Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> i � Mr. Atan Wickert <br />Mr. Gregory Timm <br />Dcxember 3, 2049 <br /> I Page 5 <br />An evaluation of the 2008 and 2009 accounting indicates the following: <br />Pro�ected Water Uses and Ausmentation Requirements <br />Total Projected totat Use = 85.7 afJy <br />Total Projected depletions = 5.58 af/y <br />Prajected Summer Depletions = 2.8 af <br />Projected Winter Depletions = 2.8 af <br />Required Winter Stora�e = 2.8 * 1.4 = 3.9 af <br />Total Vidler Water Requirernent = 2.8 + 3.9 = 6.7 af <br />� Proiected RV Park Augmentation Requirements <br />Projected RV use = 31.5 af/y <br />Projected RV depletions =l .58 afiy <br />� Projected Summer Depletions = d.53 af <br />Projected Winter Depletions = 1.d5 af <br />Projected to Storage = l.OS * 1.4 = 1.4? af <br />,� Projected Vid[er use = �.53 + 1.47 - 2.� af <br />� In addition to the above accounting projections, we a(so evatuated projected water uses <br />based upon the maximum Well Na. 6 diversions of 40 acre-feet which occarred in 2007 <br />� as reflected in the DWR diversion records. Because the Sublease agreement assigns first <br />use of the rights to Tiger Run, this maximum year may represent the total obligation <br />under the agreement. This water use was apportioned based upon the patterns af use fram <br />� the 2008 and 2009 accounting. <br />RV Park Au,gmentation Requirements far Maximum Year <br />� Maximum RV Park use = 40 af/y <br />Ma�cimum Depletians = 2.0 af/y <br />Suznmer Depletions = 0.75 af <br />� Winter Depletions = 125 af <br />Required Winter Storage = 1.25 x 1.4 - I.75 af <br />Total Vilder water needed = 0.75 + 1.75 - 2.5 af <br />� Based upon this analysis, up to 2.5 acre-feet (ZS%) of the totat of 14.0 acre-feet of Vidler <br />Rights are abligated under the Sublease Agreement to offset depletions from uses at the <br />� Tiger Run RV Resort. <br />Water Rights Vaivation <br />For the subject water rights, we have chosen to use the method of sales cocnparison to <br />� arrive at an estimate of current market value. Although we cansidered using other <br />methods, including cost to replace and income eapitalization, these methods intraduce <br />variability nat inherent in the sales comparison approach, and are sensitive to the <br />� estimation of discount interest rates that are difficult to apply with confidence to water <br />rights. <br /> I� <br />