Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />f1. ..-J, ?'f"+"-'~' <br />~ . <br />, <br /> <br />NOV 5 1953 <br /> <br />COLORADO RIVER STffiAGE PROJ1CT <br /> <br />CllRECANTI UNIT <br /> <br />('vel' the past several years considerable work has been accom- <br />plishE'd in an effort to set forth uniform standards and procedures <br />for e,'aluating projects for the development of the Nation's water <br />resources. While all agencies concerned with water resource project <br />develc,pnent are still not in full agreement, certain criteria have <br />been recognized as necessary to assure the maximwn returns from proj- <br />ect investments.. Present procedures require a demonstration of the <br />economic feasibility of not only the over-all project but of each unit <br />2l1d SE,para bIe purpo se thereof. Expenditu res for any purpose servr-d <br />by thE' project are limited to the lowest cost alternative development <br />to provide the same benefits. <br /> <br />Power production and physical dc.ta are shown on sh8et A for <br />2,500,000 acre-foo.t and 940,000 acre-foot reservoir.;; at the Curecenti <br />situ. For the purpose of comparing the large and runall storage plens <br />for developing the Curecanti site on the Gunnison River, all co sts <br />for eE.ch plan were first assumed allocated to power. These costs and <br />the ccmputation of the required u~it cost per kilowatt-hour of salable <br />energy for project repayment in 50 years with 2~ percent interest llI'e <br />shown on sheets B 2.nd C. Also shown on sheets C and D are the compu- <br />tatiors of benefit-cost ratios for the two plans. The project bene- <br />fits c.re based on the estimated annual ccst of producing equivalent <br />steam power in the llI'ea as shown on data summary sheet B. The project <br />eost s include construction co st s, int erest during construction at 2~ <br />percent, J. snlv,cge credit equal to the estimated present value of <br />project fc.cilities after 50 yec.rs of operation, and the estimated <br />Dru1ual cost of operation, n<lintmance, and replacement. <br /> <br />The required unit en8rgy sale rdes and the benefit-cost ro,tios <br />show that with all costs allocated to power ncithcr p12~ can be justi- <br />fied E,conomically since their costs exeeed those of the lowest eost <br />iltemative. In both compute.tions the 940,000 acre-foot reservoir; <br />thougr. it can't be economiec.lly justified under pr"sent conditions, <br />c.ppec.rs more f3vorable than the larger development, This is the result <br />of confining the anc.lysis to at-site ben"fits and favor5 the sm~ll <br />storage reservoir. In the cc.se of ~ large reservoir a net contribu- <br />tion from storage to the dry pcri,)d flol< of the Colorado River at <br />Lee FErry can be shown as the basi s for cl2-iming an irrigation (hold- <br />over storage) D.lloc~tion. However, with tlle small reservoir the net <br />contribution over successive 10-yec.r periods i3 negligible. The act- <br />ive storage is so limited th~t it is o~ value only for regulation of <br />se~son~l runoff since in mast ye~rs the runoff during ~~y and June <br />exceeds the active stcrage c~p,city. Also considerntion must be given <br />