Laserfiche WebLink
<br />._, . <br /> <br />n 1)13- k <br />fiE J-In , woes <br />i~lague plans <br />. for 2 Forks <br /> <br />By Mark Obmasclk <br />De"..... I'O~1 Slat! WrIte' <br />Enry glanl ....-..tl'f prOj(>ct built <br />In Colorado In the past qu..rter.cen- <br />tur~' has run up 5ta~('rlng cost <br />O\crruns, 4i trend that raIses sen. <br />O:JS questIon:" alJOut how much con. <br />sumers "'IU {'\{'ntu311y POlY for the <br />r~opoSt'd T\I 0 rork...; v.1m. <br />~-MeLropoblan 'Waler Provlden, <br />\he 41 suburban cities and water <br />fdlstricts lhal....il.l p"y 8{l percent 01 <br />tht tab lor Two Yorks, say their.. <br />huge project on the South Platte <br />Ri\'er can ~ buill for >>10 million. " <br />f;' But 1\1,'0 f'orks opponents say~ <br />{the cost to hom~'ners :lnd other" <br />\ .......aler users likely ....-ill approach. <br />-iIJIJ billion. And 1.ht" final price lag' <br />! .~l?.r~d~~~lght_o~:r majo!,: <br />v.ater projecLS In the past 25 years <br />~hot up :l mmlnll.lm of 29 peret'nt <br />and a5 much as 7::;; percent, a Ven- <br />ver Pus: rt'\ww sho\\s. <br />'"We thu~k Two Forks IS (m;..mcial <br />SUICld('," saId Van Luecke or the <br />En\"lrOnmenlal ()er('nse Fund. <br />'":-';on(> of th{'se go\'('rnments has <br />eWf takt'n on a prOjl'l'( any....here <br />n{'ar lIus magnitude before. And <br />experience shows that the bigger <br />the proJect, the bIgger the cost <br />overruns, ., <br />The (1Jfference between support- <br />ers' and delractors' estlmales 01 <br />Two Forks' cost is f760 million _ <br />enouJ.::h to pay for the combmed <br />Clt)" budgets of "urora, Boulder. <br />Colorado 5pnngs, Engle.....ood. Fort <br />CollinS. Grand Juncllon. GrN>ley. <br />Lakewood, Llltleton. Pueblo. <br />:\orthgleM and Westmmster. <br />That Ii:? percent pnce gap 15 <br />compar.able to tht' big cost In. <br />creases suffered b~' the state's oth. <br />t'r gIant .....ater projt."cts smct' 1963. <br />,\I the $440 million cost. ever)" <br />.euo Denver reS1dence scht'duled <br />receu'e Two forks .....ater .....ould <br />.)" a maximum of 1I0 3 year for <br />the next 30 vears. saId nob <br />.\lcW/'Unrue. head of the ~1t'~r(lpolJ. <br />tan \\alef Pronders. .\n\' 7.....0 <br />Forks overrun would b(' pas~{'d <br />along 10 those local reSidents. <br />~ltWhJr.me's .croup bellen's 1\\'0 <br />Fork.o;' co," lA'ill be kept und('r con. <br /> <br />- ~ "I'm pretty confident we can do <br />il ror that pflce," he said. "We <br />can't afford lo let these overruns <br />happen, I'm conhdent ....e.lI be able <br />to manage lhe construclJon costs <br />m a \'er\' ('fflclent manner." <br />H 'J"lA~o }'orks lS bullt ....llhout any <br />h('fty pnce lncrC'ase-s. it would be <br />the first big Colorado .....ater proJ- <br />ect to do so In 25 )'ears........; . '..' <br />COnsider: .' ,., '. <br /> <br />liThe U.S, Bureau of Reclama- <br />tion told Congress In 1970 the Do- <br />lores RI\'er I>roJect In southwest- ' <br />ern Colorado .....ould cost $5-1.4 ~ <br />million, Today the pnce estimate <br />is $-ISO.5 million - a 728 percC'nl tn. <br />crease - and completIon still IS <br />eight years a....ay. <br />. ChaHleJd Dam and HeSE'f\-'Olr. <br />the U.S. Army Corps of Enpnecrs <br />pr:oJt'ct buill after Ihe disastrous <br />South Plalle RI\'er flood or 196j, <br />oflj;:lnally was estimated to cost l;~ <br />mIllion. Taxpayers ultJmalely <br />spent S?a millIOn. That 29 p<'rcenl <br />mcrea.