Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lema [)tch and lateral Company <br />Se;ltember 11-12.2002 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 12e <br /> <br />many places. The LDLC is proposing to upgrade the remaining deteriorated section of the service <br />by completing installation of underground pipeline (18- to 1 O~) to complete the project. <br /> <br />Feasibility StudY <br /> <br />LDLC, through its President, Terry Retherford and Secretary-Treasurer, Jack Williams has <br />completed the feasibility study in accordance with CWCS guidelines. The study indudes an <br />assessment of alternatives available for ditch rehabilitation. The engineering design and cost <br />estimate have been provided by the NRCS. <br /> <br />The Lorna Ditch and Lateral Company <br /> <br />The LDLC is a Colorado mutual ditch company and non-profit corporation registered in the State of <br />Colorado, in good standing. The Company was incorporated in 1911. There are 81 shareholders <br />holding 790 shares of stock. The LDLC exists in perpetuity and sets annual assessments that are <br />assigned to the shareholder according to the number of shares they own. It also holds the power to <br />refuse to deliver water to shareholders who fail to pay their assessments. and the power to offer <br />shares for sale to pay for unpaid assessments. The Board of Directors has the authority to incur <br />such indebtedness as they deem necessary to carry out the purposes of the company. <br /> <br />Water RiQhts <br /> <br />The LDLC is a carrier ditch for irrigation water from the Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC). <br />Shareholders must own shares of GVIC as well as shares of LDLC in order to receive water from <br />LDLC. The LDLC carries a maximum of 9.75 cfs and diverts an average of 3505 acre-feet per <br />year. <br /> <br />Project DescriPtion <br /> <br />Three alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study: <br /> <br />1. No-action alternative. <br />2. Rehabilitate the existing open concrete ditch. <br />3. Install underground piping from Co. Rd. 13.3 to the end of the ditch and lateral, a distance of <br />approximately 1 l': miles. (5278.041) <br /> <br />Alternative 1, No-action, was considered not feasible and not practical. This choice was <br />considered unacceptable since it would leave the project uncompleted and result in continued <br />inefficiency, as well as considerable extra cost for maintenance and repair due to the badly <br />deteriorated condition of the existing open concrete ditch. <br /> <br />AlternatIve 2. Rehabilitate the existing open concrete ditch. This would, for the shan term, solve the <br />leakage, seepage and occasional flooding problems. but would continue to leave an open ditch with <br />the associated hazards, along WIth the difficulty of controlling salinity and the ongoing problems of <br />maintenance. For these reasons it was ruled out. <br /> <br />Selected Alternative 3, Install underground piping from Co. Rd. 13.3 to the end of the ditch and <br />latera', a distance of approximately 1 ~ miles. This alternative would complete the project <br />commenced in 2000 to install underground pipeline along the entire distance of the LDLC. It is <br />feasible anc is considered the preferrec alternative. <br /> <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />