My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05747
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05747
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:19:43 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:15:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8135.100
Description
Ditch Companies - Amity Mutual Irrigation Company
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
5/11/1988
Author
Davis Realty
Title
Amity Water Rights
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />1139 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />by using the Arkansas River as a channel, to the State of Kansas. <br />There appears to be no difficulty with this, but adequate provisions <br />would have to be made for either ditch losses or transit losses in <br />the river. A certain amount of water would have to be allocated to <br />maintain the historic return flows to the reach of the Arkansas <br />between the headgate of the Amity and the state line to protect <br />Colorado appropriators. <br /> <br />The other potentially feasible direct delivery would be by <br />pumping and pipeline to the El Paso-Douglass Counties area. This <br />scenario would require significant construction costs and pumping <br />costs. A cursory review of annual costs shows approximately $350 to <br />$400 per acre foot, which includes pipeline and easement costs, <br />pumping stations, operation and maintenance, and pumping costs. The <br />annual costs for the capital construction and easements were <br />obtained using a cap rate of 8%. It is also based upon delivery of <br />approximately 59,000 acre feet per year. It is entirely possible <br />that a combination of exchange and direct delivery can be made to <br />this particular area. An exchange and direct delivery combination <br />into the Pueblo Reservoir area, and then a pipeline from that point <br />to the E1 Paso-Douglas County line, could significantly reduce the <br />costs as well as the construction of the pipeline. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The pipeline from the Pueblo area, or the Pueblo Reservoir <br />area, would significantly decrease the amount of expense involved in <br />processing the water for consumptive use, inasmuch as the total <br />solids in Pueblo Reservoir is around 200 to 300 parts per million. <br />Whereas, in John Martin Reservoir, the total solids run about 1100 <br />parts per million in the drier years. <br /> <br />5, MARKETING PLAN <br /> <br />The marketing plan for the Amity could be a pipeline from the <br />Pueblo area, as presented, and petitioning the courts to transfer <br />the water into the Pueblo Reservoir, then being able to immediately <br />pipe that water out of Pueblo Reservoir to a storage facility in the <br />Colorado Springs area, or north of Colorado Springs. There has been <br />some discussion of a reservoir located north of Colorado Springs, <br />known as the Cast1ewood Canyon site, which has gotten a lot of <br />interest from people in the area at this time. Another storage site <br />would be in the area directly east of Colorado Springs on the old <br />Box T Ranch. However, the water would then have to be pumped out of <br />this and on to the north to the big water market. Therefore, at this <br />time, this site would not be an ideal site. Another site is what is <br />known as the Fremont Fort site, which is located on the E1bert-El <br />Paso County line on Bijou Creek. The water from this reservoir <br />could flow north towards Denver, or south towards Colorado Springs. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The pipe, located along the front range like this, could be <br />utilized to supply water to all of the developments along the front <br />range, thereby maximizing the market potential. In 1988, there were <br />listed 101 subdividers and developers in the area between Pueblo and <br />Monument. <br /> <br />The comparables show that the water rights along the Arkansas <br /> <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.