WSP00916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REPORT Annual equivalent costs were estimated at $222,300. These costs include $170,900 for amortization of the estinated construction cost at 2.5 percent interest over the 100-year period of analysis,- $21,100 for operation, maintenance, and replacements, and $30,300 for the Florida projectl s prorated share of the cost of regulatory features of the Coloraqo River Storage project. Costs of the storage project's regula- tory features, although payable by revenues of the storage project, are being assigned for purposes of benefit-cost analyses to future water- consuming projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin since develOplllElnt of such projects is dependent on the river regulation that would be pro- vided by the storage project. Conclusions The Florida project as outlined in this report has engineering feasibilit;v. Water for the project is physically available and adequate water rights can be obtained in accordance with Colorado laws. The proj- ect is economically justified since the annual benefits would compare with the annual equivalent costs in a ratio of 1.24 to 1. The project construc- tion costs would be allocated to irrigation, flood control, and fish and wildlife conservation. The operation, maintenance, and replacement costs would be allocated to irrigation and fish and wildlife conservation. The flood control and fish and wildlife allocations would be nonreimbursable. The costs allocated to irrigation would be prorated to Indian and non- Indian-owned lands in proportion to the project water they would receive. Except for a portion of the costs assigned the Indians that might be adjusted under an extension of the Leavitt Act, the irrigation costs would be returned to the Federal Government in a 50-year period Iv payments from the water users and from the Upper Colorado River Account. 8