Laserfiche WebLink
Feasibilitc Shide <br />Farmers' High Line Canal and Reservoir Company <br />October 2010 <br />l. NO f�Ct1011 <br />2. Reinoval and Replacement ($66,500) <br />Alternative 1_ No Action <br />The first alternative was to do nothing. This alternative was unacceptable because the corrugated <br />metal pipe culvert crossing beneath the Canal was very corroded with a lugh likelihood of eminent <br />failure. Failure of tlus pipe would result in large loss of water and likely a breach failure of the <br />Canal. <br />Alternative 2, Removal and Replacement <br />The second alten7ative, removal and replacement, was the only viable option because the culvert <br />was so far dainaged that it could not be repaired. <br />Headworks <br />linprovements to the headwork facilities should be considered a priority capital improvement/ <br />maintenance expenditure item. System failures at the headworlcs during the irrigation season could <br />result in significant operational difficulty, or possible slnitdown or reduction of flow entering the <br />Canal. This is particularly tn�e of the diversion gates due to the long lead time required to fabricate <br />new gates and the complication of water handling on the live streain. Safety and reliability are also <br />concerns with the asltiquated existing gate operators and in stream stop logs on the checic dam. <br />Because of the need for these headgate repairs three alternatives were evaluated. The alternatives <br />evaluated are as follows: <br />l. No Action <br />2. Construction of modifications to the existing structure to achieve a lugher degree of <br />serviceability ($1,005,000) <br />3. Removal of the existing coinponents and consti of new replacement components <br />($2,007,000) <br />Alternative l, No Action <br />This alternative would involve leaving the aging structures in-place. The cost to perform this <br />alternative would be zero capital expenditure at implementatioi7, but could result in significant, <br />sudden and unanticipated expenditure later--particularly as key components failed. Tlus alternative <br />is unacceptable as the loss of ability to deliver irrigation water to shareholders downstream during <br />the irrigation season could not be tolerated. <br />Alternative 2, Construction of Modifications <br />Tlus alteri7ative involves inodifying the existing stn�ctures and components of the Headworlcs <br />system. These modifications include: <br />-5- <br />