Laserfiche WebLink
<br />with regard to the south Sloe, average annu51 damages <br />'...Tould be gu.it.e small. The aVE'ra-?e annuaJ cost. of even <br />.;lternative B, which is a bare ffii~imum project, 15 <br />:3ignificantly greater than the es:ima~~d annual jen~fits. <br /> <br />As far as the two alternativ~s for the oroject on the <br />rlorth side o~ the river are conce~ned, both protect <br />E!ssentially the same area. As a result, most of the <br />t)enefits attributable to either alternative are identical. <br />Jt would be, in that light, wisest to find the less <br />Expensive way to achieve the same benefits. That: would be <br />A.lternative A. There is, howeve~, one extremely ~mportant <br />difference between the two alt';::'rnatives. Alterncltivl2 B <br />would protect the Dolores Wate~ Treatment Facility, while <br />Alternative A would not. <br /> <br />5. Recommendations <br /> <br />Based on the findings of the ~econnaissance <br />i:1vestigation, it is recommendE~d that the TO\4n of Dolores <br />p~rsue construction of a levee prcJect to keep flood water <br />f~om a 100-year flood event frc@ entering the town. It is <br />recommended that in the absence of such a flood control <br />project town officials and residents familiarize themselves <br />w~th floodproofing options for protecting individ~al <br />buildings. It is also recommended that town officials and <br />r€!sidents familiarize themselves wi~h individual ~lood <br />irlsu~ance needs and with the costs o~ such insurance. <br /> <br />Details regarding the reco:1Une~lded lE:vee c.ltf=::~nati.ve e.!:'~: <br />siven below. Information regar6i~g f~n6~ng of su(~h a <br />project is provided. Then more de~ails on pursu~ng options <br />in ~loodproo~ing ana flood insc=ance are give~. <br /> <br />5.1 <br /> <br />Recommenoec <br /> <br />" , <br />Levee A~~e~~a:lVe <br /> <br />T. is recommended that the town of Dolores pu~s~e <br />fu.1ding for the construction of ~evee ;~:ternative E for the <br />no.~th side of the Dolores River. This alterna~ive would <br />co,st more than Alternative A, but it would provide <br /> <br />prl)tection for the Wa~er Treatment Facility. <br /> <br />Giver. '.:.he <br /> <br />eX]Jerience of several Colo=ado communities that have :ost <br /> <br />-20- <br />