My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150223 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
C150223 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2014 11:16:38 AM
Creation date
2/26/2014 11:16:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150223
Contractor Name
Keenesburg, Town of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
2
County
Weld
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
which is 221 acre-feet. The Roggen wells are located approximately 10 miles, by <br />roads, northeast of Keenesburg and draw water from the Laramie-Fox Hill <br />Aquifer. <br />Transporting the Roggen well water to Town will require lifting the water <br />approximately 210 feet to the future water tank site. As with Alternative 2, two lift <br />stations will be required to transport the water to town. It is assumed that the <br />existing lift stations for alternative 2 can be expanded to include the pumps for <br />this alternative. <br />J. COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES <br />Capital Costs <br />The attached Table 1 shows the costs that will be required for each of the <br />alternatives evaluated. This table shows that Alternative 1 is less expensive than <br />Alternative 2. However, Alternative 2 does not have a cost for the purchase of <br />water because that cost is not currently known. It is anticipated that this cost will <br />be minimal due to the cost associated with the Town returning its wastewater to <br />the landowner for irrigation purposes. The Alternative 2 costs include a 6.8-mile <br />return pipeline and improvements on the farm to store water and pump the water <br />into the sprinkler system. However, the added cost for the return pipeline is a <br />project that the Town will most likely need to implement in the future. <br />Alternative 2A is presented for planning purposes and may not need to be <br />implemented in the near future unless the Town wanted to improve reliability of <br />its well delivery system. Alternative 2A does provide additional storage in a <br />location that will help the water system on the east side of Town. <br />In summary, Alternative 1 is the least expensive option and is the preferred <br />alternative. The Town and PV Water Holdings, LLC are very close to finalizing <br />negotiation for purchase of a well in the Prospect Valley that will yield the Town <br />an additional 139.6 acre-feet annually. <br />Operational Costs <br />Operational costs for the Town should not increase under Alternative 1. The <br />reason is that the town will be operating only half of the well capacity it presently <br />operates and the power and operation labor cost for the new lift station should <br />nearly equal the present cost. <br />Alternative 2 will have an operation and maintenance cost nearly the same as <br />Alternative 1, again due to only operating half of the existing well capacity <br />currently being operated. <br />Feasibility Study -Keenesburg, CO <br />1/23/2009 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.