Laserfiche WebLink
<br />301 'I <br /> <br />[IDOOill~1J <br /> <br />ECONOMIC EVALUATION <br /> <br />Benefit-Cost Analysis <br /> <br />Table 1 displays investment costs, annual equivalent costs, annual <br />benefits, and benefit-cost ratios for two alternative developments. <br />Flood control was deleted from one analysis because the separable costs <br />associated with that purpose exceed benefits by about $600,000 annually. <br />The last official estimate provided by the Corps of Engineers, dated <br />November 1977, showed annual flood control benefits of $836,000. <br /> <br />Tab 1 e 1 wa s deri ved usi ng the authori zed 3.25 percent di scount rate <br />a nd a lOG-year peri od of analysi s. Development of the Na rrows Un i t <br />including M&I water is economically justified since the benefit-cost <br />ratios are greater than 1:1. <br /> <br />Direct irrigation benefits were based on the increased net farm income <br />that could be realized by construction of the unit. Indirect and <br />public irrigation benefits measure respectively the value of processing <br />the increased agricultural production and the expected stabilization of <br />the local economy. An additional benefit of development would be <br />some OM&R savings to the Jackson lake irrigators. New water estimated <br />to be available for determination of irrigation benefits consists <br />of 77,000 acre-feet of stored water to be rel eased annually at the <br />reservoir and 24,500 acre-feet annually of usable return flows, for a <br />total of 101,500 acre-feet. <br /> <br />Annual benefits derived from fish and wildlife enhancement were provided <br />in the Fish and Wildlife Service's memorandum of November 4, 1975. The <br /> <br />7 <br />