FS0025X Feasibility Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� I allowance were added to the estimated storage requirement. Since � the lacation of such a facility is unknown, its cost was estimated y using a direct cost of E1250 per af of total storage provided. This � figure is based on a review of the actual cost of recently J constructed front range storage facilities and cost estimates of proposed front range storage reservoirs of a comparable size. { o Sensitivity analyses were canducted to test the effect af water rights and instream flow considerations on the potential I attractiveness of front range water delivery projects. The Taylor � Park Project was used for these analyses because it is the only ( project under consideration which lends itself to the preliminary analysis appropriate for the present level of study. This project does not require the modeling of additional west slope reservoirs. IEqually important, this project does not require modeling of tfie physical facilities needed to collect and deliver the water to the I new west slope reservoirs. The model results obtained from the � Taylor Park Project analysis can be used to infer conclusions 4 related to the other projects. � 8.3.3. Modified Central Colorado Project As configured in this study, the Modified Central Colorado Project would lexport only uncommitted Blue Mesa Reservoir water (up to 180,000 af per year) and only to the Arkansas River basin. Delivery to the South Platte River � basin was found to be uneconomical for this project. No storage facilities in the Arkansas basin were included in this project configuration. It was � determined that, at an average annual yield of 60,000 af, the unit cost of the water is approximately E6125 per af based on a project capital cost of about � $367 million. At a yield of 150,000 af, the unit cost reduces to about a2950 per af. This project is not considered economically attractive at the lower yield, while higher yields appear to adversely impact Blue Mesa Reservoir � levels. 8-5