Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />b. These shareholders perceive a serious need for the rehabili- <br />tation of their delivery ditch to not only reduce the shrink <br />loss due to seepage, but also alleviate the reduced productivity <br />in adjoining fields and other damage to property in adjacent <br />areas caused by this seepage. <br />c. The shareholders have actively sought the assistance of this <br />agency, and expressed a willingness to follow the plans and <br />specifications of the NRCS. <br />d. proposed construction dates for this project are the fall of <br />1996 and spring of 1997. <br /> <br />4. History: <br />a. This delivery ditch carries an apportioned 83 shares of Larimer- <br />Weld water. <br />b. There are no required or needed ac:tions pertaining to water <br />rights of filings. <br />c. Previous and current investigations: One contractor has made a <br />proposal to the shareholders, and this appears to have involved <br />considerable effort and time. Another contractor has requested <br />the opportunity to present his proposal. <br />d. Some structures are very old and need to be removed or replaced. <br />A couple of structures could be repaired and continue to be of <br />service during the life expectancy of this rehabilitation. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. Alternatives considered: <br />a. Some lengths of the proposed run could be put <br />pipeline, but this would depend upon costs. <br />b. No other reasonable solutions exist to reduce <br />rehabilitate the system. . <br /> <br />into a buried <br /> <br />the seepage and <br /> <br />6. Costs and Economic feasibility of the project: <br />a. The proposed project will benefit 1920 acres which are used to <br />produce silage corn, grain corn, alfalfa, and some sugar beets <br />and dry edible beans. <br />b. The conservation benefit is the potential savings of 247.5 ac- <br />ft (estimate through empirical formula) of water per irrigation <br />season. This could possibly irrigate 125 acres of corn in this <br />area during a season. Also, according to personna 1 observation <br />by shareholders, there is a 60 to 70% shrink of water between <br />that turned in at the head end of the lateral and that delivered <br />at the tail end. From personal observation of the site, it can <br />be stated that there is negligible soil erosion during an <br />irrigation season though there has been a cumulative effect over <br />time as demonstrated by large scour holes downstream of some of <br />the drop structures. <br />c. The cost per acre as per the contractor's estimate would be: <br />$140,000 / 1920 ac = $73 per acre. <br />d. The shareholders, in addition to the potential ACP costshare. <br />are considering in applying for a loan from the Colorado Water <br />conservation Board. <br /> <br />. <br />