WSP08758 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..... -.] ~ w . ~ ....J/' - ~ '-. Willer File. Acting Project Mlnlger S.lIn. Waler Tran.port and Un Ortlce. commitment to contribute up 10 $10 minion over the coming years toward studlElS and funckaising efforts on lXlSSible Saline Water Use and Disposal Opportunities prOfeCtS At the same time. Reclamatiorl agreed to allocate funds from annual appropnations Over a 7-year period beginning in 1965. Western Resource Transport, Inc., will devote $2 mitlion 10 develop saline water projects. The allocation of these funds WIll be mutually agreed to by both the firm and Reclamation. The remaining $8 million will be paid to Reclamation as compensal1Ol11or rts past funding. and for future won.. on an international trade agreement in oonnectlOl1 with the WESTRANS Project These funds will be paid to ReclamatIOn SOlely from future nMlflue:S from the WESTRAN$ pipeline. When investment capttal becOmeS available after formation 01 the WESTRANS pIpelIne partnershIp. money will be devoted to salinity oontrot This money will injt~ty fund won< to identify Projects haVIng poteotiallor privatlZahon, From work done Over the past 2 years. It appea~ the types 01 pro;ects identified tOf ful'ttler study are those !hat use the water tor commerCial processes SUCh as po<NerpIant cooling. SOlution mining. spent oil Shale cooling. and s1unylng of materials where water can be used at the end of the pipeline. A more exotIC apphcatlQn may be aquaculture Two recent studies by the Water Quality OffICe show that saline water used lor poweI'plant COOling has c::onsidera.ble promiSe as a cost-ef1ectrve salinity control method rt the saline water source IS de\IeIoped in connectJOr'l wilt1 a new powerpIant From It1IS wQf1(, I'm encouraged thaI we will find otner uses lor the water I believe the majonty of uses we identity will be - cost-effectrve only rt deWIOped wilt1 new plants or expansion 01 eXlsling plants. Financing Irom Western Resource Transport Inc., will also be used to conduct a technology seminar to identify new salinity control methods and ways 10 improve and reduce the cost 01 currenl methods SUCh as desalllng The sermnar will also seek. methods to finance Prorects through combinatiOnS 01 public and private funds. As a result of thiS unusual alliance between the public and pnvate sectors, lhe people of the Colorado River Basin States will proht from bener water quality, reduced sahMy damages, and saVIngS 01 thetr tax dollars. Federal and State govemmerlts will benefit lrom financial assistance in constructing saline water pro,ects whICh might not othefwise be buill undef current budget COflStraints Cost Effectiveness Bacl<gooond Unit cost estimates onginated Wtth the earty development 01 the Colorado Rrver Water Quality Improvement Program In 1972- Unit costs were expressed in tenns 01 S per ton 01 salt removal or $.Img.r1. reductlOl"l as measured at Imperial Dam. While costs and relatrve cost~ectrveoess estimates wele being generated, the economic benefits 01 salinity control were not quan!lf;ecj at that lIme No attempt was made to develop any bene1it<.ost cnteria since the program was viewed as a pollutiOn control El'IIort In 1900, ReclamatIOn published a report. entitled Colorado River Salmlty-EccnOfTIIC Impacts on Agncutruf9, MUniCipal, and Induslnal Users. that summanzes the partial NED (National EconomiC Development) direct and Indirect benefits of TDS l'llductlOOS allmpenal Dam. ThOSe economic Impacts or measurable benefits 01 salinity reductiOn at Impenal Dam undef Mure rondltlO/"lS are now (January 1985) indexed 10 atx>ut $5OO.c:ro per mg!l per year at Imperia) Dam. The report does not Include !he eConOITIIC Impacts In Me:l.lC() or those In ott1efsectOfSol!heU.S eronomythatcould not be quantlf;ecj at !he time FollOwing a program management (8IIlfNtI K1 1961, Reclamation considered C06t. effectrveness cntena lor establiSl"lIng .. . management gUidelines lor pl'OfElCt selection and ImplefnentatlQl"l. Although planning lor salinity control projects is under !he general guidance of the P & G's (Pnnciples and Guidelines for Planning Water Related Resources), cost El'IIectJveoess IS the pnmary cntenoo lor salinity control project plan formulatl()f\. Salinity control prOJeCts often do not have positive net NED benefits. However, NED benefits will continue to be displayed In the four-account analysIS. In additIOn, Significant erwlfO!1merltal and social El'IIects will be conSIdered In plan development and SUbsequerltly displayed as part of the four- account analysIS. Cost E_ Gosl El'IIectlVenes5 is now defined as the :rnnual salinity cost required to remove 1 ton of salt lOading from the pl'OfElCt area (dollars per ton per year), Cost effectrveness IS also applicable for purposes of prioritization 01 polerltial prOjects with the USDA. Cost effectiveness 00 a specifIC pro;ect is measured in terms 01 the total annual PfOjec:t cost dIVided by the expected annual equIValent reduction In sail lOading. Cost effectlVElOSS for separable Increments of a project is calCulated in the same way and used in the formulation of each project. Consequently, cost effectiveness is used as a planning tool for analyzing units and toanay or pnontlZe alternative units to BC'.hieve the least costly Overall salinrty reductlOf'l program. A detailed planning instructiOn is available Irom the Water Ouality Office if lurther tnfonnatlOn IS desired. Paradox Valley Un" A contract was awarded In September 1964 to Ken E DavIS Associates of Houston, Texas, for engineering wOOl. on Well No.1. The y,.oell plan IS completed and land has been purchased lor the test well. The speclflCabOnS are being prepared for the 15,400 feet deep InJElCllOl"lwell using advanCe design features to handle thecorrosrve brine, high pressures, and high temperatures. ReclamatJOr'l will prepare a request for proposal in the next few months for the well drilling.