Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,.". ~".'-~ ,-,--,",,:,"-.~.-~_.-"-"--,..,,;- ,.=:".;.".....,~~"'->.:-".... <br /> <br />~ <br />- <br />M <br />N <br /> <br />CHAPTER III <br /> <br />BASIS FOR ANALYSES <br /> <br />available from the Colorado River Storage Project at the current rate of <br />$0.005 a kilowatt-hour and $1.32 a kilowatt-month. <br /> <br />Benefit-Cost Analyses <br /> <br />Benefits and costs were analyzed over a 100-year period. An inter- <br />est rate of 6 1/8 percent was used in discounting benefits and costs to <br />a common time basis and in computing interest during construction. This <br />is the rate that the Treasury Department has certified for use during <br />fiscal year 1976 for projects being planned and formulated pursuant to <br />MOP guidelines. <br /> <br />Benefits <br /> <br />Irrigation Benefits <br /> <br />Irrigation benefits from the Yellow Jacket Project are'estimated at <br />$61 for each acre-foot of project water. These were estimated from de- <br />tailed budget analyses of representative farms in the area. The farms <br />studied were a composite of class 2 and 3 lands and included a cash-crop <br />and sheep farm with private range, beef farm with private and public <br />range, and Grade A dairy farm. A 1975 current normalized price base was <br />used. The budgets were based on agricultural conditions anticipated. <br /> <br />Municipal and Industrial Water ,Benefits <br /> <br />Benefits from the use of project water for municipal and industrial <br />purposes have been estimated as the cost of the cheapest single-purpose <br />alternative method of providing a year-round water supply in the absence <br />of a Federally financed project. It was assumed that all of the water <br />would have to be purchased from a storage supply since direct flows of <br />the streams are fully appropriated except in high runoff periods. The <br />storage supply was assumed to be Thornburgh Reservoir for coal develop- <br />ment in the Milk Creek Segment. For coal development and municipal and <br />domestic water in the White River Segment, a reservoir on the South Fork <br />at the Sweetbriar site was used. Water would be released to the river, <br />rediverted near the mouth of Big Beaver Creek, and pumped to the Coal <br />Creek area for use. For oil shale development, it was assumed that <br />surplus spring flows would be pumped from the White River to a storage <br />reservoir on Yellow Creek. Cost adjustments have been made in order to <br />compensate for the different points of delivery under private versus <br />Federal development. <br /> <br />Estimated construction costs of the single-purpose alternatives were <br />based on January 1976 prices and annual operation, maintenance, and <br />replacement costs on 1974-75 prices. Construction costs and interest <br /> <br />26 <br />