Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,..-! <br />CD <br />...~ <br /> <br />irrigable under the Rifle Gap Plan: If the conservancy type of <br /> <br />district is used for either plan the funds collected from the <br /> <br />irrigated lands by the mill levy would need be considered as part <br /> <br />of the repayment ability of such lands. Collections from other <br /> <br />property would add to repayment ability of the project. <br /> <br />For the Harvey Gap Plan, more feasible financially, three <br /> <br />types of repayment organization; conservancy district under the <br /> <br />1937 law, irrigation district under the 1921 law, and corporate <br /> <br />association similar to that of the present operating organization, <br /> <br />merit consideration. Each has particular advantages and disad- <br /> <br />vantages. Under a conservancy district taxable properties in <br /> <br />the town of Silt and elsewhere in the district, in addition to <br /> <br />irrigated land, could be included. A one-mill levy on the total <br /> <br />assessed valuation of approximately $700,000 in the district would, <br /> <br />however; yield only $700 per year, an amount too soall to be con- <br /> <br />trolling in choice of organization. The irrigation district type <br /> <br />of organization is considerably less flexible than either of the <br /> <br />other two. It contemplates uniform distribution of water without <br /> <br />regard to individual requirements. It would not have the advantage <br /> <br />of tax income from nonirrigated lands but would permit assessments <br /> <br />on land served from rediverted return flow; a feature not possible <br /> <br />under either of the other types except by voluntary agreement. The <br /> <br />amount of return flow now rediverted within the project is com- <br /> <br />paratively small but with an increased water supply will become <br /> <br />more important. A corporate association would be perhaps the most <br /> <br />75 <br />