Laserfiche WebLink
<br />authorization at this time either. A feasibility level study <br />would have to be completed for this particular plan and letters <br />of intent indicating a need for and a commitment to contract for <br />the 221,000 AF of water to be developed forthcoming before the <br />Bureau would support authorization. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />There are four general courses of action available to the <br />Board at this time: <br /> <br />1. Recommend to the Bureau that planning on the project be <br />concluded. <br /> <br />2. Seek Congressional appropriations for the Bureau to <br />conduct a feasibility level study of Dominguez Reservoir <br />as a M&I water supply facility. <br /> <br />3. Seek Congressional authorization for the construction of <br />the Dominguez Reservoir project as per the peaking power <br />plan. <br /> <br />4. Seek Congressional authorization for the construction of <br />the Dominguez Reservoir project as per the M&I water <br />supply plan. <br /> <br />The first of these alternatives would effectively terminate <br />any further consideration of the project by the Bureau. In light <br />of the favorable economics of both the peaking power and M&I <br />water supply plans and in light of continuing strong local <br />interest in the project, it would be premature to take such <br />action. <br /> <br />On the other hand, seeking Congressional authorization for <br />the project at this time would present a number of difficulties. <br />First, the Bureau, and in turn probably the Administration, would <br />oppose authorization of the peaking power plan. Likewise, the <br />Bureau would not support authorization of the M&I water supply <br />plan until a fea'sibility level study of that formulation of the <br />project was completed and letters of intent to purchase the <br />221,000 AF annual supply were received. <br /> <br />While the local project sponsors (the Mesa County <br />Commissioners) have expressed an interest in 21,000 AF of water, <br />I doubt that letters of intent would be readily forthcoming for <br />the remaining 200,000 AF. The state could express its formal <br />interest in and commitment to contract for the 200,000 AF, but I <br />do not think it advisable to do so at this time. Many questions <br />concerning front-end cost-sharing, the status of already <br />authorized agriculture projects, and the rate of future energy <br />development need to be answered first. Furthermore, the Una <br />Reservoir project, which the legislature has directed the Board <br /> <br />-3- <br />