Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REPORT <br /> <br />According to farm budget analyses the non-Indian water users could <br />pay toward construction costs about $1.30 an acre-foot of storage water <br />or $.90 an acre for lands receiving supplemental water and $1.74 an acre <br />for lands receiving a full supply of project water. Thus they could <br />pay $19,630 annually or $981,500 in the 50-year repayment period being <br />considered for projects participating in the Upper Colorado River <br />AccO\mt. At the same rate of paymmt the Indians would pay $78,000 in <br />the 50-year period. This amount, however, possibly would not be paid <br />by the Indians but would be adjusted under an extension of the Leavitt <br />Act of July 1, 1932 (45 Stat.564) which authorizes the Secretary of <br />the Interior to adjust or eliminate charges against the Indians. The <br />portion of the construction cost allocated to irrigation and not paid <br />in a 50-year period or adjusted (amounting to about $4,788,400) would <br />be paid from power revenues of the Colorado River Storage project that <br />would be credited to the Upper Colorado River Account. The non-Indians <br />would pay their share of the annual operation, maintenance, and replace- <br />ment costs while those costs assigned the Indians would probably be <br />adjusted under an extension of the Leavitt Act. <br /> <br />A development period of 10 years after project water was available <br />would be desirable before water users were assessed construction costs. <br />This period w:>uld permit the land owners to prepare the undeveloped <br />lands for irrigation and organize their fanning operations so that they <br />could begin to realize benefits from project water at the time the assess- <br />ments were started. <br /> <br />Water users in the project area have formed the Florida Water Conser- <br />vancy District. Such a district would be a suitable organization to con- <br />tract with the United States Government for repayment of reimbursable <br />costs. <br /> <br />Comparison of Benefits and Costs <br /> <br />Benefits from the Florida project attributable to Federal expendi- <br />tures would compare with the attendant Federal costs in a ratio of 1. 24- <br />to 1. For the comparison, both benefits and costs were considered over <br />a lOO-Year period beginning with the first year of full project operation. <br /> <br />Benefits attributable to the Florida project are expected to amount <br />to $275,900 armually on the basis of 1939-1944 prices. These benefits <br />include an irrigation benefit of $265,500, a flood control benefit of <br />$4,700(adjusted to the 1939-1944 price period) as estimated by the Corps <br />of Engineers, and a fish and wildlife benefit of $5,700 anticipated by the <br />Fish and Wildlife Service. The irrigation benefit includes a direct irri- <br />gation benefit of $156,600 expected to result from increased crop and <br />livestock production and an indirect irrigation benefit of $108,900 <br />expected to result from the project's effect on industry and trade. The <br />irrigation benefits were computed as average annual equivalents over the <br />lOO-year period of analysis at an int erest rate of 2.5 percent. <br /> <br />7 <br />