Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />Stromberger Land & Cattle Company LLC <br />November 25-26, 2002 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 20b <br /> <br />SLCC wants to develop a recharge system, similar to the ones developed by several neighbors, . <br />including the State's Tamarack project, that will be used to offset the depletions caused by its 12 <br />wells. By generating its own augmentation water SLCC hopes to protect itself from possible <br />curtailment and help GASP strengthen its coverage.in the same area of the river. <br /> <br />Feaslbilltv Studies <br /> <br />A feasibility study has been completed by Brad Stromberger, owner, and engineer Brent Nation. <br />P.E. of Fort Morgan. in accordance with CWCB guidelines. The study includes an assessment of <br />alternatives available to generate augmentation alternatives for SLCC. <br /> <br />TheStroniberaer Land and Cattle ComDanv. LLC <br /> <br />The SLCC is a privately owned family farm operation in Northeastern Colorado. SLCC is a limited <br />liability company and has never been incorporated, 'It is owned by four members of the <br />Strombergerfamiliy, with each member having an equal share. They have been in operation since <br />1971. <br /> <br />Water Rlahts <br /> <br />SLCC currently has decrees on the 12 wells used for irrigating the SLCC farm. . These wells are <br />augmented through GASP. The proposed 6 recharge wells and one augmentation well will require <br />a new water right which is currently being sought. This new water right will be for a maximum of 35 <br />cfs with an average annual yield of 6500 acre~feet.According to the State Engineer's Office, the <br />SLCC has applied for the well permits. and review is in progress. <br /> <br />Prolect DescriDtlon <br /> <br />Three alternatives to generate augmentation supply for SLCC were considered in the feasibility <br />study: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. No-action alternative. <br />2. Purchase a senior water right and use it for augmentation, <br />3. Construct a series of recharge ponds using rech~rge wells. ($460.000) <br /> <br />Alternative 1, No-action, was not considered accept~ble due to the continuing changes in the water <br />community as a result of extreme drought condition$. Supplies currently used augment the 12 <br />SLCC wells are entirely secured by GASP on a one,year lease basis. If any of the leases are not <br />renewed, or cannot be renewed due to drought conditions, the SLCe could not operate their wells. <br />This would be an annual loss of approximately 5.000 acre-feet, leading to major loss of crops. <br /> <br />Alternative 2, Purchase a senior water right and use:it for augmentation, whil.e a common option for <br />Front Range communities. this was not considered financially viable for SLCC. SLCC found that <br />the only available water right for sale in the area wa~ with a farm controlling the Ramsey Ditch. The <br />Ramsey Ditch is a12 cfs direct flow right with a priority date of August 1894. In order to obtain the <br />water right the entire farm would have to be purchased at a price of $1.25 million. not including legal <br />fees to convert the water right to augmentation use.. <br /> <br />Selected Alternative 3. Construct a series of recharge ponds filled using recharge wells was <br />selected as the desired alternative. This alternativE\ would consist of drilling 6 wells to pump water . <br />into a series of recharge ponds in the winter months: when there is not a call on the river. Water <br />from the ponds would have a delayed return to the river in summer months when SLeC has <br />depletions that need to be offset with augmentation Water. The 6 wells, drilled within 100 feet of <br /> <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />