WSP01434 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . " It may be that by eliminating the overall comprehensive plan that a more favorable plan could be developed solely as a Colorado project. Consideration should be also given to either the elimination or improvement of the power features, since these features contribute nothing to the project repayment other than to power itself. I I:"- C"J c: - c. In attempting to arrive at a priority for the Juniper Proj- ect we have evaluated it in connection with the other projects in the Yampa Valley, as follows: Great Northern and Yampa Valley Juniper (initial phase) Estimated cost: $25,750,000 $30,328,000 Irrigated acreage: 61,895 acres 9,000 acres Cost per acre: $396. $911. Average annual stream depletion per acre of irrigated land: 1.25 a.f. 5.39 a.f. Benefit-cost ratio: 1.05 to I 1.62 to I As can be seen from the above summary, the projects in the upper Yampa will develop almost seven times the irrigated acreage of the Juniper Project, at less than the total cost of the Juniper Project. The development cost per acre is less than half of the Juniper development cost and the consumptive use of water per acre is only about 25% of the consumptive use under the Juniper Project. Although the Juniper Project shows a more favorable benefit-cost ratio, a more disadvantageous method was used in computing the ratio for the upper Yampa projects. Based on the available information, we can only come to the conclusion that the economy of the Yampa Valley can best be devel- oped by giving early priorities to those projects in the upper en~ of the valley. People already reside under the proposed projects there, and we feel that they should have first consideration in preference to the development of wholly new farm units under the Juniper Project. Admittedly, however, the recreational benefits attributable to the Juniper Project might outweigh land development considerations. Juniper Project -3-