Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sources of Data <br /> <br />Numerous economic studies of irrigation development have been relied upon <br />for the economic and physical standards, and the procedures used in the <br />analysis. This background information was supplemented by specific <br />information for the Florida project obtained from four major sources: (1) <br />An economic survey of farms in the project area conducted during 1958 by <br />the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U. S. Department of Agriculture; <br />(2) material furnished by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation; (3) economic <br />analyses of other projects; 11 and (4) information furnish~d by Colorado <br />State University personnel, local representatives of federal and state <br />agencies and local businessmen. <br /> <br />Commodity Price Projections <br /> <br />All prices used for estimating farm incomes, direct benefits, and associated <br />costs are based upon the September 1957 price projections of the U. S. <br />Department of Agriculture. These projections assume "relatively high <br />employment, a trend toward peace, continued population and economic growth, <br />md a stable general price level. n <br /> <br />The long-term projected index of prices received for all farm commodities <br />is 235, base period 1910-14. A comparable index for prices paid, including <br />interest, wages and taxes, is 265. <br /> <br />The price of rotation pasture used in the benefit analySis is derived from <br />the long-term projected price of alfalfa. The computed price is based on <br />the net income derived from alfalfa, adjusted for differences in costs of <br />production and per-acre yield of total digestible nutrients. The derived <br />price results in the same net return per acre for alfalfa hay and rotation <br />pasture. <br /> <br />Information obtained during the field survey showed that, histo~ically, <br />prices received locally for specific agricultural commodities m~keted in <br />Colorado or New Mexico have been about the same as the state average <br />prices. Projected prices of commodities for the States of Colorado and <br />New Mexico were adjusted for transportation and marketing costs. Projected <br />prices of crops, livestock, livestock products and selected cost items for <br />the Florida project are shown in table 11. <br /> <br />11 Reappraisal of Direct Agricultural Benefits for the Vernal Unit, Central <br />Utah project, and Paonia, Hammond, Smith Fork and Seedskadee projects, <br />Colorado River Storage Project. <br /> <br />- 23 - <br />