HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-18 WSB AGENDAAGENDA
ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD
September 18, 1990
5:00 p.m.
Conference Room A
City Hall
1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 1990 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS ARTICLE DATED AUG. 26, 1990.
(ATT. 2)
3. LETTER OF COMMENDATION -STEVE SCIBA (ATT. 3)
4. LICENSE AGREEMENT -COURT PLACE. & W. POWERS
18" STORM SEWER -LITTLETON RAILROAD DEPRESSION
PROJECT.
LICENSE AGREEMENT -W. LAKE AVE. & S. PRINCE ST. -
CITY DITCH. (ATT. 4)
5. ENGLEWOOD SENTINEL ARTICLE DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1990.
(ATT. 5)
6. LETTER TO ED DRAPER REGARDING UNION PARK/COLLEGIATE
RANGE WATER PROJECT. (ATT. 6)
7. THE PROSPECTOR ARTICLE DATED AUGUST, 1990. (ATT. 7)
8. OTHER.
...
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.
Chairwoman Gulley declared a quorum present.
Members present:
Members absent:
Bullock, Fullerton, Gulley,
Habenicht, Neumann, Vobejda, Van
Dyke, Van Seiver
Lay
A1 I .. I
Also present: Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
Mike Woika, Utilities Manager
Rick DeWitt, City Attorney
1. MINUTES OF THE JULY 10, 1990 MEETING.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board phone poll in lieu of the
July 10, 1990 meeting was approved as written. No vote was was
taken.
2. GUEST -CARL OSBORNE -2820 S. BROADWAY
Carl Osborne appeared to explain the basis of his request for a
refund of past sewer charges. In April, Mr. Steve Shea
discovered that his residence at 2820 s. Broadway was not
connected to the City sewer main. Records show a permit was
issued in 1935 and the City has been billing for sewer as far
back as the City records go, which is August 8, 1983. It was not
clear if the sewer tap fee was ever paid, but was decided by
staff to allow Mr. Shea to connect to City sewer without paying
any sewer tap fees.
Sewer charges have been refunded to Mr. Shea from when he
purchased the property in 1987 to present. The Board concurred
not to charge Mr. Shea for the sewer tap, but not make any
further refunds.
Mr. Fullerton moved;
Mr. Van Seiver seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To deny Mr. Osborne's request for
further refunds, but not to charge
Mr. Shea a tap fee for connecting to
the City sewer line.
Bullock, Fullerton, Gulley,
Habenicht, Neumann, Vobejda, Van
Dyke, Van Seiver
None
Lay
3. WATER ATTORNEY LITIGATION CASES
Rick DeWitt, City Attorney and Stewart Fonda, Director of
Utilities will be meeting to review cases the City of Englewood
Utilities Department is currently involved. The Board will
receive a report at a future meeting. Mr. Bullock recommended a
program where the Water and Sewer Board would be more involved in
the water court cases.
4. WESTMINSTER'S STANDLEY LAKE CHANGE CASE
Mr. Hill discussed the background of the Stanley Lake Change Case
going to trial on August 20, 1990. Westminster is seeking to
change its Standley Lake rights, an agricultural reservoir, to
municipal use. This change would adversely affect the 1948
McLellan Reservoir rights. Englewood proposed a settlement with
Westminster guaranteeing to fill a portion of McLellan Reservoir
with Southpark flows to mitigate the possible injury. Mr. Hill
is meeting with Westminster on August 15, 1990.
Mayor Van Dyke excused herself at 5:50 p.m.
5. CADSWES RESEARCH PROJECT
The CADSWES project is a South Platte Management Program to run
on computer workstation which models the South Platte River.
Phase I will cover the South Platte River and its tributaries
upstream from its confluence with St. Vrain Creek. The model
would benefit Englewood because it could lead to better river
administration, by establishing unbiased information for the
State Engineers off ice to us in making river administration
decisions. The model would incorporate existing flow monitoring
stations. After the first phase is completed, participation in
additional phases and required funding will be first approved by
the Board.
Mr. Bullock moved;
Mr. Fullerton seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
6. 1990 FIELD TRIPS
To approve a $5,000 limit to
participate in Phase I of the
CADSWES Project.
Bullock, Fullerton, Gulley,
Habenicht, Neumann, Vobejda, Van
Seiver
None
Lay, Van Dyke
There will be a field trip to the Colorado State Fair on August
31, 1990. Board members are to meet at 7:00 a.m. in the north
parking lot at City Hall.
The ne x t field trip to Boreas Pass is tentatively set for October
6, 1990. Details will be discussed at future meetings.
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be 5:00 p.m. on
September 18, 1990 in Conference Room A.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
TO: CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 1990
WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES
,_Rocky Mountain News · Sun., Aug. 26, l 990
---... -."irt '"::l..'"" _____ ,._f'",.., , .... , ........... .
SEWER FEES ..... _
Wholesa le sewer fees paid to the Metro Wastewater Reclamation . ,·
it·~· District over the past 10 years .
CITY 19 8 0 198 5
Denv er $6,435,688 $11,490 ,563
Aur ora $1,800,904 $3, 190,919
199 0
$17.387 ,298
$6,333.026
$2.030,763
1991
$20.381.457
$6,984,747
$2,460,100 I!. Arv ada $929,611 $1,300,000
~~ Sewer rate increase -.. ·:;. .
• ~'! = :~:t/ to boost water bills
..
• 1-. -
.i
\
!·
I
By Karen Bo wer s
Rocky Mountain Neu•s Staff Wri ter
A half-million homeO\vners are
likely to be paying more for sew-
age senice next year as cities pass
on a 16% rate hike from the Metro
Wastewater Reclamation District.
The effect on individuals is ex-
pected to be minimal , however,
v.ith most people seeing an in-
crease of $1 or Jess a month in
their water bills .
Gnfortuna teiv, ne>.."t vear 's hike
will not ':le t he last. ·
"We expect to have to keep
raising rates as we have to do
more an::i better (wa ter) treat-
ment ," said Dick Johnston, a
sp okesman for the was t ewater dis-
trict.
Metro acts as a wholesaler , sell-
ing wastewater transportation and
treatment senices to 44 local gov-
ernments -an es~imated 1.3 mil-
lion pe ople -in the Denver a:-ea .
The ciis::i c! serYes Denver, Lake-
wood, Au:o:-a , Thornton, Anada
and pa:-ts of Westm inster and
Wheat Ridge.
Commerce City , ?\orthglenn,
Littlet on anc Englew ood are not
in:Jude d.
Rate in c:-ta ses t o ho :rJt ov>ners
v.ill Yary 2cco rdir.g t o where L"iey
live. In Del'!Yer, for example, users
probably will face a 7.7% hike in
their bills.
The average Den\'er household
is billed $2 0.48 even other month
for sewage charges, Said Bob Mac-
donald, director of finance and ad-
ministration for the DenYer
Wastewater Division. That is ex-
pected to increase by about $1.58
on Jan. 1 if the city council ap-
proves the hike.
Aurora residents might end up
v.ith a 5% increase in their sewage
rates, costing them an estimated
35¢ more a month after April 1,
said Tom Griswold, director of
utilities for the citv .
Aurora reside.nts still might
flinch when they get their water
bill. City officia ls are considering
raising water sen~ce rates by 9%
and are considering a smaller in-
crease for st orm drainage fees.
City officials in Littleton , Lake-
wood, Wheat Ridge and Arvada
are still formuiating their 1991
budgets, and though they are ex-
pected to raise sewage rates , it
could not be learn~d last week how
much more the residents can ex-
pect to pay ne>..i year.
The primary reason for Metro 's
rate hike is to help pay off $97
million in water bonds approYe d by
voters in 1988. Most of the bo nci
money went toward upgrading ti':e
district 's transmission and treat-
me nt s,·s te:r. to rer.ioYe of amrn o-
rij a fro m trta:ed was t e wa t er dis-
charged into r.he South Plane
River.
District officials estimated at
the time that the average home-
owner' s sewer bill would increase
by i5c a month for four years.
Johnston said Metro's rates have
been increasing an average 16 % to
18% for the past few years. •
: .. : ~ ..
4180 So~th Acoma . Street,
En€lewood CO 80110-4625
Aug-1.;st 29, 1990
l'JI". Jbhn Bock
Customer Service l~nager
Englevood lt~lities Lept.,
3400 South Elati Street,
En&lewood CO 80110
Dec.r Sir:
I had a very pleasant experience yesterday.
A young man from the city water service oper&tio~ vas cles.ring
a curb stop across the street from ~y home wben I returnee from
an erranc.
ne was a~kec bow to obtai~, fro~ your ce?a.rtment, the loc~ticn of
s~ch curb stop access cevices ~or so~e ~eighb:rs o~ ~ine.
::e c.:c s::>, l:>c~t:ng a:;d "test:ng :te \r::.2.,·e.s f:)~ tr.:...-e~ 'J: .... cy ne:g:.-
bo:-5, all · .. ;:th a:-~c. in a very ;:lea.::.s.:::t co-o:;: e::-a ti ve ::=..:-.::.-::-. So:ne
:)C:~E:o!1s ·.._·:~e:-ei::i s.ss:st=-.. ::ce ~s ·:iee ::1 :lE:eC.ed f:-JJJ ve .~:c '..:s m'J:-.. i-
c:p~l o~e::-s.t~:~s have n:t been cl:se ~c as ~leasa~t as tt~s ~o~~g
~-='s ~~~~e~ a~a acc~mFlis~e~t.
! !-,il::--1y recorar::ie::i:: h:m and ~ope y::n; ·.,;i 11 be atle to ascertai::. his
n;;.me teca;;se : die =-i:-t get it.
\'ery tr-.;l:; y .:;·..:rs,
~~';/_~
,4,· • .=. • v c..:: .:.m:..n
/. ...·:_,·";,:;,. ..
City of Littleton
Public Services Department
2255 West Berry Avenue
Littleton, Colorado 80165
(303) 795-3863
FAX (303) 795-3819
September 4, 1990
Mike Woika
City of Englewood
3400 S. Elati St.
Englewood, CO 80110
RE: City Ditch L icense Agreements
Dea r :\1ike:
As pan of Linleton·s 1990 Storm Sewer Construction. v-;e are proposing to undertake
storm drainage related construction at two locations which v.iU require the approval of
Engle\\'OOd. This work encroaches into E nglewood City D itch right-of-way at both
locations. Attached to this letter are license agreements and construction plans for the
proposed work at these rwo locations.
The first location is at the west edge of the Court Place and \Vest Powers Avenue
intersection. At this location there exists an 18" concrete storm sewer which drain s into
the Littl eton Railroad Depression drainage ditch. This storm sewer does not ha\·e
adeqm1te erosion protection at the outlet and. as a result, has eroded the area. The
juncti on box we propose to construct at the outlet of the storm sewer to address this
problem encroaches into City Ditch right-of-way. Since we have no record of a license
agreement for the existing storm sewer, I have included the storm sewer in the attached
agreement.
The sec o nd location is at West Lake A\'enue, just east of South Prin ce Street. As a
result of pip in g the City Ditch at this location in conjunction with the Li ttleton Ra ilro ad
Depression project, surface drainage has been interrupted and water stands in adjacent
properties. Littleton proposes to construct a concrete pan and storm sewer to address
this problem . You may recall having discussed this proposed concrete pan and storm
sewer crossing with Fred Bromberger last year.
,,./ '
Mike \Voika
September 4, 1990
Page 2
The attached license agreements are in the same format as the most recently approved
agreement betv.1een Englewood and Littleton, which was for a storm sewer crossing
under the City Ditch in Ridgewood Park. Please review tbe license agreements and
construction plans at your earliest convenience and call me at 795-3865 if you have any
comments or questions.
