WSP02006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00 :'."J m 'v Eagle-Piney Project among others. The operation, studies suggested that there "ill be a<lditional calls on the Colorado River at Cameo due to the ,additional development. Most of the calls however, would occur during the Sl~mmer and fall when the West Dividestoral'(e features ,would be re.leasing, water, not storing it. While the West, Divide Project. storage features are junior to the Cameo water rights, virtually all Q,f the .direct, Jlow rights are senior to Cameo. For thIs reason fJ,lling of the, project reservoirs in the spring will not be a problem; in the late sp,ring, and Bummer, when the reservoirs are full and Cameo calls are beginning, project storage features would no longer be storing additional water and therefore would not be called out. There ,play be periods !:luring about one third of all Aprils when project reservoirs could not' fill because senior Cameo rights have insufficient flow. This .should ,not. significantly affect the results. of the proje,ct are,! operat'ion studies. G. Selected Alternatives Cost estimates were made for, all project fe,atures consid!!red in thts ,study. The estimates include the cap'ital cost "f construct~on of each pr"ject fel\ture as well as land costs, pennittil\g and' design costs. Some features were discarded after cost estimates were pre- pared because of the high costs relative to other features, serving 'the' same purpose. Those features which showed favorable costs and poten- tial performance were used as elements of alternative project con- figurations and examined in further studies. A summary of the important project fel\tures and their estimated, costs is presented in Table 1-2. The process of selecting alternative configurations .continued with the tabulation of costs per 8-cre-foot 9f yield, associated with each combination of project features analyzed in the operation studies. Costs for ,all of the project facilities in a given, 'com- bination were added. The total project cost was then divided by the amount of water yield. Those project configurations that produced water yields for a capital cost of $1,908.00 per acre-foot or an 'annualized value of $160.00 per acre foot were considered viable given the overall agricultoural and industrial economic~ of the region. The resulting tabulation revealed the following general conclusions: 1. The most cost e'ffective storage locat1.on on We!'t Divide Creek is Lower Kendig Reservoir. S1JlBIL reservoirs at the L9wer Kendig site are more costefrectiv,e than lllrger one,s. 2. Enlargement of the Porter Ditch Is more cost effective than enlargement of the Righline, Ditch, because the Porter "Ditch can I-i3