Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />o <br />- <br />~ <br />o <br />c <br /> <br />VI. <br /> <br />BASES FOR RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />The evaluation of the four operational configurations was based on the comprehensive <br />programs outlined above. The breadth and intensity of the evaluation emphasizes the importance <br />attached to responsible decision-making by the Denver Board of Water Commissioners. To achieve <br />rational choices, the decision-making process had to be properly structured. Relevant data for <br />evaluating each configuration were weighed; and costs, water deliveries and other influencing <br />factors were identified with the criteria for evaluating the configurations. Careful consideration <br />was given to the complex hydrological, water rights and physical factors within the Study Area. <br /> <br />The decision-making process in formulating the recommendation for the pursuance of the <br />most promising configuration was based not only on the measure of economic benefits in terms <br />of dollars but also on those factors to which a monetary yardstick cannot readily be applied, i.e., <br />environmental enhancement, recreational use, operational flexibility and other factors whose <br />values may be both positive and negative. These factors were considered by employing a planning <br />decision matrix to weigh the values. This planning matrix was applied in conjunction with the <br />technical, economic and water delivery analyses of each of the four configurations. <br /> <br />The methodology applied to determine the water available to each of the four configurations <br />was described previously. Preliminary design drawings of the four configurations were prepared <br />to describe the features of the structures associated with each configuration. Preliminary <br />construction cost estimates were then developed, taking into account the geological, <br />topographical, and environmental influences. The estimates of cost and annual water delivery of <br />each configuration are shown in Table 1, following. <br /> <br />Table 1 <br /> <br />ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS, POWER COSTS AND WATER DELIVERIES <br /> <br /> Construction Average Annual Present Worth Average Annual Total Present <br />Configuration Cost Power Cost Cost of Power* Delivery Worth Cost <br /> ($ million) ($ million) ($ million I (1,000 ac-ft/yr) ($ per ac-ftl <br />Eagle-Piney 145 0 0 77 1,880 <br />Eagle-Colorado 341 7.1 112 170 2,660 <br />Piney /Eagle-Colorado 370 6.7 106 177 2.690 <br />Eagle-Piney IEagle-Colorado 395 4.7 74 183 2,560 <br /> <br />* The present worth cost of power was estimated assuming an amortization <br />period of 50 years and an interest rate of six percent. <br /> <br />The construction and power costs are based on 1973 estimates and may be updated by <br />application of the appropriate factors. <br /> <br />The Eagle-Piney configuration could deliver an average of 77,000 ac-ft of water annually. <br />By comparison, the Eagle-Piney/Eagle-Colorado configuration (basically the Eagle-Piney <br /> <br />10 <br />