PROJ00107

• Contract/PO #: C153730
• Contractor Name: Bravo Ditch Company
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 64
• County: Logan
• Bill Number: SPL
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

Alternatives Evaluated

A range of alternatives were considered including 1) Don't
rebuild the concrete portion of the diversion, 2) Rebuild the
concrete portion of the diversion to a narrower width of 60 feet,
and 3) Completely remove the concrete diversion structure and
replace it with a new structure at the same location.

A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows:

1. Don't rebuild the concrete portion of the diversion:

Shareholders would have a difficult cime irrigating 990
acres of cropland, It would be necessary to construct
temporary sand dams to divert water. The annual cost
of constructing these temporary dams would be a
financial hardship for the Company. The "do nothing"
alternative feasible, but not the preferred
alternative.

2, Rebuild the concrete portion of the diversion to a
narrower width of 60 feet:

This alternative would salvage a portion of the
existing structure, but would reduce the spillway width
from 100 to 60 feet, It will be necessary to provided
a fuse plug or other channel, to allow large river
flows to bypass the concrete spillway structure without
damaging it. Some annual maintenance will be needed to
repair the sand bypass channel, This alternative would
be economical, is considered feasible, and is the
preferred alternative,

3, Completely remove the concrete diversion structure and
replace it with a new structure at the same location:

This would increase the cost of the project
substantially, with limited added benefits. The
structure would have a longer life, and there would be
lower annual maintenance costs, This alternative is
feasible, but because of the substantially higher cost,
is not considered to be the preferred alternative.

Feasibility of the Repair of the
Bravo Ditch Company Diversion
June 15, 1996

5