Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Lorna Ditch and Lateral Company <br />September 11-12, 2002 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 12e <br /> <br />Feaslbllitv Studv <br /> <br />LDLC, through its President, Terry Retherford and Secretary-Treasurer, Jack Williams has <br />completed the feasibility study in accordance with cWCS guidelines. The study includes an <br />assessment of alternatives available for ditch rehabilitl:ltion. The engineering design and cost <br />estimate have been provided by the NRCS. <br /> <br />The Loma Ditch and Lateral ComDanv <br /> <br />The LDLC is a Colorado mutual ditch company and non-profit corporation registered in the State of <br />Colorado, in good standing, The Company was incorporated in 1911. There are 81 shareholders <br />holding 790 shares of stock. The LDLC exists in perpetuity and sets annual assessments that are <br />assigned to the shareholder according to the number 'of shares they own. It also holds the power to <br />refuse to deliver water to shareholders who fail to pa~ their assessments, and the power to offer <br />shares for sale to pay for unpaid assessments. The aoard of Directors has the authority to incur <br />such indebtedness as they deem necessary to carry Qut the purposes of the company. <br /> <br />Water Rlahts <br /> <br />The LDLC is a carrier ditch for irrigation water from thil Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC). <br />Shareholders must own shares of GVIC as well as shares of LDLC in order to receive water from <br />LDLC. The LDLC carries a maximum of 9.75 cis an~ diverts an average of 3505 acre-feet per <br />year. <br /> <br />Prolect DescrlDtion <br /> <br />Three alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility studY: <br /> <br />1. No-action alternative. <br />2. Rehabilitate the existing open concrete ditch. , <br />3. Install underground piping from Co. Rd. 13.3 to th~ end of the ditch and lateral, a distance of <br />approximately 1 11, miles. ($278,041) . <br /> <br />Alternative 1 , No-action, was considered not feasible 'and not practical. This choice was <br />considered unacceptable since it would leave the project uncompleted and result in continued <br />inefficiency, as well as considerable extra cost for maintenance and repair due to the badly <br />deteriorated condition of the existing open concrete ditch. <br />I <br />, <br />, <br />Alternative 2, Rehabilitate the existing open concrete!ditch. This would, for the short term, solve the <br />leakage, seepage and occasional flooding problems, ibut would continue to leave an open ditch with <br />the associated hazards, along with the difficulty of controlling salinity and the ongoing problems of <br />maintenance. For these reasons it was ruled out. ; <br /> <br />Selected Alternative 3, Install underground piping frof(l1 Co. Rd. 13.3 to the end of the ditch and <br />lateral, a distance of approximately 1 ~ miles. This alternative would complete the project <br />, <br />commenced in 2000 to install underground pipeline along the entire distance of the LDLC. It is <br />feasible and is considered the preferred alternative. i <br />i <br />The selected alternative consists of the final phase of construction to install an 80 psi pressurized <br />pipeline per NRCS planning and design. The resulti~g systems will complete the upgrade of the <br />ditch and lateral that has been in progress over the past two years. Having the system completed <br /> <br />Page 2 of6 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />