BOARD02648

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

435.

From the Gunnison River Project, when measured on the above
bases, these units emerge; (1) East River; and (2) Bostwick Park.

b. Suggested Criteria to govern selection of Projects for
Detailed Study..

1. There must be, in general, a fav,orable
benefit-cost ratio. This is a require-
ment set-up in the Colorado River Storage
Project'Report. On occasion, it, may, be
vmived for the reason outlined in 3.

I

In making an overall evaluation of the desirability of spending
money for detailed studies the following criteria might be applied.

2. The land must have the ability to repay at
least 7~O percent of the construction cost.

3. Occasionally a detailed study may be made
when the-benefit-cost ratio is less than
unity, in order to consider a projected
change L, the future development of ?n area,
say from agricultural to industrial.

4. The local people must approve ancj. de~ire
the study. A high benefit-cost ,atio and
no desire on the part of the local people
would be grc:unds for delaying the study.

Suggested Criiteria Applied

(a~ Applying these criteria to the Cliffs-Divide units,
it is found that Parshall; Woody Creek, Eagle Divide and West
Divide a.re the projects that qualify for detail study. West
Divide fs included because it occupies a most important area
that promises to change soon to an ~ndustrial economlf. Although
the project as now envisioned does not qualify as a sound ir-
rigation project, a detailed study may improve its position in
this respect. Bluestone is omitted because the original project
conflicts with the possible future building of the DeBeque Reser-
voir. The modified version does not measure up to the required
repayment standard. Eagle Divide is included because it comes
close to qualifying on the repayment requirement and because
local sentiment is behind it. Battlement Mesa, Rabbit Ear and
Troublesome units have not been urged by people of the areas.

I