Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 0.2. fudge Clifford H. <br />Page Three <br /> <br />stone <br /> <br />IIay 24, 1910 <br /> <br />City estiJDates on the Hoosier Pass Diversion Project nOlI' under <br />construction i.nlti.cate a cost of $8.20 per acre foot ferr water delivered to <br />the Eleven Jo!:Ue cari;yan Reservoir, inCluding regulation of Sllch water to <br />'fit City needs. With modification of the plans to camply nth Bureau of <br />ReclmDat.i.an standards, the cost might increase to $l.O per acre foot, c0m- <br />parable nth a proposed charge of' $24 per acre foot for mue-South PJ.atte <br />Project water at the same location. <br /> <br />With respect to the proposed charge of' $24 per acre foot far <br />mue-South Platte Project water at Eleven !tiJ.e Canyon Reservoir, it can <br />therdore be said tbat: <br /> <br />(a) If it iJ3 intended to represent the fair value of water <br />to a monicipallty, the water should be delivered far that <br />rate to existing City intakes as it is to the Denver in- <br />take, instead of the Eleven Mile Canyon Reservoir. <br /> <br />(b) If it is to be the highest rate justified by a competitive <br />source or water, it shauJ.d conform to the cost of water at <br />Eleven Mile Canyon with the City project, built according <br />to the City standards. <br /> <br />(c) The City should not be called upon to pay far IIIIll1icipal <br />water delivered at Eleven Mile Canyon Reservoir, mare than <br />that its actual cost since the City derives no benefit <br />!'rom the irrigation planned under either project. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />The situation presented to the City in the March 1949 report by <br />the Bureau of Reclamation leads to the conclusions that: <br /> <br />(a) The Gunnison-Arkansas Project plans will not furnish the <br />City sufficient water for its uJ.timate needs and holds no <br />hope of :iJIImediately needed supplies. <br /> <br />(b) The Blue-South Platte Project offers a possibility of <br />meeting all City needs at a cost someWhat less than does <br />the Gunnison..Arkansas Project, m.th less complications: <br />and m.th a possibility of water needed prior to comple- <br />tion of the project. <br /> <br />(c) The propriety of the proposed charges for project water, <br />with either project, is questioned. Irrigation_ter <br />and electric power are delivered to all consumers at <br />their locations at equal cost. llunicipal water is to be <br />delivered to the Pueblo and Denver systems at a fixed <br />charge, but in the case of Colorado Springs, the same <br />charge iJ3 made at points distant from the City "Without <br />