Laserfiche WebLink
<br />proposal in favor of any of the suggested alternatives an <br />irrational and unreasonable choice. For comparison pur- <br />poses, the costs per thousand gallons of treated water pro- <br />jected for the proposal and for the suggested alternatives, <br />derived from realistic construction and operating cost <br />estimates and analyzed on correct and accepted utility <br />present value cost principles are set forth in the following <br />table. <br /> <br />COST PER THOUSAND GALLONS OF TREATED WATER <br /> <br />TO USE FOOTHILLS PROJECT FEATURES <br />AT 125 MGO <br />--- <br /> <br />AT 500 HGD <br />--- <br /> <br />RAMPART (SHERMAN) <br />(See Exhibit 1.) <br /> <br />$.0516 <br />$.0695 <br />$.1235 <br />$ .1166 <br /> <br />$.0272 <br />$.0356 <br />$.0518 <br />$.0366 <br /> <br />PROPOSAL <br /> <br />LOW DAM <br />-- <br /> <br />UPSTREAM <br /> <br />Utility industry decision-makers look at three principal <br />factors in analyzing alternative plant investment choices; <br />construction feasibility, functional utility and costs. <br />These factors are inter-related and an incorrect evaluation <br />of one may seriously distort a conclusion about another. <br /> <br />We find that a number of such incorrect evaluations <br />were made by the United States Bureau of Reclamations in its <br />February 28, 1978 submittal to the Bureau of Land Management <br />entitled "Cost Estimates For Comparison of Alternatives, <br />Program Decision Option Document (PDOD), Foothills Project." <br />As a result, conclusions concerning operating and engineer- <br />ing feasibility which are implicit in that Document are not <br />valid; it follows that the cost estimates in that Document <br />and their interpretation by the Bureau of Land Management in <br />its "Present Value Cost Comparison" sheet are equally <br />invalid. <br /> <br />Since many of the suggested alternatives share common <br />structural features, our analysis, rather than repeating a <br />discussion of the same problems for each,will address the <br />common features themselves. ' <br /> <br />USE OF AURORA RAMPART TUNNEL NO. 2 <br /> <br />On January 11, 1978, the Bureau of Land Management was <br />directed to consider an alternative suggested by Mr. Harris Sherman <br />of the Department of Natural Resources of the State of <br />Colorado which contemplated that Conduit No. 26 (the pressurized <br /> <br />-7- <br />