WSPC03491

• File Number: 8220.106.O
• Description: Colorado River Water Projects - Animas La Plata - Project Funding
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 11/1/2003
• Author: DOI-BOR
• Title: Animas La Plata Project - Construction Cost Estimates - Report to the Secretary - November 2003
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

,>

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,

II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

01)1215

c) The power infrastructure and supply for the Project is being developed by
the Western Area Power Administration (Western). Currently, Western is
seeking legislation to design aitil construct the necessary features for the
project. However, neither the 2000 FSEIS nor the 2003 PCE includes the
cost of this work, estimated to be in the $10 million range. Should
Western not get the legislation or be delayed, the project could be
impacted. ..

V. Conclusion

While there is no single reason why the construction cost estimate for the Project
increased from $337.9 million in 1999 to $500 million in 2003, omissions and
under-estimates in the 1999 PCE presented in the Feasibility Design and Cost
Estimate for the Animas-La Plata Project (Appendix E) significantly contributed
to the increase. While the 1999 estimate was developed for Reclamation by the
Ute Mountain Utb Tribe, the Tribe relied heavily on the accuracy and
completeness of information developed by"Reclamation between 1993 and 1996
for a somewhat different Animas-La Plata Project.

To a large degree the incomplete and inaccurate 1999 project cost estimate can be
traced to a decade of turmoil surrounding this project. Whether the Project would
ever be built and, if so, what components and what size those components would
be, was always uncertain. From 1988 when the Colorado Ute Settlement Act was
enacted, approving the construction of a much larger Project until completion of
the Record of Decision on the FSEIS in September 2000, the local, regional, and
national focus on the Project was on addressing Endangered Species Act and
Clean Water Act compliance issues. As a result, the quality of the construction
cost data utilized in Appendix E was poor and failed to capture accurately the
probable costs of the features, except for Ridges Basin Dam. The situation was
further compounded by lack of a rigorous review of that 1999 estimate by
Reclamation prior to including it as a feasibility estimate in Appendix E of the
2000 FSEIS. In addition, had Reclamation made a decision in early 2001 to
further refine the 1999 Project cost estimate, there would have a better chance to
identify and address potential cost increases much sooner in the process.

Another significant cause for the cost increases is due to additional costs relating
to completion of final design and decisions made on Project features or their
components since the Project was authorized for construction in December 2000.
The largest increases in the cost estimate were from: 1) the additional excavation
requirements for two components of the Ridges Basin Dam (gas pipelines and
County Road 211), and 2) the actual site conditions at the Durango Pumping
Plant, (the presence of mostly bedrock rather than common soil materials and
construction support requirements). In both cases, these requirements were
identified after completion ofthe 1999 PCE when decisions were made by
Reclamation about relocations and when the design process had advanced

15