BOARD00621

• Board Meeting Date: 3/21/2002
• Description: CF Section - The Tunnel Water Company - Additional Loan
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Tunnel Water Co. Agenda Item 10b.
January 24-25, 2001. (Updated February 5,2001)
. The Tunnel Water Company
The TWC is a mutual ditch company and a
Colorado. There are 2 shareholders and 45
the Water Supply and Storage Company (
Windsor Canal and Reservoir Company (W
set annual assessments to be paid by the 5
shareholders tliat fail to pay their assessme
back assessments.
Water Riahts
The water rights diverted through the Lara
ranging from it 71 to # 75 and totaling 300 0
Table 1: Sum
Name of Riaht Name of Ditch
Ditch No. 72 Rawah
Ditch No. 73 Rawah and Lo
Ditch No. 74 McI ntvre
Ditch No. 76 Laramie River T
Total
The maximum annual volume that may be d
Wvomina v. Colorado case May 13,1957, a
. Engineer's Office indicate that the average
Proiect Description
Five alternatives were analyzed in the feasi
1- The no-action alternative.
2. Re5Uild only the collapsed portion of
3. Rebuild the collapsed portion of the t
found to be in need of immediate rec
4. Bore a new tunnel ($22 million.)
5. Rehabilitate the eastern V:a and parts
up from the initial estimate of $2.33
Aiternative 1., The no-action alternative Is u

non-profit corporation registered in the State of
o shares of stock. The TWC is two thirds owned by
WSSC) with 300 shares, and one third owned by the
CRC) with 150 shares. The TWC has the power to
hareholders, the power to cut off water deliveries to
nts, and the power to offer stock for sale to pay

mie-Poudre Tunnel consist of 4 rights with priorities
fs. Tabie 1 is a summary of these rights.

mary of Water Rights

unnel

Priorit #
71
72
73
75

CFS

werSu

300
300 CFS

iverted was set by U.S. Supreme Court case
nd totals 19,875 acre-feet. Records of the State
annual volume has been 15,085 acre-feet.

bility study:

the tunnel ($1 miliion.)
unnel, and other sections of the tunnel that are
onstruction. ($1.77 million.)

of the western V:a of the tunnel ($4.1 million, revised
million.)

nacceptable since it means the TWC could not

deliver water to its shareholders.

Alternative 2, rebuild only the collapsed portion of the tunnel, was ruled out because it is not a
reliable approach. There are several other areas In the tunnel that are in imminent danger of
collapse. These areas must be repaired to ensure the tunnel operates satisfactorily for the long
term.

.

Alternative 3, rebuild the collapsed portion of the tunnel, and other sections of the tunnel that
are found.to be in need of immediate reconstruction, was the preferred aiternative when the
Company applied for a CWCB Emergency loan in September 2000. However, this alternative
has since been ruled out because of the high cost of remobilization to complete the project.

2