WSP08473 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(X'l C!:l ~ would provide a municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply of 21,000 AF per year, while the M&I plan would develop a M&I water supply of 221,000 AF per year. The environmental quality plan would develop no new water supplies. C;;., The attached "Summary Sheet" and table labeled "Statistical Comparison of Candidate plans" summarize the major features of the alternative plans. The five tables fOllowing that summarize the estimated economic, environmental, and social effects (both beneficial and adverse) which each of the plans would have if implemented. Summary of Bureau Conclusions When the Bureau initiated the Dominguez Reservoir feasibility study in 1975, it was anticipated that the project would be primarily a hydro-electric power facility (peaking power and run of the river) with a small annual M&I water supply. As the primary alternative, the peaking power plan has been studied at a feasibility level of detail, while the other three candidate plans have been studied to a lesser degree (an appraisal level of detail) . The emphasis on the peaking power plan was premised on projections made at the time the feasibility study was initiated. These projections indicated that there would be a demand in the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) marketing area for the peaking power that could be generated by the Dominguez Reservoir project. However, more recent studies conducted by the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) indicate that the projected need for peaking power has declined in recent years due to conservation measures, changes in rate structures by power companies, and load leveling (primarily by industrial customers). As a consequence of the decline in the projected demand for peaking power, the Bureau decided to conduct a study of its priorities for peaking power project investigations. This study, completed in mid-1981, indicated that there are several Bureau projects "which could provide peaking power at less cost per kilowatthour than the Dominguez Project and one which could be on line at an earlier date" (Draft Feasibility Report, p. 24). The Bureau therefore concluded that it would not be able to recommend the peaking power alternative for construction. When the Bureau came to this conclusion this past summer, the feasibility study was expanded to include the M&I water supply plan in recognition of the potential demands of the energy industry, especially oil shale, in western Colorado. While Dominguez Reservoir could directly deliver water only to the Grand Junction area, water could be made available by exchange up the Gunnison River and up the mainstem of the Colorado River. Despite the favorable economics of the M&I water supply plan, the Bureau has advised that it cannot support this plan for -2-