Issues Paper, Central Utah Project

Page 78

17 CUP.* All of these studies show that under expected future circumstances even federally subsidized CUP water is not the cheapest source of M§I water for the area. A more costly privately-funded CUP just is not the M§I alternative which would be chosen in place of the CUP. Thus almost one-half of the direct benefits claimed for the CUP have little basis in fact or theory. Loss of them would cut the B/C ratio by 46 percent. 4. The Realistic Alternatives to the Bonneville Unit In trying to establish the economic rationality of a project like CUP, accurate consideration of alternatives is crucial, for it is the costs associated with these alter­native ways of accomplishing the same end (e.g., provision of a certain number of gallons of M§I water of given quality) that determine the actual net benefits of the project. Net benefits are calculated by subtracting costs from gross benefits. *See, for instance, A. B. Bishop, "Analysis of Water Reuse Alternatives in an Integrated Urban and Agricultural Area," PRWG 23-7, September 1971; "Optimization of Water Allocation, Waste Water Treatment, and Reuse . . . ," PRWG 123-Z, June 1975; and "Evaluating Water Reuse Alternatives in Water Re­source Planning," PRWG 123-1, January 1974. Also, R. Narayanon, "An Economic Appraisal of Reuse Concepts in Reg­ional Water Supply Planning," PRWG 123-3, April 1976; J. E. Keith, "Interregional Planning of Water Resource Allocations by Systems Analysis Approach," PRWG 100-5, July 1973; and "The Economic Efficiency of Inter-Basin Agricultural Water Transfers," PRWG 100-3, June 1973.