My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00003
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2010 3:55:23 PM
Creation date
9/30/2006 9:58:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1982
Title
Construction Fund Annual Report 1982
CWCB Section
Finance
Author
CWCB
Description
Construction Fund Annual Report 1982
Publications - Doc Type
CF Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />1 . <br /> <br />Raise the height of the dam, enhance the spillway, and <br /> <br /> <br />stabilize the dam by placing additional material on the <br /> <br /> <br />downstream face. This alternative would allow full passage <br /> <br /> <br />of the probable maximum flood (PMF). The estimated cost is <br /> <br /> <br />$5.25 million. <br /> <br />2. Raise the height of the dam and place additIonal material on <br /> <br /> <br />the downstream face of the dam. This alternative would <br /> <br /> <br />allow the dam to pass one-half of the probable maximum <br /> <br />flood. It is estimated to cost $1.04 million. <br /> <br />3. Limit the storage capacity of the reservoir to about 35,000 <br /> <br /> <br />acre-feet and provide a flood warning system. This <br /> <br /> <br />alternative would allow the dam to pass one-half of the <br /> <br /> <br />probable maximum flood. Is estimated to cost $360,000. <br /> <br /> <br />Such a limitation on storage would make it impossible to use <br /> <br /> <br />the facility for compact purposes. <br /> <br />Because of the cost of alternative 1, the district's <br />engineer has not recommended it. Rather, he recommends that <br />alternative 2 be selected for construction. Alternative 3 has <br />been rejected because it would limit storage to 35,000 acre-feet, <br />the potential annual loss of 17,000 acre-feet of storage being <br />too costly for the water users to endure over the years. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.