Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001133 <br /> <br />another reason the reconfiguration of the pumping plant was dictated, was because of <br />ground water recovery needs. These positions seem to be inconsistent with the, facts and <br />circumstances known at the time the project cost estimate was accepted by the Bureau. <br />In addition, the decisions to change the pumping plant location, for whatever reason, was <br />never the subject of consultation with the Project participants and no assessment of the <br />potential for a change in project cost was ever performed. <br /> <br />There were also other design changes made without consultation with partners contrary to <br />the payment contracts the Bureau executed with the two participating entities. For some <br />changes limited information was shared -- for instance, for the relocation of County Road <br />211 -- but these did not, in my estimation, rise to the level of consultation. We were told <br />by the Bureau in essence, "Here is what we are doing or are going to do." More <br />importantly, no comparison of the cost difference between alternatives was ever <br />presented. The same circumstances occurred with regard to decisions on how and where <br />to relocate natural gas pipelines in the Project Area. <br /> <br />Please be assured that in the Post-July 31 st 2003 era; the Bureau has devised and <br />employed processes which specifically identify issues and changes, and sets forth a <br />process for consultation with Project supporters. My opinion is that the increases <br />reported in July 2003 should be, for the most part, characterized as CORRECTIONS TO <br />THE ESTIMATES and not as COST OVERRUNS. Effectively all of the reasons for the <br />significant increase in the project cost relate to mistakes made in the estimate that were <br />not carefully checked by the Bureau or to changes in project design that were made by <br />the Bureau after the estimates were prepared without adequately considering the cost <br />consequences. Examples to support this statement include the following: <br /> <br />. there was only a small increase in cost for the reservoir proper, essentially for <br />general inflation and for the cost of 638 process. The estimates for the reservoir <br />were generally on target. <br /> <br />. the one facet of the reservoir construction that did change was in the nature and <br />number of drop structures in Basin Creek between the reservoir and the confluence <br />with the Animas River. The original cost estimates were inadequate because they <br />included too few drop structures. <br /> <br />. by comparison, the errors in estimating costs for the pumping plant and conduit <br />were horrendous. Some of the omissions were: not including an administration <br />building; absence of pressure reduction and anti-backflow valves for the conduit (I <br />personally asked the Bureau's lead man about this in mid-2002, and was told that <br />they were planned.); insufficient diameter for the conduit to carry the planned <br />capacity of the pumps, as examples. . <br /> <br />. redesign of features after the cost estimate was prepared, such as County Road 211 <br />changed from replacement in kind just outside the high water level to replacement <br />high on the ridge with a road greatly improved in design standards; relocating the <br />pumping plant and placing deep into the bedrock; changing the gas pipelines' <br />