PROJ00445

• Contract/PO #: C150090
• Contractor Name: Parker Water and Sanitation District
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 8
• County: Douglas
• Bill Number: HB 02-1152
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

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

the former Castlewood Canyon dam was the recommended alternative for an upstream
Cheery Creek on-stream reservoir.

Based on the results of the Authority's study, as well as subsequent studies by the
District, it was determined by the District that the Castlewood Canyon site was the most
favorable location for upstream water storage and, therefore, the two additional sites
were dropped from the Water Court application in December 1991.

Since the Castlewood Canyon dam site is located within the Castlewood Canyon State
Park, it was necessary to get Colorado Parks and Outdoor Recreation's approval to
build the dam at this site. Even though the District proposed to dedicate 2,200 ac of
land as parks and open space to Castlewood Canyon State Park, the Colorado Parks
and Outdoor Recreation Board choose not to cooperate with the District in obtaining the
right to construct at the old Castlewood Dam site. The District's right to acquire the site
for a dam at Castlewood Canyon was denied by the Colorado Supreme Court in
November 1993.

However, prior to this decision by the Supreme Court, in June 1993 the District filed a
motion in Division 1 Water Court to add two alternate reservoir sites in case the
~tlewood Canyon dam site was disapproved by the Colorado Supreme Court. These
tow Iternate dam sites are Lake Gulch Reservoir, located on a tributary of Cherry
reek just upstream of Castlewood Canyon State Park, and Newlin Gulch Reservoir,
the current site of Rueter-Hess Reservoir.

-~

In addition to the above referenced studies, the same sites along with the alternative of
purchasing irrigation water and bringing renewable water from the west slope were
analyzed and dismissed during the development of the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) that is currently being completed. The "No-action" alternative is also considered in
the NEPA process. In this case, the no-action alternative is to continue to place Denver
Basin well into operation and produce groundwater at ever increasing capitol and
operation costs.

Again the alternative sites and projects were screened out of the process for a number
of various reasons and the preferred alternative, an smaller version of the Rueter-Hess
project and the no action alternatives were brought forward for further study in the
NEPA process for development of the EIS.

Cost Estimates

To date the District has spent $10,300,092 to purchase the land at the reservoir site as
in feasibility studies, to develop preliminary plans, survey, and permitting.

Parker Water & Sanitation District
Rueter-Hess ReselVoir Feasibility Study
August 2001

Page 8 of 13