WSP07511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4,000 and 5,000 acre-feet of storage would be stabilized in the reser- voirs atop Grand Mesa to enhance recreation opportunities during the prime recreation season. Following the recreation season (late August- early September), water would be released from these reservoirs for proj ec t purpo ses. The plan ...as refined by the public and the planning team. At the environmental scoping meeting, several concerns were expressed centered around the costs of pumping power, possible elimination of unadjudicated flood waters now being used for irrigation, and protection of existing water rights. In subsequent meetings held by the two water conservancy district boards, the boards eXplained that concerns which surfaced at the environ- mental scoping meeting indicated the public no longer supported the Fruitgrowers Enlargement plan. The boards then recommended that this plan be retained as an alternative but other plans including small hydroelectric units and water importation alternatives ,be investigated. Reclamation representatives met with the conservancy districts boards to present results of the additional investigations they had requested. None of these plans was economically justified. Additionally on September 29, 1980, revised procedures for evaluating national economic development benefits under the Principles and Standards were implemented by the Water Resources Council. Using these revised pro- cedures and updated costs, the plan originally selected underwent an additional economic analysis. This analysis revealed the plan to have a benefit cost ratio.of only 0.81:1. It was then decided that the informa- tion collected and developed during the study would be summarized into this report for future use. Conclusions Completion of the feasibility report for the Grand Mesa Project has been delayed primarily because of changes in regulation. These changes occurred when the Principles and Standards of 1973 provided new guide- lines which necessitated restudy of the project. Definite water needs exist in the area and many plans have been studied to help meet these needs. A plan was not found, however, that satisfies the tests of viability, as increased construction costs and changes in benefit computation criteria have rendered all identified alternatives unjustifiable at the 1981 price level. Since a large amount of data has been gathered for the studies, with considerable expenditure of funds, the presently available data have been summarized and consolidated in this report to prov ide a starting point for any future studies. More data would have to be collected before the study could be completed as originally envisioned. Since this proj ec t has not developed 6