Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-10-31 EWB MINUTESr ENGLEi'lOCD WA ':"ER ADVISORY BOARD UEETING = OCTOBER 31, 1956 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Frantz at 8:00 Po Mo Members Present: Banta, Frantz, Oliner, Purcell, Milligan, McCabe Members Absent: Scott Others Present: Mr. Rudd, City Manager; Mr. Shivers, Special Water Counsel The following letter was presented and read: October 31, 1956 Water Advisory Bo..ird City of Englewood, Colorado Gentlemen: Since the last meeting of this Board, a conference was held with lfro Glenn Saunders and ?Jr. F.arl Mosley, representing the Denver Water Board, concerning future use of Denver's existing facilities to transport water developed by Englewood .from its Ranch Creek project., It should be kept in mind that Denver is at present in the process of spending over $11 000,000 in improvem9nts on the Moffat Tunnel and has, in the past, ex- pended in excess of that amount in work upon the tunnelo It should likewise be kept in mind that, in connection with the Tri-City Trust, it has always been the plan that, when legal action is instituted to change the point of diversion of water rights purchased by the Trust, all water rights belong~ ing to Enelewood would be included in the transfer proceeding to a point upstream to obtain a better quality of ater and provide a gravity system to the pl.ant, it being always included in this pl.an to have the Decree permit alternate points of diversion; namely, the present location and the new location, so long as total withdrawal at both places does not exceed the amrunt of Englewocxi•a rightso Hereafter listed, in a brief outline form, are the points which have been discussed with Denver and which, by agreement, are to be drafted into a proposed con·&ract for submission to Denver representatives , discussion of changes, if any, desired by them, and eventual subnission to the Water Board itself for approvalo Before preparine the first draft in contract form, it is desired to submit these salient points to you for your preliminary approval and for any suggestions which you might haveo First it is proposed to deliver Englewood's water into possession of !)3nver on the rrestern Slope at the point where Engle ood•s facilities connect with Denver's existing Ranch Creek or Fast Line Canalo The water delivered to Denver woo.ld be measured at that pointsi and Denver would give to Englewood Platte River storage water in one of its Platte River reservoirs in an equivalent amount, less a certain percentage thereof to be charged for use of Denver's facilities and reservoiro The per- centage has not been determined, and the undersigned suggests that Enelewood propose 10%0 2 = Second, Englewood would be permitted to build up storage in nanver's reservoir to a maximum of J0,000 acre=feet (this figure being still open to negotiation), Denver having the option to select which reservoir is to be used and Englwood having the option as to the length of time it shall ta.Y..e to build up to its total storage figureo In otht!r wo:r'ds 1 for example» shou.ld Enele""' wood develop 2,000 acre-feet of water in 19571 Denver would make available in Platte River storage 1,800 acre-=-feetc. Englewood . could take the full 1 1 800 acre-feet in st.orage, or take 800 acre- feet and sell the remamder -. Should sales be made, Denver is to have the right of first refusal to purchase at the going market price at time pf saleo 'l'hird, when Englewood's maximum storane is reached, and during the tine the sane is being built up 11 Englewood will bear ite proportionate share of seepage and evaporation on the reser- voir ii arrl each year will refill said reservoir in the amount of such seepage and evaporation, plus refilling any amount used by Englewoodo When the rraxiinum is reached, after replacement of seepage., evaporation and refill, the balance would be for sale by Englewood at the C\.II'rent market price, Denver again having right of first refusalo Fourth., Englewood would pay to the ?.!of.fat Tunnel Canmission any cash cha~~s made by the Commission for the amount of water carried through the Tunnel from Fhglewood 1 a development_, it being provided that should I.enver ever acquire ownership of the Tunnel, no charge would be made by Denver except the percentage wa ttir charge above listedo Fifth, should Englewood as water require enllargement of the Ranch Creek or East Line Canal, Englewood must pay the expense thereof o Sixth 1 Denver would ha. ve control of the opera ti on of Engle- wood• s system, but only to the extent of operating the same in connection with their ater rights to obtain the best possible efficiency of both systems and bring the largest amount of water possible to the Eastern Slope fran both Denver's and Englmwood 1 s developmentso Seventh, should the joint change in point of diversion in connection with the Tri-City Trust be carried out, it is recommsnded that the ne upstream diversion point be located at one of Denver's present or future diversion points, and that "Whenever direct flow water is available upon E)lglewood' s Decrees and is not required by Englewood. 