Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c ~ { 0 J ~; <br /> <br />Alternatives were determined to be nonviable that exceeded cost- <br />effectiveness criteria, that were not acceptable to water users or State <br />government, or that posed insurmountable operational problems. In some <br />cases, while an overall alternative might have been considered nonviable, an <br />individual reach within that alternative was identified as viable and <br />therefore eligible for further consideration. Upper and lower canal sections, <br />for example, differed in viability and the lower section was subsequently <br />eliminated from further consideration.' <br /> <br />v. <br /> <br />VIABLE ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Four viable alternatives were derived by Reclamation. The two piped <br />alternatives were derived from the initial pipeline option of placing the <br />system into a pipeline pressurized by electrical-powered pumping. The <br />alternatives are: (1) canal lining, either membrane or concrete; <br />(2) pressurized pipe, low pressure, Section 15 (the "Low-Pressure Pipeline <br />Alternative"); (3) pressurized pipe, high pressure, Section 1 (the "High- <br />Pressure Pipeline Alternative"); and (4) the No Action Alternative, which <br />presents Reclamation's best estimate of future conditions in the study area <br />without Federal action. <br /> <br />NONVIABLE ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />The following alternatives were considered but found to be nonviable and <br />were eliminated from further study: gravity-pressurized pipeline; land <br />retirement; pressurized pipe, low pressure (entire Hammond Project); <br />pressurized pipe, low pressure, Muiioz Canyon; and pressurized pipe, high <br />pressure, entire Hammond Project. <br /> <br />SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />Of the three viable action alternatives, the canal lining alternative was <br />recommended by the study team as the preferred alternative for the <br />following reasons: <br /> <br />(1) The program would satisfy the National goal of reducing salinity <br />impacts within the Colorado River Basin; <br /> <br />(2) The cost effectiveness of canal lining is $36.61 per ton, the most cost <br />effective of the viable construction alternatives. <br /> <br />, The lower section lies below a point 2 miles north of State Highwsy 44 to the end of the <br />Proiect. <br />Section 1 begins approximately two-thirds mile down the Main Canal from the diversion <br />structure. Section 1 of the alternatives includes Reaches 1, 2, and 3 as shown on the <br />subsequent Component Reaches map. <br /> <br />S-5 <br />