My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08556
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08556
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:48:42 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:04:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.126.A
Description
San Miguel Project
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
4
Date
1/20/1981
Title
Notification of Planning Study Termination for the San Miguel Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />N <br />N <br />C"j <br /> <br />. s.ur KIGUIL PIO.JECT. CO~ <br /> <br />Summary, Analysis of Authorizing <br />Legislation, and Description of Project <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />The San Miguel Project (see project area map on the following page) <br /> <br />was one of five projects authorized for construction by the Colorado River <br /> <br />Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (Public Law 90-537). Following <br /> <br />authorization, advance planning studies showed that sane of the potential <br /> <br />irrigable land had unacceptably high levels of salinity and was deleted <br /> <br />from the project. Also, the anticipated need for 44,000 acre-feet of <br /> <br />municipal and industrial water did not materialize during advance planning. <br /> <br />To attempt to arrive at an economically justified plan, about 100 alternatives <br /> <br />were studied, of which 23 are considered to be representative. None of the <br /> <br />plans is economically justified. Water for potential energy development has <br /> <br />been included in all but two of the 23 representative alternatives, but a firm <br /> <br />commitment for this water has not been identified. Irrigation at any scale of <br /> <br />development would not be economically justified because the irrigation benefits <br /> <br />do not exceed the separable costs for irrigation. Some proponents of the <br /> <br />proj ect have implied from Section 50l(b) of Title V of the authorizing <br /> <br />legislation that the Congress intended for the project to be constructed <br /> <br />regardless of its economic justification. However, the Associate Solicitor, <br /> <br />Energy and Resources, of the Department of the Interior takes the position <br /> <br />that the Congress' directi,e as it relates to construction of the project is <br /> <br />contingent upon appropriation of funds therefor and execution of an appropriate <br /> <br />repayment contract and is su~ject to the continuing underlying responsibility <br /> <br />on the part of the Water and Power Resources Service (Water and Power) to <br /> <br />report to the Congress any new findings it has on feasibility and any <br /> <br />recommendations it has concerning continued authorization. Water and Power is <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.