BOARD02195

• Board Meeting Date: 9/12/1964
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

"':t'v"':t'v

include such allowances and increase the
figures that I have given you here by about
50%. The report of the appraisal consultants
was used by the Bureau of Reclamation in its
reanalysis.

Under date of September 1, 1964, Region I
7 of the Bureau of Reclamation transmitted to
us, by letter, its final cost estimates on
the two res~rvoir sites, along with support-
ing data. A copy of this letter and data
has been sent to the Board and is available
here today. At the same time, our consultants,
Woodward-Clyde-Sherard and Associates, who had
been following the course of the Bureau esti-
mates, submitted their report on comparative
cost estimates. That report has also been
sent to the Board and to other interested
people.

A summary comparison of the cost estimates
is as follows: (I will only summarize the
cost estimates) - In the Bureau of Reclamation
report they show a difference of additional
costs at the Weld County site of $23,646,000;
our consultants show a difference of $11,819,000
more for the Weld County site. So there is a
difference of approximately $12 million between
the Bureau estimates and the estimates of our
consultants. In both cases, however, the cost
being significantly higher for the construction
of the Weld county site.

The principal difference between the two
estimates is that the consultants recommend
a structure at the Weld County site utilizing
a much thinner core of impervious material
than the designs prepared by the Bureau of
Reclamation. Now design is a matter of judg- I
ment.' The Chief Engineer's office has stated,
their representatives have stated, that there
will be no compromise with safety. We can '
assume, therefore, that if a dam is built at
the Weld County site it will be built accord-
ing to the specifications prepared by the
Chief Engineer. The cost'will therefore be
essentially as estimated.