Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> -. <br /> - <br />.. . O':i <br /> .' <br /> - <br /> In <br /> 0 <br /> <br />SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />The San Miguel Water Supply Study began as a traditional feasibility study of a proposed water <br />project. From the first meetings with the local study participants, it became apparent that <br />extensive reconnaissance planning would have to precede any feasibility studies and that very <br />low-cost alternatives for improving water supplies in the study area would have to be included in <br />the planning. It also became apparent that close coordination on a frequent basis with local <br />study participants would be a key activity in the planning process. <br /> <br />~he public information and participation program developed for the San Miguel Study was one <br /> <br />. , <br /> <br />of the most comprehensive programs of this nature ever undertaken by the CWCBorthe studyc,,_~=, <br />consultant. The study participants included a water conservancy district. a water conservation <br />district, three ditch companies. the County Extension Service, the USBR, the SCS, the Town of <br /> <br />Norwood, and a number of other agencies and organizations who participated from time to <br />time as well as irrigators and local residents in the study area. Participation in the study <br />process was accomplished by frequent study meetings (on the average of every two months). <br />workshops on special topics, newsletters, reports and interviews with individual water users. <br /> <br />A major objective of these efforts was to gain acceptance of the planning process in a <br />somewhat remote area of Colorado where there is a fair degree of skepticism regarding water <br />planning by governmental agencies. One measure of the acceptance gained was a voluntary <br />participation rate of 90 percent in a water user interview program conducted in September <br /> <br />1989. <br /> <br />The Phase One study was a comprehensive reconnaissance investigation which identified six <br />alternatives ranging in capital cost from $1.9 million to $20.6 million. The need for low-cost <br />methods of improving water suppiies resulted in the selection of an alternative with a capital <br />cost of $2.9 million composed of a combination of structural and non-structural improvements. <br /> <br />B <br />