Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\ <br />" <br /> <br />'H'i II ~' <br />c~~t&l~ng e subsequent flood. Unless th8 oper8tion of flood con- <br />trol SpilCE; is accomplished in t.his manner, no flood control bE'n8fi ts <br />cen accrU8 to th~ prOjEct, and costs cnnnot bs considerLd ~s non- <br />reimbursable. If thL capacity of the Hardin site W8r€ us~d to stor8 <br />wat8r for irrig2tion, with wat8r held over until such time as it could <br />bc used for that purpose, only minor incidantal flood control ,",ould <br />resul t c.nd m.arly all costs of construction would hav~ to be, cOLsidsrc.d <br />.as rc.imbursablE:. Undt..r such an arr2ng<2ffiE:nt the: j-brdin si tL cc:n producF_ <br />fe.r h,ss b,.ncfits than l,;errows 2nd it. is clearly lESS feasible than <br />J1arrows. It could not be r8commendcd for constrllction. <br /> <br />Goodrich Site..--foundation conditions ;er8 unf2vorablE at this <br />site, ;end the. volume. of ~mbankmLnt neCEssary to develop the. required <br />stor",:e would bE Exc8ssi"". OutlLts for both the Jackson Lake InlE.t <br />"nd the \'cldona Canal would be r'cquir.A in thEe north abu tmcnt of the <br />d2ln. GGdimt:nt would Lnter. thE. r~servoir from Kiowa Creek nc2.r the <br />damsi te and Endanger the cmb,:.ukment. ThE. fQctors of high cost end the. <br />potentbl dangEr to th~ embankment diminatc this site when it is com- <br />po.red '.ith the dOlffistre<ID sites of 'icldone, N2rrows, [..nd Fort ,.iorgan. <br /> <br />Old "'ort "Jorgan 5i te .-- ThlC reServoir 3i tc is physically <br />limitsd, end dEr.d storCl,"c is large:, 2S the Fort dorgiln C:cn21 would be <br />lOCClkd ;et a nlGtivdy high cl~v2tion with rEeSpLct to the dwn. This <br />site was ~limin<lt~d on the basis of cost, ~imitLd capacity, c.nd potenti- <br />a1.Jy unfevorablc groundwuter conditions downstrc2,n from thE dam. <br /> <br />WLldone Sitc.--ThE Wcldons site was eliminated from further <br />consider2tion "nd study on the basis of costs. <br /> <br />Fort Morgan 5i tc.--Thc fin"l choice 'wes between the j'arrows <br />and thL Fort dorgcn s.i tes. A comp2rison of thesE two sites shows a <br />diffcrlCnti~l in construction contrect costs of over .2,000,000 in <br />favor of tnE J\"rrows si t.Eo. Foullda tion studic s [:.ud Thiem t( sts indi- <br />cetc. th['.t losses by sccpc'fe at thE "'ort I'JOrgan sik "auld be about <br />twicc that et the Narrows site and that fewer seepage probl~ms ,",ould <br />result from the Narrows Rese.rvoir bec~use of its favorabl~ loc~ti0n <br />in relati.on to the Bijou en'c k ch"r,ncl whioh would "ct as " cutoff <br />drain. The ~vera&e annual eV2por<ltion from a r~s8rvoir &t thc Narrows <br />si to would be 6,000 acr,,-feet hss tlli'n 1.h" evc:poration '"t the Fort <br />dorg"n si"c. From the stnr.dpoint of E.fficiEnt utiliz~tion of th" <br />available water supply, e. re servoir at the Ne.rrows 0i te will be ,norc <br />dLsir"b18. Use of the Nerrows f.e scrvoir will rc,novc from produc Hon by <br />Government acquisition a to tel of 6,497 ucr0S of irrigated lc:nd compared <br />to 5,549 acres at the Fort ,lorgc.n site--" difference of 94E) "cres. A <br />r~s8rvoir at thEe Fort l'lOrgan site to e18ve.tion !.JIJG3 would ".ppr02C!1 the <br />physic!'.l limit of th~ sit~, c.nd there would be no chanCe for ull"rgc- <br />:n~nt if, O~JLr a period of ]E.ers, tht watEr supply si tuc.tion ch2.ngE:5 or <br />SEdiment e.ncro<\chcs beyond the capilci ty e.llot ted for this purpose. <br />The Narro,IS site offers fltxibility in thClt a portion of the surcharge <br />specc provided for protcc tiOJ'j of the dam against occurrence of 2. <br /> <br />2 <br />