Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0';. <br />C',,1 <br />c:: <br />- <br /> <br />~, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In the 1954 status report no part of the estimated cost <br />was assigned to flood control, recreation, or fish and wildlife <br />benefits. Undoubtedly a part of the construction cost can be so <br />allocated. For the purpose of this summary we have arbitrarily <br />assigned a cost of $I,200,OOO as a nonreimbursable item. <br /> <br />No local interest has been shown for the project as yet. <br />The project actually looks better on paper than it does on the <br />ground. The project lands are scattered over a wide area of rela- <br />tively rough terrain. Unless the benefit-cost ratio of the Gypsum <br />unit can be improved, its eventual inclusion as a part of the proj- <br />ect is doubtful. However, without the Gypsum unit the project now <br />shows a favorable benefit-cost ratio. For this reason we recommend <br />that it be accorded a priority for feasibility investigation. <br /> <br />It is our recommendation that the Eagle Divide Project <br />be assigned priority No.6, the same priority assigned by the <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District Board. <br /> <br />FLS:lk <br /> <br />Eagle Divide Project <br /> <br />-2- <br />