Sincere!:·~
C~aessler, P.E.
Engineer I
Enclosures
LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the __ day of
, 19 , by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
_a_m_u_ru-.c-ip_a_l_c_o_rp_o_r_a-:ti~o-n-o~f=--=c=-o-=-10-r-ado, hereinafter referred to as "City" and CITY OF
LITTLETON, hereinafte r referred to as "Licensee".
\VITNESSETH:
The City without any warranty of its title or interest whatsoever, hereby
authorizes Licensee, its successor, assigns, to install an 18" concrete storm sewer and
junction box over the City's rights-of-way for the City Ditch, described as follows:
A parcel of land situated in the southwest quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Six teen
(16), Township Five (5) South, Range Sixty-Eight (68) \Vest of the Sixth Princip al Meridian,
County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado , as shmvn on the attached drawing.
1. The size of the storm sewer will be eighteen inches, as shown on the attached
location drawing.
2. ..<\ny cons truction contemplated or performed under this License shall comp ly with
and conform to standards and spe cifications formulated by the Di rector of Utilities and of
the City and such construction shall be performed and completed according to the approved
plans and spec ifi cations.
3. Licensee shall notify tbe City's D irector of Utilities at least tbree (3) days prior TO
the time of commencement of tbe construction of or any repairs made to Licensee·s storm
sewer, so that the City may, in its discretion, inspect such operations.
4. Within thirty (.30) days from the date of commencement of construction or any
repairs to said storm sewer the licensee shall complete such construction, and sha ll clear the
area of all construction debris and restore the area to its pre\'ious condition as near as may
be reasonable. ln the event the clearing and restoration of the area is not completed\\ ithi n
the time specified, t be City may complete tbe work at the sole expense of the li censee.
5. The Cit y shall have the right to maintain, install, repair, remove or relocate the City
Ditch or any other of its facilities or installations within the City's rights-of-way. dt a:-iy tim e
and in such manner as the City deems necessary or conven ient. T he City reser\'eS the
exclusive right to control all easements and installations. In the event the storm sewer
sbouk.I interfere with any future use of the City 's rights-of-way by the City, the Licensee
shall, upon request and at its sole expense, relocate, rearrange , or remove its installation so
as not to in terfere with any such use.
-, -
License Agreement
Page 2
6. Any repair or replacement of any City installation made necessary, in the opinion of
the City's Director of Utilities because of the construction of the storm sewer and other
appurtenant installation thereof, shall be made at the sole e;i."Pense of the licensee.
7. The stipulation and conditions of this License shall be incorporated into contract
specifications if the construction herein authorized is to be done on a contract basis.
8. -The rights and privileges granted in this License shall be subject to prior agreements,
licenses and/or grants, recorded or unrecorded, and it shall be the Licensee's sole
responsibility to determine the existence of said documents or conflicting uses or
installations.
9. The Licensee shall contact and fully cooperate with the City's Ditch operation and
maintenance personnel and the construction shall be completed without interference with
any lawful , usual or ordinary flow of water through the City Ditch. Licensee shall assume
all risks incident to possible presence of such water, or of storm water, or of surface water
in the City D itch or on the C ity Ditch rights-of-way.
10. Lic ensee. within its le£al abilitv to do so under the Constitution of the Sta t e of ~ .;
Col orado and without in any way or manner intending to waive or wai\'ing the defenses of
limitations on damages provided for under and pursuant to th e Colorado Governmental
Immu nity Act (Sec. 24-10-101, et seq. C.R.S.)., shall indemnify and sa\'e harmJess the City,
its officers and empl oye es, against any and all claims, damages, ac tions or causes of action
and expenses to which it or they may be subjected by reason of any work done or omission
made by Licensee, its agents or employees, in connection v,ith the replacement, maintenance
or repair of said installation.
11. It is expressly agre ed that in case of Licem.ee's breach of any of the within promises,
the City may, at its option, have specific performance thereof, or sue for damages resulting
from such breach.
12. Upon abandonment of any right or privilege herein granted, the right of Licensee to
that extent shall terminate.
13. Licensee is expressly forbidden from constructing permanent structures or buildings
on the City Ditch rights-of-way, except as provided herein.
In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the right to make full use of the
property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the cooperation of the water works
plants and system under the __ co~trol of the City.
• -.
License Agreement
Page 3
. _ .. .-~
IN \VITNESS WHEREOF, this-instrument has been executed as of _the day and year first
above written.
APPROVED
Stewart Fonda
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorn ey
CF:mm /eng \l E nglewo
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
acting through and _ by its
Water and Sewer Board
Chairman
LICENSEE:
P r e sid e nt of C ity Co un cil
SV 1/ 4 SECTION 16, TDVNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 \JEST 6th P.M.
\,/ 114
COR.
SEC. 16
w u z ......
Ck'.
0...
vi
S'W 1/ 4, SEC. 16
PLAN
s2o·ss· 46'\,/
4.16'
S69.33'27'E
25~00'
SCALE1 1' = 20'
ARAPAHOE COUNTY
I
N69 .33'27 ''v/
25 .21'
Nl3.06'15'E
14.4 7'
POINT OF
BEGINNING
STORM N
PROPOSED JUNCTION
BOX AND 18' NRCP
STORM SEVER I -~~~
/ct_ CITY DITCH
~ PROPOSED GROUND
5373 .2 . I '-ELEVATION
PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
---:g:~
~~--------;,.~, ----[ ------1 ----
I
I
I
T---~53;: I L EXISTING 18 '
NRCP STORM
SE'v/ER I
II'±
~5 3 61.6
5363.1 (L,r-5<'RCP
CITY OF ENGLE\JOOD
S CALE • AS SHO'v/N DATE : AUGUST 27, 1990
D RN . RMr l_T_R_. ___ r:.:--'-C_K_. _CA_r __ I
APP. DR. Nn .
LICE~SE AGREE:\iE~~
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the __ day of
, 19 , by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
_a_m_u_ru-.c-ip_a_l-co_rp_o_ra-t-io_n_o-=f-C~o.,-lo-rado, hereinafter referred to as "City" and CITY OF
LIITLETON, hereinafter referred to as "Licensee".
WITNESS ETH:
The City without any warranty of its title or interest whatso ever, hereby
authorizes Licensee, its successor, assigns, to install a 10" Plastic (PVC) storm sewer under
_ the City's rights-of-way for the City Ditch, described as follows:
A parcel of land situated in the northwest quarter (N\V 1/4) of Section
Twenty-One (21), Township Five (5) South, Range Sixty-Eight (68) \Vest of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, as shovm on the attached
drawing.
1. · The size of the storm sewer \~ill be ten inches, as shown on the attached location
drawing.
2. ,\ny cons truction contemplated or performed under this License shall comply \\·ith
and conform to standards and specifications formulated by the Director of Utilities and of
the Ci ty and such construction shall be performed and completed according to the approved
plans and specifications.
3. Licemee shall notify the C ity 's Director of Litilities at least three (3) days prior to
the tim e of commencement of the construction of or any repairs made to Licensee's storm
sewer, so that the C ity may, in its discretion, inspect such operations.
4 . \Vi thin thirty (3 0) days from the date of commencement of construction or an y
repairs to said storm sewer the licensee shall complete such construction. and shall clear the
area of all construction debris and restore the area to its pre\'ious cond ition as near as may
be reasonab le. In the e\'ent the clearing and restoration of the area is not completed within
the time specified, the City may complete the work at the sole expense of the licensee.
5. The C ity sha ll l1ave the right to maintain, install. repai r. remove o r rel o cate the City
D itch or any other of its faciliti es or installations within the City·s right s -of-way, at any time
and in such manne; as the City deems necessary or convenient. The City resen ·es the
exclusive right to control all easements and installations. In the event the storm sewer
should interfere with any future use of the City's rights-of-way by the City, the Licensee
shall, upon request and at its sole expense, relocate, rearrange, or remo\·e its insta llatio n ~o
as not to _interfere with any such use.
... ·."J
~icense Agreement .
Page 2
6. Any repair or replacement of any City installation made necessary, in the opinion of
the City's Director of Utilities because of the construction of the storm sewer and other
appurtenant installation thereof, shall be made at the sole e.>..'})ense of the licensee.
7. The stipulation and conditions of this License shall be incorporated into contract
specifications if the construction herein authorized is to be done on a contract basis.
8. The rights and privileges granted in this License shall be subject to prior agreements,
licenses and/or grants, recorded or unrecorded, and it shall be the Licensee's sole
responsibility to determine the existence of said documents or conflicting uses or
installations.
9. The Licensee shall contact and fully cooperate v.1tb the City's Ditch operation and
maintenance personnel and the construction shall be completed without interference with
any lawful, usual or ordinary flow of water through the City D itch. Licensee shall assume
all risks incident to possible presence of such water, or of storm water, or of surface water
in the City D itch or on the City Ditch rights-of-way.
10. Licensee , within its legal ability to do so under the Constitution of the State of
Colorado and wit hout in any way or manner intending to \Vaive or waiving the defenses of
limitations on damages provided for under and pursuant to the Colorado Governmental
Imnmnity Act (Sec. 24-10-101 , et seq. C.R.S.)., shall indemnify and save harmless the City,
its officers and employees, against any and all claims, damages, actions or causes of action
and expenses to which it or they may be subjected by reason of any work done or omission
made by Licensee. its agents or employees, in connection with the replacement, maintenance
or repair of said installation.
11. It is expressl y agreed that in case of Licensee 's breach of any of the wi thin promises,
the City may , at its option, have specific performance thereof. or sue for damages resulting
from such breach .
12. Upon abandonment of any right or privilege herein granted, the right of Licensee to
that extent shall terminate.
13. Licemee is express ly forbi dden fr o m co ns tru ct ing p ermanent stru ctur es o r b ui ld ing s
on the Cit y D it ch rights-of-way. except as prov ided herein.
In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the right to make full use of the
property invol ved as may be necessary or convenient in the cooperation of the water works
plants and system under the control of the City.
License Agreement
Page 3
IN \VJTNESS \VHEREOF, this instrument has been executed as of the day and year first
above written.
APPROVED
Stewart Fonda
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CF:mm / eng \Englewood
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
acting through and by its
\Vater and Sewer Board
Chairman
LICENSEE:
President of City Council
SECTION 21, TOWNS HIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST, 6th PM.
--ARAPAHOE COUNTY
NOTE :
17 16
20
s 12·· ,. 11·F.
, .. 5 .. 3' , __ ___,
C=s05•01 '45"E
·1~ 48'
0:;;'\~~t·
w
....: J
<1) !"
w ,._ ~ 0
a: 8 n. z -
Cfi "
(; (.)
"' <1)
w z :::;
f-
<1)
l';!
Bca11ngs are based on lhe wesl line ot the
flW 1/4 of Scclion 21 beinri N00"07'50"E
EXISTING GROUND LINE
~~ <t_Pine I flPV ~£11.00
PROFILE
NO SCALE
C-N 1o·or21-w
1 200'
11•130 Ul
Licensee's
Installation
N34"00'00"E
•0.10'
PLAN
SCALE:, .... 501
I
u
f-
0
W . LAKE AVE.
60' R 0.W
>-~ I -~:r I
10 11 PVC@ 1.00%
j Licensee's Ins ta I lat ion
ENGLEWOOD UTILITIES DEPT
SC/\LE:/\S SHOWN DATE: 1 JUNE 1990
ORN : R.M .r TR. CK . fW.B.
APP. OR. NO .
