Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Design and Cest Estimates <br />Des i gns for each a lternat i ve were <br />appraisal level cost estimates. <br />capital cost~ (expressed in constant <br /> <br />made in sufficient detail to provide <br />The major facilities and their total <br />1982 dollars) ~re shown in Table 1. <br /> <br />I I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I I <br />I <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />'I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I' <br /> <br />Operation Studies <br />'Operation s':udies were conducted for the three alternatives using the <br />historic streamflows during the 1953-79 time period. Avery and Sawmill <br />Mountain Reservoir operation studies indicated that the reservoirs would <br />have filled in all but eight of these years. However, all project demands <br />during this period would have been met. l~arner Point Reservoir would have <br />filled in an but three years of the period and also would not have had any <br />project shortages. <br /> <br />Streamflows <It several key points under project conditions were compared to <br />historic flows. Project operations would generally increase the low monthly <br />flows in stre'am reaches above Meeker. The stream flow in the reach from the <br />mouth of Sheep Creek to Piceance Creek would be reduced because of project <br />diversions fer oil shale from that reach. <br /> <br />Financing <br />Potential SOLrces of financing include a revenue bond issue, State or <br />Federal funds, private water users funds, and combinations thereof. The <br />type of financing and interest rate strongly affect the total investment <br />cost and the annual cash outflow, since the cost of operating the systems is <br />only a small percentage of the total annual cost. Table 2 shows the total <br />investment costs for each of the alternatives, which costs were illustrated <br />by assuming (WCB and revenue bond financing approaches. The CWCB approach <br />assumes that financing would be provided through the CWeB's construction <br />fund program (five percent interest rate amortized over 40 years). The <br />revenue bond financing approach assumes a revenue bond issued by a <br />tax-exempt, political subdivision of the state (12 percent interest rate <br />amortized over 30 years). Table 3 summarizes the annual costs and Table 4 <br />presents the cost of water in dollars per acre-foot of yield. The valu,O!s <br />in Tables 2, 3, and 4 are shown in constant 1982 dollars and in inflat,O!d <br />(eight percent per year) 1990 dollars to reflect the projected on-line date. <br /> <br />ES-4 <br />