Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3732 <br /> <br />RUEDI DA1\I AND RESERVOIR, COLO. <br /> <br />39 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />.alternali,"", site. A total capacity of 85,000 acre-feet would be re- <br />quired at the Placitn site to pl'odde il municipal and industrlfll water <br />supply equivaleut to the supply that would be available from Ruedi <br />Reservoir. <br /> <br />Value of municipal and indu"t,.ial water <br /> <br />The cost of the cheapest single pnrpose alternative storage reser- <br />voir has been t.aken ns t.he value of .Ruedi Resen'oir for municipal find <br />industrial water. The construction cost of an 85,000 acre-foot reser- <br />voir at the Plncita site is estimuted at $11,100,000. Using 3J/~ years <br />as the period for construction and un interest rate of 2.5 percent, in- <br />terest during construction is estimntetl at about, $485~O()O, making the <br />total initial inyestment in the single-purpose nlternati\'e $1l,58!:i,OOO. <br />Annual operation, maintenan('-e and replacement costs for Placita <br />Resel'\'oir are estimated at $7,000. <br />Based on an interest rate of 2.5 perce.nt, annual equivalent. costs of <br />Plucita Reservoir are shown in the following tabulation for 50- and <br />lOO-year periods of analysis which constitl1tes n measnre of the benefits <br />attributable to Rlle.cli l~.esen.oil' for municipal and industrial water <br />ussociated with oil shale development. <br /> <br /> 50 ~'ears 100 years <br />Amortired Initial lnvestrnent______________n_______________..___________ $-iOS,OIJO $31<3,000 <br />Annual oper:l.tiOil and ffiainlen:\n('(l___ ________ _ _. __. _ ________ _ _.. ----- 7.000 7.000 <br />....Ollll.9,Il'Quivall.nt ('ost___..____________...._____________.____.____ 415,000 323,000 <br /> <br />.ASSOCIATED FUXCTIONS <br /> <br />If; <br /> <br />Flood control <br />The water slIpply for Rnedi Reservoi.. is de..ived essent,ially from <br />snowmelt during t.he l:tte spring and early sllmme.r months. Annual <br />st.orage of this rUlloff' will be complementary to the objectiye of flood <br />control in river reaches downstream from Ruedi Dam. .As a. part <br />of the re<:ollnuissllllce for this report. the Corps of Engineers District <br />in Los AnO"ele_s, Calif., reviewed the flood control as peets of Hlledi <br />Dam and Reservoir. Appendix A of this report conlnins the Corps <br />appraisal of this subject. <br />l\Iajor SllO\l"melt f10ws in the Frying-pan Hirer and in t11e drainage <br />area of tJw Colorado Ri\'er aho\'e Grand VaJley indicate that the <br />peak discharge at. the Huedi Dam site might he 89 percent of it cun- <br />temporary peak 011 the Fryingpan l~i\'el' at its 1I1Ou1.h; about 48 <br />pp,l't:ent of t.he corresponding" peak in t.he Roaring- Fork Hiver at <br />Glenwood Springs; and some 15 to IS percent of the cOI'l'e-sponding <br />peak 011 the Colorado River between Glenwood Springs and the <br />contIuence with t.he GlUlIlison River at. Grnn(l .funct,lOn, Colo. Full <br />(",0111.1"01 of snowmelt discharges in Ruedi H.eservoir would eliminate <br />all potential tlood d:unages on the Fryingptlll H.iver below the (lam <br />and wuuld reduce substantially t.he flood damage. on t.he Roarilll! Furk <br />Ri,'er h~low the, ll.1oltth of the Fryingpan. Red'u..::.tion of dalH<lges in <br />t.he Colorado River, however, woul(] Le relatively small. <br />The value of nIl property in t.he overflow areas uetweell Ruedi <br />D:llll and Grand .Junction on t.he Colorado Ri,'er is beliered to be <br /> <br />