Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'< <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />721 State Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3441 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLOMDC <br />o <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />David w. Walker <br />Olre<:lor <br /> <br />May 13, 1991 <br /> <br />Mr. Arthur Newman, General Partner <br />Lloyd Ranch Limited Partnership <br />3216 E. Spruce St. <br />Seattle, WA 98122 <br /> <br />Subject: Rehabilitation Project on Rapid Creek Reservoir <br />Nos. 1 & 2 <br /> <br />Dear Mr.Newman: <br /> <br />Please be advised that your April 15, 1991 letter to me did <br />not properly respond to question no. 4 in my April 1, 1991 letter <br />to you on the subject matter. Specifically, you did not explain by <br />what authority you could collect additional funds from the Limited <br />Partnership (LP) in the event that the operating expenses exceeded <br />the revenues in a given year. This matter has a great bearing on <br />our approval of a loan to the LP. <br /> <br />In addition, we are concerned about the "cloud" on your water <br />rights for this project. I refer specifically to paragraph III A <br />of the Disclosure Certificate in Case No. 88CW303, District Court, <br />Water Di vision 5, Colorado which states as a disputed issue <br />"Whether the Applicant has put in place and used the water. rights <br />and if these water rights are where applicant has indicated in the <br />applications". It appears to us that if you received an adverse <br />ruling in this case that it could affect your required storage <br />capacity in Rapid Creek Reservoirs Nos. 1 & 2. <br /> <br />In conjunction with the proposed project we have been told by <br />the State Engineer's Office (SEO) that the plans and specifications <br />for Reservoir No. 1 have been submitted for review, but as of this <br />date they have not been approved. The SEO further informs us that <br />nothing has been submitted for review on Reservoir No.~ at this <br />time. Under these circumstances I might suggest that the LP <br />proceed on the rehabilitation of Reservoir No. 1 without benefit of <br /> <br />bj37.ltr <br />