APPEARED IN THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 ENGLEWOOD SENTINEL
Sewer line to be fixed
Technology will make it a lot easier to re-"This is the only way we can repa ir this
p a ir the sewer line t hat parallels th e city line ," Stu Fonda , utilities d irecto r , told the
aitch in th e 4000 blocks of Sou t h Fox and Englewood City Counc i l Aug. 6. "The clay pipe
Sot.:th Delaware streets as Instiufo rm, a was installed i n the 1950s. We used a remote
Westminster company, uses a repair process control t elevision camera to SUI\'ey it It is in
that doesn 't require digging up the p i pe. bad shape but it would be very expensiY e to
Insituform crews will get to the damagec •dig it up and replace it because the p i pe
line through m anholes and feed a res in -under houses and garages."
impregnated liner i nto the p i pe. They run hot . The Insituform process is quicker and the
wa te r through the lin e to set and cure th e resin liner is stronger th an the original p ipe,
resins. Ser\'ice connections are made by Fonda said.
sending a television camera and cutting ma-The City Council approYed $118 ,626 to have
ch in e down the li ne and making th e connec-Insituform install 1,5 0 1 feet of 12-inch sewer
t ion by rem ote con trol. line.
City of Englewood
September 7, 1990
Mr. Ed Draper
Arapahoe County Citizens Budget Committee
4900 s. Lipan Dr.
Englewood, CO 80110
Re: Union Park/Collegiate Range Water Project
Dear Ed:
3400 S. Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Phone (303) 762-2300
(303) 762-2301
The City of Englewood has contacted Arapahoe County in the past
concerning the use of County tax money for water development.
Since the City has already developed its own water suppl y , it
would appear somewhat unfair for t h e citizens of Englewood to pay
for development of a water supply for others without the
opportunity to receive something in return. We understand the
County's position that it may not be legally required to provide
any such consideration, but that does not, however, p reclude the
County from voluntarily doing so.
The consideration may be something as simple as a commitment to
allow Englewood to participate in the acquisition of some portion
of the yield when the system is developed and funding by tax is
replaced by a user fee. The City is available to discuss this
i ssue with the County Commissioners whenever they are available.
Sincerely,
( IJ!l~ ff /_ ./!J.~~-JJ .__
Stewart H. Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
4 The Prospector-August 1990
Hy Cathy Burrage
City or Englewood
Utilities Department
The City of Englewood formed its
own water system in 1954. Customers
were charged a flat rate for water used. In
1968 the City began requiring waler
me1crs on all commercial, industrial and
new residences . Al present, approximate -
ly 80% of 1hc Cily is unmetered .
Fnglcwuod City Council pa-;sc d inlo
law an ordinance in March of 1987 which
reads as follows :
"All owners of properly having un -
mercred waler service shall be required to
install approved water meters within 90
days after the sale or transfer of the prop-
erly or change in property use from
residential lo commercial or industrial.
Whenever a meter is to be installed, it
shall be supplied by the Englewood
Utilities Department at the owner's cost."
511 -52-5010
The City passed this ordinance for
tJ1esc reasons :
1. On a nat-rate system, customers
that use less water subsidize customers
that use more. A metered water system
allocates water costs lo the customers
that use the water.
2. Because sewer charges arc based
on the winter water usage, and metering
JJrovides an accurate record of winter wa-
ter consumption, a metered water system
pmvides a more equitable sewer billing.
· 3. It has been noted in engineering
LEGAL · UPDATE
Water Metering Laws
reports that waler consumption would
decrease by 2,000 acre-feet per year. l11is
waler could be stored for drought periods.
4. The water consumption decrease
from metering is primarily during peak -
use periods, as during the summer. The
design of most water system facilities arc
RTC Task Force
Dick flerger, Pres id e nt of 1h c Colo -
rado Ass o c iation of REALTO RS, has
asked REALTOR Jim Urubak c r 10 chair
the Resolution Trust Corporarion (RTC)
Task Force for CAR . The group will
assist Colorado REAL TORS in working
with the RTC. Anyone having problems
with RTC properties should contact
Carol or Kay at the Board office (797 -
3700) with a list of specific problems,
and CAR will forward thi s lo Lhc Task
Force through a subc ommillee of our
local Governmental Affairs Division.
based on peak demand. A transition to a
metered system would reduce tJ1e cos t of
construction of new water system facili-
ties .
The City of Eng lewood is not as-
signing responsibility for purchasing and
installing l11e meter and yoke . This issue
It's Against
The Law
would have to be selllcd al the time of
properly transfer. The City will require
an inspection wil11in the 90-day period to
in s ure compliance with l11e code. Cost of
the yoke, the meter and remote readout is
$100, and slightly less if a 5/8" pipe .
In stallation is an additional c o st.
~· =I= ;~ <;!
/j \
An agreement regarding , l \
commissions is illegal if it is ; i \
between two or more licen-! i \
~
sees affiliated with different ' i \
/ ~ \
"" :. l., ··1-cttJil '" real estate firms.
; \
r \
' ' ' ,.
1
• j \ W' * ~·
A New Season,
.
' J
~ q -I 5 ~ I . L,"-. r-1
t=\\-C . '
TO: File 159.1
F~OM: Joe Tom ~cod, P.E.
St;3JECT: Englewood's Cl:ange of Its 't:nion Ave:;ue Intake Rights
("The Petersburg Ditch Case")
case No. 80-CW-035
DATE: Aug1.:.st 29, 1990
i
uescription of Case
In 1980 E:-iglewood filed a:-i application to c~ange its Dnion Avenue
Intake rights to alternate points of diversion, including City
Ditch, Chatfield RBservoir, and Highline Canal.
Basis for Annlication
Englewood's i~tenticns in t~e transfer were three-fold: (1) to
prcvide gravity flew to t~e Allen ?la~t; (2) to provide a better
q:..:ality c: ·,,;ate:?:", a:-ij (3) to facilitate Englewoo=.•s lease of its
surplus water supply to Eig~lands Rane~.
Ow.tcorr.e
T~is is a case a~out whic~ the aut~or could atte~pt to write ~is
fi:::-st boc:-:. ::-.e case :Cecc.rr.e .....-ery corr.plex, and. ::;i:-.e a::;d. o:-.e-:'":al:
years passe! from i~s ap~~1ca~1on in 153) to i~s conclusion in
lSSS . .?-.-:--. a~':.e::pt at a !::::-ie: s·:..:rr.n.c.:::-y fcllc· .... 's.
Refe:::-ee's . . ' r.e.a::::--1:-!CT
In 2583 Englewood soug~t to shew t~at its ~nion Avenue I~take
rig~ts we:::-e, in fact, rr~nicipal rig~ts and as sue~ were not
subject to histo:::-ic use limitatio~s. E::;glewoo~ showed tte
Re:eree ~~at t~e c~a~;e to alte:::-~a~e poi~~s c: diversic~ ~o~ld
~ct ca·..:.se ~:-:.e ::-i:::-:-.ts ":o l:e ex";)anS.e:-d; L:n:::.e.,..·oo ·:i sr.:o-..;ed ":.I-.e ?.efe:::-ee
t~c.t ~ig~!a~~s ?i~ch co~:d b~lld a pipeii~e to C~io~ Ave~~e
i~stead of usi~g Ci~y Ditch and ctatf ield to deliver surplus
water to Highlands Ranch.
=~ is ~=::-~~ ~=~~i~; ~~a": at ~~ls poi~t E::;~:e~~od c o ~s~cered its
S~ c~s c~ ~e~e::-s~~:::-; ~i~c~ :::-ig~~s ~o te i~s year-:::-o~~d s~?ply
(":~c.~ is, ~~e ?e~e:::-s~~:::-g ~i~=~ ris~~s ~ere ~~e Ci~y's ~i~~er
supply), and its 14.7 cfs of Nevada Ditch rights (the "1706"
rights) to be a summer supply.
r:-:e ~efe:::-ee r..:led over...;:-:elrningly for E::-iglewood, tl-:e only ad.....-erse
aspect being his finding that the junior-most Petersburg priority
for 27 c:s nad been abandoned.
l
. •
r .
'I
(,
The objectors protested the Referee's ruling, leading to a new
trial before the ~ater Judge.
The 1986 Water Court Trial
In 1986 Englewood advanced the same ar~..rments as it had in 1983.
However, tl:e objectors prevailed and tl:e Judge stated his
intention of limiting the Petersburg Ditch rights to historic,
ore-municioal, aoricultural use. To give perspective on the
effects of this holding, it should be noted that in 1986,
~nglewood constn:ed its use of 9,000 acre-feet per year which it
diverted from its Union Avenue Intake rights to be 6,000 acre-
feet from tl:e Petersburg Ditch rights (including winter), and
3,000 acre-feet from its 1706 rights (sW!.!Der only). Under tl:e
Judge's holding, only some 400 acre-feet per year would be
available under t~e Petersburg Ditch rights, and together with
tl:e 3,000 acre-feet for the 1706 rights, it could be argued that
Englewood's historic supply of 9,000 acre-feet per year had
shru~k to 3,400 acre-feet per year, with no direct flow richts
available for use in tte winter!
Kte:i tte -tr:..a1 :-eacl:ed this point u.-c:g-...:st, 19c6) I tr,e Judge gave
Engle~ood tt:-ee choices on how to proceed, an1 tl:e trial recessed
~ntil E~gle~cod could respon~. Shortly follo~ing t~is po:..nt,
Engle~ood cta~ged its ~ater counsel to David Hill of Eutchinson,
3lac~, ~ill a~1 Cook.
~te 1588 Kater Co~:-t T:-ial
Dav:..d ~ill to=k ever t~e ?etersb~rg ~itch case and, af":er
conside:-ation, ;e:-suaded t~e :~dge to allow Eng:ewood to prese~t
evidence o;: t~e ~roner ~eriod of ~istoric ~se of tte ?eters~~rg
:iitc:'"l. a:-d ":.o prese::-it te:::-r..s ar:d co:::di tio;:s to preve;:t i::-ijur-1 to
ot~er use:-s. T~is allc~ed E:::glewood c;:e f~rther chance to defend
and to adva:::ce E::-iglewood's m~nicipal ~se of tte Petersburg Ditch.
The Judge set tte date to conti;:~e tte trial for J~~e, 1588.
D~:-i:::g t~e six o:-seven mo;:~ns precec1ng tte 1988 contin~a;:ce,
.:'"e:;:-1 a:-!d ~ood., I:-ic., pe::::-fo:-rr:ed exte:-:sive a:--.alyses a:-id research on
Englewood's ~nion Aven~e Intake rights. Through examination of
several old engineering reports, study of the record on appeal to
tte Colcra~o S~p:-e~e Cc~:-t regardi:-i? t~e 17C6 rigt":.s, a 1550
agree~e;:t ~e~~een F~ICO a~j En?le~ood related to t~e 17C6 :-:.;~ts,
~e cane ~o ~~e sta:-tlin; co;:cl~s:..c:-: ~~a~ in 1950 (i~ tte 17:5
case ), and =~= rra:-:y years ttereafter, Eng:e~ood had considered
its 1706 rights to be its winter supply! Engineering analyses of
Englewood's historic diversions, based on the 1706 rights as
Englewood's winter s~pply, now showed some 6,000 acre-feet per
year diverted on t!":e 1706 rights (both winter and surclLer), and
~,000 acre-feet per year on the Petersburg Ditch rights.
2
'I
I '
In April of 1928, two months before trial and eight years after
the date of the application, ~e inforn:ed the objectors of tte
opinions and analyses related to Englewood's use of the 1706
rights as its winter supply. They were infuriated. But t~ey
were out to destroy Englewood's water system an~ay.
Let me contrast the major differences in positions taken by
Englewood and the objectors. Not all of the objectors tock a
common view on each of ttese items, but my intent is to shew the
common position taken by several strident objectors.
