Laserfiche WebLink
<br />uncertainties about revegetation, the numerous reasons CWS could escape from the contract, the <br />long time until final payment, and lack of protection for themselves and neighbors if water was <br />ultimately withdrawn from parts of laterals, or parts of the canal in injurious fashion. The concerns <br />were expressed at a Ft. Lyon special shareholders' meeting in February, 1992. <br /> <br />The $2,228 per share may have been considered adequate by shareholders, absent the other <br />questions about the offer terms. However, assuming 8 to 9 years to complete the transfer and <br />establish revegetation, a net discount rate of 7 percent and an assumed "reliable yield" as stated in <br />the offer, rough computations place the net present value of the offer at about $500 to $1000 per <br />share, depending on interpretation of certain terms in the document offer. This estimate is not to <br />be considered authoritative due to the uncertainties in definitions contained in the CWS offer. <br /> <br />In March 1992, shareholders of approximately 28,600 shares formed a group to respond to the CWS <br />proposal called Fort Lyon Ownership of Water, Inc. (FLOW). The purpose of FLOW is <br /> <br />"to transact any lawful activity, and specifically activities relating to the protection of the Fort <br />Lyon Canal Company in the viable and continued operation of the Fort Lyon Canal <br />Company as an irrigation company or relating to the development of guidelines and <br />provisions for any future water sales." (Articles of Incorporation of Fort Lyon Ownership <br />of Water, Inc. Article III, March 24, 1992). <br /> <br />FLOW's activities slowed when the CWS offer was withdrawn, but the group pursued possible <br />engineering studies in the summer of 1992. Those efforts were discontinued pending the outcome <br />of the Boyle Engineering study on the Great Plains System and this study for the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board. <br /> <br />2.4 Issue Identification <br /> <br /> <br />There are multiple perspectives from which to describe issues and impacts related to large scale <br />rural-to-urban and agricultural-to-non-agricultural water transfers. For a transfer ofF!. Lyon Canal <br />Company water, issues are presented relative to the defined study area and the constituencies most <br />affected. The following issues arise from the impacts of a water transfer: questions of how can <br />impacts be avoided, mitigated, or offset; who should bear the burdens of the impacts; and who <br />should decide what actions to take, are key underlying considerations in identifying issues.' <br /> <br />Issues most relevant to the study area were developed by contact with local citizens, experience of <br />the project team and literature review. Issues are grouped in summary form and then detailed <br />below: <br /> <br />· Issues relative to urban and industrial interests are outside the scope of this study and not <br />included. Effects of transfers are discussed in Chapter 6. However, potential urban water demand <br />is discussed in Chapter 5 as an influencing factor for water transfers in the study area. <br /> <br />2-5 <br />