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

The cost estimate done for this study of a 18,000 acre-foot
Lower Kendig Dam differs substantially from that done by the USBR.
Both dams provide essentially the same reservoir yet the costs are
different because of differences in the general approach to the design
and construction cost estimate.

I
I
I
I

. Although the dam quantity estimates are nearly the same
the USBR dam estimate includes 12% for unlisted items,
20% contingencies and 28% for engineering, all compounded.
The result is a net multiplier of 1.12 x 1.20 x 1.28 -
1.72.

I
I

A comparison of the two cost estimates leads to the following
conclusions:

This study uses 25% for contingencies and 15% for per"
mitting and engineering for a total multiplier of 1.40.

I
I

. The USBR estimates wer,e made during a period of rapid
inflation (1979, 1980) with great uncertainty concerning
the price of constructJ.on. Construction prices are much
more stable today.

I

. The USBR design of the outlet works is much more elaborate
than that contemplated for this study. The USBR estimate
is $5.01 million vs. $311,200 in the present study.

I
I

IV-ll

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

In conclusion the differen<:e between the two estimates (20.5
million vs. 37.8 million) can be attributed to differences in
assumptions, design philosophy and 'mcertainty concerning prices; the
difference does not imply an error in the quantity or cost estimate.

C. Dry Hollow Dam and Reservoir

1. General History

The Dry Hollow Dam and Reservoir was part of the project con-
figuration in the USBR 1982 studies (Ref. 42). The purpose of Dry
Hollow Reservoir was to store Colorado River water, which had been
pumped into the reservoir, prior to release to the Hunter Mesa and the
Cache Creek Canals which served lands to the west. The reservoir was
large, 23,400 acre-feet, and used the entire site. The dam site is a