WSP06130 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f 002317 ~ CHAPl'ER II BASES FOR JU1ALYSIS . otherwise be wasted. Therefore streamf'lo'W available 'Within the \mits in excess of estimated ideal requirements 'Was considered available fOT diver- sion and for storage in the unit reservoirs. The 'Water available for each unit of the Yampa-Whi te project ;;as esti- mated on the ~asis of the remaining flow after bypassing all ;;ater useable within the ideal pattern of need under dmmstream rights. Thus there would be no requirements for replacement storage for present developments in the White end Yampa Basins. The project \mits, however, would need the overall river reglliation that will be provided by the Colorado River Storage project in order that diversions 'Would not be restricted in pro- longed dry periods to meet do;;nstream obligations under the Colorado River Compact. Thus ill the benefit-cost analyses, as discussed on page s 21 and 22, the units were assigned costs of the Colorado River Storage project regulatory features. Cost Estimates . Construction costs for eech unit of the Yampa-~~ite pro~ect were esti- mated at January 1956 prices. The estimates include an allowance of 25 percent for unfo~eseen contingencies and an allowance varying from 15 to 30 percent for engineerinG end overhead expenses. The variance in engi- neering and overhead expe~se is due to the difference in concentration of work for ,features of each unit. The cost estimates were based on costs of structures which have been successfully designed, constructed, ~d operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for the irriga- tion features were estimated on a long-term projected price level of 180 (1939=100) while the annual costs for mWlicipal vater and poWer featm'es were estimated at the Jr~uary 1956 price level. Replacement costs 'Were computed on a sinldng-fund basis at 2.5-percent interest over a laO-year period. /.lethods of Economic Analysis In the analyses of potential units of the Yampa-White project, with the exception of the Flattops unit, all costs were allocated to irriga- tion and only benefits from irrigation were considered in the benefit- cost comparisons. Costs of the Flattops unit were allocated to power and municipal water, and estimates were made of power and municipal ;;ater benefits and repayment. For this reconnaiss=ce appraisal no evaluations were made of the possible effects of any of the units on fish ~d wildlife c~nservation, l~creation, potential downstream power developments,or sedi- ment control. . 20