BOARD01922

• Board Meeting Date: 1/24/2001
• Description: CF Section - Tunnel Water Company - Additional Loan
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

19

Tunnel Water Co.
January 24-26, 2001.

Agenda Item lOb.

,
I

The Tunnel Water ComDanv ;
Tl1e TWC is a mutual ditcl1 company and a non-profit corporation registered in the State of .
Colorado, There are 2 shareholders and 450 shares .of stock. The TWC is two thirds owned by
the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC) with 300 shares, and one third owned by the
Windsor Canal and Reservoir Company (WCRC) with 150 shares, The TWC has the power to
set annual assessments to be paid by the sharehold~rs, the power to cut off water deliveries to
shareholders that fall to pay their assessments, and the power to offer stock for sale to pay
baok assessments.

.

Water Rlahts .
The water rights diverted through the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel consist of 4 rights with priorities
ranging from # 71 to # 75 and totaling 300 cfs, Table 1 is a summary of these rights.

Table 1: Summary of Water Rights

Name of Right
Ditch No. 72
Ditch No, 73
Ditch No. 74
Ditch No. 76
Total

Name of Ditch ,
Rawah :
Rawah and Lower Suoolif
Mclntvre
Laramie River Tunnel '

Prlorltv #
71
72
73
75

CFS

300
300 CFS

The maximum annual volume that may be diverted was set by U.S, Supreme Court case
Wvomlna v. Colorado case May 13, 1957, and totalsl19,875 acre.feet. Records of the State
Engineer's Office indicate that the average annual v~lume has been 15,085 acre-feet. .

ProJect DescrlDtlon
Five alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study:

1 . The no-aotlon alternative.
2. Rebulid only the collapsed portion of the tunn~1 ($1 million.)
$, Rebuild the collapsed portion of the tunnel, aljld other sections of the tunnel that are
found to be in need of Immediate reconstructi~n. ($1.77 million.)
4. Bore a new tunnel ($22 million.) ,
5, Rehabilitate the eastern 'h and part8 of the w/:lstern 'h of the tunnel ($4.1 million, revised
up from the Initial estimate of $2.33 million.) .

Alternative 1., The no-action alternative is unacceptable since It means the TWC could not
deliver water to Its shareholders. I

Alternative 2, rebuild only the collapsed portion of th~ tunnel, was ruled out because it i8 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, rebuifd the collapsed portion of the tunnel, and other sections of the tunnel that
are found to be In need of Immediate reconstruction, iwas the preferred alternative 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 ofi remobillzation to complete the project.

2