Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'l::r <br />N <br />c:. <br />... <br /> <br />I '. <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />that date. Attempts are <br />servancy district in the <br />as a contractual agency. <br />have been secured by the <br />Board. <br /> <br />now being made to organize a water con- <br />Yampa valley for the purpose of acting <br />Conditional water rights for the project <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District <br /> <br />The original reconnaissance report treated the Hayden <br />Mesa, Toponas. and Wessels Projects as separate units. It is our <br />recommendation that the three projects be treated as a single unit, <br />and our analysis is predicated on that basis. The reconnaissance <br />report did not attempt to allocate nonreimbursable benefits to flood <br />control, fish and wildlife. and recreation. For the purposes of <br />our analysis we have arbitrarily allocated the sum of $4.750,000 <br />as a nonreimbursable item. <br /> <br />As can be seen from the analysis the benefit-cost ratio <br />is barely above parity. However, under the present method of <br />computing this ratio it is probable that it can be made more favor- <br />able. The development cost per acre and stream depletion are <br />reasonable. <br /> <br />It is our recommendation that this project be assigned <br />priority No.4. This is the same priority assigned by the Colorado <br />River Water Conservation District Board, except that that board <br />assigned a higher priority to the Juniper Project. Our reasons <br />for recommending a higher priority for this project than the Juniper <br />are set forth immediately hereafter. <br /> <br />Yampa Valley project <br /> <br />-2- <br />