WSP08483 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

003140 fit SYNOCIS project in accordance with the plan described in the Bureau of Reclamation report of December 1950, entitled Colorado River Storage Project ~ Participating Projects. Thus in the benefit-cost analysis the South San Juan project was assigned an annual cost of $2.35 an acre-foot of stream depletion as its pro rata share of the cost of river regulation provided by the storage project. It was also assumed that the South San Juan project would receive repayment assistance from power revenues of the Colorado River Storage project through the Upper Colorado River Account. Such assistance for the Shiprock project is recommended in the 1950 report, and it is assumed that such assistance will also be recommended for the South San Juan project when its eligibility to par- ticipate has been detel'mined. Plan A is shown by the table to have the highest annual equivalent cost per acre and the lowest benefit per acre 0f any of the alternatives. The estimates indicate that its benefit-cost rati~ would only be about 0.6 to 1. Moreover, it would make less attractive the power potentialities outlined in Chapter VIII. Further consideration "f Plan A is concluded to be unjustified. - If One of the acreages mentioned for the Shiprock project were selected, the 12 alternative D and E plans as presented would at once be reduced to four. The four would consist of a large plan (67,700 or 57,000 acres) and a small plan (20,450 acres), each with alternatives of hydraulic.turbine- and electric-motor-driven pumps. Regardless of the Shiprock project acreage selected, some generalities stand 0ut in comparing the South San Juan project alternatives. Each D plan (hydraulic turbine) has a higher construction cost but a lower operation and maintenance cost than its E-plan (electric motor) counter- part. The E-plan operation and maintenance costs are so high, largely because of electric energy costs, that they exceed the payment ability of the water users. Under the D plans the water users would be able to fully pay the operation and maintenance costs and a small amount An c0nstruction. Because of the ir h:!,gher construction C'1sts, however, the D plans have substantially lower benefit-cost ratios than the corresponding E plans, the ratios varying from 1.16 to 1,29 for the D plans while the ratios for the E plans range from 1.73 to 2.02. - A true cost comparison of the D and E plans may be made by converting all costs to average annual equivalents per acre as is done in Column 18 of Table 1. This shows that the various D plans would be 35 to 70 percent more costly per acre than their c01111terpart E plans. Because the E plans would not be able to pay their operation, maintenance, and replacement costs and also something on construction, however, they would not meet one criterion for participating pr0jects rec~mmended in the Bureau's iii i< i.