C150073 Executive Summary - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Feasibility Evaluation of the Arkansas Valley Pipeline Water Works! Committee July 2003 Section 6 -Conclusions Phase 1 The conclusions developed in Phase 1 of this study are summarized below: 1. The average day water demand, on an annual basis, for the participating water providers is estimated to be 16.23 million gallons per day (MGD) in the year 2020. This is equivalent to an annual demand of approximately 18,180 acre-feet (ac-ft). 2. There is an estimated total volume of approximately 14, 464 ac-ft of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water that could be available to municipal and domestic facilities east of Pueblo. This estimate is based on 9,643 ac-ft of project water available on average for annual allocation, and an additional return flow volume of water equal to approximately 4,821 ac-ft. The difference between annual demand of 18,180 ac-ft and project water availability of approximately 14,464 ac-ft results in a deficit of approximately 3,716 ac-ft of water rights at Pueblo Reservoir. 3. The estimated cost of the proposed pipeline will vary between $192* million for anall- steel pipeline to $172* million for an alignment that includes the use ofhigh-density polyethylene (HDPE) in sections where lower internal pressure will be experienced. The alignment for the all-steel pipeline cost estimate is similar to the alignment described in the previous report on the Arkansas Valley Pipeline [Black & Veatch, 1972]. The alignment for the pipeline that includes HDPE pipe varies from the all-steel alignment to optimize the use of HDPE pipe and minimize the construction cost. 4. The estimated project cost for a conventional, centrally located, rapid-sand water filtration plant is $37.2* million. This estimate is based on an initial estimated water treatment plant construction cost of $20 million, and a present worth value of $17.2 million for estimated annual operation and maintenance costs. 5. The estimated present worth cost of a "No-Action" alternative is $114.3 million. This cost estimate is based on the anticipated costs of meeting future drinking water regulations while utilizing existing sources of water supply. The present worth cost of the No-Action alternative includes $22.1 * million for the upgrade and expansion of existing water treatment facilities and a present worth value of $92.2 million for estimated annual operation and maintenance. 6. The reconnaissance-level evaluations performed in Phase 1 did not identify any apparent technical or environmental fatal flaws that would prohibit the implementation of the Arkansas Valley Pipeline. * These cost estimates were refined further in Phase 2, and the estimated net cost to implement the proposed Arkansas Valley Pipeline was reduced significantly. GEI Consultants, Inc. ~ 5 01284 03-07-21 feasibilty report executive summary