~ ·rs sue
Engle¥i'ood' s
Position
Objectors'
Position
Petersburg Ditch
Rights
1706 :Kig:-:ts
Rights to divert
3,000 acre-feet
' an::;ually,
under 7 cf s of
1861 right, and
5.4 cfs of 1863
~ ;.,-. r..:..g .• 1..,
s :..:.JI.Jr,e r
during t!:e
Rig~-: t to di ve:::-'t
-up to 14.7 cfs
~~e~ever i:1 priority;
i::l. wi~':.er li~ited to
flow acc~~i~; to
river belo~ De~ver's
x:..:.~ici;al i~take a':
hat:~~c~; his~cri~al
yie:d ta E::1gle~aod ~as
6,C OO acre-feet pe:-
year; f:..:.tu::-e yield
:;:ct limited ":o
6,0 CO acre-feet
Rights to divert
700 acre-feet
an:1ually,
at 7 cfs of 1861
right, during the
su:m.r::er-
Righ't to divert
up to 14. 7 c:s
a::-d ::-:o iuo:!:."e t::a::l.
4,0 00 ac::-e-fee':.
c.~::1.~ally 2..::1.d c~ly
i:-: s·..:.rrc!r,er
A!l cf t~e objectors p:!:."etty ~e __ adopted ~~e above positio::l. or;
t::e Petersb:..:.rg Ditc::.
T~e harshest objectors -Westminster, Thornton, FRICO, and South
Adams County Water Supply and Sanitation District -took the
above pcsitio::l. on t::e l7C5 rig~~s, try~ng to get the Judge to
pierce t::ro~g~ t~e res ad~udicata aspect cf tte 1705 rig::~s ~hie~
::ad teE:::1 affirmed to E::-,glewood b;· t::e Colorado s ·..:.p:::-e:::r.e Co·..:.:!:."t i::
::.ss2.
The Court gave Englewood 927 acre-feet per year on the Petersburg
Ditch rights, during tte sum.mer only, and at a rate of 7 cfs
~nder the 1661 right. The Court upheld Englewood's position on
the 1706 rights, refusing to modify what the Colorado Supreme
Co~rt had affirmed in 1952.
3
~
l'
• I .•
•
,
,. (.
Benefits to Enalewood
The n:ajor benefit to Englewood was the Court's affinnation of
Englewood's 1706 rights as the city's winter water supply and his
refusal to reduce the City's use of its 1706 rights to levels
sought by the objectors. The Court's guaranteeing of Englewood's
winter supply came about due to Mr. Hill's explanation of the
1950 FRICO/ Englewood agreement pertaining to Case No. 1706.
When Englewood changed the Nevada Ditch rights in 1950, Englewood
was utilizing Denver's sewage system which discharged upstream
from the Burlington Ditch which is used to supply several FRICO
and Eenrylyn reservoirs. The FRICO/P.enrylyn parties were worried
~hat Englewood's effluent would be discharged below the
Burlington Ditch if Denver moved its sewage discharge below the
Burlington Ditch. Eo\t.·ever, the F:UCO/!-:enrylyn fears were allayed
by Englewood's plans to build its ovm wastewater plant which
would discharge upstream from the Burlington Ditch.
On the other hand, Englewood "lost" 2,000 acre-feet per year by
comparison to its historic use of its Petersburg Ditch rights.
T::.e rrajority of the s'..:.rplus water rigtts by \i.'hich Englewood
ir.tended to serve :lighlands Ranch vanished, leading E:-igle...,,·ood to
Kater Coi..::rt a::nlicatio:-:s to chance its "do:rruar:t" \oiater ricr.ts
(~evada Di~c~:-~c3room Ditch, an~ 3ro~n Ditch) to its m~nicipal
~se . In a:1 odd sort of way, t::.e red~ction of t!:e ?ete:rsb~rg
I:itc:"l ·..:sage !:elped ~::glewood to prese:rve its "C.onr,an t" \.;ate:r
:ri~t":s i{::ic'.:-1 otte::-wise n:ay have bee:-i said to be ir:viting an
attack based on aba:idonrr e:-:t.
J...:.c:::.:-:er te:-.e:it of :;o srr.all i;r.portance \·;as -cr:e ceterrui::at.:..o:i of
E::glewood's ~~:;icipal ce;:et.:..o~ factors. T::ese factors were
esse:-::.ially developed ~y cbjec ~crs i:i tte ?etersb~rg Ditch case
a!"'.:S. ~·e::-e ·...:sed t.o co:-.· . .,.e::~t ~ist.oric ir:::-igc.ticrl ccnst:!tpti·\·e ·...:se t~
E:-:;:ewoo1 's ~~:iicipal ~se. I:: c~he:r words, ttese are t~e :actcrs
by w~:.ch ~~e 4 CO acre-feet ?er year of histc:ric co~s~rr~tive ~se
were cc::ve:r~ed to E:-iglewood's m~n ic:.~al ~se of 900 ac:re-feet per
year. T~e be::efits of E:;gle~o od 's ado?tic:i o: these m~:iicipal
C.e?letio:-i :actors :::-ecarr.e \·er-f e v ide:-.t i:-i E:-,gle\.rnod' s s'..:J:se~..:e:-!:
c~a:iges cf i~s Sevada Di:.ch ri;tts (Case Ko . ES -C~-202), i~s
::.~,.._ •. ....., "; .... c.__ .,...;c-....--s (c ~~e ~·'"' ~,. C'-o,~, a""' .. ~ _i -:--s " .. c-.:.:-001"!". -:_;-:_c·."'. _,/-:-.""'·· ~-........ --.... ··\,... c.~ ·'"-'• cc -~--~1' .J _ -_.;_ ....... --
r1;~~s (Case So . 62-CK-2 8 3 ). 7hat these factors had previo~sly
been adopted by the Court in the Petersburg Ditch case saved
E::glewood :rn.:c!:. tro~ble a:-:'.! expe:-.se i:i t::e subseqt:ent ttree cases.
'I
(.
TO: File 159.l
FROM: Joe Tom Wood, P. E.
SUBJECT: Englewood's Change of J.D. Brown Ditch
Case No. 85-CW-324
DATE: August 29, 1990
Pescriotion of Case
Englewood sought to change to municipal use the following direct
flow ~ater rights.
Date of Date of Nair.e of
Rioht 1'.:mount-CFS lrnoropriation 7<.dj ud i cat i 0:1
J. D. Broi-.71 Ditch 1. 5 l\ovember 6, 1885 Julie 9, 1924
Little Dry Creek
Ditch
2.21 ~overtber 13,
3asis of A~Dlicaticn
7te S~ate E~gi~eer
~~a~~o~~e~~ ~ist.
E~gle~ood's rights
t~e co~c:~io~ t~at
tad placed ttese two rig~ts
3y agreerrent wit~ tte State
in t~e two ditc~es ~ere not
t::.e s·~j ect c~ange of \\~ate:!:"'
wit~ t~e Kater Co~rt.
1885 Jur.e 9 I 1924
on ~is 1984
""t -i,,.: ~--· ·'---
rig:-:ts be f:..lej.
Anot~er basis fer tte application was si~ply t~at Engle~oo5 ~ad
~ee1 cf additio~al m~nicipal ~ater supply.
o·.:tccrr.e
7te decree fo~nd ttat tte ~ittle Cry Creek Ditc~ tad been
aban~c~ed and could not be considered for a c~a~ge to rr~~icipal
l.:s:.
The decree allowed Englewood to divert its J.D. Brown Ditch right
c.': a r=..te o: 0 .59 cfs bs-:· .. ;een .?-.:;:ri_ 2. a:-.d Se:;:ter..:::;,er-15 ..,.;::e:1
;::ysical:y c.~ailc.~le c.~~ in p~i=ri~y.
The J.D. Brown Ditch right was pr ese rved, in part, to Engle wood
for its m~:1icipal use. On t~e other hand, tte Little Dry Creek
Di~ch ~as found to be aba ndoned . Tte net effect was to increase
Englewood's rights to divert water for municipal use.
l
,t
• I
·'
'I
I '
MEMO~~DGM
TO:
F:KOM:
File 159.1
Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
a1-1~q1.tJ..D
r1't ~
SUBJECT: Englewood's Change of Nevada Ditch Rights
Case No. 88-CW-202
DATE: August 29, 1990
Descrintion of Case
Englewood sought to change the water rights underlying its
31.9111 shares of the Nevada Ditch. These rights were in
addition to these changed previously in civil Action 1706 (in
1950) and Case No.'80-CW-035 (in 1989).
Basis for Annlication
In light of the outcome of Case Ko. 80-CW-035 (the Petersburg
Ditch case), Englewood found the r:eed to change its "C.orrra:-it"
rights in tte Nevada Ditch to its reunicipal use.
o·..:tcorr:e
?i:teen objectors entered the case. Englewood settled ~ith all
fifteen objectors, avoiding a lengtty trial. A crirra :acie case
lasting o~e-~alf day tock place.
En;lewood ottained a decree allowing fc= l,054 acre-feet per year
cf diversion fer its municipal use d~=ing t~e April-Octo~e=
ceriod.
If Engle~ood opts to store i~s rig~ts and to use ttem as
co~s~rr:ptive use ~ater, Englewood may divert 514 acre-feet per
year d~ring the ~ay-October period.
3e~efits to Encle~o od
Englewood increased its municipal supply by 1,054 acre-feet per
year.
~e~~er c~~s ap;rcxirrately :25 s~ares c~t of t~e 2EJ s~ares in t~e
!~e~a~a ~itc~. ~e~ver's e ngi ~eers tave advised ~s t~a~ Se~ve~
~~ll be s ocn see~i~g to chance i~s shares to rr~nicical ~se. T~e
knowledge gained by David Hiil and Jehn and Wood, I~c. in
Englewood's change of its Nevada Ditch shares will be helpful
~~en Denver seeks to change its Nevada Ditch shares.
l
} ,•
I
)
'
~ I -I v 1 I . v •--
\'
TO: File 159.1
FROM: Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
SUBJECT: Englewood's Change of Brown Ditch Right
case No. 86-CW-014
DATE: August 29, 1990
Description of Case
Denver and Englewood jointly mace application to change their
interests in the senior 1662 rights in the Brown Ditch. Each
city's holdings essentially stemmed from the 1985 dissolution of
the Tri-City Trust~
Basis for Aoolication
Englewood sought to increase its municipal water supply.
Subseqi..:ent to tr.e filing cf tte application in early 1986, tte
1969 outcome of 80-CW-035 (t~e Petersburg Ditch case) ~ade it
even mere importa~t to i~c:rease Englewood's m~nicipal ~ater
s·i.:i:ply.
Outcorr,e
De~ver and Englewood ma~ased to settle with all ni~e objectors
a:;:i p:rese;.":ed a o::-irr.a facie case to t:-.e JuC.ge in .i:.lgust of 1989.
'I!-.e Judse entered a decree whic'.1 g:-ar:ted Englewood's reqt.:.est to
divert 81 ac:-e-:eet an~~ally at a fixed flow rate of 1.4 cfs.
D~e to problerrs with Mission Viejo, Englewood agreed to take all
2: ac:-e-feet of its ann~al e n titleme n t duriDg the mont'.1 of
Septerr:.ber.
3e~ef its to ~~alewo o d
Englewood inc::-eased its ~~~~cipal ~ater s~pply by 81 acre-feet
per yea:-.
1
... i=,·\-e
I ' ~ ~ (( I L I
MEMOAA.N"Dl-~
TO: File 159.1
FROM: Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
SUBJECT: Englewood's Change of Its McBroom Ditch Rights
Case No. 88-CW-203
DATE: August 29, 1990
pescription of Case
Englewood seeks to change its 91.67% (10.62 cfs) of the very
senior, 1859, McBroom Ditch right, to its municipal use. The
right has recently (since 1978 or so) been used to irrigate the
Englewood Municipa~ Golf Course.
