CT2015-171 Feasibilty Study

• Contract/PO #: Ct2015-171
• Contractor Name: The Lower Poudre Augmentation Company
• Contract Type: Loan
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

Alternative #1
One course of action considered was the"Do Nothing" alternative. By continuing to
lease, and not purchase, the subject NCLPIC and CLPRC shares, there is the w 1S
potential for an interruption in the water supply from these shares, or a limitation on
the use of the shares in projecting future supplies. Under this alternative, the potential C06-1 '°
exists for continuing or increasing the restrictions on pumping of member irrigation keA ,
wells because of this uncertainty in augmentation supply. The well owners are not
able to fully utilize an available water source that is on their property for irrigation.
The pumping limitation requires the well owners to go to other water sources to
provide irrigation water for their crops. This alternative was considered unacceptable.
Alternative #2
The second alternative considered was to acquire the available water shares that are
readily useable in the augmentation plan. The subject shares have been decreed for
augmentation and recharge uses. This alternative meets all the goals of the project.
By acquiring these shares, it provides a more reliable water supply for the LPAC
augmentation plan. The cost estimate for this alternative is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Alternative #2 Cost Estimate
New Cache La Poudre Irrigating Co. Shares
34.5 shares @ $35,000/share $1,207,500
Cache La Poudre Reservoir Co. Shares
4.0 shares @ $18,000/share $72,000
Total Project Cost $1,279,500
Alternative #3
The third alternative considered was to locate and purchase other water rights for the
plan. Currently, the applicant is unaware of other shares in the New Cache La Poudre
Irrigating Company or the Cache La Poudre Reservoir Company that are readily
available for purchase that have gone thru the Change of Water Rights process and
are ready to be used in an augmentation and recharge plan. Shares are at times
available that are for irrigation use only. If shares of water were purchased that are
for irrigation use only, a Change of Water Rights application would be necessary to
allow the shares to be used for augmentation. Also, the use of alternative sources
would necessarily require the purchase of water rights at an equivalent or greater cost
than the subject shares. In the end, Alternative #3 could provide similar benefit to the
LPAC, but the potential costs would be higher than the Alternative #2 shares due to
the unknown cost of engineering and legal counsel for a change case. One difficulty
with Alternative #3 is the lack of certainty of water shares being available to
purchase. The estimated costs of Alternative#3 are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
9