Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternatives Evaluated <br /> <br />A range of alternatives were considered including 1) don't build <br />the project, 2) rebuild the components of the secondary flow <br />control structure, 3) build a sand gate in the river diversion <br />and rebuild the components of the secondary flow control <br />structure, and 4) replace 100 feet of the river diversion <br />structure with a new bladder gate system. <br /> <br />An evaluation of the alternatives follows: <br /> <br />1. Don't build the project: <br /> <br />If the project were not pursued, the FPCC would have to <br />continue operating the system like normal. The current <br />system of adjusting flow in the ditch can be much more <br />efficient. Being able to efficiently divert water in today's <br />water environment is very important. This alternative is not <br />acceptable to the Company. <br /> <br />2. Rebuild the components of the secondary flow control <br />structure: <br /> <br />This alternative would consist of replacing the board gates <br />at the secondary flow control structure with new 8 foot <br />radial gates. Three gates would be required in the ditch and <br />one in the channel back to the river. This alternative would <br />solve the efficiency problem associated with the current <br />operational status of the diversion but would not address <br />the sanding problems caused at the river diversion. The cost <br />of this alternative is approximately $105,000. <br /> <br />3. Build a sand gate in the river diversion and rebuild the <br />components of the secondary flow control structure: <br /> <br />This alternative would consist of replacing a portion of the <br />concrete wall system in the river channel with a new 12 foot <br />radial gate. This gate will allow for the reduction of the <br />sandbar problem throughout the year. This alternative would <br />also consist of replacing the board gates at the secondary <br />flow control structure with new 8 foot radial gates. Three <br />gates would be required in the ditch and one in the channel <br />back to the river. This alternative would solve the <br />efficiency problem associated with the current operational <br />status of the diversions. The cost of this alternative is <br />approximately $250,000. <br /> <br />Feasibility Study <br />Farmers Pawnee Canal Company <br />Flow Control Structures <br />July 2008 <br /> <br />3 <br />