Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 0 <br /> 0) <br /> "'1 <br />) (.il <br />~ It <br /> <br />sho,ll not be mo. terinlly depleted in l1sabJ.e <br />quantity or availability for use to the water <br />users in Colorado and Kansas under tDis Compact <br />by such future development or construction." <br /> <br />is the intent of the above provision to permit develop- <br /> <br />ments above John Martin Dam (Caddoa) provided such do not ma- <br /> <br />terially deplete the usable quantity of water to users in Colorado <br /> <br />and Kansas under the Compact. What constitutes a material de~ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />pletion is not defined elsewhere in the Compact. The only knqwn <br /> <br /> <br />way of determining whether the proposed project would be adversely <br /> <br /> <br />affected by the Compact would be to determine the actual deple- <br /> <br />tion to Colorado and Kansas users by the project and submit the <br /> <br />findings to the Arkansas River Compact Administration for a de- <br /> <br /> <br />cision. Because of the adverse economic findings of this report, <br /> <br /> <br />it was deemed inadvisable to estimate any depletions by the <br /> <br />project, as future studies may indicate a different size reser- <br /> <br /> <br />voir as being the most desirable YTith a different effect on the <br /> <br />river. <br /> <br />Economics. The following is the estima,ted capital cost and <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />annual cost for the Piedmont Bridge Dam and Reservoir based upon <br />1949 prices. <br /> <br />Table No.5 <br /> <br />Estimated Costs and Annual Charges <br />Piedmont Bridge De,m and Reservoir <br /> <br />l!:2!!! <br />Construction Cost <br /> <br />Flood Control <br /> <br />Irrigation <br /> <br />Investment subject to Amortization <br /> <br />$6,007,180 <br />522,620 <br />$5,484,560 <br /> <br />$8,464,820 <br />736,440 <br />, <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Less Salvage Value <br /> <br />$7,728,380 <br /> <br />-24- <br />