Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />