BOARD00628

• Board Meeting Date: 3/16/2004
• Description: CF Section - Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

"'r \
\

Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company
March' 7, 2004

Agenda Item 25e.

.

FULTON IRRIGATION DITCH COMPANY
The FIDC is a mutual ditch company and a non-profit corporation registered in the State of
Colorado. There are 220 shareholders and 7,185 shares of stock. The FIDC has the power to set
annual assessments to be paid by the shareholders, the power to cut off water deliveries to
shareholders that fail to pay their assessments, and the power to offer stock for sale to pay back
assessments,

WATER RIGHTS
The source of water for the Company is direct flow water rights from the South Platte River. The
water rights diverted at the headgate consist oflhree rights, with dates of appropriation being
May 1, 1865, July 8,1876, and November 5, 1879, for a combined total of 204.18 cfs. Records
from the State Engineer's Office indicate an annual diversion of 30,666 acre-feet from 1999 to
2003.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this project is to address seepage concerns under the existing diversion spillway,
This improvement will provide a means for the FIDC to continue providing irrigation water to its
shareholders, while mitigating any future failure oftheir diversion structure.

Three alternatives were evaluated, which are described as follows:

Alternative No.1 - No-action taken.

.

Alternative No.2 - Rehabilitation of the existing spillway structure by placing sheeting piling
upstream and downstream of the structure, with a concrete pile cap, and pressure grouting the
existing concrete stilling basin to fill any underlying voids,

Estimated Cost = $200,000 (includes $10,000 for engineering)

Alternative No.3 - Complete removal and replacement of the existing diversion spillway
structure.

Estimated Cost = $450,000

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Alternative No.1 was not acceptable because it does not address the seepage problem and
potential failure of the existing diversion spillway.
Alternative No.2 was selected since it provides for the most cost effective solution to the
problem, while ensuring a 30-40 year, safe, functioning life of the structure.
Alternative No.3 was not acceptable, given the overall cost of the improvement, and the fact that
certain features of the existing diversion spillway could be salvaged.

The implementation schedule calls for completion of financing arrangements in ApriJlMay 2004. .
Given the urgency of the repairs, construction commenced in January of2004 and is anticipated
to be complete by the end of March 2004,

2