<;e was the smallest lor any <br />major Colorado project since 1%3. <br />. Denver offICials won appro\'al <br />ror a 1973 water.project re(eren. <br />dum after telling \'olers the Foot- <br />hills Water Treatment Plant would <br />cost S70.2 million. OeO\'er water <br />customers ended up paying S1911 <br />million lor the facility completed In <br />1983. <br />-The foolhlUs examplf> Is note- <br />worthy because It .....as built by the <br />same ~o\"('rnment agency. the <br />Den\'er WOller Board, that hopes to <br />bUIld Two Forks. Foothills and <br />'J"lA'o Forks sharp <;f'veraJ stnkrng <br />slmllanues. <br /> <br />Higher waler bllls-' - "- <br /> <br />Foothills is the only project the <br />waler board has buill In recent <br />years lh.1t approachl>d the estlmat. <br />cd cost of Two Forks. Both proj. <br />ecL..; ran l:ltO slgruflcanl roadblocks <br />\\.hlll\ IrYln~ to wm opjifo\'al from <br />(edNal a~:('ncles. and both fac('d <br />slmlent Opposlllon from em'lron. <br />mentallsL..; and \\ est(>rn Slope wa. <br />ter us{'rs <br /> <br />')n the c.i!.se 01 Footh1lls. Uenver <br />waIN l'ustumers l'ndl'd up fuollnh <br />11Il.' cost of the hu.ce pOCt' mcreaSl' <br />through h.Jj::h{'r wat!'r bills. <br />Denv!'r Water Hoard spok('sman <br />'l':.cl H.uet? saId the .'uothllls exam. <br />pIe was uruque Dt'cauSl' the project <br />was the subject of long la.....sulL<; by <br />cm'lronmental groups. "It was lilt.' <br />delay. tht. )ears of bugauon. tnat <br />ht'ld up Ihe project durUlg a lime or <br />doublr.(1lgllmflaUon," he said, <br />11(' concedrd that a1 Il'ast one <br />ennronmental group. the NalJOnal <br />.WJldhrc .'('derauon, has threaten. <br />t't1 to takt.' the 'J"lAo Forks ba\Ue in. <br />10" court. Tllat could subject Tv.'o <br />Forks lo the same pressures lor <br />cost'lncreases that affhctN Foot. <br />hills, he said. <br />Comparison fair? <br />. ~ Both Ruetz and McWhmnie ar- <br />'~ed that It IS unfair to compare <br />"T1olo-o Forks With Slmilar.Slzed fed. <br />eral .....ater pro)('cl.S. Federal agen. <br />'cles they said, are far less efh. <br />cle~t builders than local <br />~o\'ernmenLS. <br />The U.S, Rureau of Reclama- <br />:Uon. for cxamplt.'. miL'>t appeal to <br />::Congr('ss each )'ear for money. a <br />.process lhat lends to strl'tch out <br />:'tl1c time needed to complete a <br />::proJect, thev said. Local govern- <br />.ments. such' as the Dem'er Waler <br />iBoard, also do not have to wade <br />'through. as much bur('3ucrallc red <br />.1.;Jpc. <br />1 "Comparing f{'drral projects <br />)wilh local projt'cls is apples and or. <br />::anges," McWhinme saId. <br />.: ~pokesmen ror the Bureau of <br />.: R;clamauon and U.S. Army Corps <br />,: or Eng1nt'ers blame thelT proJects' <br />.: pnce Increases on the Sleep mna. <br />:'lJon 01 the 19705, Some pntt's alo;o <br />';rose after the bureau changl"d <br />.: plans and made slgnilicanl add.. <br />:' Uons to projects. such as big hy- <br />,'droelectncal plants. <br />~ Two Forks opponents note that <br />;j local governments have never at- <br />~ tempt(.d a water project as large <br />1 as 1.....0 J-'orks. <br />~ In 1963. Lhc Denvl'r Water Board <br />"compltted Dillon Dam and Reser- <br />I, \'olr. about a fourth as t1ig as ,.......0 <br />. }'orits. for $19.5 millIon. Ruetz said, <br /> <br />That price was only slightly higher <br />than ongmal pnce esl1mates, <br />,\Ithough the first shovel has )'et <br />to be turned on the proJect. Tw'o <br />Forks already has had a big cost <br />Increase. The enVIronmental Im- <br />pact statement. requIred by the <br />I{>deral government to predict wlJ. <br />drmr$.'i dama~rs from the proJect, <br />onpnally was expected lo cost 112 <br />mllllOll but f1nallv cost S30 million <br />- a 150 IX'rcent uicrease. <br />The o\'{'rall Two Forks' p:ice al- <br />so h;,:s flscn dramatically o\'er the <br />years. <br />