Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'t'-- <br /> <br />However, only the more expensive alternative would include <br /> <br />additional new diversion structures and a conveyance conduit from <br /> <br />Black Mesa to the Gould Reservoir. <br /> <br />The feasibility study shows that the Case I alternative <br />would have a minimum benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1.65:1 and that <br />the Case II alternative would have a minimum BCR of 1.63:1 (both <br />being based on direct and indirect benefits). The Case II <br />alternative would have severe adverse environmental impacts <br />withtn the construction areas. <br /> <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />Whtle the feasibiltty study shows a benefit-cost ratio <br />greater than one for each of the proposed alternatives, it also <br />demonstrates conclustvely that the district would not be able to <br />make the annual payments required to repay the funds borrowed to <br />construct the project and to cover annual operation and <br />maintenance costs. Assuming the most favorable interest rate <br />possible on matching funds and assuming 50 percent funding from <br /> <br /> <br />the CWCB construction fund at a 5 percent service charge, the <br /> <br /> <br />annual cost of the Case I alternative would be approximately <br /> <br />$350,000, while the district engineer reports that the district's <br /> <br /> <br />ability to repay (from irrigation only) would be only about <br /> <br /> <br />$100,000 annually. The benefltJcost ratio was calculated to be <br /> <br /> <br />greater than one because the calculation included indirect <br /> <br /> <br />benefits to business firms and the public, in addition to the <br /> <br />-3- <br />