Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001717 <br /> <br />Long Hollow Dam and Reservoir Summary Report-Preliminary Draft <br /> <br />were beyond the scope of work identified and were undertaken with a grant of funds from the <br />Southwest Water Conservation District in an effort to identify fatal flaws and make better <br />comparisons to work done for Red Mesa -Ward Alternative. <br /> <br />8.6 Reconnaissance level Opinion of Cost and Financing <br /> <br />WWE's reconnaissance level (+/- 50%) opinion of cost for LHR using limited geological data <br />and without any geotechnical or other engineering information for the LHR site is as follows. <br /> <br />A reconnaissance-level area-capacity study for the dam and reservoir was prepared by Harris <br />Water Engineering. This study indicated a dam at the site with a crest elevation of 6,314 feet <br />(streambed elevation is 6,200 feet) would have a storage capacity of approximately 5,432 acre- <br />feet. <br /> <br />The H-P engineering/geology study, discussed in Section 4.0 of this report, the topography <br />generated by PWT, reviewed in Section 3.0, and the Harris Water Engineering area capacity <br />study, were used for developing WWE's opinion of cost. The opinion of cost for a Long Hollow <br />Dam and Reservoir with a capacity of 5,400 AF is presented in Table 6. The $19.6 million cost <br />for 5,400 AF equates to about $3,600/AF. <br /> <br />As stated earlier, financing for the design and construction of LHR are anticipated to be provided <br />by the Authority from its La Plata River Future Escrow Account. LPWCD would request <br />funding from the Authority if the CWCB Phase IT feasibility work is completed, after a more <br />refined reservoir size is determined, and a less variable opinion of cost has been prepared. <br />LPWCD understands that the Authority requires the submission of a project proposal, as <br />specified in the Future Projects Escrow Agreement, and that the Authority board has discretion <br />regarding approval of any proposal. Should keep comparisons to the same standards. earlier <br />discussed a $15\AF fee for benefits received. should do proiect costs to the same standard. We <br />don't care what standard is selected as long as revenues and costs are both discussed based on the <br />standard selected. <br /> <br />991-077.115 <br />May 2004 <br /> <br />Wright Water Engineers, Inc. <br /> <br />Page 18 <br />