FLOOD03116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

44. The benefits attributable to the channelization project were reevaluated On a 2nd-added basis. using January 1969 prices and con- ditions. an interest rate of 4_7/8 percent. and a 100-year period of analysis. The derivation of benefits is fully described in Attach- ment V and the benefits are listed by class in Table 9. TABLE 10. ~_ Economic Justification TABLE 9. -- Summary of Benefits - Arkansas River Channelization Pueblo to Las Ani.mas (2nd-added) (January 1969 prices) '\vera e Annual Benefits Excess ," Proiect I'ational' Char"s Benefits atlo Fountain Reservoir $2,299,450 .~ 1,882,000 $417,450 l.2 Arkansas River ChannelizatIon 3,764,540 2,805,000 959,200 l.3 Pueblo tolas Animas (2nd_added) Arkansas River Channelization 4,163,790 3,355,000 808,790 l.2 pueblo '0 Las Animas Fo~~tain D~)and ReserVOIr 2,018,580 1,882,000 136,580 L' 2nd_added Annual Benefits Total Class of Benefits National " ional Flood control $1,067,550 $1,067,550 Drainage 197,600 19i,600 Recreation 114,000 114,000 Unemployed reSources, Construction 314,460 593,310 0.' 122,030 191,310 Expanded agriculture 585,200 652,800 Reduction in water losses 1,387,200 1,387,200 l<egative -23,500 _23,500 Total 3,764,540 4,180,270 ! i I i , , 46. APPORTIONMEI/T OF COSTS BE'lWEEN IfiTERESTS.- A cost allocation study was made for the multiple-purpose Arkansas River Channeli:ation project to determine the equitable distribution of costs to each proj- ect purpose. The analysis is described in _Attachment V. The appor- tionment of construction costs and annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs between Federal and non-Federal interests is shown in Table 8. Apportionment of costs is in accordance with laws and established policies governing local protection projects. The costs of flood control and major drainage features would be_apportioned between Federal and non_Federal interests in accordance with the general policy given in the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1944, as amended. The Federal Government would bear the construction costs of flood control features. Cost of lands, relocations, on_farm drainage systems and group laterals, and alterations excluding railroad bridges and approaches thereto, and annual operation, maintenance, and replacements would be local responsibilIties. The allocated first cost of major drainage features would be apportirined equally to federal and non-Fed- eral interests. Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs _associated with the on-farm and group lateral drainage facilities would bebornebyluclll,nterests, 45. Since both the Fountain Reservoir and the Arkansas River Channeli:ationprojects would accrue-benefits in the Arkansas R iver valley, the latter project was reformulated to establish the point at which maximum net benefits would accrue, and to determine the economic feasibility of each of the reaches to assure that benefits from improve_ ment of one reach would not be responsible for justification of the entire project. The study indicated that maximl~ net benefits would accrue in the rural areas from lOO-year protection. Although economic feasibility of Reaches 4 and 7 proved to _be_marginal on the basis of national benefits only, improvement of all reaches is needed to realize maximum net benefits. Furtbermore, de~etion of_improvements in any reach would result in loss of benefits in excess of cost savings. A continuous improvement would provide channel capacity sufficient to pass flood control releases f~om Fountain Reservoir without incurring damages, improve the conveyance characteristics of the channel and thereby assist in the efficient delivery of water supplies for irriga- tion and other purposes, and prevent encroachment of phreatophytic gruwth in the floodplain. lnaddition,thereservoirandchanneli:a- tion projects were tested individually and in_combination on a 1st-and 2nd~added basis to prove individual and incremental economic justifica- tion. The results of the analysis arc prcsented in detail in Attach- men t IV and sullU~ar i zed in Tab 1 e 10. 47. The separable costs of recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement facilities would be.apportioned equally between federal and non-Federal interests in accordance with provisions of the 1962 Fluod Control Act and policies of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. Local interests wouldbere'luired to provide all lands, easc- ments, and rights_of~way necessary to insure public eontrol of the recreational development; and, wbere the appraised value of lands all.ounts to less than 50 p'-'n:ent of the total first cost of recreational development, make additional contributions sufficient to bring the non- Federal share to that level. The total first cost for recreation and fish and wildlife en\1ance",ent would h.. $l,OlO,OOOof which $14,OilO i.'; the est~mated value of lands, easements, and rights-of-way Therefore. the addItional requirements of local interests for this purpose arc " "