WSP08244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ou1753 assumed a perpetual life basis for watershed treatment. The Corps of Engineers usually limits the period to 50 years but uses a longer period in certain eases, Bureau of Reclamation procedures specify that the period of analysis be the estimated economically useful life or 100 years whichever is less, with provision for consideration of salvage value. The Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Coomittee, in its report of May 1950,' rccor:unended that the period of analysis be the economic life or 100 years, whichever is less. Credit Gould be taken for salvage value. The recent Bureau of the Budget Oircular A-I.? specifics that the period of analysis be the economic life or 50 years whichever is less. No mention is made of salvage value. There has been, still is, and likely ~~ll continue to be divergent views among Federal agencies as to the proper period of analysis. Such divergence is onLY natural because different types of features with different purposes and uses are being constructe<4 The major features of the Fr;;~ngpan-Arkansas Project will have use- ful lives far exceeding 100 years. Therefore, lir.liting the analysis to a 50-year period is unrealistic. 13.(c) Question - If it should be considered proper to include indirect benefits in appraising the benefit-cost ratio of such a project, on either a regional or national basis, should not detriments which :JaY also accrue frem project operation, such as lost power revenue ou other projects, be evaluated and deducted from benefits? What would these indirect detriments amount to and vmat would be the benefit-cost ratios if they were taken into account? fcnswer - It is acknCIT.ledged that where indirect benefits are claioed, associated detriments should also be considered. The Fryingpan-fcrkansas analysis utilizes indirect benefits for irrigation only. No indirect benefits arc claimed for power, municipal water, flood control, sedirJent control, or other function. Most of the water supply of the project is already available to the eastern slope, either as native waters or frcrJ existing transmountain importations. The project would L~pose no radical change of existing irrigation use. The only change which the project would effectuate would be additional noncensunptive uses for po~~r and a change in time ef use through reregulation, Therefore the project vall impose no indirect detriments as far as existing supplies are concerned. With respect to new importations, there is a possibility that some detriments might accrue, Colorado River water is used fer power generation - 18 -