Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Project Description and Alternatives <br /> <br />The purpose of this proj ect is to provide a more reliable source of augmentation water for the <br />present and future "build-out" of the shareholder's developments. When this approaches the 80- <br />90% level there would be years in which there would not be sufficient replacement water. To <br />alleviate this scenario, five altematives were considered after KRW Consulting, Inc. (KRW) <br />performed a preliminary feasibility study. <br /> <br />1. The no-action alternative at this time. <br />2. Line the side slopes with PVC or clay liner without riprap armor ($235,000). <br />3. Line the side slopes with PVC or clay liner with riprap armor ($618,000). <br />4. Line the side slopes and bottom with PVC or clay liner without side slope riprap armor <br />($281,000). <br />5. Line the side slope and bottom with PVE or clay liner with side slope riprap armor ($646,000) <br /> <br />See Appendix F-I. <br /> <br />Alternative No.1 was considered unacceptable since the water supply would be unreliable even <br />with the present build-out. <br /> <br />Alternative No.2 was ruled out since there was no assurance that the leakage out of the non- <br />lined area would not be excessive. <br /> <br />Alternative No.3 was ruled out since there was no assurance that the leakage out of the non- <br />lined area would not be excessive. <br /> <br />Alternative No.4 was selected with the caveat that the present armor be replaced after <br />completion. <br /> <br />Alternative No.5 was ruled out because of the excess expense of armoring the side slopes since <br />the water surface area is small with the wave action being minimal. <br /> <br />Before accepting Alternative No.4 it was felt that further investigation need to be accomplish to <br />determine the soils in the reservoir and on the property outside ofthe reservoir. The result ofthe <br />survey showed that the capacity ofthe reservoir was 26 acre-feet instead of the 37 acre-feet as <br />shown in the original survey of 1980. Because ofthis two more alternatives were considered. <br />For planning purposed the first iteration of cut and fill produced a capacity of 40 acre-feet. <br />Rather than making a second iteration to get it closer to 37 acre-feet KRW was instructed to <br />initially use the 40 acre-feet. All of the shareholders except MMRC had to have their originally <br />calculated space because all of it was committed to the fulfillment of their commitment in their <br />respective Plans For Augmentation. MMRC could reduce their space by up to 5 acre feet since it <br />had not been committed to a specific Plan For Augmentation. <br /> <br />6. Leave the capacity as it exists and line the entire subsurface ($372,000 or $12,000 per acre <br />foot). <br /> <br />6 <br />