Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'\ <br /> <br />Owl Creek Reservoir Company <br />Loan Increase <br /> <br />Agenda Item 26b <br />March 17, 2004 <br /> <br />granular material that over the years suffered structural damage due to seepage. In 1983 sand boils <br />appeared along the toe ofthe dam giving evidence that piping was occurring along the <br />dam embankment. Given the condition of the dam embankment and the potential for failure, the dam <br />was intentionally breached in 1983. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />FEASffiILITY STUDIES <br />In November of 2001, the Company provided a feasibility report to the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board, prepared by Applegate Group and CWCB staff, to rehabilitate the existing reservoir to a capacity of <br />1,200 acre-feet and to reconstruct the dam embankment and spillway. The feasibility study has been <br />updated to reflect a revised storage capacity of 1,750 acre-feet, design modifications, construction cost <br />based on actual bid results, and a revised financial analysis. <br /> <br />WATER RIGHTS <br />Runoff generated from the upper Owl Creek 160 square mile basin is the source of water for the Owl <br />Creek Reservoir. Currently, Owl Creek Reservoir Company owns 30,010 shares of water rights on Owl <br />Creek, under two separate decrees, as summarized below in Table 1, <br /> <br />Table 1. - Water Rights Summary <br /> <br /> <br />Priority No. <br />9 <br />15 <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />These water rights allow the Owl Creek Reservoir Company to capture all surface, flood, waste, storm, <br />seepage, and percolation water that originate in the upper basin that flows directly into Owl Creek <br />Reservoir. The Owl Creek Reservoir Company does have sufficient water rights to fill the reservoir on <br />an annual basis, <br /> <br />PROJECT DESCRIPTION <br /> <br />The original project, as approved by the CWCB in November of2001, was formally bid in May of2003, <br />The bid packet was developed to obtain a base bid for construction of the dam embankment, outlet <br />structure, spillway, and other miscellaneous items, and to require the Contractors to submit alternate <br />bids for dredging, spillway modifications, and grading. The alternate bid for dredging involved the <br />removal of 1,666,500 cubic yards to achieve the full 1,750 acre-feet of storage, It was the intent ofthe <br />owner to review the bids received and determine what level of project was most beneficial for the <br />Company to undertake. <br /> <br />The Company received bids from four qualified Contractors, the low bidder being R.E. Monk, from <br />Colorado Springs, Colorado at $2,499,923. Based on the bids received, the Company was left with <br />three possible alternatives, described as follows: <br /> <br />], Reconstruct existing dam embankment, construct new outlet structure and spillway and keep <br />reservoir at existing capacity of 800 acre-feet. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2 <br />