Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Irrigation Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board briefed on Dry Gulch phase to add PRVs and recover water; staff recommends authorization, committal delayed by easement issues
Summary
Staff described a phase of Dry Gulch (K2 service area) pipeline pressurization and PRV installation to stop wasteful vented flows; staff recommended authorization at 77% of cost up to $492,000 and a 0% 15‑year purchase option, but committal was deferred because of unresolved easements affecting a previously installed pipeline.
Get email alerts on the Irrigation Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff described a phase‑2 project for Dry Gulch that would replace passive air vents and standpipes with pressure‑reducing valves (PRVs) and complete pressurization of the K2 service area. Engineers reported flows of 1 to 4 cubic feet per second of intentional waste under the existing standpipe arrangement; staff said the targeted PRV work should recover roughly 80 acre‑feet and yield increased crop production for irrigators.
Staff recommended the board authorize the project at 77% of project cost up to $492,000, with a proposed purchase at 0% interest over 15 years and annual payments of approximately $32,800. However, staff said easement issues associated with a previously installed pipeline (about 30 landowners affected) have stalled right‑of‑way completion. As a result, staff recommended authorization only at the briefing and suggested committing funds at a subsequent board meeting (April/May) after easement resolution.
Why it matters: staff said recovered water would reduce wasted conveyances and be available for irrigated production; staff noted phase sequencing and grant awards for parts of the project (WaterSMART and UDAF water optimization grants of approximately $31,000 apiece for this portion).
Board members accepted the recommendation to authorize and to delay committal while staff and the applicant resolve title and easement issues. No formal committal vote occurred in the briefing; a motion to authorize was offered to be made at the formal board meeting.

