Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Estimates of Capital and ~eratin~ Costs <br /> <br />Precipitation management has as its goal the improvement of the quality <br />of life, and the most visible aspect of the quality of life is our <br />economic well-being. As with virtually all activities of man, precipi- <br />tation management has economic benefits and disbenefits. <br /> <br />'!. <br /> <br />Some of the benefits of the additional moisture produced when winter <br />orographic clouds are seeded are felt in the target area and the larger <br />project area. A large portion of the salaries and wages of the project's <br />employees will be spent in the project area. Additional snow may extend <br />th~ skiing season at some resorts. Some of the additional moisture may <br />improve timber quality and increase forage production for livestock and <br />wildlife in the area. Some of the economic disbenefits will also be felt <br />in the project area. The additional snow may increase snow removal costs. <br />Access to recreation areas and certain industries occasionally may be <br />more difficult. But both the benefits and disbenefits in the project <br />area tend to be minor compared with the benefits outside the project <br />area. <br /> <br />Economic disbenefits from orographic seeding, once the water is in the <br />rivers, tend to be quite small compared to the benefits. The action of <br />the water itself can increase silting, and the additional cost of silt <br />removal is a disbenefit. Under some circumstances, the price of agri- <br />cultural or industrial products may be depressed because of the greater <br />productivity in the area affected by the additional water. In this <br />case, the disbenefit would probably appear in a different part of the <br />cOW\try. <br /> <br />The major direct benefits derived from winter orographic cloud seeding <br />are found where the water is used. An input-output analysis of the <br />potential effect of 1.8 million acre-feet more streamflow in the lower <br />main stem of the Colorado River showed that a benefit-cost ratio as <br />high as 80:01 is possible. The benefits would be in the form of <br />increased agricultural production, increased hydroelectric power pro- <br />duction, and increased industrial production. ~lunicipal water was not <br />included in the analysis, but the additional benefits for this purpose <br />are also important. <br /> <br />!!. <br /> <br />The Stanford Research Institute report "Technology Assessment of Winter <br />Orographic Snowpack Augmentation in the Upper Colorado River Basin" <br />dated May 1972 states that: <br /> <br />"Extensive field work would be necessary before the extent of <br />local economic injury could be estimated. * * * The annual <br /> <br />16 <br />