PROJ00454 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

16 Feasibility Report for Dam Safety Modifications to DeWeese Dam April 22, 1997 Handrails Similar to the crest replacement alternative, handrails should be installed on the upstream and downstream sides of the crest as shown on Figure 6 to provide a substantial improvement in overall crest access safety at the dam, 3.5 ALTERNATIVE NO.3 - NO ACTION In Alternative No.3, no action would be taken to resolve the identified dam safety deficiencies at DeWeese Dam, In this alternative, the condition of the existing crest section would continue to deteriorate and the existing sliding stability issues would remain, Because this alternative does not involve physical modification of the dam structure, it has no capital project costs associated with its implementation, The "cost" of this alternative lies in its potential consequences, Our discussions with representatives of the Colorado SEO indicate that inaction by the Company to adequately resolve the identified dam safety deficiencies will result in increasingly severe storage restrictions on the reservoir. These restrictions would be expected to eventually result in the elimination of any effective storage capacity in the reservoir. Colorado statutes empower the SEO to not only impose such restrictions, but to enforce them by such means as are necessary, The diversion records presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5 demonstrate the importance of reservoir storage to the effective operation of the Company in providing reliable water supplies to shareholders, In the years since 1979 for which complete records are available, it can be seen that the storage in DeWeese Reservoir typically provides at least 30 percent, and as much as 50 percent, of the annual irrigation diversions made by the Company, In an "average" year, reservoir storage provides about 40 percent of the annual irrigation diversions. The elimination of the storage capacity in DeWeese Reservoir, through likely reservoir restrictions resulting from the no action alternative, are expected to have a serious impact on the Company's ability to provide a consistent and reliable irrigation water supply to its shareholders. The cost of this alternative could be viewed as the market value of the available irrigation water "lost" as the result of the Company's inability to store in the reservoir. As stated previously, reservoir storage typically accounts for about 40 percent of the total water diverted through the head gates on Grape Creek, or about 2480 af per year (Table 5). We have not performed a market appraisal of the Company's water rights; however, if we assume a capital cost of$500 per af for irrigation water in southeast Colorado, the reservoir storage would have a value of about $1.2 million, 'm GEl Consultants, Inc, .96006\REPORT5\FEAS\TEXT,NEW I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I