Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i- <br /> <br />Component C7: An estimated 1700 feet of new ditch from the Walker Ditch to the Shelton Ditch to <br />carry 54 cfs. This includes an inlet structure and two drop structures. <br /> <br />The current estimated cost of alternative #1 is $2.982.000. <br /> <br />Some discussion followed the presentation of alternative 1. <br /> <br />Gilroy: How will the Gibraltar Ditch extension be installed where the railroad is right against <br />the river? <br /> <br />Andrews: The ditch would be placed in a concrete lined channel. at a cost of approximately <br />$500.000. <br /> <br />Fetcher: One of the alternatives proposes to take all the water out on the south side of the <br />river. The Gibraltar would get it's water via a siphon under the river. <br /> <br />Gilroy: Will the concrete section on the Gibraltar be open channel or pipe? <br /> <br />Andrews: It would be concrete lined open ditch. <br /> <br />Tetreault: What type of structure will the diversion be? <br /> <br />Andrews: a specific design has not yet been decided on. but the current cost estimate is based on <br />a structure with a concrete foundation and hinged metal gates that are raised and lowered with air <br />bladders similar to the style used on the Smith Ditch <br /> <br />Blakeslee: We would like to see alternatives developed that do not require a diversion structure. <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />Alternative #4 was then presented. <br />This alternative is the same as alternative #1 except that 800 feet of rock riprapped earthen <br />channel would be used on the Gibraltar Ditch instead of concrete pipe. and 1000 feet of rock <br />riprapped earthen channel would be used on the Marshall Robert Ditch instead of concrete ditch. <br /> <br />The current estimated cost of alternative #4 is $2.226.000. <br /> <br />Fetcher: The purpose of presenting all these alternatives is to get input from the ditch <br />shareholders as to which one they like best. <br /> <br />Alternatives #2 and #3 were briefly discussed. <br />These two alternatives are not viable options as they both include diversions near the Walker <br />Ditch headgate. It has come to NRCS's attention that this is not a good site to put a diversion <br />in the river. <br /> <br />Alternative #5 <br />Component A. diversion: A single diversion serving the Williams. Walker and Shelton ditches <br />constructed near the existing Williams Ditch diversion point. <br /> <br />Component Bl. combining ditches: An estimated 6300 feet of the Williams Ditch would be enlarged <br />to carry the Williams. ~~!ker. and Shelton water. plus 2200 feet of new ditch to carry water from <br />the Williams Ditch to the Walker Ditch. This includes a phone line crossing. a measuring <br />structure. two farm road crossings. and a turnout structure. <br /> <br />Component B2. Walker Ditch: An estimated 9000 feet of the Walker Ditch would be enlarged to carry <br />the Walker and Shelton water. This includes a phone line crossing. a measuring structure. a farm <br />road crossing. a fiber optic line crossing. and a turnout structure. <br /> <br />Component B3: An estimated 1700 feet of new ditch from the Walker ditch to the Shelton ditch. <br />This includes a drop structure. a measuring structure. and an inlet structure. <br /> <br />3 <br />