Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.~ <br />0> <br />..z73 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />From the foregoing table it may be noted; <br /> <br />1. The capacity of the reservoir has been reduced <br />from 1,050,000 acre-feet to 500,000 acre-feet <br />which is in line with the State's recommendation. <br /> <br />2. The power plants have been omitted, the Bureau <br />finding, as did the State, that power cannot be <br />justified from an engineering or economic <br />standpoint. Penstocks, however, are proposed to <br />be installed for use if power ever does become <br />feasible. <br /> <br />3. The estimated cost of the project has been <br />reduced from $51,234,000 to $22,397,000. <br /> <br />4. The allocation to irrigation has been reduced <br />from $2l,~17,000 to $11,872,000. <br /> <br />5. The allocation to flood control has been raised <br />from $6,225,000 to $10,225,000. <br /> <br />6. The annual irrigation benefit has been raised <br />from $1,970,000 to $2,006,000. <br /> <br />7. The annual flood control benefits have been <br />raised from $177,000 to $590,300. <br /> <br />8. The benefit-cost ratio of the 1953 version of <br />the project was estimated at 2.24 : 1, while <br />that of the 1955 version is estimated at <br />3.17 : 1. <br /> <br />9. The estimated annual cost per acre for repayment <br />and operation and maintenance has been reduced <br />from $2.41 to $1.37. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />General Appraisal of 1955 version of Project. <br /> <br />The physical features of the project will not be <br />described herein as I understand this will be done by <br />the Chief Engineer of tli0 Board. However, I wish to <br />