Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />TABLE 4 <br /> <br />PLAN III <br /> <br />RIGHT BANK PROTECTION AGAINST FLOODS ON WILD HORSE CREEK <br /> <br /> Average Average <br /> Annual Annual Excess Blc <br />Frequency Benefits Costs* Benefits Ratio <br />10 400 5,000 -4,600 .08 <br />25 2,500 10,000 -7,500 .25 <br />50 4,000 19,000 -15,000 .21 <br /> <br />* Includes cost for operation and maintenance. <br /> <br />From the foregoing, Plan II, providing protection against floods origina- <br /> <br />ting on Wild Horse Creek is the only economically feasible plan when con- <br /> <br />sidered on a first added basis. The optimum scale of development for this <br /> <br />plan, as presented in Table 3, is laO-year flood protection. However, <br /> <br />since the proposed pro,Ject is to protect an urban area, consil\eraUon WIlS <br /> <br />given to providing standard project flood protection. Providing this <br /> <br />degree of protection from Wild Horse Creek runoff incidentally provides <br /> <br />about laO-year protection against the Arkansas River and Two Butte Creek <br /> <br />flows. As shown in Table 3, the excess benefits for this degree of pro- <br /> <br /> <br />tection are $40,900. However, the project first costs exceed the Federal <br /> <br />cost limitation of $1,000,000 by $382,000; therefore, local interests <br /> <br />were contacted to ascertain their ability to bear project costs in excess <br /> <br />of the Federal monetary limitation. Their response indicated that the <br /> <br />citizens are presently heavily taxed and could not afford to pay a cash <br /> <br />!IlI\ount in excess of about ~;I\O,OOO including costs for rights-of-way and <br /> <br />relocations. Consequently, a lesser scale of development thllt would be <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />within the financial capabilities of local interests was considered. <br /> <br />23 <br />