Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />'I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />The capital cost for the San Miguel Canyon pumped-storage hydropower project is estimated at <br />$140,2 million for 170 megawatts of installed capacity. Preliminary financial analyses indicate <br />that the project appears to be feasible and capable of producing net positive revenues. <br />Additional irrigation water could also be supplied to a portion of the Norwood-Redvale area <br />from this optional feature, <br /> <br />Institutional Considerations <br /> <br />The existing institutional arrangements for water management in the study area as well as <br />possible alternatives to the existing situation have been considered in this study. Some degree <br />of consolidation might be desirable to finance a project and to realize the efficiencies inherent in <br />a consolidated approach to water supply management for the study area. The degree of <br />consolidation, if any, will depend upon the project alternative selected, the necessary financing <br />arrangements, future operating plans, and most importantly, the needs and desires of the <br />project participants. <br /> <br />In the event a decision is made to proceed with development of one or more of the alternative <br />projects, a number of approvals and permits from federal, state and local authorities will be <br />required, The more significant of these may include a court decree authorizing changes in the <br />conditional San Miguel Project water rights, environmental approvals, Corps of Engineers <br />Section 404 permits, non-jeopardy opinion under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, <br />and land use or rights-of-way permits from the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land <br />Management. <br /> <br />Conclusions and Recommendations <br /> <br />The following conclusions and recommendations for the six irrigation system alternatives and <br />for the San Miguel Canyon hydropower project were formulated upon the information in this <br />report, discussions with the CWCB staff and discussions with study area participants. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br />1. Those alternative which would provide irrigation supplies to the entire study area, <br />Alternatives 2 and 6, entail costs which are probably in excess of repayment <br />capacity of most irrigators at the present time. Alternative 6 can be viewed as a <br />long-range option should economic conditions change in the future. <br /> <br />xi <br />