WSP06617 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UIJ3333 CHAPTER III POTENTIAL IRRIGATION DEVELOP~IENT . on labor and feed requirements, livestocl, production rates, and fa.r.dly living requirements was obtained from published data of the Department of Agriculture, various colle@es and experiment stations, and other Fed- eral and State a@encies. ) The farm bud@et indicates that the representative beef-type opera- tion would require about 215 acres of irrigable land. A. farm of this size would meet e.ll operating expenses, provide a family living alloW- ance of approximately $2,250 annually, and pay operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. It would not allow any payment toward amortization of construction costs. Most ranchers presently operating in the area have range permits for approximately 11)() head of ca't'tle and somewhat more than the equivalent of 215 acres of irrigated land. With projed development there will be no addi tiona.l range perm! ts. Existing units will probably be divided even- tually to provide farms for more families as the population increases. The av-'rage ranch will therefore be somewhat smaller than at present. The average range permits will likely be smaller for the same reason.This anticipeted situation has been reflected in the farm budget studies. Estimated payment and amortization capacities are presented in the table on the following page. . Financial Analysis Project Benefits and Costs Eco~omic justification of the project is based on a comparison of National benefits and project cos'ts. For the comparison benefits and costs were converted to a.verage annual equivalents over a 100-year cozmnon- 'time period at 2.5 percent interest. Project construction costs were esti- mated a.t October 1955 prices. Benefits were estimated at the long-term projected price level of 215(1910-14=100). Opera'tion, maintenance, and replacement costs were estimated at the long-term projected price level of 180(1939=100). Irrige.'tion benefi'ts were measured by the value of increased goods and services resulting from the additional irrigation at'tributable to the project. Direct, indirect, and public benefits vere evaluated. Direct benefits represent the increase in farm income in excess of farm produc- tion costs and the value of alternative employment OPportunities. Indi- rect benefits include the increased profits to the nonfarm enterprises resulting from the increased agricultural production and from increased purchases by the farmer for family living o.nd farm operation. Public bene- fits include the value of increased opportunities for establishment of new family-sized farms. . In estimating the benefits attributable to the project, it was con- sidered that project lands are presently used as range although detailed studies may show that future conditions without the project ...ould be a 29