C153739 Feasibility Study

• Contract/PO #: C153739
• Contractor Name: Aristocrat Ranchettes Water Project, Inc.
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 2
• County: Weld
• Bill Number: SB 96-153
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

Aristocrat Ranchette Water Project, Inc.
Feasibility Study

4

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Alternatives Evaluated

A range of alternatives were considered including:

a. No Action.

b. Drill another well.

c. Acquire agricultural ditch rights.

d. Connection to Fort Lupton.

e. Central Weld County Water District.

A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows:

a. No action. Without an adequate water source for
existing customers, this is not considered an acceptable
alternative, and was rejected. AdvantaGes: Low Cost.
Disadvantaqes: Inadequate Water supply.

b. Drill another Laramie Pox Hills well. Although perhaps
one of the less costly short-term choices, the ARWP Board
concluded it was not approp~iate to waste customers dollars
on this band-aid approach, and it was readily rejected.
Advantaqes: Simple and low cost. DisadvantaGes:
Perpetuates the problem and provides no new supply.

c. Acquire agricultural d~tch rights. This requires raw
storage and a sophisticated treatment system to remove
potential contaminants. Th~ availability of supplies during
droughts made it unreliable, as well as expensive.
AdvantaGes: Provides local control and adds new source.
Disadvantaqes: No drought yield and technologically
complex.

d. Connection to Fort Lupton. City facilities are
reasonably close to ARWP, r~quiring only additional delivery
lines and a booster pump station. Costs would be reasonable.
However, after a long period of negotiation, Ft. Lupton
concluded it was unable to Drov~e a source of supply to
meet ARWP needs in a reliable fashion. AdvantaGes: Simple
and reasonable cost. Disadvantaqes: unavailable.