BOARD00245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.- e e e "EXCERPT FROM THE WEST DIVIDE REFORMULATION PROJECT" G. Selected Alternatives Cost estimates were ruade for all project features considered in this study. !he estimates include the capital cost of cons~ruction of each project feature as well as land costs, permitting and design costs. Some features were discarded after cost estimates were pre- pared because of the high costs relative to other features serving the same purpose. !hose features which showed favorable costs and poten- tial performance were used as elements of alternative project con- figurations and examined in further studies. A summary of the important \lroject features and their estimated costs is \lresented in Table I-2. The process of selecting alternative configurations continued with the tabulation of costs per acre-foot of yield associated IJith each co~bination of project features analyzed in the operation studies. Costs for all of the project facilities in a given co~- bination were added. The total project cost ws then divided by the amount of water yield. The resulting tabulation revealed the following general conclusions: 1. !he most cost effective storage location on West Divide Creek is Lower Kendig Reservoir. Small reservoirs at the Lower Kendig site are ~ore cost effective than larger ones. 2. Enlargement of the Porter Ditch is more cos t effec:ive than enlargement of the Righline Ditch, because the Porter Ditch can deliver water from Lower Kendig Reservoir by gravi~y while the Righline Ditch cannot. 3. Storage locations such as Dry Bollow and Mamm Creek pro- vide very 11 t t le increase in yield if Lower Kendig is included. A medium sized Lower Kendig Reservoir would be able to supply the li~ited service area of these sites in most years. 4. An extension of the Highline/Porter system to upper Hunter Mesa provides a substantial increase in project yield; however, so~e of this increase occurs at the expense of supplemental irrigation water for existing land. 5. Of the systems not directly linked to the Ilest Divide Creek system, the East Divide Creek Dam is the most cost effective, followed closely by the Yank Creek Dam. The Owens Creek Da~ site is less cost effective and the Beaver Creek Dams are the most expensive as compared to their yields. 6. Buzzard Creek Dam and Reservoir produces yield which are more expensive than Lower Kendig yields but less expensive than other project features. A small Buzzard Creek reservoir is more cost effective than a large reservoir. A long canal to Alkali Creek is the most cost effective way to deliver water from Buzzard Creek Reservoir to the Ilest Divide Creek basin. 7. Scenario 0-2 represents a full water supply for t~e area. While not co~pletely eliminating shortages, Scenario 0-2 does elimi- nate annual shortages in almost 55% of the years studied. In 33 out of the 35 years included in the study period. the annual shortage is less than the exis ting annual average shortage. The two years in which the annual shortage was grea~er than the existing annual average shortage are years of extre~e drought. Providing sufficient storage to co~pletely eliminate shortages in the project area would require massive additional expenditures while yielding only marginal benefits.