|
<br />Plan B has a moderate amount of irrigated lands and the full fishery water by using all of the
<br />water that could potentially be available. In this plan 4,100 acres of land are served and 3,300
<br />acre. feet of fishery water is provided, Sharps Creek Reservoir is not included, The water is
<br />provided by 8,000 acre-feet from MVIC in 9 of 10 years, 3,000 acre. feet, 3,000 acre-feet from
<br />Plateau Reservoir storage of spills, and 1,000 acre. feet from Totten Reservoir; the conversion of
<br />2,000 acre-feet of Project M&I water to irrigation is not required,
<br />
<br />Plan C assumes that 6,000 acre.feet is available from MVIC every year resulting in irrigated land
<br />of 4,100 acres and 3,300 acre.feet of fishery water. The water is provided by 6,000 acre-feet
<br />from MVIC, 3,000 acre-feet from Plateau Reservoir storage of spills, and 1,000 acre. feet from
<br />Totten Reservoir.
<br />
<br />Plan D assumes that MVIC water is not available resulting in reduced irrigated land and fishery
<br />water. In this plan 1000 acres ofland are served and 1,650 acre.feet of fishery water is provided,
<br />The water is provided by 3,000 acre-feet from Plateau Reservoir storage of spills and 1,000 acre-
<br />feet from Totten Reservoir.
<br />
<br />Plan E assumes that no storage is constructed or purchased and the only water supply is 6,000
<br />acre-feet from MVIC. MVIC is insistent that none of the water from their water rights is used
<br />outside of the irrigated areas in Montezuma and Dolores Counties so the only 2,000 acres of
<br />irrigated is served in this plan, There is no water for the fishery below McPhee,
<br />
<br />Plan F is no project. There is no additional water for irrigation or the fishery,
<br />
<br />FINANCING
<br />The alternatives for WETPACK require significant funding, ranging from substantial capital
<br />investments to ongoing costs of precipitation management. Thus, an integral part of the
<br />WETPACK is an array of financing options and potential funding sources,
<br />
<br />In is anticipated that up-front funding can be provided through a combination of funds already
<br />paid to the District by BOR to mitigate construction deficiencies and for the fishery "mistake"
<br />water. Significant funding would be reauired from fishery interests if fishery water is developed,
<br />Also, development fees would be required from new irrigated lands,
<br />
<br />;:;>
<br />,
<br />
<br />~lUal funds would be derived through operation and maintenance cost savine:s resultine: from
<br />increased irrigated acreae:e, Also, reserves held by the District would earn revenue from interest.
<br />
<br />'"
<br />,
<br />
<br />CONCLUSIONS
<br />Table 7-A summarizes the critical data for Plans A, B, C, D and E,
<br />table because there is no data to present.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />Plan F is not included in the
<br />
<br />Water is developed from MVIC and new storage in Plans A, B, C, Plan D includes only water
<br />from new storage and Plan E uses water from MVIC only, In Plans A and B the MVIC provides
<br />8,000 acre-feet in 9 of 10 years, In Plans C and E MVIC provides 6,000 acre-feet every year.
<br />
<br />c:::. - ~
<br />
|