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

medium sized Lower Kendig Reservoir would be able to supply the
limited service area of these sites in most years.

I

4. An extension of the Highline/Porter system to upper
Hunter Mesa provides a substantial increase in project yield; however,
some of this increase occurs at the expense of supplemental irrigation
water for existing l.md.

I

I

5. Of the systems not directly linked to the West Divide
Creek system, the East Divide Creek Dam is the most cost effective,
followed closely by the Yank Creek Dam. The Owens Creek Dam site is
less cost effective and the Beaver Creek Dams are the most expensive
as compared to their yields.

I

6. Buzzard Creek Dam and Reservoir produces yield which are
more expensive than Lower Kendig yields but less expensive than other
project features. A small Buzzard Creek reservoir is more cost
effective than a large reservoir. A long canal to Alkali Creek is the
most cost effective way to deliver water from Buzzard Creek Reservoir
to the West Divide Creek basin.

I

I

I

7. Scenario D-2 represents a full water supply for the area.
While not completely eliminating shortages. Scenario 0-2 does elimi-
nate annual shortages in almost 55% of the years studied. In 33 out
of the 35 years included in the study period, the annual shortage is
less than the existing annual average shortage. The two years in
which the annual shortage was greater than the existing annual average
shortage are years of extreme drought. Providing sufficient storage
to completely eliminate shortages in the project area would require
massive additional expenditures while yielding only marginal benefits.

I

I

The final project configurations were selected on the basis of
least cost per acre-foot of yield but wi thin the framework of the
general planning scenarios discussed previously. This approach produ-
ces project configurations which cover a range of costs and sizes.
With the exception of Scenario D, this includes that limits on the
cost per acre-foot of yield produced by the various scenarios. The
maximum costs per acre-foot were converted to equivalent one-time
capital costs assuming 8 percent annual interest over a 40 year
repayment period. The limits selected are:

I

I

I

I

I

1-14

I
I
I