Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Alternatives Evaluated <br /> <br />A range of alternatives were considered including I) Don't build the project, 2) Rehabilitate <br />portions of the ditch saving as much of the old structures as possible, 3) and Completely <br />rehabilitate the ditch, installing all new pipe and structures. <br /> <br />A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: <br /> <br />1. Don't build the project: <br /> <br />Shareholders would have to live with the inefficiencies of the existing system. <br />Safety issues would not be resolved, and the high annual maintenance costs <br />would continue. Although this option is feasible from a financial standpoint, it <br />is not the preferred because it does not solve existing problems. <br /> <br />2. Rehabilitate portions of the existing ditch structure: <br /> <br />Rehabilitating the ditch will enable the Company to divert water and deliver it <br />efficiently. This alternative would be economical, not requiring an increase in <br />assessments. This alternative is feasible and is considered the preferred <br />alternative. <br /> <br />3, Completely rehabilitate the ditch, instilling all new pipe and structures: <br /> <br />This would increase the cost of the project considerably without significant <br />added benefits. This alternative is feasible but not very economical. <br /> <br />Feasibility of the Rehabilitation <br />of the Rainbow Park Ditch. <br />March IS, 1996 <br /> <br />5 <br />