1 s demands, said water be used by Denver without charge; this being based upon the fact that direct flOlf rights cannot be sold, and if the same are not used by Englewood, the unused water simply goes doll?l stream., Eighth, in connection 1th the preceding paragraph, ~nver wruld grant to Englewood the right to use its existing rights of way, such as the High Line Canal and the City Ditch, to transport Englewood 1 s water by gravity to the planto It should be understood in connection with this that, dependent upon the location of the new point of diversion• En;;lewood might have to construct a aitch or pipeline for a short dis- t.a.nee to connect the new point of diversion with one of Denver's existing rights of wayo It has been suggested, but not discussed with Denver, that on the Transmountain water, since the law requires that it be applied to a beneficial use, if there is no market for sale of surplus , it be given to Denver free of charge at Gross Damo This suegestion is made on the theory that it ould increase Denver's willingnes s to enter into the contract, and perhaps this , coupled with use of direct rights not n eeded by Englewood, •ould reduce the percentage charee Denver wou l d makeo Any additional items which you. feel should be included in the contract should be determined at this meeting on October 31, 19560 Respectfully, /S/ Mo Oo Shivers, Jro S~ecia.l Water Counsel There followed a discussion of the above letter in datailo Milligan moved, McCabe, seconded, That the Water Advisory Board recommend to Council that authority be given far the drafting of a contract and that negotiations proceed with The Denver Board of Water Com- missioners based upon the general ?rincipals set out in the above lettero Ayes: Nays: Absent: .Banta, Frantz, Oliner, Purcell, Milligan, Mccabe None Scott llro Olin Kalmbach or Tipton and Kalmbach, Inco, Engineers, appeared to present and discuss their engineering report on the proposed Ranch Creek Collectiono This report, being a supplement to an original report of April 4, 1956, disclosed the fact that field explorations have proven that it is not feasible to construct a storage dam on cabin Creek above the level of the collection systemo This supplemen~ tal report contained the results or a reworking of the water studies, new estimates of yield or the proposed system without Cabin Creek reservoir 1 and estimates of cost of a modified projecto It was recommended by Mro Kalmbach that plans and specit'ications be prepared for the complete projecto Purcell moved, Olin.er, seconded, That the Water Advisory Board raco:mmerd to Council that they authorize completion of all Plans and Specifications for the entire collection ditch from Denver Canal to Ranch Creek, from Ranch Creek to Meadow Creek and all Plans and Specifications for Meadow Creek Reservoir in three schedules for bid purposes and including Engineer•s cost estimateso Ayes: Nays: Absent: Banta, Frantz, Ol:iner, Purcell, Milligan, Mccabe None Scott The following letter was presented and read at this time: 2017 South University Blvdo Danver 10, Colorado October 24, 1956 Englewood Water Board City Hall Englewood, Colorado Gentlemen: Inquiry has been made of the South West Cherry Hills Water District about the inclusion in the District of the area bounded by Little Dry Creek on the West, Quincy on the North, South University Blvdo on the East arrl Belleview on the Southo Water service for approximately So homes in this area would be naededo We woold appreciate a letter of canpliance from yau.r Board for the above inclusion into the South West Cherry Hills Water District, with assurance or water service from your system to the Sam9o rwd. Very truly yours, /s/ Arthur w o l}:)cker President, So W o CheITy Hills Water District After discussion, Oliner moved, Milligan, secondeda That the Water Advisory