Right Name TS RNG SEC Q160 Q40 Q10 �J. APRO. CASE <br />DATE DATE NO <br />Lower Latham Ditch SN 65W 31 NE NW N� 4/28/1883 5/12/1869 CA6009 <br />Lower Latham Ditch SN 65W 31 NE NW NE 4/28/1883 12/12/1874 CA6009 <br />Lower Latham Ditch SN 65W 31 NE NW NE 4/28/1883 11/14/1877 CA6009 <br />LowerLathamDitch SN 65W 31 NE NW NE 4/28/1883 10/24l1881 CA6009 <br />Lower Latham Drain SN 65W 32 NE NW 8/2/1918 7/8/1893 3/1/1889 CA54658 <br />USE <br />TYPE <br />IRR <br />IRR <br />IRR <br />IRR <br />IRR <br />RATE <br />(cfs) <br />20.4 cfs <br />35.77 cfs <br />97.68 cfs <br />133.88 cfs <br />35.0 cfs <br />The 2009 SWSP (Appendix C) includes a more detailed description of the water rights and a table of <br />historical diversion records. <br />7.2 Recharge Facilities <br />The LLRC is in need of either reservoir storage space or recharge facilities to store excess <br />consumptive use credit from the LLDC shares delivered during the summer and releasing the credit <br />during winter months to satisfy its irrigation well augmentation requirements and winter return flow <br />obligations associated with the LLDC shares. It is anticipated that recharge facilities, or reservoir <br />storage space, capable of delivering approximately 1,200 acre-feet of water during the winter months <br />is needed to meet the ultimate needs of the plan for augmentation. <br />A range of alternatives were considered for the project including: 1) new recharge facilities under the <br />Lower Latham Ditch system, 2) underground, or voids, reservoir storage constructed on property <br />owned by LLRC north of Kersey near the South Platte River, and 3) enlargement of the Lower <br />Latham Reservoir. Previous investigations for reservoir development, including voids storage and <br />enlargement of Lower Latham Reservoir concluded that these two alternatives were cost prohibitive. <br />Accordingly, recharge facility development is the most feasible alternative and adequately <br />accommodates the needs of the LLRC plan for augmentation. <br />-6- <br />