Laserfiche WebLink
<br />20 <br /> <br />COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT <br /> <br />periods of 68 and :60 years, resrectively, have heen authorized. The <br />costs allocated to flood contro , recreatlOn, and fish and wildlife are <br />nonreimbursable, : Irrigation costs are repayahle' without interest, <br />Costs allocated to power and municipal and industrial use, including <br />interest during construction, are repayable with interest. In this <br />study an interest tate of 2% percent is used in the repayment calcula- <br />tions in all insta!',ces where costs are repayable with interest, This <br />rate haA been officially determined in the manner prescribed by law <br />as applicable to the Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, and Navaho units. <br />An official determination of rates applicable to the Curecanti unit <br />and to participating projects has not yet been made. <br />(13) Average r&tes of 6 mills pel' kilowatt-hour for fu'm energy and <br />2.5 mills per kilowatt-hour for nonfirm energy are used in this analysis. <br />These rates are estimated to be required to return enough revenue to <br />pay, under the provisions of the authorizing act, the following con- <br />struction cost.. in ,addition to ths annual operating costs: <br />(a,) Costs IIllocated to power with interest, <br />(b) Stol'l1g~ unit costs allocated to iI~'igation without interest. <br />(e) Costs o,f participating projects that are allocated to irriga- <br />tion and t111t~ are beyond the repnyment ability of the .irrigators, <br />without inter~st, <br />(14) AnticipnteU revenue collections from conservancy-type dis- <br />tricts are included as participating pl'Ojecb revenues. <br /> <br />BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS <br /> <br />The economic desirability of developing the Colorado River storage <br />project and participating projects was measured by a comparison of <br />antICipated benefits from a national standpoint and the Federal costs <br />of development, I Both benefits and costs were converted to average <br />annual equivalent values at 2)\ percent int,erest over a lOO-year <br />period beginning with the initial operation of each individual storage <br />unit and particip~ting project. <br /> <br />BENEFITS <br /> <br />The beuefit-cost comparisons were based on consideration of all <br />benefits from the authorized devclopments that could be evaluated <br />in monetary ternls, including substantinl benefits from irrigation and <br />power and smallei' amounts of benefits from municipal and industrial <br />water, flood control, fish and wildlife conservation, recreation, and <br />other project serviices. <br /> <br />Irrigation benefits i <br />Irrigation benents arc estimated to avel'l1ge $15,464,000 annually <br />over the 100-year period of analysis. About $6,712,000 represents <br />storage benefits Msignable to future participating projects, and abont <br />$8,752,000 represents benefits estimated for the 11 initial participating <br />projects. ' <br />The irrigation :benefit nsed in the cost allocation of the storage <br />,project is $9 million annually. This estimate is the sum of the <br />$6,712,000 for fqture participating project.. and $2,288,000 rcpre- <br />senting the value bf regula1;ory storage to the 11 part,icipatingprojects. <br />