WSP05176 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Advertisement G'rand Valley Irrigation Co. Shareholders Question BuRet Cost, control, coercion: Farmer's concerns on salinity program Reprinted 1m.. October 30 1986 Cost, control, and coerCIOn (the possi- bility of forced participation) - those were the major concerns expressed by farmers attending an information meet- ing on Stage 2 ofthe Grand Valley Salini- ty Control Program on Oct 24. The meeting, hosted by the Bureau of Reclamation, was designed to give area farmers, mostly shareholders of the pri- vate Grand Valley Irrigation Company, a chance to get information and voice con- cerns on the second phase of the pro- gram designed to reduce salt load in the Colorado River by improving the laterals from which irrigators take their water. Following presentations by BuRec personnel outlining the overall program and Stage 2, the meeting was turned over to questions from the 80 people in atten- dance for answers by BuRec personnel. One of the major concerns was the cost to fanners. Question: Who will pay for the in- creased operation and maintenance of the proposed piped lateral system? Answer: The Bureau will determine the amount of actual dollar costs in- volved in maintainence of the present dirt and cement laterals, and the federal government will pay any costs over and above that amount. For instance, if a fanner has done work equal to $400 per year in maintain- ing his unimproved laterals and the costs of maintaining the improved, piped laterals is $600 per year, the federal gov- ernment will pay the additional $200. However if the fanner has done the $400 'worth 'of maintenance work himself, once the laterals are improved he will . have to pay the $400 and will not be able to do the work himself. Earlier in ihe meeting farmers were told that the federal gOVi:i'jjment would bear 100% of the costs of construction. Question: How long will the federal government pay for the increased opera- tion and maintenance? . Answer: According to Walt Fite, Grand Junction Office projects manager" for BuRec, the legislation mandating the salinity control work says "forever". But the Congress will not obligate money past the current fiscal year. If Congress does not continue to pay, the congres- sional delegations from California and Arizona will use their political power to force the federal government to pay in order to clean up the river water coming across their borders, farmers were told. Question: Is it true that BuRec esti- mates the costs of maintaining laterals at $86,000 per year and that it estimates only $3,000 per year in additional main- tenance will be required for the pro- posed improved system? Answer: Yes. That is correct BuRec estimates that overall maintenance will eventually fall below the $86,000 per year base for an improved system. Those costs are now substantially higher in im- proved laterals under the Government Highline Canal. "We are in the research and development realm there now," farmers were told at the meeting. But those costs are expected to begin going down as bugs are worked out of the sys- tem. Question: Why are the costs of mainte- nance on the Government Highline sys- tem so much higher than on the private Grand Valley system? Answer: The Government Highline lat- erals are generally longer and serve more acreage. Question: Will farmers have to pay their share of the maintenance costs in cash? Answer: Yes. The maintenance cost figure for cement and dirt laterals being used by BuRec is $605 per mile. But offi- cials admit they came up with that figure out of thin air and don't know the actual costs. The final cost of maintenance on an improved system will have to be nego- tiated with the Grand Valley Irrigation Board of Directors if shareholders vote to approve preliminary negotiations in December at the GVIC annual meeting. Question: So, farmers will have to come up with additional cash flow to pay their share of maintenance on an im- proved system? Answer: Yes. Question: Farmers will not have to come up with this additional cash flow until after the lateral improvement project is completed? Answer: Yes: Question: If a farmer's laterals are al- ready improved he won't be included in the program. But if GVIC takes over maintenance won't t.hat farmer still be paying to maintain the other farmer's laterals? Answer: Not as the project is currently envisioned. BuRec will work with each of the laterals to determine the cost of maintenance and then will assess the in- dividuallateral users that amount. Other questions asked by farmers at the meeting involve<,l control and owner- ship of the improved laterals. The Grand Valley Irrigation Company has never been actively engaged in the ownership, maintenance, or control of laterals. A motion at last December's GVIC annual meeting to change the com- pany's bylaws to include control of later- als was tabled and has not been taken up again. Irrigators under the GVIC canals have historically operated, maintained, and controlled theil: own laterals either individually or by association. Question: How will GVIC get the money to buy the laterals, or will they seize them? Answer: GVIC will not need money