My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09076
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:51:02 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:26:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8443.300
Description
Narrows Project - Legislation
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
8/1/1966
Author
US DoI
Title
Report on the Narrows Unit Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />tl~'1 . <br />., i .. ') <br /> <br />"{." <br /> <br />Plan of Development <br /> <br />but only limited information was available on the Weld County site. <br />In the case of the cost analyses, therefore, the estimates indicated <br />a definite advantage in the favor of the Narrows site to the extent <br />of about $7 million. <br /> <br />It was the opinion of the staff of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board, shared by many others, that the geologic investigations at the <br />Weld County site were insufficient to make a fair comparison between \ <br />, <br />that site and the Narrows. The Board therefore employed the consult- i <br />ing engineering firm of Woodward-C1yde-Sherard and Associates to conduct \ <br />additional geological investigations at the Weld County site and to <br />make percolation tests at both sites. ' The Bureau of Reclamation <br />assisted in these additional investigations. <br /> <br />At th~ conclusion of these new investigations the consulting firm <br />rendered a report to the Board on March 11, 1964, stating conclusions <br />essentially as follows: <br /> <br />1, That the percolation of water through and around the <br />dams at either site would be essentially the same <br />unless positive cutoff was accomplished. <br /> <br />2. That positive cutoff could be accomplished at the Weld <br />County site but could not be accomplished at the Narrows <br />site. <br /> <br />3. That from purely geologic considerations the Weld County <br />site was preferable to the Narrows site. <br /> <br />Based upon the information contained in the consultant's report <br />the Bureau of Reclamation was requested to make new comparative cost <br />estimates of the two reservoir sites, with the understanding that <br />these new estimates would be reviewed and reported upon by the con- <br />sultants. <br /> <br />The information presented by the consultants indicated that the <br />alluvial deposits along the axis of the Weld County site extended to <br />a greater depth than was originally estimated, but that positive cutoff <br />could be obtained by complete excavation and replacement of these <br />alluvial materials. Because of the di.rect downstream flow of water <br />under the dam foundation if positive cutoff was not made, the Office <br />of the Chief Engineer, Bureau of' Reclanation, concluded that for <br />safety reasons a dam should not be constructed at the Weld County site <br />unless positive cutoff was assured. The new estimates were prepared <br />on this bas is. <br /> <br />29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.