BOARD02648

• Board Meeting Date: 9/21/1954
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

433

Gunnison River Projects. With regard to the objective of
the Report, the forevmrd states: "Its principal purpose is to
provide pertinent information, needed by the State of Colorado
and the Bureau for guidance in further investigations and in
planning work. . . Also presented are rough economic data on
estimated costs, benefits, and payment oapacities of the various
potential irrigation developments."

I

Fourteen units or sub-projeots are considered. (See
Table II). Of these six would be unable to pay operation,
maintenance and repayment costs although four have benefit-cost
ratios higher than unity. In this discussion, Grand Mesa without
pumping and Grand Mesa.with pumping are considered-as separate
units insofar as operation, maintenance and replacement'costs
are concerned. On one.unit, Tomichi, ability to repay'would be
equal to 13 cents per acre per year while on the North Delta the
amount would be 16 cents. Under the Tomichi Unit, the farmer
would repay 1.1 percent of the construction cost; in the case of
the North Delta, tae repayment would amount to 1.5-peroent of the
construotion cost. In.reality, seven of the fourteen units
would be unable to make any worthwhile payment on construction costs.

Eleven units have.benefit-cost ratios of 1.0 or better.
Four of these, howeverj would not be able to make any repayment
on the cost of construotion.

Ten of the fourteen projeots call for a construction cost
of $5,000,000 or less. None would be eligible for a loan under
Mr. Miller's bill coveFing small projects because of the small
percentage of cost to be returned by the farmer. East'River
and Bostwick Parkrprojeots would repay 31 and 25.1 percents of
the oonstruction costs! respectively; Ohio Creek and North Delta
would repay 7.9 and 1.4 percent; Cebolla Creek, Gateview, Pine
Creek, Goddard Mesa, Kannah Creek and Grand Mesa (pumping divi-
sion) could not make any repayments.

I