Laserfiche WebLink
<br />COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJ,ECT <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />equivalent to taxes on ;an alternative private power development is <br />also ineluded as an ecquomic cost of developments involving power <br />production. Also ineludcd for jlarticipating projects is each jlroi~ct's <br />pro rata sh,!re of the cost of regu)atory facihtles of the Colorado RIver <br />stomge project for reas<jus explamed below, <br /> <br />Storage p,'oject c08t" assigned to participating projects <br />Reservoirs of the Cblorndo River storage project" as explained <br />under "Water Supply," will provide replacement water for the lower <br />basin and Mexico in prolonged drought periods in order to permit <br />continued expansion of water-consuming uses in the upper basin. A <br />portion of the cost of theistorage reservoirs may therefore appropriately <br />be assigned to the wate,r-consuming uses of participating projects in <br />t,he ,benefit-cost analysis. Undcr the authorized repayment plan, <br />however, all of the reimbursablc storage costs will be rapaid from <br />power revenues. <br />Since the amount of replacement storage required is a direct func- <br />tion of increases in str~am depletion, it is equitable to assign the <br />allocated costs of replacfment storage to each part.icipat.ing project, in <br />projlortion to the amount of stream deplet.ion t.hat it will cause. In <br />.t later section of this report, a total cost of $122,086,000 on a 'present <br />wort,h basis for units ofJ the storage projcct is allocated to irrigation. <br />This allocation, prorated t.o an average increase in consumptive use of <br />1,800,000 acre-feet annlIally over the 100-year period of analysis, <br />amounts to about $70 pe'r acre-foot. On an annual eqnivalent basis it <br />is ..bout $2 pel' acre-foo~ of depletion, <br /> <br />BENEFIT-COST SUMMARY <br /> <br />Benefit-cost comparisons have been made for each nnit of the Colo- <br />rado River storage proj~ct, the combined storage units, each partici- <br />patin~ project, and for the storage project 8J1d participating projects <br />combmed, COlllparison~ have been made for a 100-year period of <br />8J1alysis in accordance with Bureau of Reclamation policy and for a <br />50-year period in respon'i,e to requests from the Bureau of the BUd,get. <br />For both periods of an.yysis comj>arisons have been made for total <br />benefits (direct, indirec~, and public) and where possible for direct <br />bepefits only. Results of the comparisons are shown in the tables <br />faCing page 21. ' <br />The benefit-cost 8J1alysis for the 100-year period, with considera- <br />tion given to all the beb.efits, is believed to be the most equitable <br />measure of economic justification. Use of the 100-year period of <br />study is more realistic tlian a 50-year period since the major features <br />have been designed and Are being cOllstructed to last well beyond 100 <br />yeal'S. Recognition of al' benefits is desirable because direct, benefits <br />do not fully measure the :significance of the rroject. Operation of the <br />storage units and particibating projects wil be interrelated in stream <br />regulation power production, and power transmission. Conse- <br />quently, the benefits of IItorage are recognized in the analysis of the <br />participating 'projects, ahd a corresponding assignment of costs for <br />stream depletIOn is mad~ as discussed above. Because of the inter- <br />dependence of storage ",orks and local facilities for use of water, It <br />