to buy laterals, and BuRec hopes participa- tion in the program will be voluntary. The federal government will not have ownership of the laterals. The federal government wants a single entity, prefer- ably, to deal with in construction and op- eration and maintenance. Since farmers have expressed concerns about this, BuRec hopes that farmers will allow a maintenance access on improved later- als. Question: Who will own the laterals? Answer: The answer to that question is still up in the air. It. will hopefully be resolved in the next two years, but own- ership of improved laterals will be non- federal. Question: What other entity might take over control of the laterals if GVIC doesn't want to? The Ute Water Conserc vancy District? Answer: Yes. Ute is one entity that said they may if the Gvrc shareholders agreed. There are probably some others who would, also. Farmers in attendance also voiced concerns about being forced to partici- pate in the improvements program. Question: If the GVIC shareholders de- cide not to participate, what will the state and fed'eral governments do? Answer: If G"VIC says "no", then Colo- rado and the other basin states will push for some other entity to come in and do the project. Colorado can't develop its remaining rights on the Colorado River without decreasing the salt load it con- tributes to the river's downstream flow. Question: Couldn't that lead to vio- lence? Answer: Yes it could. Question: In !Jther words, you will be forced to participate eventually, regard- less? Answer: BuRec hopes that the merits of the program will be sufficient that people will Come in. "Some people won't, and that's Ok," a BuRec spokes- man said. "We hope for volunteer partic- ipation. If GVrc says 'no.' we'll have a problem." ~uestion: 11' a farmer's laterals are al- ready improved, can he be excluded from the final agreement in 1988? If he wants his improved laterals to be left alone, who will say his improvements al- ready in place' are sufficient? Can the GVIC do an inventory io see which later- als need improvement? Answer: We would have to think about that alot more. There were some other questions asked about the program at the meeting. Question: Why not finISh-- lining the canals first before beginning work on farmers' laterals? Answer: Though BuRec spokesmen said they don't believe GVIC canals leak as much as laterals, determining that was "something between a guess and an estimate." QuesUon: How will piped laterals be kept clean ifcanals are not lined first? Answer: New turnout structures will be installed to reduce trash flowing into headgates, and there will be no meters placed on the laterals of GVIC share- holders (as they were on the Highline Stage 1 project) because they contribute to trash problems. .u " f,o .- " " :: .: .,';;. _.~# :.-';:.;."~ , ~.'~~' , .,~ A :'4 ~.~ '. ',_:.~ '.., Question: Will you have to put trash cleaners in the lower end of the Grand Valley canal system? Answer: We may have to, but at this point we think we can ~et around it. Question: One person at the meeting . was concerned if local laterals were im- - ~ proved to reduce salt load that the addi- . ' tional fresh water created would simply be diverted to the Eastern Slope., "We ~ would be going against our own self in- .-' teres!," he said. Answer: That's a judgement, and you know that Look at the benefits of salirii- tycontrol. BuRec sponsored two of the informa- . tion meetings last week Another meet~ ing has been scheduled for Nov. 19 at a : location to be announced for concerned, farmers to come back with ideas on how their concerns can be best addressed,. and to get a majority opinion of GVIC shareholders on how to proceed, . BuRec has not entered into agree- ments with any other valley irrIgation: : entities that will also fall under the im- . provements plan. Finding a solution to concerns of GVrc shareholders is key to . the BuRec's plans because GVIC is a pri~ . vate company and not a government enti. ty or subdivision, as are other irrigation' districts in the valley. Don Clay, chief ofBuRec's pl!l;nning di- vision, said that he hopes construction can begin by 1991 or 1992. Before then GVIC shareholders will be asked to voi~ ., three times on their company's partici- pation in the project. . The first vote is scheduled to take place at the GVIC annual meeting in De- cember. At that time the board Of direc- tors is expected to ask the shareholders ' to enter into a "cooperative agreement" . with BuRec to allow BuRec to fund GVIC for costs incurred in a year-long effort to get to the point that a contract can begin' to be negotiated. In December of 1987, according to the . current timeline, shareholders will be asked to give the board permission to en- ter into negotiations for a tentative con- tract. In December, 1988, a GVIC sharehold- er vote to approve or reject an actual contract for construction is scheduled to take place. .,.~/ , :.}. :,i~ ..~ . J;-.~: .,'.-" . ;.i;.~, , '~'''';'' ,~ .:<~ : ~~~,' '.''-'f: .{.~ <0(, '~:": :."'...1...';: i ".......1.......'..... ... :~ :=; , .,< -;'.' ."1'.' h: ' ~~. ...ft" . . "0:- " , '"",. , . - ,-;.~ t.......'...'.:. ... , ]..'.' .. ',' , ~; 'Advertisement - fCJ6~uO "