WSP01375 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

! CI\)6b~rolling c subs~qu€nt flood. Unless the op~ration of flood con- trol spuc~ is accomplished in this manner, no flood control benefits Cen accrue to the proj~ct, and costs cannot be considered ~s non- rsimbursabl~. If the c~pGcity of the Hardin site were used to storS w::lter for irrige.tion, with water h81cl over until such timc as it could be used for that purpos~, only minor incidental flood control would r~sul t ~nd nearly all costs of construction ,Iould have to bo cor.sidcrLd c;.S rl.imbursable. Undt..r such an arrenge:fficnt th~ Herdin si tL CC1.n producE:. fer less b~ncfits than NQrrows ~nd it is clearly less fCQsible than NQrrows. It could not be recommended for construction. Goodrich 5itL.--FoundQtion conditions url unfRvorablc at this site, and the volume of Lmbankment necessary to develop the r~quired stor"gL would be cxccssi1rb Out18ts for both the Jackson Lake Inlet ,.nd th~ IvcldonQ Canal would be r;cquir,.d in the north abutment of the (\",n. Sediment would lnter the reservoir from Kiowa Creek nL2r the damsi to 2.nd cndangsr the embankment. The factors of hieh cost end the potentinl dan~ to the embankmcnt eliminate this site whcn it is com- pared with the downstreNn s1 tes of "eldona, N2rrows, 2.ncl Fort Aorgan. Old fort l'/organ Site. --Thc r&scrvoir si to is physically limi ted, and dE'~_d storCli.e is large <::s the Fort l'lorgan Cuncl woulj be 10cClkd at a rclc:tiv<..ly high e.lLvc:tion with respect to the dwn. This site was elimincted on the. basis of cost, limited capacity, 2nd potcnti- aUy unf2vorablc groundwa.tlr conditions downstrce.rj from the dam. weldon" Sit8.--The weldona site was eliminated from further considorc:tion e.nd stlldy on the basis of costs. Fort Morgan Site.--The finnl choice was between the Nerrows and the Fort ..Lorgan sites. A comparison of th~se two sitES shows a differu.tial in cons truction contr~.ct cos ts of over li2 ,000 ,000 in favor of the llarrows site. Foundation studies Clnd Thiem tc sts indi- cat" th,..t losses by sccpE.fe at the fort "Jorgan si tc would be about t>licc that at the Na.rro>Is site. and that fL>Icr seepage problems ,lQulJ resul t from the l'iarrows Reservoir bec"usc' of its favorable locrtion in relation to the Bijou Creek ch~nn<..l which would ~ct as a cutoff drain. The ~vcrdgL nnnuul lV2poration from ~ rcs~rvoir 2t the N~rrows site would be 6,000 acre-feet less then ohc evc:pore.tion <it the Fort dorg~n site. From the stnr.dpoint of efficient utilizction of the. available 'Ivatcr sUPI-,ly, 2. rl st_rvoir at the t\!crro'rJS si tl:.- will b8 lnorc desircbl~. Use of the l~arrows l,cservoir will rcnove from production by Gov~rrunent ecquisi tion a total of 6,497 "cres of irrigatea 12nd comp2rLd to 5,549 acres at the Fort ..jorg2n sitenc diffennce of 948 c,crcs. 1\ r~s'crvoir at the Fort l~organ si te to cl~v2tion 4403 would p_ppr02ch the physical limit of the site, &nd there would be no ch3ncc for enl2rgE- ment if, oVer a period of YEPrs, the wctcr supply si tUction ch'...ngt."s or sediment cncr02chcs beyond the capacity allotted for this purpose. The Narrows SitE offers fl8xibility in thQt a portion of the, surcharge spc:cc provided for prokction of the d2Jn 2gainst occurrenCE of Q 2