Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. Replace ditch with underground pipe all the way to the divider box. <br />3. Replace ditch with underground pipe up to 0.25 miles west of the divider box and leave <br />concrete ditch in place for the last 0.25 miles up to the divider box. <br />4. Replace ditch with underground pipe up to 0.25 miles west of the divider box and replace <br />concrete ditch with two separate pipes for the last 0.25 miles up to the divider box. <br />5. Replace 0.25 miles of ditch with underground pipe and tie in to the Lateral 405 pipeline <br />directly north of the West Rhone service area. <br />6. Construct a new headgate, construct a new pipeline to the GVIC canal (1 mile) and replace <br />only the 0.25 miles of ditch that provides direct delivery to West Rhone shareholders. <br /> <br />Alternative No.1, no-action, was considered unacceptable for the fOllowing reasons: <br />1. Concrete ditch would continue to deteriorate, resulting in further water losses. <br />2. Long-term water supply issues would not be resolved. <br /> <br />Alternative No.2, Replace ditch with underground pipe all the way to the divider box. <br />This alternative was unacceptable for the following reasons: <br />1. This is a temporary, partial solution to existing water supply problems. <br />2. Long-term water supply problems would not be resolved, since misuse of the doublElr <br />could continue, and divider box calibration would continue to be an issue. <br /> <br />Alternative No.3, Replace ditch with underground pipe up to 0.25 miles west of the divider <br />box and leave concfSte ditch in place for the last 0.25 miles up to the divider box. <br />1. This is a temporary, partial solution to existing water supply problems. <br />2. Long-term water supply problems would not be resolved (same as Alternative 2). <br />3. The remaining concrete ditch would continue to deteriorate. <br />4. At least one-third of the NRCS cost-share funding ($13,000) would be lost <br /> <br />Alternative No.4, Replace ditch with underground pipe up to 0.25 miles west of the divider <br />box and fSplace concfSte ditch with two seperate pipes for the last 0.25 miles up to the divider <br />box. <br />1. This is a temporary, partial solution to existing water supply problems. <br />2. Long-term water supply problems would only be partially resolved; divider box <br />calibrations would continue to be an issue. <br />3. Cost to construct a separate pipeline would exceed $10,000. <br /> <br />Alternative No.5, fSplace 0.25 miles of ditch with underground pipe and tie in to the Latera'l <br />405 pipeline directfy north of the West Rhone service atea. <br />This alternative was not feasible for the following reason: <br />1. The Lateral 405 pipeline is already at full capacity. The entire 405 pipeline would have <br />to be replaced with larger diameter pipe to deliver the volume of water owned by <br />Lateral 405 and the West Rhone. <br /> <br />Alternative No.6, Proposed Project, Construct a new headgate, construct a new pipeline to <br />the GVIC canal (1 mile) and fSplace only the 0.25 miles of ditch that provides direct delivery to <br />West Rhone shareholders. <br />This alternative is preferred for the following reasons: <br />1. Total distance to the GVIC Mainline canal is approximately 500 feet less than under the <br />current lateral alignment <br /> <br />West Rhone Lateral Ditch Company <br /> <br />Headgate and Pipeline Feasibility Study <br />August 2000 <br /> <br />4 <br />