Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CWCB Funding <br /> <br />74 <br />167 <br /> <br />126 <br />281 <br /> <br />121 <br />287 <br /> <br />204 <br />481 <br /> <br />76 <br />187 <br /> <br />126 <br />312 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />I <br />I' <br />I <br />Ii <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />TABLE 4 <br />YELLOW JACKET I)ROJECT <br />COST OF WATER <br /> <br />(Annual Cost/Acre-Foot of Yield) <br /> <br />Funding SourcE~ <br /> <br />Avery <br />1982 1990 <br /> <br />A lternat i ves <br />Sawmill Mountain <br />1982 1990 <br /> <br />Warner Point <br />1982 1990 <br /> <br />Revenue Bond <br /> <br />lAll alternat'ives have an annual yield of 87,500 acre-feet. <br /> <br />Schedule <br />A project on-line date in early 1990 would be practical if a decision were <br />made to begin detailed studies and such studies were initiated by mid-1983. <br />The critical items on the schedule to meet this on-line date would be <br />~ederal Energy Regulatory Convnission licensing and water rights transfer <br />proceedings fDr Warner Point and water rights transfer and Army Corps of <br />Engineers' 40~ permit proceedings for Avery and Sawmill Mountain. <br /> <br />Overview <br />The YJWCO water rights, through the use of mainstem or off-channel storage, <br />can supply 87,500 acre-feet of water even in an extremely dry year. <br />Mai nstem storage also has the potent i a 1 advantage of hydropower. As shmvn <br />in Table 4, the two most favorable alternatives from a cost perspective, <br />Avery and Warner Point, have essentially the same costs with CWCB funding <br />and have about a 10 percent difference with revenue bond financing. <br /> <br />ES-8 <br />