Basis for APolication
In light of the outcome of Case No. 80-CW-035 (the Petersburg
Ditch case), Englewood found the need to change its Mc3room Ditch
rights to municipal t:se.
Outccrr.e
The case ~as set for trial in both February and July of 1990, but
it was vaca~ed both times. It has not been reset yet. Engle~ood
has ~anaged to settle with most all of tte ni~eteen objectors en
the engineering bases for tte change. These bases would prcvide
Englewood t~e rig~t to divert to its m~nici?al use 442 acre-~eet
annual~y during the ~ay-October period.
Denver is pressing a legal issue which threatens Englewood's
water righ~s. Denver s~ates it has no problem with Englewood's
pro?osed change of the Mc3room Ditch, Der se. Denver's objecticn
has to do with how Enclewood ola~s to irrioate its golf course
after it ctan;es the ~c3room ~itch to muni~ipal use. Englewood
plar:s to 1..:se its quarte:::-interest (1. 5 7 5 cfs ) in the 1862 Olse:-i
and Eell Ditch to irrig~te t~e golf co~rse. In 1980 Englewood
obtained a decree from the Water Court in Case Ko. W-8271-76
entitling it to divert its 1.575 cfs through wells located on the
golf cot:rse. De:-.v er ob":ained the tern:s ar.d conditions \.;hi ch it
desired at t~at time to ;rotect its Sear Creek rights, a~d De~ver
co~se~ted to ~te decree.
Benefits to Englewood
If Englewood prevails in its attempt to change its interest in
the KcBroom Ditch, Englewood will increase its municipal water
supply by 442 acre-feet annually.
1
. .. .
If Denver prevails on the issue of the Olsen and Bell Ditch
(which would be totally sufficient for the golf course),
Englewood may have to obligate another part of its water supply
to irrigate the golf course.
2
30-15'1!. BC .
MEMO RAN DCM
'!'O: File 159 .1
FROM: Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
SUBJECT: Englewood's Application for Bear Creek Water Rights
Case No. 89-CW-063
DATE: August 30, 1990
Englewood seeks a new, 1989 municipal priority for 16 cfs from
Bear Creek and an accompanying plan for augmentation to make the
16 cfs right more dependable. Englewood also seeks a storage
right in Bear Creek Reservoir under the 1989 right.
' Basis for ADDlication
The outcome of Case No. 80-CW-035 (th e Petersburg Ditch case)
prompted En glewood to seek new mu n i cipal water righ ts.
Engineering studies show t h at i n relativ ely wet or average years,
ttere may be some 2,00 0 to 3,0 00 acre-feet available for
appropriati o n fr om 3ear Creek at tte Mc3ro om Ditch teadgate.
Also, even wh en su ch a 1989 ri o ht wou ld n o t be i n o rioritv to
Q'~\'<=>r"-........ e p ';:a""' 'f"o .,.... a i·,.....,.,e n .... a .... ~on , .. ;;1 a 1 lo'" ';"-.... 1e;:·ooa' · ---'-I lo-.;.. --.;• --U.~.u.l .. \.... \...._ • ..,.,___ _ w -·l ~-Wll'
nonetheless to take adva~tace cf t h e o hy sical streamf low w~ich is
availa'.:l l e i'.1 3ear Creek. "' -
o·:..::tc o:r.e
Tte case was fi l e1 i n 19 8 9 a n d is pe n ding. So date tas been set
for heari~g or tria l .
3e~ef its to ~nc lew oo d
Successf~l prosecution of this case wou ld allow Englewood to
i n crease its rr ~nicipa l s up pl y by 2,COO to 3,000 acre-feet e r so.
1
._)0 -IJ1 I.~ V\..I 1 '\ ,l
'I·O: File 159.1
FROM: Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
SUBJECT: Englewood's Application for Deep Groundwater Rights
Cases Nos. 89-CW-061 and 89-CW-062
DA'IE: Jrngt:.st 30, 1990
Descrintion of Cases
Enolewood seeks the riohts to withdraw an average of 4,400 acre-
fe~t annually from the-deep, Denver Basin aquifers underlying the
City.
Basis for Annlication
'Ihe outcome of Case Ko. 80-CVl'-035 (the Petersburg Ditch case)
prompted Englewood to develop new, municipal ~ater supplies.
0'.ltccrr.e
Ttese cases were filed in 1989. Ko date has been set for r.eari~g
er trial
3enef its to E:lolewood
Successf~l pursuit of ~~ese applicatic:-:s wou:d allow E~glewood
withdraw a:-i average of 4,400 acre-feet a:l:-i~ally. D~e to
prcvisio~s i:-i t~e law gover~i:lg tte withdrawal of such waters,
tte ·,,,;ater a\·aila:::ile f:::-om t:-:e \.-"ells rr.ay be 11 ba:-::·:ed.11 'Ir.at is,
Englewood ctose to use ttese wells fer dry-year use only, and
to ~se ttem d~ring ave:::-age years, Englewood, i~ a dray year,
co~ld take much mo:::-e ttan tte 4,4GO acre-feet of a v erage
wit~drawal allowed.
to
Ott er be:-:efits incluce tte ge:-:erally ~ig~ ~~alit y of water from
;r:cs': cf tte a~..iifers a:-id t:-.e relatively :'Ji<;!"l a::iility to prov:..ce
water for peak demands. A further advantage is that these waters
are fully consumable, which means that the return flows from
ttei:::-~ses rray be used to prov:..~e replacerre~t ~ater fer tte 3ea:::-
C~e.e:-: p:=:! :c~ c.~grr.e.:-:-:.=.:.i.~:J.
1
.:i.
"
'I"O: File 159.1
FROM: Joe Tom ~ood, P.E.
SUBJECT: Thornton's Change of Burlington/Wellington Shares
Case No. 87-CW-107
DATE: August 28, 1990
Descrintion of Case
Thornton sought to cha~ge to municipal use the wat~r rights
underlying some 500 paired shares of the Burlington Ditch,
Reservoir and Land, Company and tr.e Wellington Reservoir Company.
These shares amount to 26% of the total stock in both companies.
In the aggregate Thornton sought to change its pro-rata shares of
the following water rights.
Kater Ric:'"lt
Duggan Ditch
3ilrlington Ditch
Duck Lake
Wellington Res.
Wellington ?-es.
Enlars;erre::t
3asis of Ob1ection
Date of Water Rioh~
..Z.pril 1, 1864
N'ov. 2 0' 1885
Sep. 15, 1904
May 31, 1892
Jur.e 5, 2.920
Thorr.ton's Share
6.46 cfs
54.20 cfs
203 acre-feet
706 acre-feet
425 acre-:eet
Englewood' spr imary concern \••as to 1 imi t Thornton's use of t!:e
1864 Duggan Ditch right to its orooer historic use. Previous
invest ice. ticr.s of t!:e I:r.iccan Ditch (nerf crmed in 19 2 8 fer
.,; _,.,; -
Englewood's change cf t:-:e Petersburg Ditch) had revealed very
clear evidence of i 11 egal historic ·...:se of the Ir...;gga!"l Di tc:-:. It
seemed t:-:=. t. f arrr.ers uncer t!:e 3 ·...:rl in gt on Ditch had gr ea tj_y
expa::-ided t:-.e use cf t!-.e D·...;gga:: Ditch right cor.trary to e>:-:;ressly
worded limitations imposed on t~e u se of the Duggan Ditc~ in
prior, agricultural transfers of the rights around 1915.
S i ::-: c e t :-. e : E € 4 ::i·~ g g a:; D .:'.. t c ~ r.::. g :-: t :: ad ~ i st or i ca 11 y ca l l e '.5. o · · ...
~:;gle~ood's ~evada o .::.~c~ ?ricr i ~y 19 (~ec. 3C, 1865 ) I .:..~ ~e=arre
::-:ecessary ~o restr.:'..ct t~e ~ugga~ Ditch to t~e levels of ~se
allc~ed by t!:e t~o earlier tra~sfers, instead of allo~i n g
Thornton to perpetuate the illegal use of the Duggan Ditch right.
01..:tCOJT.e
The Water Court's decree found that the farmers' us e of the two
previously transferred portions of the Duggan Ditch was unlawful
1
.. ·:. :-::-..
·' ' t
I
and that Thornton should net be allowed to benefit from a
continued illeaal use of same. Thornton's ability to exercise
its 1864 Dugga~ Ditch priority against upstream users, such as
Englewood's 1865 Nevada Ditch right, was red~ced from 6.46 cfs to
2.i8 cfs.
Benefits to Enalewood
Englewood achieved its pri~ary goal of properly restricting
Thornton's use of its 1864 Duggan Ditch entitlement, thereby
reducing the extent of future calls on Englewood's 1865 Nevada
Ditch right. Since there are a substantial number of
Burlington/Wellington shares which have not yet been changed to
municipal use, Englewood's victory in this case will result in
further reductions of the 1864 Duggan Ditch right when these
shares are changed,
Additionally, Englewood's victory in this specific case served
notice that future changes of Burlington/Wellington shares can~ot
hope to perpetuate the illegal use of the Duggan Ditch riqht.
2
,
,.
TO: File 159.l
F~OM: Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
SV3J2CT: Denver's Plan for Augmentation of Kennedy Golf Course
("The Consolidated Case")
case No. 81-CW-405
DATE: August 28, 1990
Descriotion of Case
Denver sought to use wastewater derived from its transmountain
importations to augment its out-of-priority use of shallow,
tributary wells used to irrigate the Kennedy Golf Course.
(
The Consolidated Ditches of Water District No. 2 (the
"Consolidated Ditc:r.es" or "Consolidateci.11 ) objected on the basis
that Denver had previously obligated such wastewater to the
Consolidated Ditches which divert downstream from Denver's
discharge cf wastewater.
Co~solidated's oosition rested on a 1940 agreement between
Co~solidated an~ Denver. The agreement provided t~at
Co~solidated wo~ld get transmountain wastewater, and, in return,
De~ver would net have to ~ake t:p to the river evaporation lesses
from its n.::.jor reservoirs i::-i so·-:th ?ark.
3asis o: Ob~ection
No one at Jehn and Kood, Inc. worked on this case before o=
di.:rin; tl':e trial. T~e state~ents ~ade herein are largely based
o:-i a re·.;iew cf tl':e Kater Co1.:rt' s decree a:;d on wcrk perfc::-rred :c::-
E:-igle-wood st:'.8secr...:.e;:": to t:Z-.e trial.
Denver's lack of replace~e::lt of evaporation losses from its Sout~
Far:< rese::.-vcirs de-crives tte Sout:i ?latte River of as muc:'1 as :; o
to 40 cfs i::i t::.e s\::rr...'l'ter. D-. .. :..ri:ng critically dry periods, everi
E::-iglewood's se::-iicr Sou~~ ?latte River rights (1861, 1862, 1263,
and 1865) have not, and will not, have full supplies available to
them. At such times the lack of 30 to 40 cfs of evaporation
release clearly exace=bates t~e already short s1.:pply available to ... :r:g:-.-:.s.
0'...: tcorr.e
The Water Court upheld the 1940 agreement between Consolidated
a::-id De:1ver, al lowing, ho1,.,·ever, for its tennir.ation if darr.ages to
intervening rights (such as Englewood's) can be shown.
l
3er.efits to Enolewood
Despite Englewood's formal reqt;.est to the State Engineer to force
Denver to make evaporation releases, the State Engineer has
refused to take any action to do so. The State Engineer has
requested that Englewood cemonstrate injury to its ~ater rights
as a result of the 19'0 agreement, apparently waiting for
Englewood to be injured before taking any action.
2
..
. ,.
