PROJ00460 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Alternatives Evaluated A range of alternatives were considered including 1) Don't build the project, 2) Rehabilitate portions of the ditch saving as much of the old structures as possible, 3) Completely rehabilitate the ditch, installing all new pipe and structures, and 4) Completely rehabilitate the ditch, installing concrete lined ditch throughout the system. A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: I. Don't build the project: Shareholders would have to live with the inefficiencies of the existing system and the current salt load. Safety issues would not be resolved. Although this option is feasible from a financial standpoint, it is not preferred because it does not solve existing problems. 2. Rehabilitate portions of the existing ditch structure: Rehabilitating the ditch will enable the Company to divert water and deliver it efficiently, however it would not significantly reduce the salt load from the water. This alternative would not be economical, because it would increase the shareholder assessments and not adequately reduce the salinity of the Ditch Company's service area. This alternative is feasible but not considered the preferred alternative. 3. Completely rehabilitate the ditch, installing all new pipe and structures: This would not increase the cost of the project considerably (relative to alt. #2) but would reduce the salt load making this alternative cost-effective relative to the USDA Salinity Control Program. The alternative is feasible and is considered the preferred solution. 4. Completely rehabilitate the ditch, install concrete lined ditch throughout the system: This alternative would not reduce the salt load from the ditch and the costs would be prohibitive. Ditch lining would double or triple the cost of the pipeline alternative. The life of a concrete ditch would be approximately 30 years, whereas the life ofPVC pipe is estimated to be 75 years. 8