|
<br />3920
<br />
<br />FRYING PAN-ARKANSAS PRO.JECT, COLORADO
<br />
<br />19
<br />
<br />subst.antinlly le<s thnn $3.60 per nere-foot which is the vnlue at the
<br />P.ueblo ReselToir estnblisherl for a ncw supplement.1l1 wnter supply.
<br />71. Be-n('fits.--The economic just.i1icat,ion of finy project c~n be'
<br />tested by a bcnefit-eost mtio which measures t,bc bencfits obtal)1able
<br />contrasted with the attendnnt Fcdernl eosts of bringing about those
<br />bencfits. The net Fcderal projcct investment. consists of the total
<br />construct.ion cost plus i.nterest at the m.te of 2}~ percent during con-
<br />struet.ion less the prcsent. worth of the hundredth-year terminal
<br />salvage vnlue of principal project. works. Thao investment is trans-
<br />lated into an annu,,] equivalent by amort.ization over 100 years at
<br />2X percent. The annual project invest.ment cost is obtaincd by
<br />adding to the annual equivalent the adjusted annual operation,
<br />maintenance, and replacement expense.
<br />
<br />Annual benefits:
<br />Irrigation____ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ __ __ ___
<br />Power______ _ __ _ _ ___ ____ _____ ___ _ _____ ___ ___ __ ~ ___ ____ ___
<br />l\lunicipal wMer_h__ ____ ____ __u n_____.. _____ ____. _ _____
<br />Floocl cOljf.roL _ _ _ ___ _ ~ __ ____ _ ___ __ _____ _ _ _____ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __
<br />Sediment controL ___ ____ ____ ____ _________ __ h_ ____ _ __h__
<br />
<br />$3,339,000
<br />4, 064, 000
<br />1, 662, OOll
<br />583,000
<br />141,00ll
<br />
<br />Total annual benefit:L _ _ ___ ____ __ __ ________ ____ _ _ h __ __ _ 9,789,000
<br />
<br />Annual costs:
<br />Project inycstmenL _ _ ~ _ n __ __ _ _u_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ~_ _ _ ____ _u 4, 165,000
<br />Adjusted operation, maintenance, and rcplR.cemcnt_ _ _ _. __ _ _ _ _ 1,403,000
<br />Total annual cost.S__n n_ _ ___ ____. ____ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ h ___ _h_ 5,5(;8,000
<br />
<br />Benefit-cost rat.io___ _ _ nuu _ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ n_ _ __ _ _ __ ~ _ n _ _ ___ _ _ 1. 76: 1. 00
<br />
<br />72. The preceding calculation includes direct and indirect benefits
<br />for the. initinl devclopmcnt. It is significnnt that the sum of direct
<br />, irrigIttion benefits to farmers of $1,005,000, direct power benefits of
<br />$2,375,000, nnd benefits to municipal water. flood eontrol, alld sedi-
<br />ment control is sufficient to support the annual project costs.
<br />73. The report on the Colomdo River storagc project and partici-
<br />pating projects present.s a plan for R. system of regulatory reservoirs
<br />that would permit. maximum development of thc upper Colorado River
<br />Basin water resources for beneficial couswnptive uses and assure tbe
<br />requircd deli,eries of water at Lee Ferry to meet the requirements of
<br />the Colorado River compact. If it is asslUned that tire Colorado River
<br />storage project will be constructed, and if it is considered proper in
<br />analyzing the Gunnison-Arkunsas project t.o assign an appropriate
<br />share of the cost of the Colorado River storage project, then the assign-
<br />able annual cost to the Gunnison-Arkansus project is estimated at
<br />.$2.35 per acre-foot of consumptive use of water. The net effect, so
<br />far as the Gunnison-Arkansas project is concemed, would be to alter
<br />:,slightly the cconomic justification. The unnual cost would increase
<br />from $5,568,000 to $5,;31,000, aDd tbe benefit-cost ratio would be re-
<br />duced slightly from l.i6:1.00 to ~.71:1.00.
<br />;4. Operating principles.-On Novemhcr 24, 1948,"R'policy and re-
<br />view eommi ttee was orl>anized by the Colorado Water Conservation
<br />Board to study and're"Jew plans and reports on the first stage of t.he
<br />Gunnison-Arksna1t!J!rojeet. The committee was composed of repre"
<br />sentati ves of tile "lJoard, the Colorado Game and Fish Commission
<br />.
<br />
<br />,..
<br />..;1....
<br />
|