WSP01689 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ,;,.},,~ ,~- ~'~' O. &~.l"'W BASALT PROJECT PLAN SELECTION AND ALTERNATIVES in order that it could deliver 105 second-feet to the Three Mile Canal which would head at the terminus of the Carbondale Canal on Thomas Creek. The Three Mile Canal would cross the Crystal River by siphon and would continue in a southwest direction, serving lands in the Thompson, Four Mile, and Three Mile Creek areas. In future studies of this plan con- sideration might be given to the installation of a radial gate on the reservoir and a low lift pump to permit storage above the water surface elevation of the canal. Only water stored above the canal would be pumped. The added storage would permit the capacity of the Basalt Canal to be reduced and thus may improve the economy of the plan. Comparison of Plans Each of the alternative plans was appraised under essentially the same criteria as the adopted plan. All benefits in this chapter, how- ever, were estimated on the basis of present farm techniques and manage- ment standards, whereas improved standards 'were a.ntigipated. for the adopted plan in Chapter V. This difference in the appraisal results in some difference in the benefits of the adopted plan in Chapters V and VI but appraisals of all plans in this chapter are on a uniform basis. Bene- fits and costs were computed at average annual equivalents ovpr a 100- year period beginning with the end of " 4..y",s;I;' const;l;'uction periodwhi6h was considered to coincide with the start of the irrigation development period. Irrigation benefits were estimated on a price level of 250 for prices received by farmers and 265 for prices paid (1910-14=100). Con- struction costs were estimated on the basis of January 1962 prices and operation and maintenance costs on average prices for the period 1959 through 1961. Pumping energy costs were assumed to be 7.5 mills per kilowatt-hour. Class 1, 2, 3, and 4p lands were considered to be irri- gable. Comparative data 1'01' the 13 plans are sUllllllarized in the table on the rollowing page. All plans except Plan 12 are shown to have favor-. able benefit-cost ratios. Plan 11, although favorable from a benefit- cost standpoint, has operation and maintenance costs, including pumping costs, which appear to be higher than the irrigators t ability to pay. Although Plan 2 has a slightly higher benefit-cost ratio, Plan 8 was selected as the adopted plan because it would provide highQr net bene- fits and would develop a greater area of irrigated land. Plan 8 would accomplish as large an irrigation development as any 01' the plans except Plan 12 which is unjustif'ied economically. and Plan 13 which together with Plan 8 appears to be worthy 01' further study. 45