Water Management Study: Phase 1 Report

Home Browse Search

target flows by more than 60,000 ac-ft. The selection of projects considered: 1) yield at the Critical Habitat; 2) up-front capital costs; 3) long-term operating costs; 4) legal and institutional issues (e.g. the need for new authorizing legislation, state water rights administration and water export constraints, maximum lease terms, NEPA compliance and site-specific environmental permit requirements); 5) third-party impacts; and 6) implementation schedule. Table VI-1 of the Water Action Plan presents "First Increment Unit Costs" (initial capital cost plus the present worth of first 13 years of operation) ranging from $580 -$1,070 per ac-ft of yield at the critical habitat (1999 price levels). Although the FEIS analysis arrived at estimates of water yield that, in some cases, differ from the earlier estimates, the FEIS credits this combination of thirteen "water elements" or projects with accomplishing the Program objectives based on the aggregate yield of all the Governance Committee Alternative actions (FEIS, page 3-29). Per the Governance Committee's requirements for this study, this section: 1) reviews the 13 Water Action Plan projects; and 2) identifies those projects that would likely be the most cost-effective in reducing shortfalls to the Program water delivery objectives focusing on their individual and combined ability to accomplish the 5,000 cfs and the 800 cfs flow criteria under three hydrologic conditions (Average, Wet, and Dry years) and two water administration scenarios (Cases I and II, without, and with, respectively, irrigation district bypasses of Program water). The following project descriptions are summarized from the Program Water Plan. Information from the interviews with Program participants will be used to revise project configurations and operational scenarios in Phase II. References to reach numbers correspond to those described in the Water Action Plan and the WMC Loss Model Update. 4.1 CNPPID Regulating Reservoir Nebraska indicated they are willing to consider a re-regulating reservoir(s) capable of yielding an annual average of up to 8,000 ac-ft of target flow reductions at the critical habitat, of which 4,000 to 5,500 ac-ft would be made available to the Program (Cook, 2000). The remaining portion of the yield will be retained by Nebraska to potentially offset future depletions. Up to an average of 8,000 ac-ft/yr of target flow reductions could be attained through a single re-regulating reservoir or a combination of reservoirs. The six most promising re-regulating reservoir options evaluated in the Depletion Mitigation B0WLE Page 39 of 58 January 29, 2008 PRRIP - Draft Water Management Study, Phase I