30-159!.R.C
r1'' ~
TO: File 159.1
FROM: Joe Tom ~ood, ?.E.
SUBJECT: Engle~ood's Investigations into Denver's Operation of
Englewood's Ranch Creek System
No case Nt.LTC.ber
DATE: Augu st 30, 1990
!
Descrintion of Ir.vestications
In Septerr.ber of 1989 Jehn and Wood, Inc. investigated Denver's
operation of Englewood's Ranch Creek system.
3asis for Investication
Fer mar:y yea=s Englewood did not have the need to make sure that
Denver was properly operating t~e ~a~c~ Creek System ar:d
delive=ing to E~glewood its Froper s~are cf t~e yield. T~is lack
cf r:ecessi ty s":.err..rr.ed from tv:o fact:.rs, t:~e f i::-st :Ce:~g
Engle~ood's abili":.y to s~p;ly i~self easily fr om its arrple ~r::on
Aver:~e Ir.take ::-ig~ts, part:c~lar:y t~e ?ete=sbu rg Ditch rig~ts.
Second, t~e ~ater de~ands f=om ~ig~lar:j ~anc~ ~pen its leased
ir:terest in ~~e ~a~ch C::-eek System ~e=e low.
lef~ Eng:e~ood ~i ~~ ~~c~ less d:rect flc~ =i;~ts, res~:t:n; :n
Eng:e~ood's :r:creasej de;enjence ~?er: t;;e ~ar:ch Creek Syste~.
K:t~ like effec~, tte de~ands and ~~e ~ater s~;ply system of
o·..:tcc:r:-.e
.._ .. _ --... -:::.
T::e ::-.\'estisatio:-i le:!. to two p=irr.a::::·y cc::cl"...:.sio:-.s. ?irst, De:-ser
a;:pearea ::o :::.e pock.e~1ng ~::e ·.,.;ate:::-·,.;:::c:i .!-Y.J..X c_airr.ed it ::-ieeC.ed,
v.·:'1ic:'1 J.J'.J..X did r:o":: act·J.ally u.se, and ..,.,·:-,.ich P. ... Y.J..X kr:e'W it did not
need. Second, Denver was apparently not being diligent in
operati::-ig t::e ~ar:c~ C::-eek system i:: crder to ~axireize its yield
a v aila~le ~=cm t~e syste~'s d:rect ~lcw rig::ts.
:E:-.gle·,.;ood ::-.e::..-:5. a fe•.,,• rr:ee-:i::-igs ;.;i't.:-i :::Je:-:;er a:-id J.Y_?..Y., alt::o·..:q:"l
perscr.r.el from Jehn and hood, Inc. did net attend. It is our
understanding that A.MAX was, and is, willing to cooperate with
E~gle~ood to reduce or eliminate Der.ver's taking of the unused
J.Y.J:..X water. It is a 1 so our understa::-idi::-ia t::a t Denver has
explained its actions and justified them'to a certain extent.
Thus, further research and analysis are required before taking
a~y fonr.al action.
1
"
Benefit to Englewood
It should be noted that Denver's operation of the Ranch Creek
System caused Englewood no apparent injury, since Englewood had
plenty of water under its Petersburg Ditch rights and since
Denver provided Englewood with enough water to "top off" McLellan
Reservoir each year. However, with the reduction of water supply
from tr.e Petersburg Ditch rights, and with growing water demands
from Highlands Ranch, it is imperative that Englewood (and
Highlands Ranch) get its share of water due from the Ranch Creek
System.
2
..
·,.
TO:
F:KOM:
SU3JECT:
DATE:
File 159.l
Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
Denver's Exchange Case
Case No. 86-CW-143
August 28, 1990
Descrintion of Case
°'13'-\ 5 °I I. Dt:: c:.
t= ~ \ ~
In 1972 Denver received a decree granting it tte right to
exchange at a rate of up to 3,000 cfs between any two or more of
seven specific points. The 1972 decree made 454 cfs of tte
exchange absolute, with the remaining 2,546 cfs being
conditional. '
In 1984 tte Kater Court added Chatfield ~eservoir as a point of
diversion fer the excha;.ge.
In tte s ubj ect case, No . 86-CK-143, ~enver sought two t hings :
First, to s~o~ t~at it was dilige;.t in rr ai~tai ning t~e
conditional po rti on of its ~ecree, and second, t~at it had rra~e
a~ct~er :37 cfs cf -:.~e ~ecree a~sclute.
En;lew ood o~~ecte~ on several po~n-:.s in crier to protect i ts 19'8
Ec:::..ella::-: ;,e:se:::.-vcir rig::t a:-,d to p::r:;tect t:,e ~..:ali-:.y o f · .. ;at.er i:-i
t~e South ?latte River at ~nic:-i ~ve:-:ue. Denver 's operation cf
its exc~an;e tends to rejuce strea~f low in t~e South ?latte ;,iver
ct:-... e:::.-•. : i s e a\·a i l able f C!:' stc:-age i::-i ~~cLel la:; ?.ese:::·voir. J..l so, t:-.e
exc~ange tends to reduce streamflcw at ~nion hven~e, causin; beth
C[L:a:-:ti ~~ .. a~j_ cr~al i t:l prc1:.le:r;.s.
Si:-:ce De~ve r ~as a decree a~thorizi:-:; ce!:'tain exchanges, and
si:-:ce De:-:v er clai~s to ~ave exercised i-:.s decreed exc~an;es :er
~any yea :-s, it is fair to ask ~~y ~:-:;~ewood s~o~ld s~C.de:-::y :-aise
cbject ic:-:s to De~ver's dili;e:-:ce decree. ~~e reaso~s are
numerous.
First, t~e ex c~an;es, ~~ ccnju:-:ctic:-: ~:~~ ~~e De:-:ver/State/Cc:-=s
c f ::: =---~; : :-. ~ E: :-s c? e: :::-c.-: :. c :-: c : c :.-.. a -:. : :.. e :. ~ ?. e .s e :.:-.. ~·:ii ::::-, fr e ~...: e :-; -: l ~ · s :.-. s :r-:
~te ri~er ~e::~ C~a~:ie:~. I~ exercising i-:.s excta~ges, Je:-:~er
f:-e~.:e:-:-:.ly C.i-.·erts \.;ate:-c::;::strea:r. :rc:rr. c:-:at: ield arid t:-:e:-: cs.es
not make an equivalent release of water from Chatfield to
effectuate a real exchange.
Second, tf:.e operation of Chatfield ?.eservoir freqt:ently has
allowed Denver to store more water in Chatfield than its proper
1
. ,
entitlement, storting tte river below Chatfield.
Third, De~ver clai~ed that its exc~ange of wastewater derived
from transmountain sources was included within the 1972 decree.
Englewood objected to this claim, because the 1972 decree made no
mention whatsoever of transmountain water or transmountain
waste\•;a ter.
Fourth, Denver claimed very senior priority dates (back to July
4, 1921) for its exchange which would adversely affect
Englewood's right to divert under its 1948 McLellan priority.
I
Outcor.:e
Tte Water Court's decree found that Denver had been diligent in
advancing the cond~tional part of its priority. Englewood had
not objected to this.
Eo~ever, tte decree determined that Denver had not made any
additional part of t~e decree absol~te, because De~ver had not
released sufficient waters to the river to effectuate its claimed
exch.anc;e.
F~rt~er, tte decree fo~~d t~at tra~smo~ntain effluent was ~ct a
so~rce of ~ater for tte exctange in tte 1972 decree.
3e~e~its to Encle~ood
:~e ~ate= Co~rt's dec=ee :n Case ~o. EE-CK-143 benefits Engle~ood
in several ~ays. First, :~ ta~es a~ay Denver's claim to senior
tra~s~o ~~tain efflue~~ exchanges ~hie~ corr;ete wit~ Engle~ood's
2;45 ~cLel:an rig~t. De~~er ~ay ~cw proceed ~o seek decreed
exc~an;es c~ tra~srro~~tai~ e~~l~e;;t ~n~er co~?lete:y ;;ew
ap;:icatic~s, and t~e res~lt of ar:y new decree obtai:-:ed ttereby
~ould be ~::at Denver's effl~e:-:t exc::anges ~o~ld tave to be junior
to E:Jg:e~ood's McLella:-: Friority. Fer exa~ple, Denver can no
longer c:aiffi a tra;;s~ou~tain efflt:e:-:t exc~a:-ige i.:.p to its
rn~:-iicipal i~take at S~r o ~~ia S?rings t::-iC.er a 1921 priority.
I~steaj cf )e~ver ~eing ab:e ~o divert 1 00 cfs or more to ~arsto~
~.ese:::-;oir ·..::-;:::er a lS21 C.ate, Engle\.;ood rr.ay be able to take tf:e
same water down the Highline Canal into McLellan Reservoir. Only
a few days of diversion cf 100 cfs or more C[uic:V:ly amour:t to
se·.-eral. :-.·..::-i::.red acre-fee~ of stora;e i:-i Y.c~el:.an :?.eservoir.
Sec~:-id, if ~e~~er see~s a ~e~ ~esree for s~c~ ~ransmountai:-:
ex.:::::c.:-.;es, :::::-igle\.;ood ·..;.ill te free to arg".:.e i::--.j'...lry to i'l:s rig!"lts
based on deterioration of water quality. In the diligence
proceeding in Case No. 86-0..'-143, the Judge refused to allow
E::-.gle·.;ood -:o :rr,a:.:e si.:.c:'"l ar;-..:rr.ents.
Third, the Judge ruled that in this case (i.e., 86-CW-143),
De:-:">'er's :.::.prc;er storage a:-id ina::eq-c.ate accou:-:ti:-ig (i.e.,
2
\ •
. .. · .
DenYer's storing too mi.:.ch in Chatfield and making inadequate
releases from Chatfield to the river) prevented Denver from
making a~y more of the priority absolute. The Court did not
find, however, that Denver's accounting 'Would necessarily be
insufficient in all circumstances. Despite the Court's
reservation as to all circumstances, the Court's finding of
insufficiency in this case should serve Englewood 'Well in its
administrative suit against Denver and the State Engineer's
Office 'Where the same issue is involved. (See discussion of Case
No. 90-CW-082.)
Fourth, and not previously described above, the decree includes a
listing of specific aspects of Denver's exchange, including point
of diversion, soi.:.rce of substitute s u nply, and date of priority.
Denver had essentially claimed that its exchange decree had no
such need of spec~ficity, but Thornton and Englewood demanded
that Denver's several exchanges be tied down.
3
I
J
....
. .
'I"O:
FROM:
o{ 9 -I 5 CJ / . 0 r::::; AJ 1\
F-I. I -e.. "
File 159.l
Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
SUBJECT: Englewood's Administrative Suit Against Denver
and the State Engineer, Case No. 90-CW-082
DATE: August 29, 1990
Descriotion of Case
Englewood seeks the Water Court's assistance in forcing Denver
and tte State Engineer's Office to administer water rights in a
proper and legal manner.
I
Basis for Suit
Denver and/or the State Engineer's Office have operated and
ad!ninistered t h e river in ways which are adverse to Englewood's
~se of its water r ight s. Specifically, Englewood seeks to
correct the following matters.
1. Englewood seek s ti~ely and prompt reporting of
diversion s, storage, exchange s, etc. by Denv er to the State
a nd to Englewood so as to ensure tte proper operation of t~e
river.
2. Englewood see:~s to force De::v er to make aC.eq"..:a "':e
releases of v:ater from C!:a tf ield :Keservoir to e ff ect"J.a te
excha nge s of water into De~ver's up stream struct~res.
3. Englewood seeks to fcrce Denve r to store in Ch atfie ld
only these waters which it is e~titled to store.
