Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />----.---- <br /> <br />--r- --. <br />if <br />I t' <br />.\ <br /> <br />Direct benefitS to settlers (between $3 ,000. and $4,000 per farm) ap- <br />pear overestimated. <br /> <br />Projections of municipal and industrial water requirements in the <br />Upper Basin based on P9pulali()!1 growth have not been borne out by <br />the 1970 census data. <br /> <br />The price.for irrigation water delivered by the Central Arizona Project <br />($] 6/acre-foot) would 110t be competitive with pumping grOltnd water. <br /> <br />Benefit! cost ratios arc exaggerMcd by the.subtr.action of associated <br />costs from groSs benefits (both primary and secondary) rather than <br />including them as costs. <br /> <br />The cconomic viability of P.L. 90-537 would be in serious doubt under new <br />project evaluation procedures recommended by the Watcr Resources Council <br />and the Office .of Management and Budget. Therefore. there arc no benefits to <br />be .c1aimed for WaSA for the casein which \VaSA is combined with the P.L. <br />90.537 appropriations deci.sion. . <br />Many of the benefits that would be derived from the use of existing facili- <br />ties would also be .available if additionalfacilitk'S were constructed. They are <br />not of sufficient magnitude, however, to affect the overall benefit/costratio of <br />the combined was A and P.L. 90-537 case. <br />An a,qalysis wa'imadc of the economic benefits that are potentially avail- <br />able fTOm the water supply augmentation that r~.sull.. from additionul snowfall <br />created incidentally outside the Colorado River Basin by an in-basin \VaSA <br />system. If it were desired to increase this out-of.basin runoff, the in-basin <br />system could be modified to optimize the out-of.basin spillover. effeets und <br />out-of-basin target areas could be seeded. These ~piUover benefits arc: also <br />shown in Table 53 on the basis of the m;c of existing !ltorage, distribution, and <br />power generation facilities. <br />If only existing facilitie.s arc lIsed to store and distribute water and gen- <br />erate power, benefits. of at least $7.'8 million annually wuld be generated in <br />basin and $5.0 million annually bi' out-of-basin spillover runoff. or tJle .$l2.8 <br />million tOlal annual benefit~, $6.2 million is ,lccountcd for by electric power <br />genera~ion. This use of WOSA providesihe least equivocal form o[ benefits <br />fOr an operational program. On this basis. it appears lha.t the. benefits of un <br />operational program could e.xceed the sum of the direct costs and the indirect <br />costs to the areas of origin in the upp~r basin. <br />In COi:l$idcring the revenuqs of a WOSA program,.it WHS assumed that for <br />a federal operating authority such as the Bureau of Reclamation, [he revenues <br />would follow channels established by the Bureau for the. individual projects for <br />which the water is,used. However, a nunf:cderal operating.authority would have <br />to establish mechanisms for ree.overing. revenues for the sale of water and <br />pow~r. To accomplish this, federal facilities would have to be usedan9 some <br />means would have to be devised to compe:nsa[c for servi(:ing \VOSA water. <br />Not all of the WaSA be.l1efit~ Can be converted to r<.:vcnues for a, 000- <br />federal \VaSA operating aUlhority_ The succ~ss of such a venture will depend <br /> <br />;, <br /> <br />1 <br />~. <br />if <br /> <br />,\ <br />1 <br />r <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />tI <br /> <br />" <br />n <br />t( <br />c <br /> <br />g <br />D <br /> <br />j <br />j <br />1'1 <br />d <br /> <br />tl <br />f <br /> <br />a <br /> <br />n <br />v <br />II <br />a <br />t <br /> <br />s <br />r. <br />c <br /> <br />r: <br />, <br /> <br />r <br />s <br />f <br />( <br />f <br />t <br />( <br />(: <br />f <br />t <br /> <br />xviii <br /> <br />I <br />i <br />I! <br /> <br /> <br />l <br />