My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00258
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00258
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:14 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:45:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
FS0034X
Contractor Name
Basalt Project USBR 1974
Contract Type
Miscellaneous
Water District
0
County
Garfield
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CRAPrER III <br /> <br />BASES FOR ANALYSES <br /> <br />converted to a 100-year average annual figure and divided by 62,000 acre- <br />feet. The value of $6.50 per acre-foot is used as an annual cost in <br />benefit-cost analyses. <br /> <br />Assumed Water Charges <br /> <br />It is assumed that water from Ruedi Reservoir for the Basalt Proj- <br />ect would be purchased from the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy <br />District at rates of $10 an acre-foot for water used for municipal and <br />domestic and outdoor residential uses and $1 an acre-foot for water used <br />for irrigation. These charges are only estimates used in the absence of <br />actual costs and have been used for evaluation purposes to show compari- <br />son of alternatives. When the firm yield of Ruedi Reservoir has been <br />determined and the costs established, the charges in all probability will <br />'exceed the figures shown. <br /> <br />Development Period <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It has been assumed that the irrigators on full service lands would <br />be allowed a 5-year development period after they first received project <br />water and before they were assessed for payment of construction costs. <br />No development period would be allowed for lands receiving supplemental <br />irrigation water. <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />Agricultural Analyses <br /> <br />The farm budget method of analysis was utilized to determine the size <br />of farms or ranches needed to support a family, the irrigators' payment ca- <br />pacity, and irrigation benefits. Detailed budgets were made of conditions <br />anticipated on representative farms with project development on full serv- <br />ice lands. Per acre-foot values estimated for the full service lands were <br />applied to the supplemental water supply. Farm types studied in the deter- <br />mination of size of farm and payment capacity included range beef, cash <br />crop with purchase calves, and cash crop. Cash crops were considered to <br />include only hay and feed grains. The Same farm types with the addition <br />of Grade A dairy farms were used in the determination of irrigation bene- <br />fits. The budgets for determination .01' farm size and payment capacity <br />were based on agricultural conditions anticipated near the end of the de- <br />velopment period'when farmers would be required to start making payments <br />on construction costs. Budgets for benefits were based on agricultural <br />conditions anticipated 15 to 20 years following the development period to <br />reflect a trend toward increasing farm production resulting from continu- <br />ously improving farm technology. All the budgets were based on normalized <br />prices for the 1968-72 period. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.