FLOOD08154

• County: Adams
• Community: Westminster
• Stream Name: Big Dry Creek
• Basin: South Platte
• Title: Master Drainageway Planning Study
• Date: 3/1/1973
• Prepared For: Westminster
• Prepared By: UDFCD
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

SECTION VIII

ESTIMATED COSTS

During Phase A, a benefit/cost anal)'sis Wi~S cOlllpieted, which,
while broad In form, served to Identify the alternate and the fre-
quency to be used In conjunction with the desI'lnated alternate. The
approach to the analysis Is essentialiy that of L. Douglas James and
Robert L. Lee as described in Economics "f Res,?urces Pla,!!l.!.!!s"

The costs in the following tables
slgnated design frequency and alternate.
presented In the Phase A Report.

were rev! sed for on 1 y the de-
The remaining costs are as

Major drainage channels are often costly In an urban area because
of right-of-way, bridges and culverts, sf,eclal structures, and, In
some places, retaining walls where the channel must be designed narrow.
Many of these costs can be attributable to other urban systems such as
streets and traffic, recreation and open space, and land development.
The cost estimate brings all costs together in the total fIgure; how-
ever, the financing strategy should differentl,ate between the Incre-
mental costs when developIng funding sources. All channel work, bank
protection, road embankment materials, and bridges have been associated
with highway fund responslbil itles; however, the channel work necessary
near North Washington Street and at the Westminster sewage plant have
been included In draInage costs.

In keeping wi th the present policies In b,ath Adams County and
Westminster, no costs have been Included for land acquisition. While
the flood plain reguiatlons differ, both contr':ll the flood plain.

It has been antIcipated that the channel ",iil be cOl1siderabiy
altered between bridges as a result of large flows. Large scale ero-
sion and deposition will occur. Unless there "re specIfic reasons to
re-establish the old channel, It Is not necess'lry to re-construct the
old channel, and the costs assocIated with the annual flood damages
apply equally to building new erosion controls or to re-establlshlng
the old channel.

The alternates were examined and cost estimates were made for all
but the tunnel. Without total Integration Intc) another plan, the tun-
nel alternate was simply too large and too expe,nsIve to be considered
for this report. Because each alternate has different lengths, it is
not possible to make a comparison on a cost per mile basis. Total cost
of construction and iand acquisition (if appropriate) for each al-
ternate was obtained and reduced to an annual o::ost. The 1 ife of most

V 1II"i