Laserfiche WebLink
of Kehn's Boxelder shares. Figures related to the sale or lease of augmentation water assume the <br />diversion of all K.°hn owned Boxelder Ditch Company (Boxelder) shares each year. The sources <br />of costs considered in Table F.1 are the capital and expected operational costs related to the <br />hydraulic infrastnccture included in the proposed final layout. Both the expected yearly earnings <br />and the expected operational cost over a SO-year period were returned to present value for <br />comparison to thc; expected immediate capital benefits and costs. Listed in Table 4.2 are the <br />results of the benefit-cost analysis on the proposed final layout. <br />Table 4.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis of Proposed Final Layout. <br />enetits: <br />Sale of 1010.4 AF of Storage = $2,526,000.00 <br />Lease of 194.3 AF Aug. over 50 Yrs. _ $614,705.53 <br />ota1= $3,140,705.53 <br />Costs: <br />Costrucrion of Ponds =_ $1,161,845.04 <br />and to Pond Culverts /Gates = $54,019.50 <br />cfs Electric Pump Station = ~ $6,542.00 <br />50-year 2 cfs Pumping Costs = $17,312.42 <br />Outlet Ditch /Flume = $2,750.00 <br />Grade Control Structure = $166,500.00 <br />ota1= $1,408,968.96 <br /> <br />/C Ratio = 2.3 <br />Table F.2 in Appendix F lists the 50-year present value analysis on alternatives to the <br />proposed layout. Since the spatial layout of the property was primarily dictated by constraints <br />other than cost, the benefit-cost analysis focused primarily on the hydraulic system that would be <br />used to convey water through the proposed ponds and to the river. Also included in Table F.2 is <br />the calculated sale value of the augmentation water currently owned by Kenn. This potential <br />benefit was not factored into the benefit cost analysis options because, as previously discussed, it <br />is not expected that Kehn will wish to sell their Boxelder shares. The optional costs contained in <br />Table F.2 were generated by the consideration of two possible alternative hydraulic systems for <br />operating the ponds. We have denoted these options as Option 1 and Option 2. Tables 4.3 and <br />4:4 show the benefit-cost analysis for each of these options. Both of the options presented were <br />chosen because the°y have similar water delivery capacity to the proposed layout. When operated <br />properly both systems are capable of delivering 124.9 AF in one month. <br />T:IOPEMCodkcOllcodkc0/ fine! r•eport.doc 15 ANd ERSON CONSU ~TING ENGINEERS, ~NC. <br />