1 For acquisition of rights to 5,000 acre-feet of water in Echo Reservoir now contracted for by Davis County. 2 Includes only reimbursable costs of investigations and surveys to June 30, 1949. Costs of preconstruction surveys are prorated among the costs of project facilities. Includes only Federal costs of recreational development. An additional amount of about $550,000 would be expended for recreational developments by private interests. COST ALLOCATIONS 28. The project costs are tentatively allocated to the various purposes as shown in the following tabulation. The allocation to flood control represents the present value of estimated benefits from this purpose over a 100-year period with an interest rate of 2.5 percent. The total allocation to recreation is the sum of the costs of the specific recreational facilities plus an equivalent amount of the joint costs of the project reservoirs (including capital and annual costs) less the non-Federal costs. No allocation was made to power since the sole purpose of the proposed power features of the project is to provide irrigation pumping energy and any incidental energy sales would be surplus to these requirements. Costs of project facilities used for one purpose only were allocated to that purpose. Costs of joint use facilities were allotted to irrigation and municipal water in accordance with the proportionate use of those facilities. The allocation to flood control and any costs found properly allocable to fish and wildlife would be nonreimbursable in accordance with present law. Because recreational benefits resulting from construction of the project are national in scope the allocation to recreation would be expected to be made nonreimbursable by authorization of the project. Allocations to irrigation and municipal water would be reimbursable. 29. Estimated project revenues from irrigation, municipal water, and power would be sufficient to pay the reimbursable capital costs in 60 years after water users in the last irrigation block began payments on capital costs. Payments would begin at different times in the various areas under the project since lands and communities would be served water in three blocks on completion of the various project works. After starting payments, however, water users would pay continuously for 60 years on each block of water. A development period averaging 5 years after the delivery of project water and before the assessment of capital costs would be desirable for each irrigation block in order that the irrigators could improve their lands and realize benefits from project water at the time assessments were started. 30. Construction charges are expected to be distributed equitably among the project lands consonant with the variable quanti ties of water and benefits they would receive from the project and their ability to pay. The actual distribution of irrigation charges would be resolved in preconstruction investigations and negotiations with the water users and the contracting organization. The estimated annual installments that could be made by irrigators after payment of operation and maintenance costs are shown below. The estimates are made for various land categories and kinds of farms. 31. On the basis of the estimated payments, irrigators each year could pay their allocation of the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs, estimated at $212,300, and could pay $501,700 toward their allocation of capital costs. Thus in a 60-year period they could pay a total of $30,102,000 toward the construction cost allocation of $40,234,000. The balance of $10,132,000 could be paid from power revenues and revenues paid by the municipal water users after retirement of the municipal allocation. 32. Municipalities would be required to pay for water at a rate sufficient to pay in 40 years without interest that part of the project cost properly allocable to municipal use. Although no interest is charged, annual payments by the municipal users would be continued after retirement of the allocation so that they would pay for the same length of time as any irrigation block. In the estimated 60-year repayment period, they would thus return to the Government $9,372,000 over and above the allocation to municipal water for use in paying a portion of the irrigation allocation. The annual rate for the 40,000 acre-feet of municipal water would amount to $490,000 of $12.26 an acre-foot. Of this amount, $21,400 or $0.54 an acre-foot would be required for operation, maintenance, and replacements and $468,600 or $11.72 an acre-foot would be available to apply on the allocation of capital cost. Additional costs of treatment plants and extensive pipe lines to convey water from the project aqueducts to the regulation or distribution systems of the municipalities would be financed by the water users' organization. The temporary organization of the municipalities in a report by its consulting engineer has estimated these additional costs to be from $15 to $20 an acre-foot. 33. Revenues from sale of the small block of nonfirm electric energy that would be produced by the project in excess of the project pumping and exchange needs would amount to approximately $15,000 annually. Revenues from the increased water sup ply that would be made available at the Pioneer power plant of the Utah Power & Light Co., would amount to approximately $9,000 annually. Total power revenues, with allowances made for variable returns during the construction period, would amount to $1,626,000 during the entire period of repayment. 