PROJ00259

• Contract/PO #: C153424
• Contractor Name: Colorado River Water Conservation District
• Water District: 0
• Bill Number: XB 99-999
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I

I

I

I

The operation studies suggested that there will be additional
calls on the Colorado River at Cameo due to the additional
development. Most of the calls however, would occur during the summer
and fall when the West Divide storage features would be releasing
water, not storing it. While the West Divide Project storage features
are junior to the Cameo water rights, virtually all of the direct flow
rights are senior to Cameo. For this reason filling of the project
reservoirs in the spring will not be a problem; in the late spring and
summer, when the reservoirs are full and Cameo calls are beginning.
project storage features would no longer be storing additional water
and therefore would not be called out. There may be periods during
about one third of all Aprils when project reservoirs could not fill
because senior Cameo rights have insufficient flow. This should not
significantly affect the results of the project area operation
studies.

I

I

I

I

G. Selected Alternatives

I

Cost estimates were made for all project features considered in
this study. The estimates include the capital cost of construction of
each project feature as well as land costs, permitting and design
costs. Some features were discarded after cost estimates were pre-
pared because of the high costs relative to other features serving the
same purpose. Those features which showed favorable costs and poten-
tial performance were used as elements of alternative project con-
figurations and examined in further studies. A summary of the
important project features and their estimated costs is presented in
Table 1-2.

I

I

I

The process of selecting alternative configurations continued
with the tabulation of costs per acre-foot of yield associated with
each combination of project features analyzed in the operation
studies. Costs for all of the project facilities in a given com-
bination were added. The total project cost was then divided by the
amount of water yield. The resulting tabulation revealed the
following general conclusions:

I

I

I

1. The most cost effective storage location on West Divide
Creek is Lower Kendig Reservoir. Small reservoirs at the Lower Kendig
site are more cost effective than larger ones.

I

2. Enlargement of the Porter Ditch is more cost effective
than enlargement of the Highline Ditch, because the Porter Ditch can
deliver water from Lower Kendig Reservoir by gravity while the
Highline Ditch cannot.

I
I

3. Storage locations such as Dry Hollow and Mamm Creek pro-
vide very little increase in yield if Lower Kendig is included. A

1-13

I