WSP10307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

controlling R subsequ~nt flood. Unlsss the opEr~tion of flood con- trol Spo.CE: is accomplished in this manner, no flood control b2nefits con accrue to thE: projE:ct, and costs cannot be considered ~s non- reimbursablE:. If the capQci ty of thE iiardin site werE: used to store water for irrigation, with water held over until such time as it could be used for that purposE, only minor incidental flood control would resul t "nd marly all costs of construction would hc:ve to be cor.sid~red as reimbursable. Undtr such 2I1 arr2ngemEnt th~ H~rdin site c~n produc~ fe.r less bE:ncfits than N~Trows and it is clearly less feasible than ~arrows. It could not be recommended for construction. Goodrich Site.--Foundation conditions arc unfavorable at this site, Qnd-the volume of embankment necE:ssary to dLVE:lop the requiTed stor"fe would be E:xcessivE. Outh;ts for both thL Jackson L2.ke lnl",t ,.nd th", \."ldona Canal would be required in the north abu tmE:nt of the d2.ln. Scdimc'nt would enter tht: rE..servoir from Kiowa Creek nC2r the damsi te a.nd endanger the emb2.nkment. The: fr,ctors of high cost 2nd the potE:ntial danger to the embankment eliminatG this sik when it is com- pared with thE downstncm sites of Ileldona, Ncrrows, 2nd Fort dorgan. Old fort dorgan Si tE:. -- Th~ r6scrvoir 3i tL is physically limikd, and dE~.d stora,.c 1s larg~ <::s the Fort lJjorge.n Cand would b~ locakd at a reldivLly high el~v2tion with rEspect to the cle.,n. This site was eliminat~d on the basis of cost, limited capacity, end potenti- al.ly unf2.vorablc groundwa tc r conditions downstrc p',n fTom th~ clam. Wcldona Site.--ThE WEldona site was eliminated from further considcr~tion and study.on the besis of costs. fort Morgan Sitc.--Th~ finnl choice wns betwEEn the Nerrows [\nd the. Fort dorgen si. tes. A comperison of these two sitES shows a c.!ifferuJti,'.l in construction contra.ct costs of over ~2 ,000,000 in fevor of the l\nrrOHS site. Foundation stud;i.Ls and Thiem tests indi- e2.te th".t loss~s by sGep&p~ at the ~'ort l'Jorgan si tc would be about t\;ice that at the Narrows site and thet fewer sEepe.ge problems would rssul t from the Narrows Ikservoir bec2usc of its favorable loce.tion in relation to the Bijou Creek ch"r,n0l Hhich 'lOuld C.ct es e. cutoff drain. ThL ?vf..rabL onnual l VC' pora tion from a rE.se:rvoir c:. t the N2rrows site would be 6,000 "cre-feet less tlle,n i,he evqJoration "t the Fort l'Iorgan si tc. Fro!n the staLdpoint of Efficient utiliz'"tion of the available Hater supply, e n scrvoir at the J'12rrows site will be lUorc dE:sirtblc. Use of the Narrows Reservoir will n:nOVE from production by GOVE:rnm0nt ecquisi tion a totel of 6,497 acres of irrigated lcnd comp2rGd to 5,549 acres at the Fort ..lorg~n sitc--2 diffErence of 948 ncrcs. A reservoir nt thE Fort Morgan SitE to elevation 4403 would e.pproech the physical limit of thE SitE, and there would be no chance for enLcrge- ment if, over a period of YEers, th", watEr supply si tu~tion che.nges or sediment encrorchcs bEyond the capacity cllotted for this purpose. Th~ Narrows site offers flexibility in that a portion of the surcharg~ spaCe provided for prot'-ction of the dam 2.gainst occurrEnCe of a 2