Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chapter 4 - Reallocations <br /> <br />4-9 <br /> <br />returned to each system. Major impacts of inter-basin transfer should be covered in the <br />environmental section of the reallocation report.) <br /> <br />b. Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives (Benefits). (Briefly <br />describe each of the altematives investigated as altemative sources of water. Such <br />sources could be "no action", wells, andlor a pipe line from another reservoir. This <br />documents the users altemative to reallocation of storage in the Federal reservoir and is <br />considered to be the "benefit" association with reallocation. This "benefit" value (economic <br />and environmental) should be higher than the economic and environmental cost associated <br />with reallocation. These altematives should be described in enough detail to establish a <br />price for a similar quality and quantity of water that is being received from the Federal <br />project. There may be a consultants report for this documentation, if so, summarize and <br />include the report as an appendix to the reallocation report. This paragraph should also <br />briefly mention the reallocations considered (but not the cost a:;sociated with them) and <br />should consider more than one altemative; e.g., reallocation of flood control, hydropower, <br />or sediment storage and lor raising the top of the flood control pool.) <br /> <br />4. Derivation of User Cost. (The users cost is considered to be the higher <br />of benefits or revenues foregone, replacement cost, or the updated cost of storage. These <br />items are developed in the following paragraphs. The examples provided in the following <br />paragraphs are from the "Final Integrated Storage Reallocation Report and Environmental <br />Assessment for Stockton Lake, Missouri", prepared by the Planning Division of the Kansas <br />City District, August 1993. If reallocation of hydropower storaae is contemplated. the <br />Power Branch of the U.S. Annv CO/1JS of Enaineers North Pacific Division rCENPD-PE- <br />WMJ should be contacted for assistance. An outline of the North Pacific Division report, <br />prepared for the Stockton Lake reallocation is provided as Appendix D, Part 2. ) <br /> <br />a. Hydropower Benefits Foreqone. (Hydropower benefits are based <br />on the cost of the most likely alternative source of power. When power storage is <br />reallocated to water supply, the power benefits foregone are equivalent to the cost of <br />replacing the lost power with the most likely alternative source of power. The power <br />benefrts foregone can be divided into two components: the lost energy benefits and the lost <br />capacity benefits. In the case of water supply withdrawals, there is usually a loss of energy <br />benefits, which are based on the loss in generation (both at-site and downstream) as a <br />result of water being withdrawn from the reservoir for water supply rather than passing <br />through the hydro plants. In addition, there could be a loss of capacity benefits as a result <br />of a loss in dependable capacity at the projects. Dependable capacity could be lost as a <br />result of,' (a) a loss in head due to lower post-withdrawal reservoir elevations, and/or (b) <br />a reduction in the usability of the capacity due to inadequate energy to support the full <br />capacity during low-flow periods. <br /> <br />Example. The average annual hydropower benefits foregone are <br />summarized in Table 4-4. The study is based on a maximum water <br />