Board recommend to Council that tl'e area described in the above letter be allowed to bo included in The South West Cherry Hills Water Districto Ayes: Banta, Frantz, Oliner, Purcell, Milligan, McCabe Nays: None Absent: Scott There being no further business to come before the Water Advisory Boar-d, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 Po Mo Approved --~~~~~~~ Date: Subject: MEMCRANOOM TO THE ENGLE:iOOD crry COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECO?A!JENDATION OF THE ENGL'!WlOOD WATER BOAl.W October 31, 1956 Transportation of Trans=mountain Water: The following letter was received and read at the October 31, 1956 meeting of The Enr;lewood Water Advisory Board: October 31,, 1956 Water Advisory Boo.rd City of Englewood, Colorado Gentlemen: Since the last meeting of this Board, a conference was held with Mro Glenn Saunders and Mro Earl Mosley, representing the Denver Water Board, concerning future use of Deaver •s existing facilities to transport water developed by Englewood from its Ranch Creek project., It should be kept in mind tl'Ut Denver is at present in the process of spending over s1,ooo,ooo in improvements on the Moffat Tunnel and has, in the past, ex~ pended in excess of that amount in work upon the tunnel., It should likewise be kept in mind that, in connection with the Tri-City Trust, it has always been the plan that9 when legal action is instituted to change the point ~r diversion of water rights purchased by the Trust, all water rights belong- ing to Enelewood would be included in the transfer proceeding to a point upstream to obtain a better quality of water am provide a gravity system to the plant, it being always included in this plan to have the Decree permit alternate points of diversion; namely, the present location and the new location, so long as total withdrawal at both places does not exceed the amount of Englewood's rights. Hereafter listed, in a brief outline form,, are the points which have been discussed with Denver and which, by agreement, are to be drafted into a proposed contract for submission to Denver representatives, discussion of changes, if any, desired by them, and eventual submission to the Water Board itself far approvalo Before preparing the first draft in contract form.,, it is desired to submit these salient points to you for your preliminary approval and for any suggestions which you might haveo First, it is proposed to deliver Englewood's water into possession of Denver on the Western Slope at the point wharc@ Englewood s facilities connect with Denver's existing Ranch Creek or East Line Canalo The water delivered to Denver would be measured at that point, and Denver would give to En&lewood Platte River storage water in one of its Platte River reservoirs in an equivalent amount, less a certain percentage thereof to be charged for use of Denver's facilities and reservoir., The per- centage has not been determined.,, and the undersigned suggests that Englewood propose 10%0 Second, Englewood would be permitted to build up storage in Denver•s reservoir to a maximum of 301 000 acre-feet (this figure being still open to negotiation), Denver having the option to select which reservoir is to be used, and Englewood having the option as to the length of time it shall take to build up to its total storage f'igureo In other 'Words, for example, should Engle- wood develop 21 000 acre-feet of water in 1957, Denver would make available in Platte River storage 1,800 acre=feeto Englewood = 2""' could take the full l,800 acre-feet in storage, or take Boo acre= feet and sell the remainder.. Should sales be made, Denver is to lllve the right of first refusal to purchase at the going market price at time of sale o Third, when Englewood's maximum storage is reached, and during the time the same is being built up, Englewood will bear its proportionate share of seepage and evaporation on the reser= voir, and each year will refill said reservoir in the amount of such seepage and evaporation, plus refilling any amount used by Englewood. When the maximum is reached, after replacement of seepage, evaporation and refill: the balance would be far sale by Englewood at the current market price, Denver again having right of first refusalo Fourth, Englellood would pay to the Moffat Tunnel Commission any cash charges made by the Commission for the amou.nt of water carried through the Tunnel from Englewood's develo1111ent, it being provided that should !Snver ever acquire ownership of