WSP02006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0) '.:.J m '" deliver water from Lower Kendig Reservoir while. .the Highline Ditch cannot. , . ~ 3, Storage locatIons 'such as Dry Hollow and, Mamm 'creek pro- vide very little fncrease in yield if l.ower Kendig_ is included. A medium sized Lower Kendig Reservoir would, J>e', able to, suppiy the. limited service area of these sites in most yea~s. - , 4. An extension of the Highline!Porter system to upper Hunter Mesa provides a substantial increase in project yield; however, some of this increase occurs at the expense of supplemental irrigation water for existing land. 5. Of the systems not directly .linked to the West. /livide Creek system, the East Divide Creek. Dam is the most cost ef.f.ec~i~et. followed closely by the Yank Creek Dam. The Owens Creek Dam site is less cost effective and the Beaver, Creek Dams are the most exp,ensiv,:, as compared to their yields. 6. Buzzard Creek Dam and Reservoir produces y!~ld whi~h are more expensive than Lower Kendig yields but-leas_ expensive, than other project features. A small Buzzard Creek reservoir !s ,more cost, effective than a large reservoir. A long canal to Alkali Creek is the' most cost effective way to deliver'l'ater fr9nl Buzzar.d C,ree~, Reservoir'. to the West Divide Creek basin. . 7. Scenario D-2 represents a full water supply for the area. While not completely eliminating shortages, Scen;tri,:, Ir.-;l, does, elimi- nate annual shortages in almost 55% of the years stu~ied. In 33 out of the 35 years included in the study period, ehe .annual shortage is less than the existing annual average, shortage., ,The" two sears.. in which the annual shortage was greate,r than the, e.xisting ann~al average .- shortage are years '.of extreme drought. Providing sllfficient stor!'ge to completely eliminate shortages in the project ,area would ,requi.re massive additional expenditures while yielding only marginai benefits. 'J -. The final project configurations were selected on the basis of least cost per acre-foot of yield but within, the f~ameworl!: of the general planning scenarios discussed previously. This approach produ.~. ces project configurations which ,cover a'range of costs and 8izes~, With. the exception of Scenario D, this includes, that. l11)lits mi. tl1e cost per acre-foot of yield produced by ehe, var:lous. sce11,arios., 'The' maximum costs per acre.-foot were converted, to eq.uival,ent ,_one-time. capital costs assuming 8 percent annual interest, over a 40, . y;,'ar repayment period. The limits. selected are: " 1-14