Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001452 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />provide a supplemental irrigation supply for about 15.000 acrtlS <:ff: <br />presently irrigated land. Tha paymept capacity of the new irrigable <br />lands is estimated at $6.00 per a.cre 'l.nnually. Operation, maintenance <br />and replacement expenses on tho storage; distribution and drainal':e <br />systoms would amount to about $2.25 per acre, The remaining $3.75 <br />por acre could be awlied to the ether allocated irrigation costs <br />which wQllrl include the follC1Ning: annual O.M. & R. for pumping in- <br />cluding power costs, construction costs of the pumping system, ani <br />the transmission system, and cons.truction cost of the irrigation <br />regulatory reservoir. To S\l=rize: the annual cost of the pumped <br />irrigo.tion water would be $23~34 per acre-foot or $72.35 per acre I <br />the annual payment oapacity of the irrigated lands would be about <br />$6000 per acre. <br /> <br />30. In order to evaluate the cost of providing irrigation water <br />from the South Platte River for neW lam s in the Fountain Valley: an <br />analysis was made of tho cost and payment ability of new lands under <br />the comprehansive maxi. mum gravity diversion Gunnison-Arkansas Project <br />plan for comparative purposes. Tha most recent (although tentative) <br />allocation of costs a-'nong the various features <:ff: th3 Gunnison..Arknnsas <br />Project was utilized. Estimated returns frvm ad valorem taxes by <br />conservancy districts were computed for El Paso County alone fer the <br />Fountain Vo.lley development, and for counties excl',ding El Puso for <br />tho Gunnison-Arkansas developmmt. Tha unnual cost of irrigation water <br />for now lands wall determined for bath develo!,lIl3nt 2,. From that cost <br />was deducted the farm;rs' e~tinnted payment capacit;r am the estinnted <br />revenue from tho Conservauo.y Distriat. Tho rG;naindcI' represont s that <br />portion of the annual co sf; for i):"~'igating land s th,t I:IUst be borne by <br />power revenues under pres'mt Bureau procedures. CO~lpo.rative annual <br />por..acre costs for irri6at~tng new lands in the ArkarH;as Valley proper <br />under tho Il!lximum gravity d 1version phase of tho p{J(;.:mt ill 1 G).Innison- <br />Arkansas Project and for irrigating new lands in tln Fountain Valley <br />under the dual-purpose South Platte River plan are presented in the <br />following tabulation.; <br /> <br />Ne!:..!E:::;'!.s per <br /> <br />Maximum..grav:L'''y ph:1se <br />Gunnis on-b..:.'~::D.rlso.s <br />Proj e':~:. <br /> <br />!'lcre <br /> <br />Dual-purpose <br />South Platte <br />River Plan <br /> <br />Annual cost of vmter including <br />constr'"J.ction cost am OoM" & R. . . . $ 24,38 $ 72.35 <br />Paymer.t capacity c 0 " 0 , . . . . . . 80.5J 6.00 <br />Tax from Conservancy Dist_'t.").~t, . 0 . . 0.96. 4.06 <br />Annual balance to be rap" id from <br />power reservos. . . . . . . . . . . $ 14.92 $ 62.29 <br /> <br />Fountain River patentialities <br /> <br />am <br /> <br />31. As an alternative to the diversion of vmter for irrigation <br />municipal uses from -I:;he South .PIette R,_"""., Mnsi1e~"til)n should <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />