Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />records and water rights information were also collected as part of <br />the initial phase of the study. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Potential water storage sites were established by a review of the <br />mapping and existing studies. An on-site geological reconnaissance <br />investigation was performed for each of these sites. Area-capacity <br />curves, dam layouts, spillway layouts, quantity estimates and, <br />finally, cost estimates were done for three reservoir sizes at each of <br />the 12 sites. Cost estimates were also prepared for various canal <br />enlargements, and extensions. These dams, reservoir and conveyance <br />systems were then used as building blocks to define various alter- <br />native project configurations. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The operation of potential project configurations was simulated <br />using a computer program which provided an estimate of the shortage of <br />irrigation water in the service area. The effectiveness of various <br />project configurations was examined by comparison of the shortages. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The costs for various project configurations were combined with <br />the shortage reductions (yields) to examine the cost effectiveness of <br />various combinations of reservoir sizes and canal configurations. <br />From these results certain project configurations were selected. <br />These are presented as the results of this report, along wi th the <br />assumptions used in their development. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Throughout the duration of this study Hydro-Triad, Ltd. has con- <br />ferred with the CRWCD and the CWCB through status meetings and monthly <br /> <br />reports. Major assumptions used in the study were made jointly. The <br />WDWCD was provided the opportunity to participate during several <br />public meetings. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />This report presents, not one, but several project configurations <br />which are different because of the different assumptions made in their <br />development. These assumptions are general in nature, and reflect <br />varying levels of future development as well as a range of values of <br />agricultural water. The final selection of a single project con- <br />figuration is beyond the scope of this study. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />II-3 <br /> <br />I <br />