Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OJ175~ <br /> <br />the needs of the ~estern Slope will be diverted, an~ i~portation qf tnny <br />water could only help rather than harm small-scale ~rr~gat~on proJec s <br />on the eastern slope. <br /> <br />12.(e) Question - What assurances do you have fro~ authoritative <br />sources that: (1) the Conservmlcy District ~~ll pay a l-mill advalorcm <br />tax; (2) the water users ,vill pay $5.40 per acre-foot of v~ter and (3) <br />the present holders of rights to winter flow will agree to a conversion <br />of such rights to storage and make payment for this water at the rate <br />proposed? <br /> <br />Answer - (1) For the answer to this question see the sixth paragraph <br />of Mr. Beiseis letter which is appended hereto as exhibit A. <br /> <br />(2) This question is answered by letters from the Bessemer Ditch <br />Company, 22,000 acres (exhibit C); Catlin Canal, 19~O(]() acres (exhibit <br />D); the Twin Lakes Roservoir and Canal Company, 44,000 acres (exhibit <br />E); and the Fort Lyon Canal, 91,000 acres (oYJdbit F). 0~. Beise's <br />letter (exhibit A) also discusses tho "~llingness of TIator users to <br />pay $5.40 per acre-foot. <br /> <br />(3) Exhibit G is a copy of a lotter from Mr. H. H. Christy, Direc- <br />tor, Water Development Association of Southeastern Coloradoo Mr. <br />Christy desoribes the difficulties of obtaining firm commitncnts on con-" <br />version of ,~ter ,~ter. &v~ibit H contains copies of resolutions by <br />several ditch companies pertaining to winter water. <br /> <br />13.(a) Question - What would bo the ratio of benefits to costs, <br />based upon direct benefits only evaluated over a period of: (1) 100 <br />years, (2) 50 years? <br /> <br />Answer - Table 14 shows the derivation of the tyro benefit-cost <br />analyses by function. Using direct benefits only, October 1953 prices. <br />and interest at 2t percent, the project has a benefit-cost ratio of . <br />1.02 evaluated over a period of 100 years and 0.84 over a period of <br />50 yearso <br /> <br />13.(b) Question - Is it not the view of other Federal departments <br />and agencies that benefits on a project such as that proposed sholud be <br />evaluatGd over a period of 50 years as a usual proper maxllnrrl? <br /> <br />Anffi7er - No. Past practices of various Foderal agencies indicate <br />variation in the period of analysis. The Department of Agriculturc has <br /> <br />- 17 - <br />