WSP03895

• File Number: 8131.400
• Description: Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 3/21/1968
• Author: SEWCD
• Title: Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors - March 21 1968
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Board Memo

': '

~'
.-,
w
, -..1'
OQ
'''-1

,,'
"

.,'

......;

.','

"

;....

': '. :'.,: .'

. ~,' .

. ."l.

',~'

RECORD OF PRDCEEDINS

.'
il
t
;
I'
;1

~,

areas between Pueblo and the eastern boundary of the Conservancy
District.

,:1
I

(b) There are 14 cities; 24 water user associations~ 43 unincorporated
areas, and a total population of 51, 000 people, including Lamar,
but not including Pueblo Army Depot and Fort Lyons Hospital.

(c) In 1960 it was estimated the Valley communities would use 7,500
acre-feet. and since that time. Lamar haa made application for
inclusion in the District with an e'stimated use of 2,000, or a grand
total in the Valley Pipeline of 9,500 acre-feet.

::1

(d) The Board has established a policy thst water sold in the Lower
A rkansas Valley Pipeline will be treated at Pueblo.

3. Upper Arkansas Valley Pipeline:

(a) Serve municipalities, water UBer associations. and unincorporated
areas from the western boundary of the Conservancy Di6trict to and
including Pueblo.

(b) There are 6 municipalities; 1 water user association; 14 unincor-
porated areas, and a total popuU,tion of 124',000 people.

:1

Ogilvie then stated that it is time to consider the following six factors, which are pre-
requisite to construction of the pipelines:

~ I
'I

1. Finding by the Secretary,

"
,

2. Determination of interest.

.'.' ,

3. Pattern of allocation.

i'
'I
II

4. Development of the plan.

5. Process for working out contracting arrangements.

t,

6. Construction (three years),

"

Mr. Ogilvie feels that the Board might want to develop a statement of policy indicating
the interest of the Board in negotiating a Repayment Contract on the pipelioe. with the
Secretary of Interior. . Nichols asked whether or not there was sufficient time for the
Board. the legal. counsel, and others to review data furnished at this meeting, and be
prepared to discuss a policy statement at the April 18, 1968 meeting. Ogilvie advised
there was sufficient time for this study.

Attorney Beise noted that within the three a:"~eas to be served by municipal pipelines.
there are a total of 22 cities; 25 water user associations; 64 unincorporated areas, for
a total of 111 customer entities, and a total estimated use of 26.500 acre-feet. He sug-
gested the Board must evaluate the total involvements of this aspect of the Project and
advised there were three alternatives, which are:

\,

, I
I
\

~ I
,"

~ I
.1

1. Not building the lines:

2. Create a combination of all entities, and/or a new water or pipeline association.

3. District would ~gree to sponsor and construct the pipelines.

Ogilvie observed that the pipeline'could be operated by the Disirict. McCurdy suggested

, I

"