|
<br />1726
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, COLORADO
<br />
<br />19'
<br />
<br />substantially less than $3.60 per acre-foot which is the value at the
<br />Pueblo Resery~ir established for a new supplemental water supply.
<br />71. Benefits.-The economic justification of any project can be
<br />tested by a benefit-cost mtio whieh measures the benefits obtaLllable
<br />contrasted with the attendant Federal costs of bringing ahout those
<br />benefits. The net Federal project innstment consists of the total
<br />construction cost plus interest at the rate of 27~ percent during con-
<br />struction less the present wort.l, of the hundredth-year terminal
<br />salyage yalue of principal projeet works. That llyestment is trans-
<br />lated into an annual equiyalent by amortization over 100 years at
<br />2Y, percent. The aIUlUal projeet investment cost is ohtained by
<br />adding to the annual equivalent the adjusted annual operation,
<br />maintenance, and replaceme.nt e.x:pensc.
<br />AnDual benefits:
<br />IrrigatioD____________________________________ ____________
<br />Power___________________________________________________
<br />~l~~~r.~~t;~~~~r~~==:======:=:::=:=:::::::::::::::::::::::
<br />Sediment controL ~u _______ h__h_n___ _ ______ _ __ __n____
<br />
<br />$3,339,000
<br />4,064.000
<br />1, 61i2, 000
<br />583, 000
<br />141,000
<br />
<br />Total annual benefits__hh___h______h_______n_____h 9,789,000
<br />
<br />Annual costs:
<br />Project. in"est.ment_ _ _ _ _ _ __u_ _ _ __ ___. _ u__ _ _ __ _ __ _ ~ _ __ __ _ 4, 165,000
<br />Actjustt"d operation, maintenance, and replal:E:lllenL _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ I, 403, 000
<br />
<br />Total ann.ual cost::L. _ __ __. _ _ ____ _ ~ ___. _h __ __ _. _. ____ ___ 5, S(j8, 000
<br />
<br />Benefit-cost rat.io__ _ ___ __ _ _ __ _ _. ~ __u_. __ ___ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _. _ _ __ 1. 76: 1. 00
<br />
<br />72. The preceding calculation inc.ludes direct and indirect bellefits
<br />for the initial development. It is significant tllat the sum of direct
<br />irrigation benefits to farmers of $1,065,000, direct power benefits of
<br />$2,375,000, and benefits to municipal water, flood control, and sedi-
<br />ment control is sufficient to support the unnliul project costs.
<br />73. The report on t,he Colorado Riyer storage project and partici-
<br />pating projects presents a plan for a system of regulatory reservoirs
<br />that would permit maximum development of the upper Colorado River
<br />Basin water resources for bene:ficial consumptive uses and assure the
<br />required deli,-eries of water at Lee Ferry to meet the requirements of
<br />the Colorado River compact. If it is assumed that the Colorado River
<br />storage project will be constructed, and if it is considered proper in
<br />analyzing the Gunnison-Arkansas project to assign an appropriate
<br />share of the cost of tile Colorado Ri vel' storage project, then the assign-
<br />able annual eost to the Gunnison-Arkansas project is estimated at
<br />$2.35 per acre-foot of consumptive use of water,. The net effect, so
<br />.far as tbe Gunnison-Arkansas project is concerned, would be to "Iter
<br />slightly tbe economie justification. The annual cost would inerease
<br />;(rom $5,568,000 to $5,731,000, and the benefit-eost ratio would be re-
<br />duced slightly from 1.76:1.00 to 1.71:1.00.
<br />74, Operating principles.-On November 24, 1948, a poliey and re-
<br />"iew committee was organized by the Colorado W "tel' Conservation
<br />Board to study,and review plans and reports on the first stage of the
<br />Gunnison-Arks~s project. The committee was eomposed of repre-
<br />sentati ves of tile board, the Colorado Game and Fish Commission
<br />. ..
<br />
|