C150205 Feasibility Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7. upgrade the distribution system and produce water pressure to enable more efficient and more cost effective on-farm improvements in the future. Four alternatives were considered by the Members. 1. The no-action alternative 2. Individual members construct pipelines to meet their own needs. 3. Boss and Number Six Ditches construct separate pipelines. 4. Participate in the NRCS Salinity Control Project as a consolidated ditch. Alternative No.1 was considered unacceptable because the Members need to improve the Ditch. The Ditch is located on a glacial gravel deposit that sits atop a layer of Mancos shale. Excessive water is being lost to seepage and evaporation. The drought of 2002 illustrated how poorly the existing structure performs. Although water was diverted from the river during the drought, the water was lost to seepage and evaporation and the Members were unable to raise a hay crop, the pastures largely dried up and no stock water was available for weeks at a time. Alternative No.2 was ruled out because the NRCS cannot include individual pipelines in the Salinity Project and thus offer no cost share, the cost of individual pipeline projects is prohibitive and a single pipeline without a cost subsidy is beyond the ability of members to repay. Alternative No.3 was ruled out because the pressure generated for existing Number Six Ditch Members was insufficient to install the most efficient on-farm delivery systems and, without consolidation, costs for individual members of the Boss Ditch were much higher. Alternative No.4 was selected because the limitations of the first three alternatives were either minimized or eliminated. This alternative provides Members of the consolidated ditches with the least cost per unit of pressure and establishes the infrastructure for installation of efficient on-farm delivery systems in the future.