Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />~vu <br /> <br />Since that time, Woody Creek Project was removed from <br />the storage project list of participating units to be given <br />priority for study by the Bureau of Reclamation under provisions <br />of the act authorizing the storage project. <br /> <br />A study made by the Colorado River Water Conservation <br />District staff revealed Eagle Divide, Ohio Creek, and Grand Mesa <br />Projects should have lower priorities. <br /> <br />This list should be the guide for allocation of money <br />appropriated by the Colorado General Assembly to speed study of <br />projects. The priority would also help guide actions through <br />the authorization stages involving making definite plan reports. <br /> <br />Circumstances may require alteration of the list. <br /> <br />Several factors were taken into consideration in making <br />this list, including local interest, economic importance, and <br />benefit-cost ratios. There is difference of opinion on taking <br />benefit-cost ratios too literally in making decisions on projects. <br />There is difference of opinion as to whether or not the bureau <br />was too rigid in some methods of determining the ratios, such a <br />matter as successful use of sprinkler systems on sloping fields <br />was not always given full weight, in the opinion of some persons <br />, versed in water matters. <br /> <br />The five Colorado irrigation projects authorized directly <br />were not included because definite plan reports either have been <br />finished or will be within a few years. <br /> <br />Adoption of this list would result in some changes in <br />plans of the bureau for study of projects. <br /> <br />Decisions on value of a project can not be made purely <br />on the basis of benefit-cost ratios. They must be considered, but <br />the need for some projects and the interest in them should also <br />be considered. A project with a low ratio might actually benefit <br />one area more than another with a higher ratio might help some <br />other area. <br /> <br />The Southwestern Water Conservation Board did not pre- <br />pare a list because only four projects in that area are involved, <br />and feasibility studies are now in progress on two projects. Proj- <br />ects in the southwestern part of the state are in the same posi- <br />tion in the lists as they would have been had the board taken <br />formal action on setting up a list. <br /> <br />/s/ WILLIAM H. NELSON <br />