4. Englewood seeks to force De~ver to Eake evap ora tion
releases from its _a::-ge So u t:"'l. ?ark reser.·oirs in accc::-da::ce
wi~~ a 1553 agreeme::t bet~een De~v er and Englewood .
Outcorr.e
7~is case is pending. Ko dates fer trial have been set.
Timely reporting by Denver will help to ensure a proper
adl!linistration of the river and the prompt opportunity for
Engle~ood to correct any misadministration which it perceives.
Second, proper operation of Chatfield will prevent Denver from
stcring too ~uch and, at the same time, force Denver to ~ake
l
required releases from Chatfield to the river. ?roper releases
are necessary for Englewood's quantity and quality of supply.
Third, evaporation releases are needed during critically dry
periods to help to supply Englewood's senior 1861, 1862, 1863, an
1865 rights.
2
' J
I
TO: File 159.1
FROM: Joe Tom Wood, P.E.
SU3JECT: Westminster's Change of Standley Lake Shares
Cases Nos. 86-CW-397, 88-CW-267, and 89-CW-129
DATE: August 28, 1990
Descrintion of case
' Westminster now (August, 1990) to change to municipal use the
water rights underlying some 37% of the shares in the Standley
Lake Division of the Fa:r-mers Reservoir and Irrigation Company
(FRICO). Although numerous water rights are involved, the three
most important are' the following, shown in their entirety.
'Kater Rioht
Standley Lake
sta:-idley Lake
conditional
Croke Ca:1al
Date of Water Riaht
V.arch 4, 1902
V.arch 4, 1902
Earch 4, 1902
Basis of Ob1ection
Total J...mount
32,361 acre-feet, absolute
16,699 acre-feet,
944 cfs, absolute
Westminster seeks two ber:efits from its change which are
controversial anj whic~ will tend to crevice less water for
E:-iglewood's pcst-1902 r:g~~s to diveri, particularly Englewood's
1948 McLellan storage right for 5,500 acre-feet.
Tte first s uch benefit which Westminster seeks is to have the
cha:;;e mace on tte basis of the "contemplated draft" that the
fanr.ers had wte:-i t!:ey cor:structed Standley lake in 1910. T:-.e
conte:rr:plated draft, which might be termed the "wish list" of the
fanr.ers, is s-:..:pposecly based o:-i providing a set, ann u al amo unt of
water to irrigate a given acreage. As such, the co:-itemplated
craft ignoYe s hi storic re:=:litv. K~ereas the farILers historically
diverted an average cf about 15,000 acre-feet annually,
Kestminster seeks t h e rig~t for the er.tire Standley Lake rights
to divert a maximum annual amount over 77,000 acre-feet.
~~e sec o~d te~efit soug h t ty Westmi~st er is the cc~ver sio~ of t~e
25,659 acre-feet co:-idi~ic~al storage rig~~ from agricul~~ral use
to m~nicipal ~se wi~ho~~ a~y e vicence of historic ~se.
If Westminster is successful in either attempt, Westminster will
divert more water from Clear Creek than it did historically.
This will result in less water running into the South Platte
River from Clear Creek. Numerous water rights on the South
1
I
~
. ••
•
Platte River downstream from Clear Creek will directly suffer
from this loss of water. these water rights junior to tte 1902
Standley rights will attempt to recoup their losses by calling
more often. These additional calls will disrupt Englewood's
ability to divert under its post-1902 rights. Englewood's rights
adversely affected by these increased calls would include most
particularly the 1946 McLellan Reservoir right and the pending
1989 municipal rights on Bear Creek.
Outcome
This case is currently pending (August, 1990), and is set to
continue in early Noveir..ber.
A settlement with Westminster is pending.
{Thornton has an application to change its Standley Lake shares
which seeks the same benefits as Westminster seeks. Thornton's
case has not gone to trial, but a settlement is pending with
Thornton also.)
3e~ef its to E~clewood
Englewood's pending settle~ents are ir.tended to do either one cf
two things: First, limit Kestminster and Thornton to tte
historic ~se of t~eir interests, or, second, to provide water
payl!e~ts to Englewood if the Cc ~rt allows Kestmi~ster and
Thornton to divert mere t~an histcr~c a~o unts .
2
I
J
--. --~ l
u r:l
• 1
U II
~I
~
4J 1.1 "I
"' ,: I . I
•. 1
., 1.1
..
"' ...
411 lj ..I
u ·
u
u
c...: ...
L'
v ...
·]!
v 1/
urn. I TI E!I PEP/\R111ENl'
1990 0 JIJ~Ul.T/\N'I' ~T/\TUS
!:iEP'I' I .l, l 'J')O
rurnw :r 1))1-tl'W\•_.r /II.fl' PA Ill Tl 11 s
CCtll"RJ\("l'OR AfOJN'I' (YR) llEF\lllE 1990 Hurn
WAl'liR RIGIITS ~!NEERING
BLATCll!.EY
RANCI I CHEEK EXCI I/\! ~JE
antrn
JEl IN AND ~X)[)
GENrnAt. --·-
t-X:•~ TRIO HELLS
Pill tl'E!.il'S
1£1.l.hO .tl TRANSFER
NEVAPJ\ TRANSFEJ{
tunm THANSFrn
. BEAR CH£EK_Afk1 Pl./\f'I
34,.700 · Ill/HO
41, 500-10/llfl
.)5, 500 -IO/flO
25,000-]/fl')
JI), (C,). T/
4r., I I,-,.'• l
.J .l,035 . 62
')'). "')
fl . IHI
11.(111
I\. IHI
11 .110
rr., ;· _,,-,. ,, 1
lli.1·.11
l\.tlO
0 . f)(J
11 .1111
I'll !.t 111 /IH'I'
l 'll Ill 19911
;', '" 1 ·1 . I .I
l /'11 . j(i
7, ,·._-.,I. r,,1
?'I, (1'.·1 . 111
•111, .'.'J •. I '/
411, •; r!. •,•)
'•, •J.(,, 11•.
(l .Cl(I
fl .Oii
. -· -. -· .. --·. -.... -. --
TOI'AI. W/\Tffi RT Gm:. F.I K:J tll~rnn.i.·;
WATE!! RIGllTS LEGAi.
.,
. . . I l!l'CI I, m.ACK, JII I.L, ())}K
t£llf«Xtt TRANSFEH
NE.VMI\ 'rnANSFEH
. DflNEH El<CI 11\NGE
DENVEll CHANGE
?O'l 'I'll IB WELl.S
. .. S1'ANDl.EY..i.AKE
GEJ'ffllAI,
'f(JrA!. 1-1/\TEILRIG!ff!:.i l.E(iAJ.
"'l cm!ER ENCITNEEIU!~J
Lrnz<rrrr AND fl .11.J.Efi'IHI
OORF./\S PASS
MCLJ\t JGI 11.lN _J:l'IGR
CITY IH'fCH
Hllil!ICK AS~
GI S RFP .....: .:_
WESTFRN ENV!R(lf'8-1EHf/\f,
AUJJ\E S'IUDY
. hQ)WAIW CLYDE
1£LELl..l\N .RII' MP . ,.
TC1IAL Cffl!ElLllKHNEEIUNG
20, 22Ci -· i/1111
4, 500 -2 I •Jn
.2,600 r 11119
17 I 000 -(1/fl')
3, 700 -4/90
;>(,1·1:'.:ll
tl.OfJ
0 . (ll)
0 • C, !fl _r,r,
o.on
1 r., ;• 1:. " 1
1,;•;.>1 . '/ll
'•'Ill. '"' I, :w•,. 'J'.o
l, ll<J'1 '/ll
l'J I . 1(1
19,1111'). 6'.;
} , '/ 'J'I. l1'J
.'II, 2ll). 'J'J
11 .ll ll
11.llll
II , (ICJ
fl .llll
11.llfl
o . no
I I' I, 111111 . 1 I
2 '1 • r; l '>. ~ .. ,
JO, llfl4' ··.;i
'1 'J, I •I I . ll'J
·1, 'J4 I . (1'1
1., I(,(,. 'i')
ll,f1'/l.4'i
Ill, !H1. l .l
I H1, ·11111 . II f,
ll .1111
I , I Ft . 11.'.
I, 4 111. 1111
II, 'f.J ./.'1 11
'.11•1 .ll •I
I 2, <!(,•·,. 04
·n fl'/\ I. N ·ff
I rl I 990
.? • r, r ., . I .l .
320 . 36
'/,6 .'4 .'A
;•·/ ,ll'i "/, Ir!
,-, •I , ·111 / . 411
·Ill,',')•). 0')
~'I '.'J16, 4 5
0.00
i:.:;r
1 ')'.l() Blll:GE."l'. .. -:---.
/\H'.lUNT ::;,'. .. ----------~ ·~ ···'·
'!.
0. l)(l . ·-· ..... -.. -·--·. -· ----. -
1 ·-.,~ , I :>.J • fl 4 l':.0, IJOO
,'.·r .. .
. ~ ~ .... ' ' -.---...-n-·~·-'J:~·· .... •., .. ·"' · I , ,·~ ~n l:-'\ •~ J ~ I• .I .{; ·. '•'' ·:··-~~b · ·1~·~A-~. 'i! 1 :~·~!~.•1\l .~~ i~~}.!,'f~. ·------~~~.~! . :~·~f.~'.}~ :~:~;':
.. ---. -~~ .. ~ ... r-~:r.a -r--r · .. '.,.. "'!->;}·w·?~,
. ~~:;·. · •. ~ .. ~·.~<t:!"i~::;~~~ ,,
--·=:·:· . -~-:·~~lL
.... ·;,,
;;
.. --------------~~
.. ~~----~-~~;~\~.; __ :~~: ____ ].t;t1·:'.T:·-->:.t~;:~iJTI:
!'>, 7•,9. 1)7
I I, 411 l. 02
~;I)' 111. 04 .
'), llJ 5. Jl5
!.,'1'»J.U5
.... ·
. ~ ·~ ~
j-.. .••
,:;, ',:-
](). 76J. 10 -·. -. ··----·-.. --'---·-·-· ----·-· ·-·------"·--··· ------··--·-..
. IJ, ')41i .lll
lti•l, G•Jl .11'.i .
n.on
1 ,1'/.1.ll/.
1 • .r:io. no
ll. 'J<I '/. 911
') 14. 04
I.~. 4(15. 04
l.'.;O, 000
1 ·1, non
·' ...
.~·. .
•. ·.~·'•
• ~ -~ ---:--~-..,...1 -·
·'. t· "•t#.· ...
I ::.'~.(:,:~·. .I . : ..... -~ .. ... . .·
---~...:~~-··;:.: ._:_ __
. --·--· . --. --~-' ...
·:·
' . ··--'-"-·
·1 ... • .. . ·, ,.
.... -... ----··
... ,
--~--:----......
;'.. '\~~~·:~ ~ '.r"·\.
__ _-----..:. --··
CMND 'l'Yr/\L._. "". •14f1. ~.2 ;~011. 111.1 . :> r 1 u .. wo. n
~ ..... ·-·.
CITY Of l~~.E.l-A:'()()
I.Er.Al, FJ<PFNS"5
IVl~lllN!H·I, tll.f\CK, llILI. t. 0:;·1v.
CASE
. '. ·ENGY.E.l.O If) CASES
PF.TERSOI IRO
----J , D. Bl\'! .1.-IN r--
NEVAOA OITCll TRf\NS
t-t:::uRlftt DITCll 'fRANS
·-·-flR(WN D11'CH 1'AANS -·
111~1< <1WEK /\I .k i
tU~ THIU WELJ.S
--AHJ\XID~
!:I JB 'f(tf AL
OllJl-rl'lt.U C'.ASES
--·-DalVER/RLUE ~IVER ---
ornvrn CHANCE
nrnvrn EXC!ll\Nl1F. .
