Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />002351 <br /> <br />ClIAPTER III <br /> <br />PROJECT DEVELOPl-IENT <br />(TIm Bar unit) <br /> <br />high salinity but would not contain harmful concentrations of sodium, boron, <br />or bicarbonate. <br /> <br />Repayment <br /> <br />Water users on the Two Bar unit would have an estimated payment <br />capacity of ;>18,900 annually. Approximately $12,500 of t:,e annual payment <br />would be required for operation, maintenance, and replacement costs, leav- <br />ing ~6.400 annually for the amortization of construction costs. Thus over <br />a 50-year period $320,000 would be repaid or about 22 percent of the total <br />construction cost of ~l,445,OOO. If the unit were authorized, the remaining <br />$1,125,000 of the construction cost would be required from the Upper Colorsdc <br />River Basin Fund. <br /> <br />The water users on the Two Bar unit would re~uire a development period <br />of about 5 years after the first delivery of water and before the assess- <br />ment of construction charges. <br /> <br />Benefit-cost analysis <br /> <br />The benefits of the Two Bar unit would average $123,900 annually includ- <br />in~ a direct benefit of :~53,900, an indirect benefit of $44,400, and a <br />public benefit of $25,600. The average annual e~uivalent costs for the Two <br />Bar unit would amount to ~77,500 as shown in the tabulation below. <br /> <br />Construction cost <br />Interest during construction <br />Present worth of terminal <br />salvage value <br />Net capital investment <br />Operation, maintenance, and <br />replacement costs <br />Assigned cost of Colorado River <br />storage project <br />Total <br /> <br />Total <br />~l-;445,"OOO <br />19,000 <br /> <br />Average annual <br />value <br /> <br />o <br />1.466,000 <br /> <br />:j;40,ooo <br /> <br />12,500 <br /> <br />25,000 <br />77,500 <br /> <br />The ratio of benefits to costs would be about 1.6 to 1. Net benefits <br />(benefits in excess of costs) would amnount to about :~46,4oo annually. <br /> <br />Plan seJec tion and alternatives <br /> <br />In studies of the Two Bar unit consideration was given to the possibil- <br />ity of serving all lands in the area at the junction of the Yampa and Little <br />Snake Rivers from the Yampa River. Also various combinations of canals from <br />the Little Snake River were considered. Although all the plans studied had <br />benefit-cost ratios of greater than unity. the plan previously appraised in <br />this report provided the Greatest net benefits. <br /> <br />54 <br />