CT2017-2258 Approval Letter - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Grand Valley Water Users Association Agenda Item 17a September 21-22, 2016 Board Meeting(Updated September 22, 2016) Page 3 of 8 system. The board may authorize indebtedness up to $1 million. Anything above that amount must be approved by two-thirds of the shareholders. The Association and Orchard Mesa Irrigation District share in the cost of operation and maintenance of the canal at 71.6% and 28.4%, respectively, per a 1955 agreement. Daily operation of the Roller Dam and canyon facilities are performed by the Association. Water Rights The water rights of the Grand Valley irrigation systems that comprise the Cameo Call are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1: WATER RIGHTS Amount I Appropriation Adjudication Use Owner (CFS) Date Date Association 730 2/27/1908 7/22/1912 Irrigation Association 400(summer)/ 2/27/1908 7/25/1941 Hydroelectric 800(winter) Et Association 220 2/27/1908 7/25/1941 Domestic Livestock Orchard Mesa Irrigation 1450 10/25/1907 7/22/1912 Irrigation District Orchard Mesa Irrigation 10.2 10/01/1900 7/22/1912 Irrigation District Palisade Irrigation District 23.5 6/01/1918 7/25/1941 Irrigation Palisade Irrigation District 80 10/01/1889 7/22/1912 Irrigation Mesa County Irrigation District 40 7/06/1903 7/22/1912 Irrigation Average annual diversions are 1,730 cfs during the irrigation season and 800 cfs during the non- irrigation season. On average 260,000 AF is diverted at the Roller Dam. Project Description The canal capacity is currently physically restricted to approximately 1,600 cfs, while the water rights are for 1,730 cfs; therefore, the goal of this Project is to improve the hydraulic efficiency of the first 500 feet of the Government Highline Canal. This will increase the diversion capacity and efficiency during times of low flow on the Colorado River. Alternative 1 - No Action: This alternative was considered unacceptable as continued degradation of the canal could lead to the inability to divert and deliver water. This canal is critical to agricultural and hydropower production in the area and also to the stream health of the 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River. Alternative 2 - Line Canal and Construct a Vertical Retaining Wall on South Side:This design alternative would involve constructing a vertical retaining wall on the south side of the canal. It also includes lining the canal with a PVC liner and geotextile fabric and placing a layer of shotcrete on top. This alternative would have the benefit of providing additional accessible area at the top of the embankment between the canal and Colorado River. The cost of this alternative was in excess of $800,000 and was therefore not chosen as Alternative 3 achieves the same goal at a lower cost. Selected Alternative 3 - Line and Return Canal to Original Shape:This alternative would involve returning the canal to its original shape with 1 'h:1 side slopes and a 38-foot bottom width. A liner