OCR Text |
Show Report of the Regional Director annual benefit in determining the benefit-cost ratio, The total project costs were thus estimated on the basis of October 1947 costs, and increased to reflect July 1949 con~ struction cost conditions* These increased costs are summarized as follows Present Value Average at Beginning Annual Project Year 1 Equivalent Construction & Expenditures $28,780,000 $786,030 Other Costs $92,000 16,170 Total Development Cost 29,372,000 802,200 0&M Replacement, etc* 6,6142,000 l5l,i|00 Less Salvage Value - 660,000 - 18^000 $35|35U,OOO $965,600 The average annual benefit that would accrue through con-» struction of the Dixie Project is $2,361,260. The benefit-cost ratio then is 2OU5 on the basis of July 19U9 construction costs. Allocation of Costs 5>5># The total cost of the Dixie Project as developed in paragraph U8 is $28,296,000 at July 19li9 prices. The State of Utah v/ill assume the highway relocation around the potential Virgin City Reservoir* the co3t of which is estimated at $l,636,OOO« The total cost of the irrigation and power features, then, would be $26,660,000* This cost has been allooated among irrigation power, flood control, fish and wildlife conservation, sediment control, and recreation. The amounts of the allocations are shovm in the following tabulationt Feature Amount, Irrigation $18,175,000 Fewer 5,700,000 Flood Control 329,000 Fish & Wildlife Conservation 952,000 Sediment Control 97^,000 Recreation 530,000 Total $26,660,000 $6* The costs properly allocable to flood control and to fish and wildlife conservation, which are nonreimbursable according tc existing lav/, total $1,281,000, It appeared US |
Source |
Original book: Utah exhibits [of the] State of Arizona, complainant, v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego, defendants, United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners, State of New Mexico and State of Utah, parties |