WSP06130

• File Number: 8200.760
• Description: Yampa River General
• State: CO
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Water Division: 6
• Date: 2/26/1957
• Author: BOR
• Title: Yampa-White Project - Colorado Utah and Wyoming - Reconnaissance Report - February 1957
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.

.

,e

002344

CHAPTER III

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
(Juniper unit)

the water users would be able to pay ~15,989,000 toward construction
costs in a 50-year period or about 21 percent of the total costs of
~74,902,000. If the project were authorized, the remaining portion of
the construction cost U158,913,000) would be required from the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund. The water u~ers would require a development
period of 5 years after the first delivery of unit water and before the
assessment of construction charges.

Benefit-cost analysis

Irrigation benefits from the Juniper unit would amount to about
$4,190,800 annually. Of the total value approximately ~2,l93!800 would
represent direct benefits, ~l,027,900 indirect benefits, and ~969,100
public benefits.

Average annual equivalent costs would amount to about ;;:2,986,400.
The derivation of these costs is shown in the tabulation below.

Ite1!!
Construction cost
Interest during con-
struction
Less present worth of
terminal salvage
value
Net capital investment
Operation, maintenance,
and replacement costs
Assigned cost of Colorado
River Storage project
Total

Total
;;;74,902,000

Average
annual
value

3,709,000

55.000
78,556,000

$2,145,400

276,400

564.600
2,986,400

Irrigation benefits of the Juniper unit would compare with the
average annual equivalent costs in a ratio of about 1.4 to 1. The net
benefits (benefits in excess of costs) would amount to ~1,204,4oo annually.

Plan selection and alternatives

The major alternative plan for the Juniper unit provides for regula-
tion of surplus flows of the l~te River at the potential Buford Reser-
voir site and conveyance of water along the north side of the river to
the unit area. The plan would be considerably less attractive than the
plan appraised in the preceding paragraphs. It would provide water for
only about 75,000 acres compared with about 100,000 acres in the plan
previously appraised. Comparable conveyance systems and storage regula-
tion would be required, however, and the costs would be approximately
the same.

47