the 1Unnel, no cha.rge would be made by Denver except the percentage water charge above listedo Fif1ih, Should Enelewood's water require enlargement of the Ranch Creek or East Line Canal, Englewood must pay the expense thereof o Sixth, Denver would have control of the operation of J!hgle .... wood •s system., but only to the extent of operating the same in connection with their water rights to obtain the best possible efficiency or both systems and bring the largest amount of water possible to the F.astem Slope from both Denver •s and Englewood•s developmentso Seventh, should the joint change in point or diversion in connection with the Tri-City Trust be carried out, it is recommended that the new upstream diversion point be located at one of Denver's present or future diversion points, and that whenever direct now water is available upon Englewood's Decrees and is not required by Englewood's demands, said water be used by Denver without charge; this being based upon the fact that direct flow rights cannot be sold, and if the same are not used b7 Englewood, the unused water simply goes dORn~ stream'-" Eighth, in connection with the preceding paragraph, Denver would grant to Englewood the right to use its existing rights of way, such as the High Line Canal and the City Ditch, to transport aiglewood' s wa tar by gravity to the plan to It should be understood in connection with this that, dependent upon the location of the nan point of diversion, Englewood might have to construct a ditch or pipeline for a short dis= tance to connect the new point of diversion with one of Denver's existing rights of wayo It has been sugcested, but not discussed with Denver, that on the Transmountain water, since the law requires that it be applied to a beneficial use 1 if there is no market for sale of surplus, it be given to Denver free of charge at Gross Damo This suggestion is made on the theory that it would increase Denver's willingness to enter into the contract, and perhaps this, coupled with use of direct rights not needed b7 Englewood, would reduce the percentage charge Denver would make., Any additional items which you feel should be included in the contract should be determined at this meeting on October 31• 19560 Respectfully~ /S/ Mo Oo Shivers, Jro Special Water Counsel Recamnendation: That Council authorize the drafting of a contract and that negot.iations proceed with The Denver Board of Water Com- missioners based upon the general principals set out in the above lettero Respectfully submitted, ENGLEWOOD WATER ADVISORY BalRD R, F. Fran3! oh&lii!iin MEMCRANDUY TO THE EUGLE\WOD CITY COUNCIL RF.GARDilTG ACTION CR RECOt.MENDATION OF THE Ef{GLE:'TOOD WATER ADVISCRY BOARD Date: October 31 1 1956 Subject: Weste:n Slope \Yater Engineering Report b;y Tipton and Kalmbach Recollllll8nda.tion: That Council authorize canpletion of all Plans and Specifications for t.he entire collection ditch tram Denver Canal to Ranch Creek, fran Ranch Creek to Meadow Creek and all Plans and Speci£ications f <r Jieadow Creek Reservoir 1n three sehednles for bid purp~es and including Engineer's cost estimateso Reapectf'ull¥ submitted., ENGLEWOOD A.Tm ADVISCRY BOARD By: R. F. Franll Cba:rrmaii late: Subject: lffiliORANDUM TO THi~ mlGL .WOOD CITY "'OUNCII, REG. .l nm ACTION OR RECoa:mNDA'I'ION OF THR F.NGIE.70CI WATFB ADVISOO.Y BOARD October 31, 1956 Inclusion of additional area in The South West Cherry Hills Water District., The follOldng leti;.er was received and read at too October 31$ 1956 meeting of The Enelewocxl Water Advisory Board: DECKER & COMPANY 2017 SO., UNIVERSITY B1VD .. DENVER 10, COLCRADO October 24, 1956 E.."lelewood. Water Board City Hall Enrlewood, Colorado Inquiry has been made of the South West Ch rry Hills Water District about the inclusion in the District of the area brunded by Little Dry Creek on the West, Quincy on the North» South University Blvdo on the East and Belleview on the South ... Water service for approximately 50 homes in this area would be neededo We would appreciate a. letter of compliance from your·Boa.rd. for the above inclusion into the South West Charry Hills Water District, with assurance of water service from your system to the sameo d V'3cy truly yours, /s/ Arthur W o Decker ?> -c..:kltm t., ~~ow o Cherry Hills ~ ater District Recommendation: That the area described in the above letter be allowed to be included in The South West Cherry Hills Water Districta Respectfully subnitted1 EliGIEwfO<D WATER ADVISCRY OOARD By: