WSP04606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15 ,,,WI,oJ .. ~..i .l..'~ ~J2MIC JUSTIFICATION Benefits Irrigation The anaJysis of irrigation benefits is based upon farm budget studies representing future conditions "with" and "without" the proj ect !.n operation. Because of the organization of the conserv- anoy distriot, definite delineation of the service area, and revision of studies of water supplies available for irrigation, it has been necessary to review and revise the earlier benefit studies. An analysis was made of six ditches serving about 225,000 aores of irrigated lands or 80 percent of the over-all project service area. Basic information on land use, crop yields, costs, and livestock enterprises used in previous budgets was applied in the revised evalu- ation. Corrections were made in these data to conform with agricul- tural price indexes of 250 for prices received and 265 for prices paid (1910-1914=100). The investment for all buildings and improve- ments was estimated at $12,000 per farm based on available records for the area. M9.chinery and equipment inventories were adjusted to represent land use under the various ditches analyzed. The six ditches are the Bessemer, Colorado, Highline, Catlin, Holbrook, and Fort Lyons--all in the Arkansas River Valley. Expansion of the farm budget data for determination of the effects of the project was accomplished by relating studies of future conditions without the project to the effective historical water supply for lands in the direct service area in the Arkansas Valley. In contrast, the studies of conditions with the project were projected to represent a full water supply for thesame area. The difference enabled computation of total benefits if the total shortage of 317,200 acre-feet of water could be eliminated. The values were then adjusted downward to reflect benefits for the 163,100 acre-feet of new headgate water supply which the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project will provide. Ident- ical benefits per acre-foot were assumed for lands in the Fountain Valley which would receive indirect service, for lands in the Arkansas Valley which would receive direct service, and for lands below John Martin Reservoir which would utilize return flow only. Evaluated direct benefits represent net increases in farm income due to operation of the projeot and indirect and public bene- fits, seoondary impacts of the project. The evaluations are segre- gated for two areas: first, for the project area of 280,600 acres, and second, for irrigated lands served by diversions from the Arkansas