Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Without the Empire Reservoir Exchange <br /> <br />Ac. Ft. <br />with <br />Two <br /> <br />Ac. Ft. <br />wi th Narrows <br />only <br /> <br />Total annual water supply <br /> <br />117,200 85,000 <br />$44,426,000 $38,334,000 <br /> <br />Total cost <br /> <br />Service area Riverside, all ditches between and North Sterling <br /> <br />Shortages remaining in above service area 15,800 acre-feet, <br />instead of 124,600 acre-feet as at present. <br /> <br />Without Empire Exchange and without North Sterling Pump <br /> <br />Ac. Ft. <br />with One <br />(Ri verside) <br /> <br />Ac. Ft. <br />with Narrows <br />only <br /> <br />Total annual water supply <br /> <br />85,000 85,000 <br />$40,319,000 $38,334,000 <br /> <br />Total cost <br /> <br />Service area RiVerside, all ditches to and including North Sterling <br /> <br />Shortages remaining in above service area 44,300 acre-feet, <br />instead of the 124,600 acre-feet as at present. <br /> <br />The total cost of a project including all three innovations <br />$44,426,000. Such a project would furnish 117,200 acre-feet of <br />water at the present time level. The Weld County Reservoir would <br />cost $45,459,000 and furnish 85,000 acre-feet of water. <br /> <br />Retardation of the winter flows diverted by the North Sterling pump <br />would noticeably increase summer flows downstream. <br /> <br /> <br />Turning now to the fourth investigation, conducted since our last <br />meeting, we have drilled 7 holes in the Weld County dam site area: <br />3 holes on the site estimated by the Bureau, and 4 holes on the <br />al ternate s.i te suggested b,y Cecil Osborne l,lf miles downstream. <br />On the original Bureau site we found the greatest depth to shale <br />to be 85 feet below the river level and. on the alternate site to <br />be 100 feet below river level. The material encountered above the <br />shale is quite porous as expected. Since conditions are at least <br />as bad as anticipated orig1.nally, there appears to be no reason <br />to change our estimates of cost for this site. Leakage under the <br />dam will probably be Gomewhat greater than we expected. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />