WSP07440 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 Fu""'"", Irrigation: Direct____ ~~~~e:;iD=6:~=~=ft~~=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: TotaL _ ~~h~~d~il~ii;~~~~~~~;~i~================================ NationaL________ Local____________======================================= Total_____________________________________________ Recreation (adjusted for time and rate of development)_______==== Annual benefit $1,394,000 221,500 16,000 1, 631, 500 961, 000 51,000 241, 700 292, 700 790,000 Total net benefits___________hun______________________ 3,675,200 Direct net benefits_____U__h__U_________________u____ 3,453,700 The benefit-cost ratio, based on the foregoing, is 1.62 to 1 for total benefits llJld 1.52 to 1 for direct benefits only. The estimated costs of the Narrows Umt have been allocated as follows : Function Construction "". Total Interest during construction ~~~~~&ri~e~~~~[=====::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::: Recre~~~~_~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~= ~~ == =::=:: =~ ~~~~ :~==: ~ ~= ~~ ~~ ~= ~~ ~ ~ = Total._____________________________________ $2,167,900 1,580,000 11,600 54,700 279,900 824,500 4,918,600 $28,367,300 20,59&,100 150,600 936,700 4,017,900 12,670,000 66,738,600 $26,199,400 19,016,100 139,000 882,000 3,738,000 11,845,500 61,820,000 All of the constrnction costs allocated to irrigation ($26,199,400) would be reimbursable without interest within 50 years. Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement expenses allocated to irriga- tion are $22,400. All of these costs would be repaid from annual ad valorem tax revenues estimated at $17,000, annual service charges from Jeckson Lake Reservoir interests ($10,000), and a fixed annual obligation ($519,400) to return the irrigation costs within 50 years. The contractual arrangements may include .provision for variable annuli! repayment reflecting both economic and overall water supply condItIOns. As provided in the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, a non- Federal public body would be responsible for the repayment with interest of $491,300, which represents one-half of separable costs al- located to fish and wildlife enhllJlcement, and includes $24,900 interest during construction, and would bear all of the separable annual opera- tion and maintenllJlce costs estimated at $20,100. Reimburaable costs allocated to recreation for which it would be responsible total $1,- 307,300, which includes $29,500 interest during construction. Separa- ble .operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $144,200. We antICIpate the State of Colorado will indicate in writing its intent to agree, as required by the act, to bear these costs and to administer the land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhance- ment. Such an agreement would be a prerequisite to commencement of construction of the unit. " . 7 The remaining costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement ($4,153,600), recreation ($10,567,700), flood control ($19,016,100), and the Federal share of road relocatwn costs for highway improve- men~ ($139,000) total $33,876,400 and would be nonreimbursable as prOVIded by law. Nonreimbursable annual operation maintenance and repla!,ement costs total $29,800, wbich was allo~ated to fish' llJld wildlIfe enhancement ($11,200), recreation ($9 500) and fiood control ($9,100). ' , . As pr~viou~y indicated, subsequent to the completion of the re- gwnal director s report, the FWPCA conducted further studies of the wa~r quality control aspects of the unit. Those studies indicate that ~8J.ntenance of the req~ed minimum flow of 25 cubic feet per second m the South. Platte R,ver below the proposed Narrows Dam to its confluence Wlth the North Platte River would provide additional annua~ b~nefits of $85,200, and $135,000 to the recreation and fish and wildlif~ enhancement functions, respectively, rather than to the water quaJity control. function as proposed in" the regional director's rep?rt. W,th Secre~arIal approval an~ adoption of the Department's policy on ~ost sharmg for water qUalIty control came the thesis that wat",: quality control ~as not a function in itself. The ouly reason for cleamng up a stream IS to make the water usable for other project P,:,,"P?ses. The accrual of these benefits to the recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement functions is predicated on the assumption that a waste control program consistent. with the recommendations of FWPCA's enforcement studies would be carried out and that suffi- cient access and picnic facilities would be provided along the river for those two functions. At the present ti.J;ne, however, Colorado law does not recognize the purposes of recreatIon and fish and wildlife as beneficial uses of its water resources an.d thus protection of a base flow for those purposes would not be prOVided as the flow might be diverl<ld by valid holders o.f natural flow. water. right permits. Realization of the above addi- tIOnal be~efits IS contIngent upon the maintenance of the base flow o.f 25 cubl~ ~eet per ~econd and the acquistion of land and installa- tIOn of facIlities speCifically for the purposes. of recreation and fish and wildlife. Therefore, the State of Colorado would need to take such actions as are necessary to assure protection of this base flow and would need to agree to administer and to share in the costs of the recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement facilities. . Assuming such actions would be taken by the State and the addi- twnal !and and recre.ation faciliti~ would be provided as features of the umt, the econOllilC and finanCIal aspects of the unit were reevalu- a.ted to reflect the resultant changes in the construction costs, alloca- tion of ~osts, benefits, !lld repayment requirements as a result of formulatmg the alternatIve plan of development. This reevaluation is presented in th.e follo:wing parajp'aphs. . In reevaluatmg this alternatIve plllJl of development for the unit It h,,;, been assumed that an additional 3,000 acres of land would be acqwred and access to the river would be provided for fishing at an estnnate<! cost of $400,000 and 60 picnic areas would be developed at an estimated cost of $300,000. It was also assumed that the necessary actions wo~d be taken to assure protection of the base flow and there- fore th~ rrngators would forgo diversion of this water. Additional reserVOIr releases for irrigation would be required to replace the water