Laserfiche WebLink
<br />on-farm water buc!~et monitoring as necessary to evaluate this project effectiveness in <br /> <br /> <br />relation to project goals established by the sponsors. <br /> <br />Other alternatives considered but not developed into alternatives plans due to not <br />meeting the 4 criteria previously mentioned include: <br /> <br />1. Canal lining did not reduce pollutant problems to an acceptable level and was too <br /> <br />costly. Dl(Jrl\l~!dI5',2s QP-farm irriaation related oroblems. <br />2. Chanr;e to CGot<?r rivots was far too costly. Ibis was unacceotable due to cost at <br /> <br />lli.Q:,);C~':'. <br /> <br /> <br />3. Purchase of the irrigation rights from the land owners within the watershed; and <br /> <br /> <br />purchase the fn"ei lots. This would have effectively eliminated the agricultural <br /> <br /> <br />contri!)u~;"'n "f r'J'!lltant to the surface and to the groundwater. The negative effect <br /> <br /> <br />on the loc'll ec"nOMV, the cost as well as not being locally acceptable kept this from <br /> <br />being c!'?v~!'""'re(L <br /> <br />Compari~'.:''lSf_}\'tMn'ltlve P''1ns <br /> <br />The Alte'n~'i\('? pr~"s .~''? ,Psolaved for comparison on Table D. <br /> <br />There are no YOO,'1n si:mificant long-term negative effects related to the recommended <br /> <br />plan. In the shc:rH9rm, however, there may be a slight increase in erosion due to the <br /> <br />soil disturbanc') ,,,r,lr:h ,,,I1[ occur during the implementation of some enduring practices. <br /> <br />All the benefici'll e::'?cts of the recommended plan cannot be expressed in terms of <br /> <br />dollars. Eros;o', rn,lur';"n hp10s rr9tec1imPrOlffi the resource base and minimize any <br /> <br />2.3+=5 <br />