Laserfiche WebLink
Hydrology and Water Rights <br />The Users of Twenty Two Road Lateral currently all own shares in the Grand Valley <br />Irrigation Company. Water rights exist with those Grand Valley Irrigation Company's shares. <br />Currently there are 307 shares assigned to the Twenty Two Road Lateral. <br />Project Description and Alternatives <br />There are only two reasonable alternatives to consider being that the lateral is the only <br />source of irrigation water to the users on this Lateral. <br />1. The Twenty Two Road Lateral Company would continue as it has in the past, <br />maintaining the lateral as necessary. <br />2. Replace the existing lateral with a system of buried pipe. <br />Alternative 1, would result in both an increase in cost and the work necessary to maintain and <br />repair a crumbling system of open ditches. There is an increasing probability of more washouts <br />and flooding. The open ditch collects wind blown trash and weeds that get caught in grates that <br />prevent such material from getting washed into pipes under road crossings and elsewhere along <br />the system. This has frequently been the cause of flooding or reduced flow in the lateral, and this <br />requires constant surveillance and trash removal. There are also flooding issues with the tail <br />waters that go through dirt ditches that are frequently clogged with grass, trash and cattails. <br />Some users will continue to experience difficulty getting water when they need it. This area is <br />also experiencing growth and development which increases the risk of liability of an open <br />irrigation ditch due to accidental injury or drowning of animals or children. This would also <br />forgo an opportunity to receive a sizeable cost sharing grant for the project from NRCS. Such <br />grants may not be available in the future due to budget constraints. The financial costs of this are <br />difficult to estimate. Costs have amounted to thousands, not counting the labor that lateral users <br />have given in maintaining and cleaning the lateral ditches. <br />Alternative 2, would virtually eliminate a great amount of maintenance work, and the risks of <br />flooding and liability. It would guarantee all users access to water when they need it in a <br />pressurized system. It would help conserve water, because with a closed pipe system only water <br />that is actually used would be delivered through the head gate as opposed to an open ditch <br />system where a constant flow rate is delivered and any water that isn't used is dumped at the end <br />of the ditch. <br />Cost Estimates <br />The Mesa County Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has prepared <br />engineering designs and cost estimates for the project. Conceptual plans as prepared by the <br />NRCS are attached in the back pocket of this study. <br />D <br />