PROJ00224 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Figure 4: Wooden diversion dam 4. Alternatives . Alternative 1: The first alternative to be considered was to replace the head gate only. There are two reasons for considering this possibility: 1.) When the river is at normal or higher than normal depth, the Buffalo head gate can divert its allocation directly without a diversion structure, given present elevations. 2,) During low flow conditions, a temporary sand dam can be constructed to divert water into the canal, In the past the Buffalo has hired a contractor to construct a temporary sand dam across the Arkansas River when the river is low and the Buffalo is in priority. During these times, the wooden diversion dam does not restrict the flow of the river enough for the Buffalo to divert its entire allocation, which is the entire river. The temporary sand dam diverts the entire flow of the river into the canal. The contractor usually spends about a half a day using a bulldozer to push sand from the bottom of the river channel into a dike, The dike is angled across the entire width of the river to divert water into the canal head gate. The cost is about $300 per construction incident. The dam is usually replaced two or three times per inigation season, Alternative 2: The second alternative considered was to replace the head gate and construct a concrete dam where the current wooden dam is located. The current dam is approximately 200 feet across. The river channel spans about 250 feet. The additional river channel width goes across the width of the Buffalo canal head gate. The head gate and sluice gate would be constructed in the same location as the current head gate. The cost of this alternative was very high (estimated cost $482,880) and the board of directors decided to investigate other alternatives, . Alternative 3: The board of directors of the Buffalo and the Young Consulting decided to visit several of the other diversion dams which are on the river. We wanted to see what type of construction had been done by other canal companies and to learn from their construction experience. We learned that a third alternative was possible. In 1981, the Lamar Canal Company replaced their head gate and dam, Instead of building a concrete dam across the entire river channe~ they built a concrete dam from the head gate to the center of the river. From the center of the river to the side opposite the head gate, an earth dam was constructed. This kind of structure offers a considerable cost 8