Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />rates, increase our tap fees and even ask for an increase in our mill <br />levy. <br /> <br />Our water supply is for ten years, three of which have passed. It <br />will take about five years to build the project. We are fast running <br />out of time and we are being faced with the possibility of having <br />300 miles of empty pipelines and several thousand irate people. <br /> <br />Rising costs are gradually reducing our benefit-cost ratio. The <br />estimates of the project costs have risen from $28 million fifteen <br />years ago to $55 million now. Fortunately, M & I water is much more <br />valuable than water for irrigation. This figure of $55 million places <br />a maximum cost of $48 per acre-foot on stored water which also seems <br />excessive as compared to $4 to $10 an acre-foot for irrigation water. <br />However, when we compute costs for municipalities and water systems, <br />we drop the cost by per acre-foot and use a cost of per thousand <br />gallons. Forty-eight dollars an acre-foot reduces to 15 cents per <br />thousand gallons and even $100 an acre-foot reduces to approximately <br />30 cents per thousand gallons. So from Tri-County's viewpoint, it <br />is imperative that construction not be delayed any longer. The proj- <br />ect can insure a future water supply for several thousand families <br />as well as four towns, which are also encountering future water prob- <br />lems. <br /> <br />Other factors which have influenced us are: <br /> <br />1. Central Arizona project recently signed a repayment contract for <br />M & I water at $55 per acre-foot. Who can put a price on water for <br />the year 20007 What seems exorbitant today may be peanuts in twenty- <br />five years. <br /> <br />2. If we do not put our water to beneficial use when we have the <br />opportunity, we know there are lower basin states who will. <br /> <br />3. We endorse the proposal presented to you by the Five Projects' <br />Council. <br /> <br />4. We also agree with the priority recommendations made by the staff <br />committee of the Water Conservation Board, your own committee. We <br />feel that this priority rating should be given controlling weight <br />because it is based on criteria of the OMS. And in closing, I would <br />like to again call your attention to the outstanding advantages of <br />the Dallas project. <br /> <br />-22- <br />