WSP05696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. COOT ALLOCATIONS Preliminary allocations have been made of the estimated costs of tile Colorado River Storage project and particip",ting projects as a basis fo~' determining reimbursable costs by purposes and for mak,il~ repayment stud- ies. Costs of the four units of the storage project have been allocated as a eingle project cost and have been apportioned to irrigation and other water-consuming uses, power, flood c0ntrol, and recreation. Costs of each participating project have been separately allocated to the same purposes as the storage project costs and also in same instances to mlh.icipal and industrial water and to fish and wildlife. The allocations are of neces- sity preliminBIJ' in nature since they are based on estimated costs and project plans that m~' be modified in defini,te plan studies. Procedures used in allocations of the storage project costs are die- cussed in the following sections and the resulting allocations are sum- marized in the table on page 43. Allocations of costs of participating pro~ects also are summarized in the table on page 43. Procedures used in making the ppxticipating project allocations are similar to those for the storage project. . Derivation of StoraRe Project Cost Allocations Storage project costs used as a basis for the allocations include con- struction costs, interest during construction, and operation, maintenance, and repl?,~e4ent costs. Costs of past investigations finan~ed from the reimbuxsc'-"le R2c'.:1lIlatio!l and Upper Colorado River Bar.:,n ~'Ul_ds were included in the c~pstruction cost~ but those financed from the nonreimbursable Colo- rado River Developwent Fund and contributed funds were excluded. Also excluded were costs of construction financed from contributed funds. Method nf allocation Only separable costs of recreational facilities were allocated to recreation. Remainir.g oosts vere then alloca tea. to irrigo:oion, :;lower, and floon. control by the separable cost-remaining benefits method. Under this met~,ocl the s"'I'a-",b:e costs of each rurposC' were allocE,ted to that pur- pose and th<'! SUlJl of '"he separable costs for all p\:I1'cses was subtracted from the to~al project costs to obtain renainin~ joi~t costs. Tue remain- ing joint costs w~re +,h2Tl a:r loeate.:t to t':1e va!'} :'15 ?i'oject :..urpo~es in pro~ortion to t~e rem~lning benefits of the p~T~~ses in excess of their separable costs. Thus the total allocation to ",,-ch purpose is equal to or great"r than the separable cost of including that purpose in the proj- ect and is not more than either the benefits or the co~t of the most economic&! sin~le-purpose alternative. Under this method the coets of . 35