Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Alternatives Evaluated <br /> <br />A range of alternatives were considered including 1) don't build <br />the project, 2) rehabilitate the diversion structures and place <br />13,000 feet of the ditch in pipeline, and 3) rehabilitate the <br />diversion structure on current creek and place 2,000 feet of the <br />ditch in pipeline. <br /> <br />A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: <br /> <br />1, Don't build the prolect: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />No action taken to solve this problem will leave the <br />shareholders short of water and dealing with the high <br />maintenance costs associated with a deteriorated ditch <br />system. This alternative is feasible, but is not considered <br />acceptable by the shareholders. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />2. Rehabilitate the diversion structures and place 13.000 <br />feet of the ditch in pipeline: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The deteriorated diversion structures at the head of the <br />ditch would be replaced, and the ditch would be placed in a <br />plastic pipeline. The pipeline would tie into the 36" CMP <br />on the side hill of Redlands Mesa. This option would cost <br />about $350,000 and would solve the seepage problem along the <br />upper end of the ditch, and in the unstable area along <br />Redlands Mesa. This alternative is feasible, but is not <br />preferred by the shareholders due to cost. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />3, Rehabilitate the diversion structure on current creek <br />and place 2.000 feet of the ditch in pipeline: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The deteriorated diversion structure on current creek at the <br />head of the ditch would be replaced, and the ditch would be <br />placed in a plastic pipeline which would extend 2000 feet <br />down the ditch. This option would solve the seepage <br />problems only on the upper end of the system, but would be a <br />good starting project toward total rehabilitation of the <br />ditch. The cost would be about $112,000. This alternative <br />is feasible, and is preferred by the shareholders, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has provided <br />technical engineering assistance in the evaluation of the above <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />The Selected Project <br /> <br />The DDC has decided to replace the diversion on Currant Creek, <br />and to place 2000 feet of ditch in a 36" plastic pipeline rated <br /> <br />Feasibility Study <br />Rehabilitation of the Durkee Ditch <br />September 1997 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />I <br />