Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PURGATOIRE (PICKET WIRE)' RIVER; COLO., <br /> <br />29 <br /> <br />.'rABLE' No "10 -Estimated first costs and annual charges for recommended plan 'of <br />improvement at Trinidad-Continued ..' <br /> <br />. ANNUAl{ CHARGES-Continued <br /> <br />,Non-Federal annual charges: . <br />4 percent of non-Federal investment_____"______._':...________,-"___ <br />.Amor,tizn.tion (50 years, 4 percent)____________'--______________ <br /> <br />.~~~~~~t:~~:~:===::=:=::==::==::::::=======:========::===: <br /> <br />$5, 100 <br />800 <br />900 <br />100 <br /> <br />Total non-Fedei'al annual charges_n:.._________.________~____ <br />Total aimual charges____~__ ____ __ __"-____ _____ ______ __'____ <br /> <br />6,900 <br />42,20() <br /> <br />" 80. Estimated average annual benqit8-general.-Pl'incipaJ flood <br />damago aroas in tho Purgatoire ,River Basin have boen shown to be in <br />the 'rrinidad urban area and in the agricultural area along Purgatoire <br />River from Sopris dam site (mile 163.3) to the head of the canyon <br />section (mile J22). (See par. 38.) The ostimatod average annual <br />bonefits have boon determined for the urban area in Trinidad and the <br />'agricultural area from the Sopris dam sit~ to the hoadof the canyon <br />soction. These ineludo the benefits accruing from prevention of <br />tangible recurrent flood damages as follows: <br /> <br />L Ul'ban area. <br />2. Agricultural aroa. <br />(a) Crops, lands, and improvements. <br />(b) Transportation facilities. " <br />3. Irrigation structures. <br />4. Land enhancement. <br />5.' Irrigation (flood water detention). <br />6. Irrigation (maintenance less than bankfull stages). <br /> <br />, Although the magnitudes of past'disparate floods form the basis lor <br />the estimates of losses, the prevention of damages assigned for floods of <br />a given magnitude al'e these which would Occur under present condi, <br />tions of development. Equal feak discharges in Purgatoire River <br />, will produce varying amounts 0 damage, This anomaly is explained <br />when the great difference in volume of run,off resulting from dis- <br />similar'storms is considered. Damages are relatively sm"ll that result <br />from 'floods produced by local'storms, like th"t of July 1925 which <br />resultedtin~the third highest peal{ discht>rge of record. The run,off in <br />these flOOdS is characterized by a sharp peak and small volume. <br />Floods produced by stol'ms similar to those of September 1904 and: <br />April 1942 remain at high stages for oomparatively long periods. <br />Consequently, the damages resulting from wave trains due to the <br />present channel alinement are much greater than for small volume <br />floods of comparable peak discharge. Therefore, the type of flood <br />has also been considered in determining the average animal benefits <br />from prevention of flood damages. ,The benofits accruing in the al'ea <br />under consideration are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs <br />and aro fully qovered in appendix C.1 <br />81. Average annual benejit8-Trinwad.-The recurrent tangible <br />flood losses at 'l'rinidad have consisted f.rineipally of damages to <br />residential, business, industrial, municipa, and public utility prop' <br />erties, 'rhe average annual prevention of flood damages in the city <br /> <br />1 Not printed. <br />