PROJ00223

• Contract/PO #: C153723
• Contractor Name: Orchard Mesa Irrigation District
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 0
• County: Mesa
• Bill Number: HB 95-1155
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I,
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,

When the Grand Valley unit was first authorized by Congress, the Bureau
of Reclamation's first step was to review all of the canals and laterals in
the valley and determine which. would be most cost effective to upgrade
and repair. They then developed a table which listed all the major
conveyance systems and the cOst to upgrade it as it relates to the cost per
ton of salt removed. The Price Ditch and laterals was determined to be
the most cost effective; the middle section of the Government Highline
Canal was the least cost effective. The aMID canals are on the low end
of the priority list.

For the larger canals, such as the High1ine Canal system, it was determined
that it would be most cost effective to line the canal, either with concrete
or a synthetic membrane. For the smaller canals and laterals, it was
determined that a pipeline system was more cost effective than the open
concrete ditch.

Congress appropriates a limite<! amount of funds each year for upgrading
the canal system of the Grand Valley unit Those systems high on the
priority list will be upgraded and repaired fIrst. It was determined by
BuRec that the aMID canals, including the Mutual Mesa Lateral, was not
cost effective at this time, primarily from the standpoint of priorities. It is
probable that if funding continued, BuRec would have eventually assisted in
upgrade of the Mutual Mesa Ditch.

In evaluating the project, then: are two additional factors that make the
analysis by the BuRec different from NRCS. These are:

1. BuRec tends to have more stringent design and construction criteria
for upgrading canal systems; thus, there tends to be a higher cost
per ton of salt remove<!. BuRec has reduced costs somewhat by
providing funding directly to the various entities and letting them do
the construction.

2. BuRec does not have a cost sharing formula, i.e., they fund 100%
of the project. NRCS funds up to 70% on most projects. In some
analyses of benefit/cost ratio, NRCS may use only the federally
funded portion of cost in calculating a ratio.

C.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES USING CWCB GUIDELINES

1. Introduction

As discussed, NRCS evaluate<! only 2 basic alternatives: a pipeline (with 2
options for wetlands), and a no-action plan. CWCB generally requires a
more in-depth evaluation of alternatives for projects funde<! under their

V-7