Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I- <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I- <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I. <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />by construction of dams at natural lakes. Approximately 90 such reservoirs <br /> <br /> <br />with a combined capacity of about 25,000 acre-feet serve the Project area. <br /> <br />Agricultural development suffers from inadequate irrigation supplies. <br /> <br /> <br />Natural flows of streams which now supply the area are adequate during the <br /> <br /> <br />spring snowmelt for the land served but fall far short of the requirements <br /> <br /> <br />late in the irrigation season. The limited storage regulation on Grand Mesa <br /> <br /> <br />is only a small portion of the storage needed to fully meet late-season <br /> <br /> <br />requirements. Irrigation shortages have averaged about 25 percent annually. <br /> <br /> <br />The lack of water supply has seriously limited crop yields and has precluded <br /> <br /> <br />development of additional arable lands needed to improve the local economy. <br /> <br />PREVIOUS STUDIES <br /> <br />The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has performed extensive studies of the <br /> <br /> <br />Grand Mesa Project and has published two reports, the first of which was a <br /> <br /> <br />"Concluding Report" issued in 1973, and a second, entitled "Planning Report on <br /> <br /> <br />the Grand Mesa Project" issued in May 1982. The 1973 report analyzed a <br /> <br /> <br />project which included a reservoir at Electric Mountain and 43 miles of canal <br /> <br /> <br />to import water to both the Redlands Mesa and Surface Creek areas. Total cost <br /> <br /> <br />of that Project was estimated to be 77.5 million dollars. The Regional <br /> <br /> <br />Director, in his letter of transmittal on the report, did not recommend any <br /> <br /> <br />further federal action on the Project, and .studies were concluded. <br /> <br />Subsequently, at the specific urging of the local district and the State <br /> <br /> <br />Water Conservation Board, the Bureau undertook an analysis of numerous <br /> <br /> <br />alternatives to the original Proj ect. These alternatives, 22 in all, are <br /> <br /> <br />presented in the 1982 report referenced above. Some of the alternatives were <br /> <br /> <br />unacceptable to the local sponsors and were dropped. Of those remaining, none <br /> <br /> <br />could meet the current benefit-cost ratio test. The plan presented in this <br /> <br /> <br />report most closely resembles alternative 17 in the Bureau's 1982 report. <br /> <br /> <br />Their benefit-cost ratio for that plan was 0.93 to 1. It did not, however, <br /> <br /> <br />include a hydropower feature. <br /> <br />PROJECT DESCRIPTION A1~ PURPOSE <br /> <br />The Grand Mesa Project as presently designed will improve the water <br /> <br />-8- <br />