WSP09090 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Implementation Plan thus, were not included in the benefit valuation. We now estimate the value ofsalinity control in the United States portion of the Basin at $340 per ton, tv ;&::. 00 CO Out of necessity, early program managers had to develop a way to rank projects that accounted for this uncertainty in the benefit. Because the dollar b~nefits are directly related to the tons controlled, program managers ranked projects based on the cost to control a ton of salt. Thus, cost effectiveness-the cost to control a ton of salt-became the standard used by all agencies to rank the effectiveness of their projects, It was understood that altnough the benefits of a ton of salt removal were not precisely known at the titne,' they would be the same from project to project. For the most part, a tEln removed from anyone project in the Upper Basin has the same benefit in the Lower Basin. Cost effeptiveness can be directly related to a benefit/cost ratio where the cost is the cost to prevent each ton of salt from entering the river and the benefit is the value of each ton of salinity controlled, The current estimate for the blmefit of salinity control is $340 per ton" while the cost of salinity control has ranged between $5 per ton and $138 per ton2. Reclamation's average \:ost has been $70 per ton, Thus, the benefit/cost ratio is nearly $5 in benefi~s for each dollar spent on salinity controL Reclamation's basinwide approach to salinity control was authorized by P,L, 104~20 and will continue to use cost effectiveness (dollars per ton) as its main cri~eria for ranking projects and alternatives. Since actual implemen- tation costs and effectiveness may vary significantly, sometimes to the advantage or disadvantage of the basinwide program, these risks will be considerEld in ranking projects, Ranking Process and Criteria Reclamation's basinwide program will be administered through existing contracti~g techniques and regulations rather than adopting new regulations. Reclamation will solicit proposals through a formal "Request for Prop6,sals" (RFP) process, The major advantage of the RFP process is that it allows the ranking criteria and mix of projects removing salt from the river ito evolve as we continue to gain experience in implementing the basinwid~ program, Supplemental guidance on the program will be included in the RFP process as needed. 1 Based on Milliken Chapman Research Group report and model, Estimating Economic Impacts of Salinity of the Colorado River, February 1988, indexed to current dollar values. 2 Based on total costs and'tons reported by GAO, Information on Salinity Control Projects in the Colorado, River Basin, GAPIRCEP-95-58, March 1995. , , -,.-;.- -,: ~, 9 j;j "'j ,'I ~_ ~."- :ii.~' ,