My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08397
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08397
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:48:00 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:58:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.300
Description
Lower Gunnison Basin Unit - Colorado River Salinity Control Program
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
3/1/1981
Title
Lower Gunnison Basin Unit/ Colorado - Status Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />plans. <br /> <br />Discussions ensued about the value of each, and by a hand vote, <br /> <br />the public recoDDDended a plan. A close vote determined that concrete <br /> <br />lining all canals and laterals which could be justified under the <br /> <br />salinity reduction objective would be the desired plan. Where field <br /> <br />conditions warrant, flexible lining would be considered if concrete <br /> <br />lining were determined to be infeasible. <br /> <br />In determining the extent and range of lining, planners initially <br /> <br />determined the cost of intercepting salinity contributions from var10US <br /> <br />portions of the study area. The planners concluded that, based on <br /> <br />appraisal-level information and analysis, about 80 percent of the salt <br /> <br />attributable to canal and lateral seepage 1n the valley could be removed <br /> <br />for about half the cost of lining all canals and laterals in the valley. <br /> <br />These initial conclusions were based on three analyses and later a <br /> <br />fourth analysis. Analysis I consisted of canal and lateral increments <br /> <br />which individually had a cost-effectiveness equal to or less than <br /> <br />$450,000 per mg/L, based on January 1979 cost estimates. Analysis II <br />consisted of all increments where the net cost-effectiveness of all <br />increments equalled $450,000 per mg/L. Analysis III consisted of all <br />increments in the valley, and the net cost-effectiveness of these incre- <br /> <br />ments was estimated to be $574,000 per mg/L, based upon unit prices and <br /> <br />estimated impacts then being used. <br /> <br />Because of difficulty in making a selection from among the three <br /> <br />analyses, a fourth analysis was performed based on a graphing of avail- <br /> <br />able cost effectivenenss information for discrete increments of the <br /> <br />distribution system. An obvious break in relative cost-effectiveness of <br /> <br />the various canal and lateral increments was identified and a plan was <br /> <br /> <br />formulated using those reaches that were the most cost-effecti~Ol1D~9 <br /> <br /> <br />plan consisted of concrete-lining all increments on the east side of the <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.