Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,'. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />,', <br /> <br />.-" <br /> <br />attached plastic sheets should be used at the ends of the <br />corrugated metal pipe. Compaction should be closely regulated; <br />however, it is very doubtful if compaction alone can prevent <br />eeepage under the pipe because the concrete supports prevent <br />eettlement of the pipe concurrently with settlement of the <br />adjacent dirt. <br /> <br />2. A wider right of way ehould be obtained in the nature of a <br />temporary construction easement. The width of the permanent right <br />of way should be dependent upon the use of the land on which it <br />is located and the drainage of the surrounding area. <br /> <br />3. The design engineer should meet with each individual land owner <br />and go over the route of the drain so all problems known to the <br />land owner will be known to the engineer and, conversely, problems <br />which developed in this project can be discuseed with the land <br />owners. Changes in route and etructure location could be avoided <br />to a lsrge extent if better communications with the land owners <br />were poseible prior to preparation of final plans. <br /> <br />4. Scheduling should be worked out to permit construction with the <br />minimum amount of interference to irrigation and problems to the <br />contractor. Actually, the Norton Drain could have been constructed <br />from September through December hetter than during any other period. <br />In the case of this project there was little choice in this matter, <br />but the work might be scheduled better for future projectso <br /> <br />5. To some extent, water users in the area of the drain have continued <br />to use the wa ter as in the past wi thout regard to its effect on the <br />drain. This has caused considerable trouble, but it ia hoped that <br />with experience land owners will develop more regard for the effects <br />of their irrigation practice on the drain. In this respect, par- <br />ticularly, the design of the system is deficient. Much more thought <br />should be given to this consideration in the design of future <br />drain or channelization projects. <br /> <br />6. The question of inadequate berm widths has been brought up aa the <br />berms do not meet Soil Conservation Service specifications. The <br />problem was resolved when Conejos County agreed to remove the spoil <br />piles as required within a reaeonable time. If funds permit for <br />future projects it is suggested that Soil Conservation Service <br />berm epecifications be met regardless of the final disposition of <br />the exea va ted ma teria 1. <br /> <br />0586 <br />