WMOD00281 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~ tent of loc~l e<;:.onomic injury could be l~timated. A rough estimate of the WOSA costs is shown in Table 54. The annual econorllic detriments to the areas that receive increased snowfall hnvc been estimllted to be $2 milliQnin the basin and $1 million out of the basin. Thi~s about e$ivalcnt to..11 per acrc- fOQ!....Qf water J;!roduced; If these costs are. added to the direct costs of c10ll.!L seeQillg and tile costs for- avalanche control. Hood Jorccastin~.artd environ- mental monitoring programs, the cost of wateI:_J~-"l)duccd is less than $3 per acre-toot. ThL.. is still a very inexpensive way of--p~iBg extra ',vatet-.in...J.hc COIQrado River Basin. Even though there llIay be significant economic cQsts on a local or re- gional basis, the small scale of the economie.s and the few people that would be. affected adversely by cloud seeding make it virtually certain that the na- tional economic effects would be negligible, apart from the fact that many of the losses might be offset by gains elsewhere. The pussibility of additional snowfaH in the downwind areas, such as the Denver and BQulder metropolillm areas, cannot be completely eliminated. Damages in these areas in some years might be as great as, or greater than, those in the mountainous areas because of the much larger populatkms that would be affected. Ho.wf'v,>r, with careful control of seeding operations when storm systems are over the downwind .areas, the ~rppabilit)' of tht;'se eVt-'m~ will be small. The estimate of out-of-basin economic detriments in Table 54 should be adequate under these conditions. 1 .~ b~ tl~ n I~ I' I t I th th ot ar zc o WI .m aT P. w bt th C( , nt b. Potential EcollpmicDenefitsofWOSA Water The economic benefit.. to be derived from any additional runoff result- ing (rom WOSA <'Ire different to the individual water user and to the nation. The b~riefit tq th~. user depends on the specific us~ that is made of water. Th(~ benefit to the nation depends on the marginal use of water, which in the arid West 1S for agriculture. This means lhM t~e benefit from the use of was A. water cannot be greater than the benefits forgone hy not using an equivalent amount of water in agriculture. 'Wat~r_ in the W~S( is generally sold. to irri- gators at a cost below thelul! cost olproductiQ!l.Mld distribution. Thcrcf(m:. locaf benefits. are gain.cd at the.expcnsc..QL.w:ltl.r u...er~ e1~c\vhere or the lax- ~~a::.. An evaluation of the economic bcnefits of WaSA is generally conccr:ncd with the potential for creating new wealth for the nation by an investment in the program and not on local bencHts resulting from a nonpriccnUocalion of water supplies. The possibilities are summarized in Tai)le 53. There is currently np shortage of water in the river, mid witho.ut the con- struction of new fatilities to use additional Water there is no reason EO bclicVl~ lhcrewill be ashortaE!c in the future; The chief benefits to be derived from the ad- ditional \VQSA wat;r in the Colorado .BaSin under this condition are ma~Ji1i1 impr~ ,..f tJ',,> ":Ilinity of tht, wate.Land tbc'uscof additii}nnl hydroc:.lcc- ide: power to.....rf'.Phic'~ m6re exp~.f.l... power from thermnl ~~nernting. plants. Areg.uctioo-ef:-6afulity-e<tWY.aJm:Jt 104.1 parts l2~r million at Glen C~nyon Dam h,~cn estimated tfl h{~ equivitlent to a salinity reductioAprog,r.am coSffilg $2:5 million. On th~ hund. the additional s~diment that will be lrappedj - ~ xvi is be aJ III T Ii !' "( R pI el at ti. t! ill b. , l