Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r- <br />r- <br />- <br />o <br />;"..-:J <br />:~ <br /> <br />CHAPTER II <br /> <br />DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Oneration, Maintenance, Replacement, and Enerov <br /> <br />The OM&R would decrease with the removal of the Price Ditch. Removing the <br />ditch,would not only eliminate the O&M of the 9-mile ditch but would also <br />eliminate 184 ditch headgates. Operation of the laterals under this <br />alternative would be complicated because a lateral obtaining water from the <br />East End Government Highline Canal would carry water to lands in both <br />irrigation districts. Consequently, it would be difficult to determine or <br />allocate the water to each district. <br /> <br />The annual energy consumption of the pumping plant would be around 440,000 <br />kilowatthours. This energy would by supplied by the Public Service Company <br />of Colorado or Grand Valley Rural Electric Association which primarily use <br />coal-fired power generation facilities. <br /> <br />Water Riqhts <br /> <br />In comparison to the recommended plan, water rights would be complicated <br />since water for both districts would be in the same laterals. One solution <br />would be to merge the two districts, however, this was found to be <br />unacceptable to local interests. <br /> <br />Construction Methods <br /> <br />Construction methods would be the same as in the recommended plan. <br />Disturbance in the vicinity of the Price Ditch would be reduced since <br />filling the ditch would be less disruptive than reconstruction of the <br />ditch. <br /> <br />Riahts-of-Wav <br /> <br />Rights-of-way would no longer be required for the Price Ditch. Additional <br />rights-of-way would be required for lateral realignment. <br /> <br />Summary of Alternatives <br /> <br />Cost Estimates <br /> <br />The interest rate (5 5/8 percent) used for Stage Two studies was the <br />planning rate in effect in 1974 when the Grand Valley Unit was authorized <br />for construction. Analyses were performed based on October 1990 prices, a <br />level sufficient to provide an adequate basis for evaluating alternatives. <br /> <br />The no-action alternative in this assessment is assumed to be the <br />recommended plan in the Grand Valley FEIS. Costs shown are the costs above <br />the FEIS recommended plan. The cost of the East End Government Highline <br />Canal cross drainage facilities presented in the FEIS was about $4,200,000. <br />This cost would be eliminated by the recommended plan. Table 3 presents <br />the cost-effectiveness comparisons for the alternatives that were analyzed <br />but does not include any of the changes in the East End Government Highline <br />Canal cross-drainage. <br /> <br />14 <br />