Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />development of an implementation schedule. Aside from the <br />basic technical risks involved, the basinwide program must <br />also address the uncertainties of implementation in the <br />social, political, institutional, and legal arenas. Local <br />concerns and needs, management of the total irrigation <br />system, and other regional impacts are involved in the final <br />selection of an implementation plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />After project mixes were selected by the budget constraints <br />computer model, a review of future implementation scenarios <br />compared di~ferent investment level programs to the required <br />salt load reduction (target) and to the repayment capacity <br />of the Lower Basin Development funds. <br /> <br />Annual review and revisions are required to improve data, <br />refine the analysis, and to confirm the validity that a <br />lessor investment level (approximately $570 million) will <br />satisfy the program goals. However, the 1985 evalution does <br />indicate that any delays in current program implementation <br />will result in a much more costly overall program. Long <br />lead times for project implementation and construction costs <br />continue to increase over time. To avoid later deficit <br />funding in the Lower Basin Development fund, we must con- <br />tinue program planning and implementation schedules at <br />current funding levels and not delay construction because <br />high flows for the past three years have lowered the <br />salinity level in the system. <br /> <br />Maior Findinqs <br /> <br />1. Continued close coordination between USDA and Interior <br />implementation programs is essential for overall, effective <br />program direction and management. <br /> <br />2. To keep the project implementation schedule on track, <br />the evaluation will need to be accomplished annually for the <br />next few years to allow for inclusion of newly formulated, <br />more cost effective projects and changes in technology, <br />basin depletions, interest rates, etc. <br /> <br />3. Breaking large units into smaller increments appears to <br />have advantages by allowing more flexibility in selecting <br />project mixes, resulting in an overall more cost-effective <br />program. <br /> <br />4. Total construction costs for the program to meet the <br />numeric criteria and target load reduction is now projected <br />to be about $570 million (1984 price level), significantly <br />less than previous estimates ($1.9 billion in 1983). <br /> <br />2 <br />