Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1835 <br /> <br />H I~ <br /> <br />7.7 Ooorating Size of the Water Bank <br /> <br />Certain differences in operations can be anticipated as la function of the size of the annual water <br />bank deliveries. Based on initial data generated for the example of the 5,000 af renter requirement, <br />a smaller water bank operation should present no unique problems, even in dry years. Start-up <br />storage requirements would be minimal; storage losses and transit losses might make the water bank <br />operation less efficient, lowering cost-effectiveness. Additionally, due to the decreased number of <br />participating shares, a small water bank would have j less flexibility to meet contingencies. A <br />comparison of water banks by size for one operating y~ar is presented in Table 7.6. <br /> <br />Operations of a 20,000 af renter requirement water ~ank would be more complex due to the <br />probable increase in number of renters. Accounting! for FLCC headgate changes and storage <br />releases to multiple delivery locations on the river would require significant effort in engineering and <br />accounting of yield, delivery, and return flow obligations, as well as coordination of participating <br />officials and agencies. Also, the increase in the number <j>f participating shares can significantly affect <br />the FLCC operations at the headgate and within the system. The storage space required to store <br />reservoir releases might increase along with its associ~ted cost. <br />I <br />Referring to Table 7.6, in simple terms, operation of a 20,000 afwater bank over a series of average <br />years must use up to about 35% of the FL divisions to cycle water from the headgate to Adobe <br />Creek Reservoir to Pueblo Reservoir on an operating year. Using less would not set aside enough <br />of the participants' yield in storage; storage would then .be depleted by required deliveries (including <br />return flows) and evaporation. Due to the FLCC's dmynstream location and summer conditions on <br />the river, a 20,000 afwater bank may not be complet~ly feasible. However, operating history of a <br />small water bank might support such an expansion. ! <br />, <br /> <br />7.8 Financial Analysis <br /> <br />This analysis attempts to estimate the start-up costs of!a 5,000 af renter requirement water bank and <br />to project the annual income and expenses of the water bank in future years. Pro forma annual <br />income and expense statements are presented in Tables 7.7 through 7.11 to show the annual profit <br />or loss of the water bank during the start-up year and during typical years that follow through a <br />, <br />hypothetical20-year period. The period includes drY years (about one year in ten) and wet years <br />in which the water bank's reservoir storage would be !forced out by higher priority storage and lost <br />(also about one year in ten). <br /> <br />These financial analyses are based upon operations or the water bank, described in Section 7.5, and <br />depend on assumptions stated below. The assumptioF are believed to be reasonable. Any changes <br />made in these assumptions would cause sequential 'lhanges in the pro forma income and expense <br />statements that follow. I <br /> <br />i <br />7-3d <br />