WSP10987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

24 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT benefit-cost ratio for an individual storage unit 01' participating project is necessarily atbitrary and is less significant than a ratio of total benefits to total costs for the authorized features. In the analysIs for the 100-year period and with consideration given, to all the anticipated benefits, the Colorado River storage project alld participating projects combined have benefits in excess of costs and each individual storage unit and participating project has benefits , equal to Ot. grep,ter than the costs. The overall project benefit-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1.. COST ALLOCATIONS Preliminary ~llocations have been made of the estimated costs of the Colorado Rive~ storage project and participating projects as a basis for deterl":inin~ reimbursable costs ~y purposes and for ~aking repay- ment studIes. :Costs of the folU' umts of the storage project haveheen allocated as a single project cost and have been apportioned to irriga- tion and other ",ater-consuming uses, power, flood control, and recrea- tion. Costs of each participating project have been separately allocated to the same plU'l'oses as the storage project costs and also on some instan:ces to mUlllcipaland industrial water and to fish and wildlife, The allocations are of necessity preliminary in nature since they are hase<\ on estimated costs and project plans that may be modilied in deflnite plan studies. ProcedlU'es used in allocations of the storage project costs are dis- cussed in the i following sections and the resulting allocations are summarized in jthe table on page 29. Allocations of cost of participat- ing projects alSO are summarized in the table on pages 30 and 31. procedures used in making the participating project allocations are similar to those for the storage project. DERIVATION OF STORAGE] PROJECT COST ALLOCATIONS Storage project costs used as a basis for the allocations inclnde con- struction costs, interest during construction, and operation, mainte- nance" and reI11acement costs, Costs of past investigations financed from the reimljursable Reclamation and Upper Colorado River Basin funds were included in the construction costs, but those financed from the nOlll'eimbursable Colorado River development fund and conc tributed funds'were excluded. Also excluded were costs of construc~ tion financed fi'om contributed funds. Method oj allodcttion Only separ~ble costs of recreational facilities were allocated to recreation, Remaining costs were then allocated to irrigation, power, and flood control by the separable cost-remaining henefits method. Under this method the separable costs of each purpose were allocated to that pnrporand the sum of the separable costs for all purposes was subtracted fro the total project costs to obtain remaining joint costs, The remainin ' joint costs were then allocated to the various l?rojeot purposes in pr'ilportion to the remaining benefits of the purposes in ex- cess of their separable costs. Thus the total allocation to each purpose is equal to or greater than the separable cost of including that purpose in the project ,and is not more than either the benefits or the, cost of the most economical single-purpose alternative, Under this method