Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company <br />March 17. 2004 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 25b. <br /> <br />FULTON IRRIGATION DITCH COMPANY <br />The FIDC is a mutual ditch company and a non-profit corporation registered in the State of <br />Colorado. There are 220 shareholders and 7,185 shares of stock. The FIDC has the power to set <br />annual assessments to be paid by the shareholders, the power to cut offwater deliveries to <br />shareholders that fail to pay their assessments, and the power to offer stock for sale to pay back <br />assessments. <br /> <br />WATER RIGHTS <br />The source of water for the Company is direct flow water rights from the South Platte River. The <br />water rights diverted at the headgate consist of three rights, with dates of appropriation being <br />May 1, 1865, July 8, 1876, and November 5, 1879, for a combined total of204.18 cfs. Records <br />from the State Engineer's Office indicate an annual diversion of30,666 acre-feet from 1999 to <br />2003. <br /> <br />PROJECT DESCRIPTION <br />The purpose of this project is to address seepage concerns under the existing diversion spillway. <br />This improvement will provide a means for the FIDC to continue providing irrigation water to its <br />shareholders, while mitigating any future failure of their diversion structure. <br /> <br />Three alternatives were evaluated, which are described as follows: <br /> <br />Alternative No. 1 - No-action taken. <br /> <br />Alternative No.2 - Rehabilitation of the existing spillway structure by placing sheeting piling <br />upstream and downstream ofthe structure, with a concrete pile cap, and pressure grouting the <br />existing concrete stilling basin to fill any underlying voids. <br /> <br />Estimated Cost = $200,000 (includes $10,000 for engineering) <br /> <br />Alternative No.3 - Complete removal and replacement of the existing diversion spillway <br />structure. <br /> <br />Estimated Cost = $450,000 <br /> <br />AL TERNATIVE ANALYSIS <br />Alternative No.1 was not acceptable because it does not address the seepage probl~:m and <br />potential failure ofthe existing diversion spillway. <br />Alternative No.2 was selected since it provides for the most cost effective solution to the <br />problem, while ensuring a 30-40 year, safe, functioning life of the structure. <br />Alternative No.3 was not acceptable, given the overall cost of the improvement, and the fact that <br />certain features of the existing diversion spillway could be salvaged. <br /> <br />The implementation schedule calls for completion of financing arrangements in April/May 2004. <br />Given the urgency of the repairs, construction commenced in January of2004 and is anticipated <br />to be complete by the end of March 2004. <br /> <br />2 <br />