My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02190
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02190
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:13:15 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:12:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/23/2001
Description
CF Section - Glenwood Irrigation Company
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br /> <br />Glenwood Irrigating Company <br />July 23-24, 2001 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 9a. <br /> <br />Water Rlahts I <br />The source of water for the GIC a 48 cfs direct flow rigHt out of the Roaring Fork River, and a 2 _ <br />cfs right out of Cattle Creek with appropriation dates of;July 25,1885, Total diversions were .. <br />6600 AF in year 2000. Diversions have averaged 15,200 AF for the period 1975 through 1998, <br /> <br />Project Description <br />Three alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study: <br /> <br />1, Construct a new diversion 200 feet upstrearn from the current location ($124K), <br />2. Construct a new diversion at the existing location ($187K), <br />3. The no-action alternative. <br /> <br />Alternative 2, Construct a new diversion at the existing location ($187K), was ruled out due to <br />cost. The existing location is a more difficult constructipn site requiring an additional concrete <br />structure to withstand the 50-year flood event. Alterna\ive 1, Construct a new diversion 200 feet <br />upstream from the current location ($124K), was the preferred alternative, since it was the least <br />overall cost that would allow continued diversion of th~ Company's water rights. The no-action <br />alternative was considered unacceptable since It leav~s the diversion sUbject to failure so that <br />the GIC could not deliver water to its shareholders. <br /> <br />Table 1: GIC Share Ownership and Blended Interest Rate <br />, <br /> <br />Shareholder <br />A rlcultural <br />Residential <br />Subdivisions <br />Totals <br /> <br /> <br />Year 2001 ate <br />3.5% <br />6% <br /> <br /># Shares GIC <br />573.5 <br />917,5 <br /> <br />Rate x Shares <br />2007,25 <br />5505 <br /> <br />1,500 <br /> <br />7512,25 <br /> <br />30-year blended rate for the GIC Blended Rate :i 7512.25/1500 shares 5 0/0 <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.