My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00017
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:12:22 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:28:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8062.700
Description
Federal Water Rights - Colorado Litigation - Ute Indian Reservations
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Water Division
7
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Unknown
Title
Exhibit A - Scope of Work for Economic Studies on the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservations
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />6!i) <br />..,':\.~.., <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Professional -Services: <br />Team " of # of Rate Per Total <br />Membe.r Time Hours H.2!!!: Cost <br />Watts 5 112 $55 $ 6,160 <br />Brookshire 3 64 45 2,880 <br />Carver 2 40 45 1,800 <br />Jacobs 2 32 45 1,440 <br />Raines 1 2L 40 960 <br />Subtotals $13,240 <br />Expel)ses: <br /> <br />Mileage - 1200 miles @ $0.20 per mile $ 240 <br />Per Diem - 4 man days @ $80 per day 320 <br />Communications - 75 <br />Computer - 500 <br />Copying - 25 <br />Subtotal <br />Total for Task 3 <br /> <br />Task 4 - InteQration of Costs and Returns <br /> <br />Contractor shall compare the costs and returns determined <br />in previous tasks to assess whether it is beneficial or profit- <br />able to irrigate certain parcels _of land. AS mentioned previous- <br />ly, the Special Masters in previous adjudications have accepted <br />the benefit-cost framework for this comparison, and wac will use <br />such an approach in this project. Contractor shall also compute <br />net financial returns on a dollar-per-acre per-year basis, to de- <br />termine whether the proposed operations would.be profitable, re- <br />gardless of their economic benefits. Further, both approaches <br />will be subjected to a sensitivity analysis with regard to the <br />more subjective assumptions that are employed. <br /> <br />$ 1.140 <br />$14;380. <br /> <br />The comparison of costs and 'returns in a benefit~cost <br />framework, requi'res consideration of and applicat'ion of several <br />assumptions. One of these assumptions is a determination of the <br />proposed project's life. Usually, feasibility studies for <br />irrigated agricultural projects are based upon an assumed project <br />life of 50 to 100 years. Computing project benefits and costs <br />over a 100 ye'ar t-Ime (rame requires a more intensiv,e effor.t, <br />since more capitalcom~onents of the system will require replace- <br />ment over a 100 yeart1me frame than over a 50 year time frame. <br />Furthermore, with any reasonable range ofdis.count rates (say <br />greater than 4 percent), the analysis over an additional 50 years <br />adds little to the analysis. Nevertheless, the United States and <br />tribes in both the Arizona v. California and United States v. Wy- <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br /> <br />.;. ~" .'".d :"",'i'>,', ";~.< ..'.A~"'~ <br /> <br />"'0"'" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.