Board reviews three irrigation feasibility reports and recommends conditions before funding

The Board of Water Resources on Oct. 15 reviewed feasibility reports for three irrigation improvement projects and recommended staff conditions ahead of any funding committal.

Staff described the Veil Irrigation Company project (Baker Reservoir conveyance) as a conversion from a 1961 concrete canal to a pressurized HDPE pipeline and pump station to improve efficiency. Staff estimated the project cost at about $2,150,000 and recommended the board authorize up to $990,000 (46%) as a 0% loan repayable over 25 years with annual payments of roughly $39,600. Staff said the existing canal system is roughly 50% efficient and losing about 380 acre-feet per year.

For Smithfield Irrigation Company, staff presented a black-pipe replacement, diversion improvements and a new SCADA monitoring system to serve roughly 1,100 shareholders and about 2,650 agricultural acres. The engineer’s estimate and cost-sharing plan led staff to recommend authorizing 30.7% of the cost up to $952,000 as a 0% loan over 25 years (approx. $38,100 annually).

Brad Caldwell presented the Cache High Line Water Association project, an 18-inch-to-12-inch pipeline slip-lining and diversion rebuild scheduled to begin Oct. 15. The engineer estimate is about $795,000; staff recommended authorizing 32.1% of the cost up to $255,000 at 0% over 25 years. Staff said the project is expected to conserve roughly 85 acre-feet annually and reduce maintenance costs by about $10,000 per year.

Board members pressed staff and applicants on affordability and repayment mechanics. Questions included whether applicant companies have sufficient revenue to absorb annual payments without shifting costs to other shareholders, whether shareholders have approved recent assessment increases, and whether material already purchased by applicants can be reimbursed (staff noted invoices must be submitted and purchase agreements finalized before reimbursements). Legal and finance staff flagged standard purchase-agreement protections—including the board’s contractual right to require increased assessments of shareholders if necessary—and emphasized that committal of funds and a signed purchase agreement are required before reimbursement or final payments.

The board treated the briefing as a request for feasibility review and did not commit funds at the meeting. Staff will prepare committal materials with the recommended conditions, including documentation of shareholder approvals, purchase agreements, and the invoicing for any materials purchased prior to committal.