Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />4, Provide water at the least cost, considering operation and maintenance <br />in addition to capital cost. <br /> <br />Future water demands were based on population projections provided by the <br /> <br /> <br />District and Mesa County and the maximum daily per capital water use. <br /> <br />Reliability was evaluated on the basis of past interruptions to service and <br /> <br /> <br />the potential for future interruptions of a major duration, Past interruptions <br /> <br /> <br />to service have, for the most part, been due to pipeline breaks in locations <br /> <br /> <br />that were difficult to repair. Most of the breaks were caused by flooding of <br /> <br /> <br />Plateau Creek. Improving access, strengthening the pipeline, or relocation of <br /> <br /> <br />the pipeline were methods considered to increase the reliability. The 24-inch <br /> <br /> <br />pipeline itself, was determined to be in good condition with a remaining useful <br /> <br /> <br />life of at least twenty years. Few failures have been due to pipe failure. The <br /> <br /> <br />pipeline tunnel was identified as a special hazard because of the poor access <br /> <br /> <br />and extended time to repair this section in the event of a failure. The tunnel <br /> <br /> <br />section also represents a limitation to the total pipeline flow capacity due to <br /> <br /> <br />its elevation and pipe size. <br /> <br />Quality of water was evaluated by standard chemical tests. <br /> <br /> <br />will have an economic impact on the alternatives, in that higher <br /> <br /> <br />is less costly to treat. <br /> <br />Water quality <br />quality water <br /> <br />Costs were evaluated on a present worth basis. Operation and maintenance <br /> <br /> <br />costs over the twenty-year planning period were converted to present worth for <br /> <br /> <br />comparison. Inflation factors for labor and energy costs were assumed. <br /> <br />The existing pipeline between the Molina Tailrace and the Jerry Creek <br />Reservoirs was determined to be of adequate capacity and integrity to meet the <br />demands of the study period. All the alternatives, except 4-1, assumed the <br />continued use of this section of line. <br /> <br />Evaluations of the alternatives is summarized in the following table, <br />