My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00321
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00321
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:48:32 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:35:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/20/2000
Description
CF Section - West Rhone Lateral Ditch Company
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />West Rhone lateral Ditch Co. <br />November 20-21, 2000 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 15b. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />Water Riqhts a <br />The source of water for the WRLDC is 130 shares of Grand Valley Irrigation Company water ,., <br />from the Mainline Canal. This amounts to 1.3 CFS (one share is 4.675 gallons per minute), and <br />averages 541 acre-feet per year. <br /> <br />Proiect Description <br />Six alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study. Four key alternatives are listed here: <br /> <br />1. The no-action alternative. <br />2. Replace the concrete ditch with underground pipe all the way to the divide box. <br />5. Replace 0.25 miles of concrete ditch with underground pipeline and tie in to Lateral 405. <br />6. Construct a new headgate on the GVIC Mainline and a new 1-mile pipeline, and replace <br />0.25 miles of concrete ditch with a new pipeline. <br /> <br />Alternative 2, Replace the concrete ditch with underground pipe all the way to the divide box, <br />was ruled out because it does not solve the problem of water shortages associated with misuse <br />of the divider box off Lateral 395. Other alternatives that involved retaining the old divider box <br />arrangement were also ruled out. Alternative 5, Replace 0.25 miles of concrete ditch with <br />underground pipeline and tie in to Lateral 405, was ruled out as too expensive. The 405 Lateral <br />pipeline is already at capacity and would need to be completely replaced. For these reasons <br />Alternative 6 was selected, since it is considered to have the least overall cost, and to be a <br />reliable approach. The no-action alternative was considered unacceptable since it means the <br />WRLDC could not provide full water delivery to its shareholders, <br /> <br />Selected Alternative 6 involves construction of a new headgate with concrete intake structure a <br />on the south side of the Mainline Canal, just east of Road 21.6,500 feet of 12-inch plastic ,., <br />pipeline (80 psi rated) will be laid along 21 Road right of way. The new pipeline will tie into the <br />existing 12-inch West Rhone Lateral pipeline 1.25 mile south of the new headgate. Taps will be <br />provided off the new pipeline to deliver water to the shareholders. <br /> <br />The implementation schedule calls for completion of financing arrangements and final NRCS <br />engineering design in late fall 2000. Construction will take 30 to 90 days, and will be completed <br />in winter 2000/2001 . <br /> <br />Financial Analvsis <br />The total estimated cost of the project is $111,518, and the water is used by the shareholders <br />for agricultural purposes. Staff is recommending a 30-year loan from the Small Project Account <br />in maximum amount of $100,000 (approximately 90% of estimated project cost.) <br /> <br />Alternative financing sources: The Company actively sought alternative financing. They were <br />able to obtain a grant from the NRCS to cover project planning and design, They have also <br />been approved for an NRCS grant for project construction, payable when the project is <br />complete. The WRLDC plans to apply for a $15,000 grant from the Colorado River Water <br />Conservancy District (CRWCD) in early 2001. <br /> <br />The WRLDC also requested a loan from two local banks (Alpine Sank and Home Loan Sank of <br />Grand Junction) but was turned down because neither bank provides construction loans with <br />long-term fixed rate financing. Table 1 is a summary of financing for the project: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.