Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2.6.3 Operational Features <br /> <br />2.6.3.1 The Infiltration gallery alternative would provide water <br />containing less suspended material than the White River water <br />presently being diverted Into the filtration plant. <br /> <br />2.6,3.2 The water supply should be unaffected by Ice conditions In <br />the river. <br /> <br />2.6.3.3 The water supply should remain fairly constant, even In <br />drought years. The collection system would function as a cutoff drain <br />beneath the river bed, enabling Rangely to divert up to 10 cfs (0.28 <br />3 <br />m Is) even when surface water In the channel has disappeared. <br /> <br />2.6,3.4 Sizing the collector pipes and pumping system for Rangely's <br />maximum projected demand would enable the town to abandon the existing <br />surface diversion, reducing water treatment costs. Stream channel <br />modifications such as those made In 1977 would be unnecessary with the <br />subsurface collection system. The limited reliable yield would <br />preclude using this source for large Industrial supply. <br /> <br />2.6.3.5 Temporary disruption of the White River streambed and natural <br />flow would be necessary during construction. <br /> <br />2.6.3.6 Removal of excavated material and replacement with filter <br />sand would be necessary below the streambed. Concrete would be placed <br />during construction of the wet well and pump house. <br /> <br />2.6.3.7 Under Colorado Water Law, the Infiltration gallery would be <br />subject to administration by the Division Water Engineer just as any <br />diversion facility, Although It Is considered unlikely, water users <br />with diversion rights senior to the town of Rangely could force the <br />facl! Ity to be shut down during drought years. <br /> <br />30 <br />