Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OD2~9~ <br /> <br />annual basis. For supplement '1 irrigation, an average of <br />62,000 acre-feet of undevelop:'.d streamflow would be consumptively <br />used annually. Water consump.':.ively used would represent <br />42 percent and 32 percent, re.'pectively, of the undeveloped <br />streamflow of the South Platb" River at the Weldona gage <br />(Page 88) . <br /> <br />This alternative compares using water for supplemental irrigation <br />as well as new irrigation (93,000 acre-feet versus 120,000 <br />acre-feet). This is where the hitch occurs re.garding the <br />assumption on values of water for supplemental and new use. <br />With new irrigation, based on a value of $20 per acre-foot, <br />and some hydroelectric power generation, and an annual value <br />of flood damage reduction, the estimated average annual benefits <br />total $3.6 million while annual costs of O&M are estimated <br />at $1.7 million. This amounts to a 0.3 rate of return on an <br />investment of $571 million. with supplemental irrigation water <br />valued at $42 per acre-foot, the project benefits total $5.1 <br />million, and annual O&M costs are $1 million. This amounts to <br />a 2.8 rate of return on the required investment of over $144 <br />million. (Why does this cost drop from $571 million to <br />$144 million?) The same flood damage reduction is included in <br />both alternatives. There appears to be something wrong with this. <br />In light of the fact that the LegiSlature has funded a feasibility <br />study on the Hardin site, why is that not mentioned in the <br />report? <br /> <br />Alternative 9 - Combined Downstream Main Stem and Expansion <br />Storage. See comments on Alternatives 4 and 8. <br /> <br />Alternative 10 - Combined Tributary and Downstream Main Stem <br />Storage. This alternative would combine Alternative 3, <br />Tributary Storage on the Poudre and St~ Vrain Creek, with <br />the Narrows storage. Economic benefits are derived from 93,000 <br />acre-feet of supplemental irrigation water at $42 per aore-foot, <br />40,000 acre-feet of M&I water at $100 per acre-foot, electric <br />power production at $31.1 million, and flood reduction value <br />estimated at $0.8 million. These benefits are derived from <br />simple comparisons of the benefits of each project and do not <br />reflect in any case the advantages of combined management from <br />both projects. Furthermore, none of the alternatives reflect <br />the increase in benefits that will accrue from increased and <br />enhanced management opportunities of water, particularly <br />with the tributary storage reservoirs. <br /> <br />Under the statement of non-monetary impacts, it is stated that <br />"the proposed mountain tributary reservoirs (Alternative 3) <br />could have greater impacts on fish and wildlife than the <br />lower main stem reservoirs. Several of these reservoir sites <br />would be located 'oJithin the Class I (High Priority Stream <br />Fishery). A Class I fishery contains threatened and endangered, <br />and high interest species, and cannot be readily returned to <br /> <br />10 <br />