Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Alternatives Evaluated <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />A range of alternatives were considered including 1) don't build <br />the project, 2) do remedial work only to the extent that the <br />diversion is put back into operation until damage Occurs again, <br />3) replace 120 feet of the river diversion structure with a new <br />bladder gate system, and 4) replace 200 feet of the river <br />diversion structure with a new bladder gate system. <br /> <br />A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: <br /> <br />1. Don't build the project: <br /> <br />If this project were not pursued, the RRLC would be unable <br />to fill Riverside Reservoir. This would be an annual loss of <br />approximately 111,000 acre feet of irrigation water. This <br />event, if it occurred, could lead to a major loss of crops <br />under the RRLC system. The per acre value of farm ground in <br />the RRLC system could potentially drop significantly. The <br />water supply to make up the lack of Riverside Reservoir <br />would have to come from increased well pumping which would <br />eventually effect water users in a broad reach of the South <br />Platte Basin. Changes to allow increased pumping may not be <br />allowed under current decrees. This alternative is not <br />acceptable to the Company. <br /> <br />2. Do remedial activities as required to put deliveries <br />back into operation: <br /> <br />This alternative would be an immediate fix to any problem. <br />Remedial activities would produce results with varying <br />design life ranging from a few months to a few years. At <br />times of failure, the ditch is out of service resulting in a <br />potential loss of water to the stockholders. Remedial <br />activities of this nature are impossible to budget for and <br />create an extreme hardship on the RRLC. Remedial activities <br />do not fully address the problem with the huge sand bar <br />formed upstream from the diversion. The sand bar in part <br />causes the failure of the river diversion and creates the <br />need for remedial activities. Continuing to perform remedial <br />activities is no longer acceptable to the RRLC. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. Replace 120 feet of the river diversion structure with a <br />new bladder gate system and continue to use the existing <br />intake gates: <br /> <br />Feaa,b,l.ty Study <br />Rlverslde Reservolr and <br />Land Company DiverSion Structure <br />Fehrua~y 2000 <br /> <br />6 <br />