WSP05696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. BENEFIT-COST fu1ALYSIS is added to construction coste. An amount equivalent to taxes on an alternative private power developlleut is &.1.so included as an economic cost of developments involvine. po'Wer production. Also included for participating projects is each project's pro rata share of the cost of regulatory facilities of the Colorado River Storage project for reasons ~xpJained below. Storage project coats aseigned to participating projects Reservoirs of the Colorado River Storage project, as explained under "Water Supply," will provide replacement water for the lower basin and I'lexico in prolonged drouth periods in order to permit continued expansion of water-consuming uses in the upper basin. A portion of the cost of the storage reservoirs may therefore appropriately Je assigned to the water-consuming uses of participating projects in the benefit- cost analysis. Under the authorized repayment plan, however, all of the rei~bursable atorage costs will be repaid from power revenues. . Since the amount of replacement storage required is a direct func- tion of increases in stream depletion, it is equitable to assign the allocated costs of replacement storage to each participating project in proportion to the amount of stream depletion that it will cause. In a later section of this report, a total cost of $122,086,000 on a present worth Jasis for units of the storage project is allocated to irrigation. This allocation, prorated to an average increase in consumptive use of 1,800,000 acre-feet annually over the lOO-year period of analysis, amounts to about $70 per acre-foot. On an annual equivalent basis it is about $2 per acre-foot of depletion. Benefit-Cost Summary Benefit-cost comparisons have been made for each unit of the Colo- rado River Storage project, the combined storage units, each pa"'ticipat- ing project, and for the storage project and participating projects combined. Comparisons have been made for a 100-year period of analyais in accordance with Bureau of Reclamation policy and for a 50-year period in respcmGe to requests from the Bureau of the Bu<l<>et. For both periods of analysis comparisons have been made for total benefits (direct, indirect, and pUblic) and where pOSSible for direct benefits only. Results of the Comparisons are shown in the t~bles on pages 33 and 34. . The benefit-coat analo'sis for the 100-year period, with considera- tion given to all the benefits, is believed to be the most equitable measure of economic justification. Use of the lOO-year period of study is more realistic than a 50-year period since the major features have been designed and are bein~ constructed to last well beyond 100 years. Recognition of all b,enefits is desirable because direct benefits do not )1