PROJ00529 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I Alternatives Evaluated A range of alternatives were considered including 1) don't build the project, 2) build a common headgate and pipeline system, and 3) build a common structure which incorporates individual headgates and delivery pipelines to each user. A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: 1. Don't build the project: I I I No action taken to solve this problem will leave the landowners with poorly distributed water and a severe erosion problem. Delay of the project until 1998 will result in undue hardship on the project sponsors. A lack of water in 1996 created a unrecoverable deficit. If 1997 is as dryas 1996, they will again be short of water. 2. Build a common headgate and pipeline system: I I I A common headgate could be constructed on the Multa Trina Ditch and water delivered by a single main pipeline to all shareholders. A Company ditch rider would distribute water according to the water rights of the individual shareholders. This alternative would cost less to construct, but more to operate. Although feasible, this is not the preferred alternative. 3. Build a common structure which incorporates individual headgates and delivery pipelines to each user: I I I I I I A common headgate structure with individual turnouts and individual pipelines could be built to deliver water to the property of each shareholder. This is similar to alternative 2, except that each shareholder has control of, and takes responsibility for, the delivery of individual water. A ditch rider will not be necessary, and the likelihood of disputes is lessened. This alternative would cost more to construct, but less to operate. This alternative is feasible, and is the preferred alternative. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has provided technical engineering assistance in the evaluation of the above alternatives. Feasibility Study . Chipperfield Lane Headgate and Pipeline June 1997 4 I