My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150024 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
C150024 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:09:14 AM
Creation date
10/6/2006 12:11:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150024
Contractor Name
Sterling Irrigation Company
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
64
County
Logan
Bill Number
SB 99-173
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />~ternatives Eva1uated <br /> <br />A range of alternatives were considered including 1) don't build <br />the project, 2) continue to do remedial work only to extent that <br />the canal is put back into operation until damage occurs again, <br />3) construct some features now and wait until later to add final <br />components, and 4) do a complete job at this time. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: <br /> <br />1. Don't build the project: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />If this project is not pursued, the SIC headworks will <br />continue to deteriorate until the diversion suffers complete <br />failure. If the diversion dam fails, the shareholders would <br />be unable to divert approximately 23,563 acre feet per year <br />of irrigation water. This event, if it occurred early in the <br />irrigation season, could led to a complete loss of crops <br />under the SIC system. The per acre value of farm ground in <br />the SIC system could potentially drop from $1500 to $300. <br />This drop indicates the change from irrigated farm ground to <br />dry land farm ground. This alternative is not acceptable to <br />the Company. <br /> <br />2. Continue remedial activities as required to put <br />deliveries back into operation: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />This alternative has been the method of operation for a <br />number of years. Remedial activities have produced results <br />with varying design life ranging from a few months to a few <br />years. At times of complete failure of the sand dam, the <br />ditch is out of service resulting in a loss of water to the <br />stockholders. Reconstruction of the sand dam can cost <br />several thousand dollars and in some years the sand dam has <br />had to be replaced more than once. During this time of <br />failure, expense is incurred by those stockholders who have <br />wells and must operate the wells and consume electricity. <br />Those stockholders without wells must simply wait for the <br />sand dam and in some cases take a decrease in the yield of <br />their crop caused by the lack of water. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. Rebuild only the parts of the diversion that the company <br />can afford now and wait until later to construct the <br />remaining portions: <br /> <br />This alternative would consist of the reconstruction of the <br />river dam only, consisting of a 100 ft section of Obermeyer <br />bladder gate and a corresponding concrete base. The ditch <br /> <br />Feasibility Study <br />Sterling Irrigation Company Diversion Structure <br />August 1998 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.