Record Details
page 22
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 22 Final Environmental Statement : authorized Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project, Utah, Volume II, page 22 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Source | Central Utah Water Conservancy District |
| Publisher | Brigham Young University |
| Date | 2005-10-14 |
| Format | 22 text/PDF |
| Rights | Brigham Young University; http://lib.byu.edu/about/copyright/generic.php Public Domain Public |
| Language | English; eng; en |
| Relation | Central Utah Project; Western Waters Digital Library; 5 since a privately built project could not borrow its capital at the greatly subsidized 3.2 32 32 rate that the bureau uses and since it cannot share its costs with an almost totally subsidized agricultural project the costs of the alternative are guaranteed to be higher thus even if the water is not needed or there are other lesser cost alternatives a BC ratio greater than unity can always be obtained what the analysis does show is the higher real costs borne by the taxpayers and local citizens for the federally subsidized project the difference between the private sector alternative cost and the bureau cost is the amount of additional hidden project subsidy 2 the bureau analysis claims as a benefit the additional net income per acre foot earned by the farmer the true value of the additional water is reflected by what local farmers would actually be willing to pay for the water the true value of water maybe may be 16 to 13 the value computed in the bureau analysis 3 the basic economic principle of diminishing returns is ignored by assuming all the agricultural water would be used to irrigate new dryland farms when in fact less than half would be used to irrigate new dryland farms the remaining water would be used to irrigate land already under arrigal irrigal irrigation lon ion which would thus receive smaller additional benefits 4 the value of the additional atwater flatwater fl recreation created at the cost of scarce trout streams is overestimated in fact allowing motor boats and body contact recreation on a reservoir meant for potable water storage is not recommended because of the possible water quality problems and danger to human health we do not think such recreation should be allowed and therefore no project benefits should be ascribed to it the bureau economic analysis also underestimates the true costs of the project in several ways 1 the cost of capital used is 12 to 13 of the actual cost 2 the actual costs due to salinity increases and the costs associated with reduced agricultural output by lower colorado river users is not included 3 the cost of loss of revenues and output to agriculture elsewhere in the nation due to the subsidized expansion of agriculture in utah is ignored 4 the costs which are to be incurred later to replace water borrowed by the project from utahs indian citizens is not included 22 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/9087 |
