C150088 Feasibility Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alternatives Evaluated A range of alternatives were considered including 1) don't build the project, 2) rehabilitate the head gate structure and place 16,850 feet of ditch in pipeline as well as providing piped drainage, and 3) rehabilitate the head gate structure and 16,850 feet of ? concrete ditch. -~ A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: 1. Don't build the proiect: No action taken to solve this problem will leave the members short of water and dealing with the high maintenance costs associated with a deteriorated ditch system. This alternative is feasible, but is not considered acceptable by the members. 2. Rehabilitate the head oate structure and place 16.850 feet of ditch in pipeline and provide piped drainaoe svstem: The head gate structure off the Grand Valley Canal lNOuld be replaced, and the ditch lNOuld be placed in a pressurized plastic pipeline with taps for water users. This option lNOuld cost about $249,000, would solve the seepage problems along the ditch, provide salinity control, control flooding and would remove the hazards associated with an open ditch. This alternative is feasible, and is considered the preferred alternative by the members. 3. ~pilitate the head oate structure and 16.850 feet of concrete ditch: The head gate structure off the Grand Valley Canal would be replaced, and the existing concrete ditch would be rehabilitated. This option would solve the seepage problems, but would leave an open ditch with the associated hazards and maintenance problems. This alternative is feasible, but is not preferred by the members. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is providing technical engineering assistance in the evaluation of the above alternatives. Feasibility Study Rehabilitation of the Appleton Northwest Lateral (ML 369) & Drainage Corporation september 1997