Laserfiche WebLink
<br />on Denver's Applications, must clearly recognize the in- <br />adequacies of those suggested alternatives and reject them <br />all in favor of the proposal. <br /> <br />To be truly viable alternatives, they must be able to <br />adequately perform the same utility functions as the struc- <br />tures which are proposed in a manner, and at a cost, as <br />mandated by the Charter of the City and County of Denver to <br />be no more than required for water rates, ". . . as low as <br />good service will permit." (Denver city Charter, S C4.22). <br /> <br />The utility functions which the suggested alternatives <br />must serve as well as the proposal include: <br /> <br />1. Storage capacity for river regulation for plant <br />operation to conserve water and prevent waste from <br />fluctuating river flows; <br /> <br />2. Storage capacity adequate to assure reasonable <br />pre-treatment sediment deposition; <br /> <br />3. Storage capacity to permit long-term sediment <br />control not only at the Strontia site but downstream at <br />the Conduit No. 20 intake as well: <br /> <br />4. Storage capacity to hold two days of emergency <br />supply available for use in case of temporary upstream <br />delivery failure; <br /> <br />5. Storage capacity sufficiently large to accommodate <br />the frazil and other ice-flow conditions so that ice <br />free water can be delivered to the treatment plant: <br /> <br />6. A dam spillway system that is reliable and capable <br />of safely passing suddenly occurring design floods <br />without requiring special operating procedures asso- <br />ciated with mechanical operation of gates; <br /> <br />7. A tunnel or conduit delivery system which can <br />safely and quickly deliver a wide range of varying <br />flows to the filter plant to meet fluctuations in <br />demand for treated water; <br /> <br />8. A system compatible with both Denver's and Aurora's <br />water systems requirements. <br /> <br />Not only will the suggested structural alternatives not <br />fulfill those requirements, but they each have very signifi- <br />cant construction or operational problems which the proposal <br />does not have; moreover, when measured by means of sound, <br />economic techniques and principles which are in general use <br />in the utility industry for evaluating alternative invest- <br />ment choices, the relative present worth costs of producing <br />filtered water would clearly make the rejection of the <br /> <br />-6- <br />