Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A-12 <br /> <br />Wright-McLaughlin EngineeJ::s <br /> <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />October 27, 1972 <br /> <br />those discussed in connection with A11:ernative No.. 4, and <br />we refer you to that discussion. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: Th~ engineerinq study furnished to <br />us is-oo,riously the result of thorough and painstaking <br />research" which has been I?resented clearly and concisely. <br />Based on the material sUPl?lied to us, it is our opinion <br />that AltE~rnative No.1 an(l AlternativiO" No.2 a,re more desir- <br />able from a legal standpoint than Alterna'tives Three, Four <br />or Six. To the extent that the natural channel of the water <br />course is utilized in conjunction wi t:~, Al'ternati ve No.5, <br />it also 'lI'ould be more desirable 1:han Three, Four or Six. <br /> <br />Our conclusions are based larqely on the desirability <br />of using the natural wate:r course, but: the engineering a.nd <br />practical problems inherent in transporting larqe volumes <br />of water at high velocity in closed channels also have been <br />important considerations. <br /> <br />We should point out aga.in t:ha:t regardles!5 of which <br />alternative is selected, once it is instituted, the district <br />must maintain surveillance of the syst:em to insure that it <br />functions properly. The dis1:rict also has an obliga1:ion to <br />see that the established rights of irrigators are nol: injured. <br />These responsibilities will oxist reqardless of which alter- <br />native is chosen.. <br /> <br />Respectfully subnli tted, <br /> <br />STRAHLE and WEINI,.AND <br /> <br />(~~~l~~ <br /> <br />Ronald H.. St:rahle <br /> <br />sm <br />