Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4p41 <br /> <br />.RUEDI DAM AND RESERVOIR, COLO. <br /> <br />Planning for this future municipal and industrial demand resulted <br />in the consideration of six reservoir sites as alternates to the Ruedi <br />site, all of which are located so that the available water sUI'I?ly could <br />be used by the oil shale industry and resulting munieipnJlt"es. The <br />sites consIdered were Hot Springs, Osgood, and Plaeita sites on the <br />Crystal River above Carbondale: Rio Blanco on the South Fork of <br />the White River above Glenwoon Springs; the Iron Mountain site on <br />Homestake Creek in the Eagle Ri vel' Basin; and the Bear 1Vallow site <br />on Canyon Creek. <br />The proposed rescrvoirs were first investigated on the basis of the <br />water available for storage, since the basic requirement was that the <br />reservoir must have an annual yicld equivalent t.o that of Rued.i <br />Reservoir. The Iron .Mountain Reservoir and the Bear Wallow Res- <br />ervoir could not meet these. limitations and were rejected. <br />In order to insure the validity of the GOmparative cost data for the <br />remaining fOlll' reservoirs, the construction cost of each was computed <br />on t.he basis of single-purpose municipal and industrial water, with 110 <br />consideration being given to power and irrigation benefits. In esti- <br />mating the eosts, proeedures similar to those nsed by the Bureau of <br />Reclamation in making reconnaissance studies were followed in each <br />ease. The unit eosts were arrived at. on the basis of the best informa- <br />tion available from reconnaissance surveys, and, in addition, 20 per~ <br />eent was added for contingencies and 25 percent was added for engi- <br />neering and overhead expense. The sums of all the eosts for various <br />capacities were t),en plotted as shown on the accompanying graph of <br />cost versus capaCIty. <br />