BOARD01011

• Board Meeting Date: 9/24/2001
• Description: CF Section - Consolidated Home Supply Ditch and Reservoir Company
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

Consolidated Home Supply Ditch and Reservoir Co.
September 24.25, 2001

Agenda Item 15a.

Feasibility Studies
Colby Hayden, P.E., of Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. has completed the feasibility study in.
accordance with CWCS guidelines. The study includes an assessment of alternatives available for
rehabilitation of the Mariano Dam.

The Consolidated Home Supply Ditch and Reservoir Company
The CHSDRC is a mutual ditch company and a non-prqfit corporation registered in the State of
Colorado. There are 275 shareholders and 2001 share~ of stock. The CHSDRC has the power
to set annual assessments to be paid by the shareholders, the power to cut off water deliveries
to shareholders that fail to pay their assessments, and the power to acquire and sell the shares
of delinquent shareholders.

Water Rights
The Company owns water storage rights in Mariano Reservoir, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 ,
Consolidated Home Supply Ditch ~nd Reservoir Company
Mariano Stora e RI hts
Water Appropriation Adjudication Amount Administration Comment
Ri ht Date Date ac.ft Number
Mariano aka.
Reservoir Aug. 1, 1888 Mar. 22, 1890 5.570.7 14093.00000 Boedecker
lake
Mariano Refill once a
Reservoir Jun. 17, 1907 Nov. 14, 1939 5;570.7 29675.20986 year, George .
Refill Rist Ditch
195 cfs

The Company has consistently exercised the Mariano storage right, filling the reservoir during
the winter and spring and discharging during the irrigation season. The reservoir has both a
primary storage right and a refill right in amount of 5i570.7 ac-ft. The mean annual reservoir
storage (fill and refill) for the period 1982 through 1997 has been 7,522 acre-feet. Total
diversions by the Company (for all Company reservqirs and ditches) were 23, 631 ac-ft in year
2001.

Proiect Description
Three alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study:

1. No Action .
2. Construction of a toe drain and downstream toe berm ($1,048,000)
3. Complete dam reconstruction ($3,600,000) I

Alternative 3, Complete dam reconstruction, was r~led out as it would increase the cost of the
project significantly as well as increase the time required to complete construction, with little
added benefit. Alternative 2, Construction of a toe drain and downstream toe berm, consists of
economical construction techniques that are commoniy employed to repair seepage and
downstream slope instability. It was the alternative, with the least overall cost that was a
permanent solution to the problem. This alternativ~ will allow full reservoir storage and is
considered the preferred alternative. The no-action alternative was considered unacceptable .
since it would mean that the reservoir could not b~ filled and used for irrigation by the
shareholders. .

2