Laserfiche WebLink
' <br />1 <br />, <br />, <br />' <br />, <br />, <br />' <br />� <br />, <br />, <br />' <br />1 <br />' <br />Summit has been working with the NRCS (previously Soil Conservation Service) to assess the <br />condition of the Summit water collection, storage and delivery system. NRCS has prepared a <br />preliminary report of the findings which is summarized herein and was used to a lazge extent to <br />prepaze this study. The proposed work includes: improvement of collection ditches on steep <br />slopes; improvement of the diversion structures from the creeks; improvement of the conveyance <br />between reservoirs; installation of two drop structures; installation of two measurement flumes; <br />possible replacement of a delivery ditch with a pipe to provide sprinkler pressure; replacement of <br />an old wood stave siphon; and other work necessary to maintain and improve the system. <br />In addition to the work identified by NRCS, the outlet at Suminit Dam requires repair by <br />replacement of the gate and lining of the outlet pipe. The Dam Safety Engineer has not yet <br />imposed a reservoir restriction but the repairs must be accomplished in the next one or two yeazs. <br />Alternatives Evaluated <br />A general range of alternatives considered include: 1) Don't make the repairs, 2) Make the <br />repairs as annual revenues allow, 3) Obtain a loan to make major repairs over the next 7 yeazs. <br />The design altematives for each component proposed for repair is described in the "Selected <br />Plan" section. <br />A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: <br />1. Don't build the project: Shazeholders would gradually lose the water supply as components of <br />the water system became unusable, eventually the shareholders would be unable to irrigate the <br />4,000 acres of cropland. The shazeholders of the Summit system comprise people who aze full <br />time farmers and people who have other jobs but prefer the rural lifestyle of part-time farming, if <br />the Summit facilities aze unable to provide water through the lack of funds to make repairs and <br />improvements the 146 shareholders in both groups would lose their livelihood at worst and their <br />lifestyle at best. The annual gross income from the 4,000 acres irrigated by the Summit facilities <br />is $800,000 to $1,200,000 ($200 to $300 per acre) which would be lost to community. The <br />environment would suffer from loss of wetlands and wildlife habitat created by the irrigation <br />water along the ditches and in the fields. The do nothing altemative is not acceptable. <br />2. Repairs as Annual Revenues Allow: The cash flow from annual revenue from assessments is <br />not adequate to make the major repairs which are expected to be required in the next 7 yeazs. <br />This altemative, is mazginally feasible, but does not result is an adequate system. <br />, 3. Loan to Make Major Repairs: This alternative would provide adequate funding so that <br />Summit can make the necessary repairs over the next 7 yeazs that are required to maintain the <br />operation of the system. This is the preferred alternative. <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />1 <br />The Company's engineer provided technical engineering assistance in the evaluation of the above <br />alternatives and the design considerations described in the Selected Plan section. <br />2 <br />