WSP04422

• File Number: 8443
• Description: Narrows Unit
• State: CO
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 4/5/1976
• Author: David L Carlson
• Title: Narrows Project Review
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

."

..

j"".1')
.IwPv",.

2. Bureau of Reclamation economists have stated that, in their most recent

analysis of irrigation benefits, they are using ~ irrigable dryland

farm ~ representative, of farms in the project service area. This

assumption overstates ,the value of project water, and therefore the

Bureau of Reclamation's estimate of $4.1 million in annual net irrigation

benefits must be regarded as significantly inflated.

Three points need to be made here. First of all, in the Bureau's 1966

study (reference 1), the representative farm chosen (page 68, reference 1) is

a partially-irrigated farm, not a dryland farm: 87% of the irrigable acres

of the 1966 representative farm were irrigated: There is no evidence that

a dryland farm is even remotely representative of the farms in the project

service area. 'Choosing such a nonrepresentative farm significantly over-

states economic benefits of the project water; as'further discussion will

sho,", .

Secondly, Public Law 91-389 states that: "For a period' of ten years

from the date of enactment of this Act, no water from the unit authorized

by this Act shall be delivered to any water user for the production of

newly irrigated lands of any basic agricultural commodity,..." Clearly,

supplying project water to dryland farms is not the intent of the law

authorizing the project.

Thirdly, by using a dryland farm as a representative farm, the Bureau

is in effect assuming that direct economic benefits generated from an

acre-foot of water are identical, whether the water is applied to an acre

of dry land or to, an acre of partially irrigated land. This assumption is

unsubstantiated, and' results obtained by using techniques developed in a

Ph.D. thesis by Herbert Blank of CSU (reference 3) indicate otherwise.

-4~

~