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 />I <br /> <br />For the purpose of further comparison, the alternatives can be grouped by service areas: <br /> <br />Alternatives <br /> <br />Service Areas <br /> <br />1 and 4 <br />3 and 5 <br />2 and 6 <br /> <br />Norwood-Redvale <br />Lilylands-Dry Creek <br />All Areas <br /> <br />Table 3 gives the unit costs under each financing scenario and the project improved yields for <br />each of the three sets of alternatives. <br /> <br />The first two columns in Table 3 (under Norwood-Redvale) indicate that Alternative 4 is the <br />least-cost alternative for the Norwood-Redvale area. This is due to the fact that Alternative 4 <br />relies primarily upon existing facilities and sources of water as opposed to the development of <br />new sources in Alternative 1. <br /> <br />A comparison of the two Lilylands-Dry Creek alternatives in the two middle columns of the table <br />indicates that Alternative 5 (the larger Lilylands Reservoir expansion) is significantly less costly <br />than Alternative 3. This is due to the higher yields of Alternative 5 and the high fixed costs of the <br />reservoir expansion. A supplementary screening analysis of a project alternative representing a <br />variation of Alternatives 3 and 5 was performed at the request of the Lilylands Canal and <br />Reservoir Company after a preliminary review of the alternative evaluations. The screening <br />evaluation was of an intermediate size expansion of Lilylands Reservoir to 3000 af total capacity <br />and revised canal enlargements. The screening analysis resulted in significantly lower costs <br />than Alternatives 3 and 5; approximately $45 per acre-foot per year under financing Scenario B. <br /> <br />The last two columns of the table do not show a large difference between the unit costs of <br />Alternatives 2 and 6 which would serve the entire study area. The somewhat higher costs of <br />Alternative 2 are due to the development of new sources of water as opposed to a greater <br />reliance upon existing sources in Alternative 6. <br /> <br />Evaluation of San Miguel Canyon Project <br /> <br />Preliminary designs and cost estimates were prepared for a potential pumped-storage <br />hydropower project consisting of an upper reservoir, a lower reservoir, a shaft and tunnel <br />connecting the two reservoirs, and a pumping/generating plant. <br /> <br />ix <br />