Board Meeting 12/03/1981

• Board Meeting Date: 12/3/1981
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

The discussion returned to the Town of Erie proposal. The
consultant indicated a need for 10 days to analyze the yield
potential and consumptive use so requested a postponement.

The Board turned its attention to the three projects
requesting different funding arrangements in item 7c, The Rio
Grande Reservoir was presented as a unique circumstance because
some benefits accrue outside the district, The reservoir is a
component of the state's approach to fulfilling, but not over
delivering on its obligations under the Rio Grande Compact,
There is also a beneficial relationship to the Closed Basin
project, Since the compact precludes new storage, expansion of
the reservoir's storage capacity, as proposed, offers an
opportunity to the State Engineer to manage the additional
storage to minimize excess deliveries during periods of high
flow, If repaired solely for benefit of district users, only
about 35,000 acre-feet capacity would be provided. However, if
the spillway is raised to allow passage of the probable maximum
flood, then 52,000 acre-feet capacity could be provided with the
additional 17,000 acre-feet available to the State Engineer.
That alternative is significantly more expensive than others
analyzed, but is the only one to provide optimum use of the
potential. It was agreed that a formal arrangement with the
State Engineer would be required as a condition for the approval
of a grant for the costs attributable to increase its capacity,
The project request is for $515,000 in reimbursable funds, and
$619,500 in nonreimbursable funding.

I

Next, the Overland Reservoir proposal was presented.
Storage has been restricted since 1957 when the dam settled and
cracked, Various plans for repair have been considered since
then, but the recommended alternative is for a new dam with
greater storage capacity and no loss of water during construc-
tion. An access road and recreation facilities on U,S. Forest
Service lands would be included. Costs have escalated during the
process, and a delay has occurred while the reservoir company
sought a permit from the Forest Service.

A small project loan of $1,665 million is available from the
Bureau of Reclamation, a reimbursable contribution of $750,000 is
requested along with about $3 million in nonreimbursable funding
from the construction fund,

The Fruitland-Mesa project was then presented as a
reformulation of the authorized federal project. To reduce the I
existing water shortage of 33%, two alternatives for expansion of
Gould Reservoir were analyzed. The district members do not have
financial capacity to repay a regular 50% state contribution,
instead the anlysis suggests about a 15% capability. The
referred alternative costing $4.3 million would reduce water
shortages by 68%, but the state would only receive $1.7 million
repayment on its investment. The estimated benefit/cost ratio of

-6-