Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A <br />\ , <br /> <br />.(. <br />, , <br /> <br />t <br />" <br /> <br />n}l <br /> <br />, <br />! ~ <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Dead storage capacity <br /> <br />5,000 acre-feet <br />49,000 acre-feet <br /> <br />o <br />en <br />en <br />a <br /> <br />Conservation pool <br /> <br />27,500 acre-feet <br /> <br />Flood control pool <br /> <br />Total <br /> <br />81,500 <br /> <br />The siltation rate adopted by the Corps of Engineers of 980 <br /> <br />acre-feet per year would, in a 50 year period, deplete the capac- <br />ity by 49,000 acre-feet, which would leave only 5,000 acre-feet <br />or irrigation storage capacity at the end of 50 years. <br /> <br />The Corps of Engineers' method of allocating costs, in <br /> <br />which the allocation of cost to irrigation was based upon the <br /> <br /> <br />ratio of irrigation water available to the total capacity, re- <br /> <br /> <br />sults in annual charges of $409,217 to flood control and $254,592 <br /> <br />to irrigation. With these values, the ratio of costs to benefits <br /> <br /> <br />would be 1:0.18 and l:l.ll for ~lood control and irrigation, <br /> <br />respectively. For the project as a whole there is a deficit o~ <br /> <br />benefits o~ $306,807 annually to give a 1:1 ratio. <br /> <br />An economically feasible storage project, from a cost to <br /> <br />benetTe 01' ~rom a repayment standpoint, would require one or mOl'~ <br /> <br />of the following to be true: <br />1. A decrease in the dam and reservoir costs. <br /> <br />2. An increase in the flood control benefits. <br /> <br />3. An increase in the irrigation benefits. <br />4. A reduction of siltation rates of the reservoir. <br /> <br />5. The elimination o~ any feature which cannot pay its <br /> <br />own way. <br /> <br />6. The introduction of other features and the charging <br /> <br />of a part of the cost of the joint features to them, <br /> <br />such as: <br /> <br />_0_ <br />~ <br />