Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storage And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel lays out multiple storage options, costs and funding gaps to replace Lake Pillsbury storage
Summary
Consultants and Corps representatives reviewed six storage concepts (tributary reservoirs, in-valley dam raises, pond networks, conjunctive groundwater, pump-back pipelines and Army Corps study) with cost ranges and trade-offs; panelists said planning/design funds exist but no construction capital is in hand.
Panelists led by Tom Johnson (consultant) and Eric Nagy (consultant) reviewed multiple storage alternatives intended to replace seasonal storage formerly provided by Lake Pillsbury and discussed where additional storage would fit in a post-decommissioning future.
Options and rough costs presented included tributary reservoir alternatives ($125to250 million), a low-height in-valley dam at Potter Valley (20to40-foot options; roughly $115to220 million), shallow pond storage scaled by acreage (roughly $15to29 million to reach several thousand acre-feet), conjunctive groundwater storage (initial modeled yield ~3,500 acre-feet per year; concept-level costs ~$19to22 million plus piping), and a pump-back pipeline from Lake Mendocino (order-of-magnitude >$100 million depending on lift and rights).
Eric Nagy summarized the Army Corps feasibility process (a multi-year planning study that produces a recommendation to Congress, followed by authorization and appropriations) and said the local nonfederal sponsors (IWPC and a tribal partner) signed a cost-sharing agreement to initiate a 3to5-year feasibility study. He cautioned that federal funding for construction is rare before planning and environmental compliance are complete.
Funding status: presenters listed planning/design funds already secured (approximately $2 million from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for design work and $9 million in state funds for environmental compliance/design), noted a conditional $15 million award from the Department of the Interior that is not yet released, and said no $50 million capital construction fund is in the bank. Panelists said a revenue-study and potential bond issuance by the Project Authority are being considered to bridge capital needs.
Public concerns raised included road impacts and hauling from dam removal, local well-level effects from groundwater plans, tourism and economic losses tied to Lake Pillsbury uses, and distributional fairness if costs are borne unevenly by small counties. Panelists said management plans and mitigation measures will be developed through the state and federal review processes and encouraged continued public participation.
Ending: the panel said further workshops will focus on next-step prioritization and more-detailed feasibility work, and that full reports and slides will be posted online for public review.
