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 />00l~~~ <br /> <br />institutional, and economic considerations. Only general economic <br />considerations are within the scope of this study. The updated <br />designs and cost estimates were based on the new geotechnical and <br />topographic data acquired during the investigation. This <br />information allows the dams to be ranked and compared according to <br />estimated cost for the range of storage capacities. Tables E3, E4 <br />and E5 summarize and compare the estimated costs for each project at <br />reservoir capacities of 50,000, 150,000 and 300,000 acre-feet. <br /> <br /> TABLE E3 <br /> COST COMPARISON: 50;000 ACRE-FEET RESERVOIR <br /> Percent Increase <br />Dam Dam Total Cost Above Least Cost Cost/Acre-Foot <br />Locati on Type (Million $) Alternative ($) <br />WARNER POINT (RCC) $23.5 0 $469 <br />CANYON (Emb) $27.7 18 $553 <br />CANYON (RCC) $31.1 33 $622 <br />WARNER POINT (Emb) $31. 4 34 $628 <br />POWELL PARK (Emb) $32.1 37 $641 <br />CHOKE CHERRY (Emb) $34.4 46 $687 <br />VEATCH GULCH (RCC) $35.2 50 $704 <br /> <br />E-14 <br />