PROJ00414

• Contract/PO #: C153326
• Contractor Name: Fruitland Mesa Water Conservancy District
• Contract Type: Grant
• Water District: 0
• County: Montrose
• Bill Number: XB 99-999
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I
I
I
I
I

provides off-channel storage for the Crystal Creek, would provide
supplemental regulation for the project waters.

I

The project, as presented, would provide irrigation water to about
23,450 acres out of a gross area total of 55,325 acres. The estimated
cost of the project was $27,285,000 in 1959. The average annual
benefits over a period of 100 years at a 2.5 percent interest rate
were estimated as $2,158,000; the corresponding average annual equiva-
lent cost was $865,900, giving a benefit-cost ratio of 2.49:1 for the
total benefits.

I
I
I

The Fruitland Mesa Project was authorized as a participating
project of the Colorado River Storage Project by the Act of September
2, 1964 (Public Law 88-568). A Definite Plan Report, based on the
above-mentioned feasibility was submitted by W.P.R.S. in June 1967.
The Definite Plan Report was subsequently updated by W.P.R.S. and a
report outlining some minor modifications in the original plan and
including revisions of physical data and financial and economic
analyses since the preparation of the original plan was issued in
August 1977 [2].

I
I

The project, as modified and presented by W.P.R.S., was essen-

tially the same in composition as the original plan of 1967 and, if

implemented, would provide irrigation water to 18,250 acres of the

project service area. The cost of development estimated in January

1976 prices was $84,200,000. The average annual benefits from the

project were estimated at $2,976,000 and the corresponding annual

equivalent cost at a 3-1/8 percent rate of interest was estimated at

$3,099,000. The economic analysis carried out over a period of 100

years gave benefit-cost ratios of 0.96:1 and 0.57:1 for the total and

the direct benefits, respectively, but without considering the nega-

tive externalities.

I

I
I
I

I
I
I
I

Inasmuch as the project had a benefit-cost ratio of less than one,

it was not considered for implementation and is presently reported to

be in the process of being deauthorized.

I-2