My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03984
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP03984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:53:06 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:03:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8142.400
Description
Trinidad Project - Reports
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
4/1/1964
Author
Unknown
Title
Synopsis of Irrigation Report - Trinidad Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />0'1891 <br /> <br />The Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement on constructed Federal <br />works, is not included in the farm expenses in the budgets, but must <br />come from the payment capacity afforded by the project. <br /> <br />Financial and Economic Analysis <br /> <br />Payment capacity is the net farm income available to farmers for <br />repaying water charges. The "without" project farm budgets were used <br />to measure the returns available to the farmer for a family living. <br />Without the project these returns were found to be less than the minimum <br />living allowance provided by Reclamation procedures. Therefore, a <br />minimum living allowance of $2,TT5 was used in the "with" farm budgets <br />and deducted from the net farm income before computing the repayment <br />capacity. As derived, the repayment capacity varies according to the <br />productivity of soils and the cost of land development. <br /> <br />As stated before, the budgets give the payment capacity with the <br />project for a full water supply and are then adjusted for the water <br />supply available to each ditch with the project. This was done by a <br />formula derived from Bureau of Reclamation experience as follows: <br /> <br />95~ to lO~ water supply - no reduction in repaymentability <br />75~ to 95% water supply - 5~ reduction in repaymentability <br />for each 1% reduction in water supply <br />75~ or less water supply ~ no repaymentability <br /> <br />Table 19, column 2 shows the repaymentability of various Class 1 <br />lands with a full water supply, column 5 shows Class 2 land repayment- <br />ability and column 8 that for Class 3 land. The Class 1 land repayment- <br />ability varies between the four budget groups in accordance with the <br />water supply available without the project. <br /> <br />As would be expected, ditches with the better water supplies would <br />have the least repaymentability generated by the project as eviaenced <br />by the Hoehne and JOhn's Flood figures being the smallest. Their <br />"without" project budgets showed a high net farm income so the difference <br />between this net income and that with a full water supply is less. Tbe <br />South Side having a poorer water right has the highest repaymentability <br />for Class 1 land. The Model area has no Class 1 land. In general the <br />difference in repaymentability for Class 2 and 3 lands is for the same <br />reason. These classes, however, have subclassifications which creates <br />further variations in repoymentability. <br /> <br />Column 13 is the payment capacity index derived from the water supply <br />available to each ditch by the formula given above. It should be noted <br />that a 75 percent water supply would give a zero payment capacity index <br />in this column and a 95 percent water supply would give 100 percent in <br />this column, so each of these figures represents the percent of water <br />supply lying between a 75 percent and 95 percent supply. <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.