PROJ00032

• Contract/PO #: C153465
• Contractor Name: City of Cortez and Dolores Water Conservancy District
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 71
• County: Dolores
• Bill Number: HB 83-1102
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

5-3

Company's property and approximately 2,600 feet of easement which was
improperly described for the parcel of land just north of State
Highway 145. The easement required is approximately 3.6 acres.

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 begins at the Dolores Turnout and
follows the same path as Alternative 1 to the existing raw water
pipeline intake structure. From that point, the pipeline heads
southeast across open farm and grazing land to State Highway 145.
The pipeline then parallels the west side of Highway 145 within
public right-of-way to the existing highway crossing, utilizes the
existing highway crossing, and then parallels the existing pipeline
alignment to the water treatment plant. Alternative 2 requires new
easements on the Montezuma Water Company's property and an easement
between the existing intake structure and State Highway 145
(approximately 5.5 acres).

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 begins at the Dolores Turnout and
follows the same path as Alternative 2 to the existing highway
crossing. At that point, the pipeline parallelS the west side of
Highway 145 within public right-of-way southward to Lakeview Road.
From that point, the pipeline heads east under Highway 145 along the
south side of Lakeview Road within public right-of-way to the
existing pipeline alignment, then south to the water treatment
plant. The new easements required for Alternative 3 are the same as
required in Alternative 2 (5.5 acres).

Evaluation of Alternatives

This evaluation of alternative pipeline alignments presents data
summaries and costs associated with each alignment, and discusses the
relative merits of each alternative.

In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors
influencing the desirability of a particular route, summaries of the
advantages and disadvantages have been prepared for each route and
are presented in Table 5-1. Information contained in this table has
been weighed against the evaluation criteria discussed earlier.

As an aid in the evaluation of the alternatives, a vertical
profile of each alignment was prepared. The profiles of each
alignment are shown on Figures 5-2 through 5-4. Information obtained
from the profiles includes pipeline length, number of required
appurtenances, and information on terrain for the difficulty of
construction.

Cost Estimates.

Construction cost estimates for each major component of the three
alternatives were estimated, and the results are presented in Tables
5-2 through 5-4 and summarized in Table 5-5. The cost estimates

BROWN AND CALDWELL C

CONSULTING ENGINEERS