Laserfiche WebLink
Terrace Irrigation Company Agenda Item 16a <br />March 9, 2012 (Updated March 23, 2012) <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />of the Alamosa River. On average, the two canals combine to deliver 15,339 AF of irrigation water <br />annually. <br />The Company is governed by a three- member board of directors. Revenues are generated through <br />annual shareholder assessment dues. The board has the authority to restrict water deliveries and sell <br />stock for delinquent assessments. The board makes a recommendation on annual assessment rates; <br />however, shareholder approval of the rate is required. Shareholder approval is also required for the <br />Company to enter in to a debt agreement. <br />Water Rights <br />The Company owns numerous Alamosa River direct flow water rights and a Terrace Reservoir <br />storage right of 17,171 AF. Collectively the Company's direct flow water rights for the Terrace <br />Main Canal (134.15 cfs) and Alamosa Creek (78.7 cis) total 212.85 cis, including Alamosa River <br />priority number one and two rights that date back to 1867 (appropriation) and 1888 (adjudication). <br />This Project does not require the addition of any new water rights by the Company; however, the <br />Company has partnered with ARK in return for NRD funding. ARK will attempt to acquire 2,000 <br />AF of water rights that will ultimately be converted to an instream flow use, and the Company will <br />donate 2,000 AF of capacity in Terrace Reservoir to store the converted rights. <br />Project Description <br />The objective of this Project is to replace the Terrace Reservoir spillway and remove the restriction <br />imposed by the SEO. The following alternatives were considered: <br />Alternative No. I — No Action: It is important to the Company to address the inadequacy of the <br />existing spillway and fully utilize the storage capacity of the reservoir. For this reason the "No <br />Action" alternative has been dismissed. <br />Alternative No. 2 — Fuse Gate System: This alternative includes the demolition of the existing <br />spillway and the installation of multiple fuse gates where the existing spillway was located. The <br />initial construction costs of this alternative are slightly less than in "Spillway Replacement;" <br />however, this alternative requires long -term recurring operation and maintenance expenses. Due to <br />the extent of the operation and maintenance expenses and the fact that the SEO has not granted <br />conceptual approval to the design, this alternative has been dismissed. <br />Selected Alternative No. 3 — Spillway Replacement: This alternative involves the demolition of the <br />existing spillway, construction to raise the existing saddle dike to the main Terrace Dam crest <br />elevation, and construction of a new reinforced concrete spillway control structure, chute and <br />stilling basin. This alternative was selected for its ability to restore the Company's raw water <br />storage capacity in the most economical and environmentally sensitive fashion. <br />The selected alternative requires SEO approval of construction documents, specifications, <br />hydrology report, and geotechnical stability analysis. Engineering documents and reports have <br />been submitted to the SEO for review and approvals are expected within the next six months. Upon <br />approval by the SEO, the Company plans to bid the Project, with construction expected to begin <br />during the summer /fall of 2012 and be complete in 2013. <br />