Show The Hereto JournaiCache Sunday December 2 1890— Panels a Text John J Wise Photos: Pete Schropp by consultants hired by the Division of Water Resources at the negative sentiment wii ded daring an extensive public d by the Utah Division of Water 986 dnwimwit noted: “There is ritkxi to the Amalga (Joint) site inducting die inundation of he fore of high water tables” i Barrens still exist and a number red Among them are questions md even wont how the huge e die local and how cold weather n panel listed the Barrens and Unties Holmgren said that die ability of both proposals If die 1 indicate that the Barrens could amount of water — 35000 is a project will i nnao-clhnat- state-sponsor- ed lid ire water than that I don’t think I ig to see if it's a viable project” i that die site termed a “natural ttle more than 35000-- to 40000 icconhng to a 1988 report stems Would be filled widi water Since West Cache Canal which diverts of Preston Idaho would be used for a Barrens Reservoir analysis of foe data generated shows foe optimum size of foe reservoir to be about 35000 to Any increase of die reservoir sire beyond 40000 acre-feeproduces only a marginal increase in project yield” Alternatives such as enlarging die carnal or lining it or constructing a pipeline have been discussed as ways to overcome mat hnutatinn Yet in die latest cost estimates for die Barrens project die cost of conveyance systems are not included Abo not included but suggested as an alternative delivery system is pumping water foam foe Bear River near Amalga west to foe Barrens ate Pumping water as irrigation know ill too well is expensive The 88 report states that two diking alternatives needed father study because of “surface faulting" at foe Barrens were also presented and compared to foe Cost most recent figures they now a considerable discrepancy In 1988 foe foil alignment dike system foe larger of foe two reservoir proposals was estimated to cost about $12 million The alternative dike system essentially a smaller dike moved to the east was reservoir with its western-mo- st about $17 million Again more recent estimates put foe cost of foe huger reservoir at between $27 million for 35000 acre-fo- et of storage to $79 million to triple its capacity To store requires flooding about 3500 acres and building about 50000 feet of dikes roughly 28 4470 acres would be feet talL To store 100000 acre-foflooded and 59000 fert of dikes roughly 43 feet tall would be required according to the division’s October 1990 status report The report states that “several embankment (dike) alignments have been designed to best fit foe area for various size reservoirs” With storage capacity variable the final size will still depend on how much water can be delivered to foe site 'Many other unknowns when answered will also determine what foe Barrens reservoir will look like — if it is ever built at alL lime will telL Perhaps some proponents were correct when they agreed that if foe project isn’t feasible if its price teg is excessive and its water is not fit to drink or if the environmental costs are too high'to build it' it ought be better to leave it for the birds Maybe in the final analysis that may be foe outcome 40000-acre-fo- -- off-seaso- n stant er through die West Cache Canal the flow in the canal would have 88 report model) runs were performed to varying die reservoir size or i” foe ’88 report continues “An et t dr 35000-acre-fe- et et pre-desi- ices Division report states that ater could be diverted fain die it’s used for irrigation purposes 15 but most of die water would rogation season That water would restrict canal was regraded and die ’ gn The Barrens contains a diversity of wetland types - ' |