Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />~ <br />CO <br />~ <br /> <br />CHAPrER V <br /> <br />Purpose <br />Irrigation <br />Recreation <br />Fish <br /> <br />Direct <br />benefits <br />$165,600 <br /> <br />Subtotal <br />Loss of benefits <br />Total <br /> <br />165,600 <br /> <br />Annual Equivalent Costs <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES STUDIED <br />(Cochetopa Creek Unit) <br /> <br />Indirect <br />and public <br />benefits <br />$52,300 <br />125,400 <br />12,600 <br />190,300 <br /> <br />Total <br />$217,900 <br />125,400 <br />12,600 <br />355,900 <br />-1,800 <br />354,100 <br /> <br />Annual equivalent costs determined for comparison with the benefits <br />are estimated at $934,500 as shown below. <br /> <br />Cost item <br />Construction cost <br />Less investigation costs <br />Interest during construction <br />Total <br />Operation, maintenance, <br />and replacement costs <br />Share of Colorado River Storage <br />Project costs <br />Total <br /> <br />Benefit-cost ratio <br /> <br />Total cost <br />$15,158,000 <br />-577,000 <br />1,503,000 <br />16, 084,000 <br /> <br />Average <br />armual cost <br /> <br />$888,800 <br /> <br />36,100 <br /> <br />9,600 <br />934,500 <br /> <br />Total benefits of the Tomichi Creek Unit compare with the cost of <br />development in a ratio of 0.38 to 1. Since the ratio is less than unity, <br />no allocation of costs or rep~ent analysis was made. <br /> <br />Cochetopa Creek Unit <br /> <br />A potentiality that received considerable study was the Cochetopa <br />Unit located near the confluence of Cochetopa Creek with its Los Pinos <br />tributary. The unit would provide irrigation water to both full and sup- <br />plemental service lands. The unit appeared feasible until detailed in- <br />vestigations at the Banana Ranch Dam site on Cochetopa Creek indicated <br />the left abutment was fractured and porous and the right abutment was a <br />massive landslide. A Hazard site on Cochetopa Creek upstream from the <br />Banana Ranch site was studied as an alternative but the two axes investi- <br />gated both proved unacceptable either because of a small reservoir basin <br />or expensive spilling and outlet works. The unit was thus eliminated <br />from further investigation. <br /> <br />51 <br />