Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />'J <br /> <br />of these ccnp:lI'leI1ts. For exall1?le, cities buying water fran a project must pay <br />all ql&aticn and maintenance =sts allocated to the M&I purpose and must repay <br />all constructicn oosts allocated to M&I, including interest on the unpaid balance. <br />1\griculture has no fixed real repayrrent requirement, although it has the ncrninal <br />obligaticn to repay all ql&ating and maintenance oosts allocated to irrigation and <br />to repay all CalStructicn oosts over a 60 year period. <br />For ecorx:mi.c, - <;0<"'''1, and environnental analysis, all of the project can- <br />ponents noted above are included, plus the fOllCMing additional cauponents: <br />a. all direct water usin:J agricultural operations regardless of who <br />provides the facilities or pays the oosts; <br />b. for eccnanic analysis, sea:mdary activities that use the outputs of <br />direct water users or that provide inputs for direct water users, <br />provided the expansioo of these sec:onjaJ:y activities generates genuine <br />new net ecorx:mi.c benefits fran a national viewpoint (for example, when <br />maIployed labor and/or plant car><'city is used in these secondary activities <br />c. for;the ecorx:mi.c analysis of M&I water and electric power, all delivery <br />facilities up to the agreed upon delivery point; <br />d. for the social or environmental analysis, any affected facilities or <br />activities. <br />It sOOuld be noted that the U.S. econanic analysis never includes the public <br />or private infrastructure associated with changes in population. It is tacitly <br />asSl.llled that benefits at least equal oosts for such facilities. 'lbeoretical <br />consistency really requires an analysis of such facilities, for the oonditions of <br />aVi'lilability of txJusing and CCJIm:!rcial and public services oould make a signifi- <br />cant eccnanic difference in the choice of projects. Project A might have lower <br />