WSP03821 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Oll1865 VI. BASES FOR RECOMMENDATION The evaluation of the four operational configurations was based on the comprehensive programs outlined above, The breadth and intensity of the evaluation emphasizes the importance attached to responsible decision-making by the Denver Board of Water Commissioners, To achieve rational choices, the decision-making process had to be properly structured, Relevant data for evaluating each configuration were weighed; and costs, water deliveries and other influencing factors were identified with the criteria for evaluating the configurations, Careful consideration was given to the complex hydrological, water rights and physical factors within the Study Area, The decision-making process in formulating the recommendation for the pursuance of the most promising configuration was based not only on the measure of economic benefits in terms of dollars but also on those factors to which a monetary yardstick cannot readily be applied, i,e" environmental enhancement, recreational use, operational flexibility and other factors whose values may be both positive and negative, These factors were considered by employing a planning decision matrix to weigh the values, This planning matrix was applied in conjunction with the technical, economic and water delivery analyses of each of the four configurations, The methodology applied to determine the water available to each of the four configurations was described previously, Preliminary design drawings of the four configurations were prepared to describe the features of the structures associated with each configuration, Preliminary construction cost estimates were then developed, taking into account the geological, topographical, and environmental influences, The estimates of cost and annual water delivery of each configuration are shown in Table 1, following, Table 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS, POWER COSTS AND WATER DELIVERIES Construction Average Annual Present Worth Average Annual Total Present Configuration Cost Power Cost Cost of Power" Delivery Worth Cost ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) (1,000 ac-ft/vr) ($ per ac-ftl Eagle-Pinev 145 0 0 77 1,880 Eagle-Colorado 341 7.1 112 170 2,660 tV/Eagle-COloradO 370 6,7 106 177 2,690 Eag le- Pi nev IEagl e-Co lorado 395 4,7 74 183 2,560 . The present worth cost of power was estimated assuming an amortization period of 50 years and an interest rate of six percent. The construction and power costs are based on 1973 estimates and may be updated by application of the appropriate factors, The Eagle-Piney configuration could deliver an average of 77,000 ac-ft of water annually, By comparison, the Eagle-Piney/Eagle-Colorado configuration (basically the Eagle-Piney 10