Laserfiche WebLink
<br />j/t <br /> <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />'003139 <br /> <br />SYNOPSIS <br /> <br />all. Separate analyses of the South San Juan project to irrigate areas <br />of 20,450 acres and 67,700 acres were made to determine the relative <br />economy of the project through a wide. range in scale of development. <br />Because of water supply limitations, the large acreage for the South <br />San Juan project was reduced to 57,000 when the project was analyzed with <br />the 121,700-acre Shiprock project as a base. The six plans involving a <br />direct-connected hydraulic-turbine pumping unit are identified as D-l to <br />D-6, and those that would provide pumping power by electric motors are <br />identified as E-l to E-6. <br /> <br />The 20,450-acre South San Juan projects would irrigate only lands <br />outside of "he Navajo Indian Reservation, whereas one-third or more of <br />the lands served by the larger South San Juan projects would be within <br />the reservation. <br /> <br />InvestigB.tio~ of' Plan D-2 was commenced in 1949 a:~.(: has been done <br />in greate!' detail than the investigation of other pl,"o~ mOl'e recently <br />undertak&n. Plan D-2 provides for the irrigation of 67,700 acres in the <br />South San Juan project as an incremental addition to a 113,900-acre <br />Shiprock project. The other plans for building on the Shiprock project <br />base have been evaluated in this report to some extent by projections <br />from data assembled in the Plan D-2 study. The more extensive treatment <br />given Plan D-2 in the rep~rt does not mean an endorsement of that plan <br />over the other alternatives. The various alternative plans of develop- <br />ment are described briefly in Chapter I. More detailed data assembled in <br />the investigation, particularly of Plan D-2, are presented in Chapters II <br />to VII, inclusive. <br /> <br />Comparative physical and economic data for each plan of development <br />for the South San Juan project are presented in Table I following this <br />discussion. No distinction was made in the economic analysis between <br />Indian and non-Indian-owned lands, the same productive and repayment <br />ability being assumed f0r both. In appraising all D and E plans, it was <br />assumed that the Shiprock project would be economically justified if <br />constructeo indepmdently. Coste and bFJnAfits attril:"~table to D and E <br />plane therefore were taken as the additional costs and benefits of the <br />combined projects over and above those of the Shiprock project alone. <br /> <br />In the analysis of the project, construction costs were estimated as <br />of July 1951. Data on agricultural economics were based on the 1939-1944 <br />price period and the results increased by 50 percent where appropriate to <br />approximate the long-term price-projection level of 215 (1910-14=100), <br />recently adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation. Op~ration, maintenance, <br />and replacement costs, also originally estimated at 1939-1944 prices, <br />were adjusted to represent 180 percent of 194~ costs in conformity with <br />the Bureauls long-term price-projection level f0r such costs. <br /> <br />It was assumed in these studies that the South San Juan project will <br />participate in the benefits and revenues of the Colorado River Storage <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />