PROJ00112

• Contract/PO #: C153767
• Contractor Name: River Oaks on the Roaring Fork Property Owners Association
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 38
• County: Eagle
• Bill Number: SB 97-008
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I
I
I
I
I
I

Need for the Project

The RORFPOA is undertaking this project to provide raw water to
homes in the service area for irrigation of lawns and gardens.

Potable water is currently provided to the Subdivision by Mid
Valley Metropolitan District, which bills at a flat rate of about
$30 per month. Mid Valley plans to install water meters and bill
based on actual usage. When this happens, summer water bills are
expected to be in the $100 to $200 range. Mid Valley wants to
promote conservation of potable water so that it can cover all its
potable water delivery commitments.

Alternatives Evaluated

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Alternatives considered include 1) Don't build the project,
2) Build an independent raw water system to irrigate 7.5 acres
within the service area, and 3) Build an independent raw water
system to irrigate all lands within the service area.

A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows:

1. Don't build the project:

Residents of River Oaks would have to pay $100 to $200 per month
during the summer, in order to irrigate their lawn and garden
areas. As an alternative, they could cut back on irrigation, and
let portions of their yards dry up. Although feasible, this
choice is not desirable.

2, Build an independent raw water system to irrigate 7.5 acres
within the service area:

Building an independent raw water system would enable each River
Oaks Subdivision resident to have an adequate water supply for
garden and landscaping on about 40% of their lot. The cost per
lot owner would be in the range of $250 per year. This
alternative is feasible, and is the preferred alternative.

3. Build an independent raw water system to irrigate all lands
within the service area:

This alternative would require the acquisition or lease of
additional water, but would allow irrigation of all land within
the service area. Most residents currently irrigate the area
around their homes, and maintain native vegetation on the
remaining portions of the lot. The additional cost of this
alternative, due to the larger system and water requirements, is
not justified by the nominal additional benefit. This alternative
is feasible, but is not the preferred alternative.

I
I

3