34. Revenues available during the repayment period toward payment of the reimbursable capital costs are summarized below. 35. Measurable benefits from the project attributable to Federal costs would compare with the costs in a ratio of 3.35 to 1, indicating that an economic value of approximately $3.35 would result from each Federal dollar expended for the development. The ratio of benefits to costs was determined by considering both the benefits and costs on the basis of average annual equivalents over the same 100-year period (beginning the year the first block of project water would be available). Annual benefits and costs were computed at a 2.5 interest rate and were adjusted to allow for the construction and development periods. The annual value was thus determined as $6,995,500 and the annual cost of $2,088,400. 36. The $6,995,500 annual benefit value represents a value of $5,979,000 from increased irrigation that would be brought about by project development, $636,000 from municipal water, $161,000 from flood control, $168,500 from recreation, and $51,000 from power. The equivalent average annual cost of $2,088,400 includes annual operation and maintenance costs and the annual amount required to amortize the capital cost over a 100-year period. 37. Construction costs used in the analysis are estimated at current high prices, while benefits are based on average 1939-44 prices. Future variations in these price levels may result in a substantially different benefit-cost ratio than is indicated by the analysis as the actual ratio would depend largely on the relationship between actual costs at the time of construction and the average prices prevailing throughout the long useful life of the project. PARTICIPATION BY OTHER AGENCIES 38. The National Park Service has reviewed the project plan. In its report it has appraised the potential recreational values of project reservoirs and has recommended that certain recreational developments be undertaken as part of the project. The Bureau of Reclamation is in general accord with the recommendations of the Service. 39. The Fish and Wildlife Service has briefly reviewed the project plan and made a reconnaissance survey of the fish and wildlife aspects of the area. The Service concluded that further investigations would be necessary to obtain the detailed information required for full consideration of the fish and wildlife aspects of the project and for the formulation of specific recommendations. The necessary investigations by the Service are now in progress and can be completed during the course of other detailed preconstruction investigations of the project. 40. The United States Public Health Service conducted a sanitary survey of the Weber Basin area to evaluate public-health problems that would be encountered in connection with the development of the project. The Service recommends that sanitary facilities at all recreational and construction camp areas be installed in accordance with accepted sanitary standards, that wastes from existing and proposed sewerage systems in the Weber Basin be adequately treated prior to their discharge into the Weber River and its tributaries, and that the purification plants for treating project municipal water be provided. The Bureau of Reclamation is in general accord with these recommendations. 41. Data on flood damages and magnitude and frequency of floods in the Weber and Ogden Rivers were compiled by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, and were used as the basis for evaluating the effects the Weber Basin project would have on prevention of flood damages. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 42. Work of the investigation has been carried on by the Bureau of Reclamation with funds appropriated by Congress and funds contributed by the State of Utah. Several Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and local interests, aside from the agencies participating directly in the investigation, have supplied helpful information and data. Free use has been made of applicable information in previous reports on investigations and studies related to development and resources of the area. CONCLUSIONS 43. The multiple-purpose Weber Basin project outlined in this report is a practicable means for maximum utilization of the area's water and land resources. Its early development is highly desirable to meet the pressing needs of the area. The basic plan of comprehensive development discussed in this report is sound. Some modifications in details of the plan may yet evolve during the course of detailed preconstruction investigations required for a final plan report. Any such modifications, however, would be expected to enhance the economy of the project. No unusual construction or design problems would be involved. An adequate water right for the project could be obtained in accordance with Utah water law. 44. The preliminary estimates show the project to be economically justified on the basis of national benefits and costs, its benefits comparing with its costs in the ratio of 3.35 to 1. The reimbursable capital cost of the project allocable to irrigation and |