---<X~SOJ.ID OITCllF.S __ :_
IXU'J\N DI'fCll
5Tf\Nl.EY LAKE
SUB'IY:Yf AL .
Al.L cm O;:R CASES
l')fllj
17 I l)(,1
IJ
0
0
(I
0
fl
0
17 I l)(17
II
0
(J
0
ll
0
0
0
l ')0 .,
05,067
632
0
0
·-I)
0
4, 23J
.. ()
fl 1)/ I l/1,ll)
l'lfll)
.~r.1. :-.•n
2. l01i
I, 24 '•
4 I.~
ll
II
•1 111
0
ll'J, 932 2r.s. l'n
0 I • ~,-,.,
ll (I
0 _l, 10 l
2,270 } • 1".4
60 r-., , .. ,(,
0 0
2,330 I ), ')•)I)
53, 542 .34, 97'•
I 'Jll 'J
fl. (111 I
<J. 4r.1.
12. ')10
-1, fl4 I
11,'1;>'.l
r., 21111
4, 1,./'J
·1. 904
1i'j, 404
2, no
•J, 2/ti
., • .?.4 'j
4. r,o-,
fl.?,•H".
I, fll"l4
w1. ••·n
60,'>02
1'1'111
('I'• I JIATFI
II
fl
II, 411 I
:!,.,, "/fll)
1:,4
fl
•1 • 4 ··.11
I, l(,"J
T• ll'/1!.
11 ."'.,ll'.'"
I.", '1flll
.-~, •• ~)(,JI
L'•, l 11
I l, ·111 t
r., /f,ft
I fl, • 11111
<J, v.1
4 1 , I:'..' 11'}, II Ill
! , 0 II (,, t 111
'J, fl ir, , .-, . ()(,_'.
•;n, 4 4-, hfl, '/')',
l,'1'1tl 10 .4 10
I) II''' ,,-, I
)ft,-,,-, l l}. ··,,-• .,
')4. (,'/ ~'. J. lfl. '\fl')
2fl. fl'lll rn. •1 u
roTAL 17,967 14'>,804 Jtl,9';0 231,'JO.l lfi•l,•i'l/ fl'J(., l,)·1
..
" ~ .
., l'
•~IT•'' 1-llC
,.r I
-------~--
-··-:·~·
.... I •', ..
' . .-1-
----_-.---·· -·-~·r ~-.... -.-
. -.~i'.~-----:'.ii~:'.~~~~~.
·--~---
-. _ . .,:.;;i:~-: :. ..... );:;: .> .-~~.
1111 Tl'l:I< l//\Tl·J1 :ii lf'f'I.'( rnsunm. 950 AF 1·1¥ M PE~!"ERSBIJRG DITO-I
(I _•,•) ,-:1-'S OF IIJtl'-l IH GHJ' ON -UIG ·DRY -CHEEI\ ------.-·-··"----·~---------
ltl'•'I 111 -' (•F f\1;HJ('1Jf.'l\IHl\J, W/\Tf.ll CX:Nv'f-J(J'ill TO 1-~JNICIPAf, USE -.;
I/--•1 '.t"I /\Ii OF A<ll([L'lJJ.TtJHAI, WATrn · O:NVEl<l'l!.U 1n KJNICIPAL·-USE
111 /\I-' f1F M:ll!CITJ'llH/\1.-W/\Tl'J~ <-.'ONVEm"f-l)-'11) HUNICIPAfr.tJSf:-·-----
1 •111 •1 I ti r~i,:._·r \·l/\Tl!l{ H IC:I rr AND AIJGIENl'/\'l'WN H [GI rr /\PPLICATIC«
t /--1•:111) Al-' OF tJON TRiii Wl !'.J.J, WATER /\1-'l'LlCATIC~
lv'll.Jo."11 (:llEEI\ 11.co:XJNTI l'.\_j ANAi. Y!:il~l),--NIDJf I A 1'IL1~6 -Wiru AHAX-:-&--DElNEH
lllVl-:11 /\nlltll ~i'l'll/\'f'l(>N II. (1,-IE -TllE-RIVffi-A<"'.\Y (ll(f"!:>
I~• IW:>l' :;J) tl'E FFF!.Ul!Nl' ~'.XCll/\NGES 'Rt JNT/\KE OH STORAGE
l ·:V /\l,.ill/\Tl<~l IHiS !ill O:"XJW llli:-IU.::Lt:ASED -1\J IHVEH -IF-DAMAGliS-SH~
/\: ;::;11111-:n Pl i'.I •l'l ·J< 111 ~;·inn re USE l'EHIOD fl:H MUNI C IPAL CCtNERSIOOS
Al•lllTll _~l/\I. ~·I~ •HAGE IN H ~LELl.J\N WI'l11 l'J.lfl 1uc1rr .. -
....... ~··':.*· .....
---· ---·_;:J? _: __ -~·'.:·:. L-~--~----; ...
--~------
-·---__..-
....
, .
. , '." {.: ,: . J, '\ ·-----..:------·-~----·
I
I
I
METERING PROGRAM
IN A GLANCE
-_ l. Everyone still on flat rate
--. gets a -water m-eter _:_FREE.
2. Water turned off for only a
few minutes.
3. Water Dept. guarantees ser-
vice line for one year after
meter installation .
4. Water Dept. guarantees in-
door plumbing for 30 days
on problems directly related
to meter installation.
5 . Landscaping will be re-
placed by contractor prompt-
ly after meter is inspect ed.
6. Customer gets a two month
billing reprieve. (Flat rate
accounts pay in advance ;
metered accounts pay after
use.)
Nothing could be sweeter
than to have a water meter
For those last Denver residents still on a flat rate and feeling
guilty about it , the new year holds great promise.
No more nightmares about rate changes that you have no
control over. No more embarrassment when conversation at the
neighborhood poker game turns to water bills. No more guilt
complexes .
Your new water meter is on
the way! At last , you will control
your own water bill!
After responding to meter volun-
teers from 30,000 homes over the
WATER CONSERVATION TIP
Make sure the hot water heat· ,
er thermostat isn't set too high.
Extremely high settings waste
water and energywhen the water
has to be cooled down for use.
last four years, the Denver Water
Department will start in 1991 to
connect water meters to the rest.
Everyone should have a meter by
the end of 1992. _____ ---.:---__ . -----
The Water Department will :'::-__.:;!
' still pay the cost of the meter. The
'Water Dep~ent~it{gll'ii!-aliiee
plumbing against any leaks-of prob-
lems that could be related to meter ·
installation -one year for a "semce
-_ line and 30 days for interior plumbing.
Water will be turned ofT 'for
State director named water manager
only a few minutes. Any land-
scaping that may be disturbed will
be replaced in kind , although the
new meter pit will be left unland-
Hamlet J. 'Chips' Barry III,
46, executive director of the Colo-
rado Department of Natural Re-
-·~-~ sources ; has been named Manager of
the Denver Water Department by
'Chips' Barry
the Denver Water Board.
He succeeds W.H. 'Bill' Miller,
65, who retired with twenty years of
Denver Water service, twelve of
them as manager.
Barry, a fourth generation
Coloradan, is an attorney with
more than twenty years' experience,
mostly in natural resource issues. A
graduate ofY ale College and Colum-
bia University Law School, he also
has ~en in private practice and
spent nearly four years as a legal
services attorney in Alaska and
Micronesia.
"We expect 'Chips~ will con-
tinue the Water Department's tradi-
tion of excellence in this new era of
water issues ," Board President
Hubert A. Farbes Jr. said.
Barry and his wife, Gail, have
two sons .
WATER NEWS
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1991
scaped for a week so that it can be
inspected after a few days in service.
Flat rate customers have al-
ready been maile<I"letters:witb "de::
tails of the program: J\'s insfal-
lation time nears ; further informa-
tion will be provided door-to-door.
Anyone having questions abour the
program may call the Denver Water
Department at 628-6136, 628-615 7
or 628-6154.
With a new water meter, you
will have a chance to conserve
water and conserve your money.
No more embarrassment. No more
guilt complexes. We promise .
WATER TRIVIA
The bathroom accounts for
75 percent of the water used
Inside the home. Everytlmeyou
flu ah the toilet you are using aa
much as five gallons of water.
Published for customers since 1922 by the Denver Water Department, 1600 W. 12th Ave .. Denver 80254
Billing Information 893-2444. Ail other offices (aiso 24-hour emergency) 628-6000.
DENVER WATER COMMISSIONERS
Hubert A. Farbes Jr., President Malcolm M . Murray, 1st Vice President
Donald L. Kortz Romaine Pacheco Monte Pascoe
@ PrlnlM on ,.cyclM papar
Denver Water Department
1600 West 12th Av~nue •Denver. CO 80254
Phone (303) 628-6000 • Telecopier No. <303) 626-6199
January 4, 1991
Mr. Stewart Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, CO 80110
Dear Mr. Fonda:
As you are aware, representatives from the City of Englewood and
the Denver Water Department have been meeting together in an
attempt to resolve various ~ater rights and water rights
administration issues over which our respective entities are in
disagreement. As a result of those meetings, those representatives
have reached an agreement concerning some of the issues in dispute.
Specifically, as they relate to Denver's change of its direct flow
water rights to alternate points of diversion in Case No. BOCW039
and Englewood's change of its McBroom Ditch water rights in Case
No. 88CW203, the points of agreement are described as follows:
1. Denver agrees that Englewood's wells diverting on its Olsen
and Bell rights may be pumped at the full decreed flow rate of
1.575 cfs for golf course irrigation whenever such rights are
in priority. Denver agrees not to assert or claim, to the
State Engineer or his employees, before the Water Court in any
proceeding, or otherwise, that there is a volumetric
limitation on Englewood's diversions under its Olsen and Bell
ditch rights as decreed in case number W-8271-76, entered
November 25, 1980, nunc pro tune July 17, 1980, provided
Englewood limits the use of its Olsen and Bell water rights to
the irrigation of Englewood's present municipal golf course.
The area of that golf course is approximately 120 acres, and
the irrigation use of the water includes the maintenance of
water levels of existing ponds and water hazards associated
with the golf course.
2. Englewood agrees that Denver may divert up to 46.5 cubic feet
per second under its Platte Canon Ditch water rights whenever
such rights are in priority during its proper diversion season
to be determined under the Court's Ruling and Order in Case
No. 80CW039. Englewood agrees not to assert or claim, to the
State Engineer or his employees, before the Water Court in any
proceeding, or otherwise, that there is a volumetric
CONSERVE WATER!
Mr. Stewart Fonda
Page 2
January 4, 1991
limitation on Denver's diversions under those water rights
which were changed to alternate points of diversion by the
decree entered in case No. 80CW039, entered January 16, 1984.
3. Denver shall execute a Stipulation and Consent to Decree in
the McBroorn Ditch Application in case No. 88CW203, in which
Denver shall consent to the entry of a decree which is no less
restrictive than the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, Judgment and Decree attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4. Englewood shall execute a stipulation in Case No. 80CW039 in
which Englewood shall consent to the entry of a Ruling and
Order of the Water Court which is no less restrictive than the
proposed Ruling and Order attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Englewood shall withdraw without prejudice its Petition
Pursuant to Retained Jurisdiction and its Motion to Amend
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree filed in Case
No. 80CW039, except as to those matters set forth in the
Ruling and Order.
If the above correctly describes the agreements reached between our
respective representatives, please so indicate by signing below.
It is hoped that this agreement will be but the first of several in
which our respective entities can constructively find mutually
positive solutions to the other outstanding issues which remain.
Sincerely,
{jl/Yi!L w. H. 1 er
Manager
Attachments
Approved:
Mr. Stewart Fonda
Director of utilities
city of Englewood