Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OJ03D2 <br /> <br />Comparative Analvsis Of Operatinl! The Yuma Desaltinl! Plant <br />Versus Implementinl! Replacement Measures <br /> <br />An analysis of the annual cost of operating the YDP versus obtaining the same amounts of <br />water from temporary supplies was performed. Under the analysis, the replacement <br />program and operation ofYDP were compared using differing cost assumptions, and <br />differing assumptions regarding the rate of buildup of the replacement and/or recovery of <br />the bypass. Operation ofYDP was varied from $305 per acre-foot to $480 per acre-foot. <br />The analysis modeled the replacementprogram and the YDP operation such that the year- <br />to-year water supply affects were identical. Accordingly, water supplies to Boulder <br />Canyon Project contractors would be the same under both approaches. The cost of <br />replacing the reject stream was assumed as the same cost per acre-foot as that cost used in <br />the comparable replacement program. The cost's of bypass replacement was varied from <br />$60 per acre-foot to $250 per acre-foot, and included an additional $5.1 million per year to <br />maintain the YDP in ready reserve status. This range of costs was assumed to include the <br />potential for costs to be included retated to mitigating socio-economic impacts. <br />The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 2. <br /> <br />As shown in Table 2 if the forbearance agreements came in costing the maximum <br />estimated amount of $250 per acre-foot, and if the costs of operating YDP were found to <br />be the least possible then would the costs be about the same. However the likelihood is <br />that forbearance agreements will result in significant savings, and should there be years of <br />forbearance costing $60 per acre foot the savings could be as high as about ~illion. <br />1..1.5" <br /> <br />In addition, a forty-seven year economic/operations analysis was performed (year 2003 to <br />year 2050), using 85 traces of Colorado River hydrology, comparing the likely water <br />supplies and costs that are expected through replacing the bypass through forbearance <br />agreements versus operation of the YDP _ The analysis considered not only a range of costs <br />but also a range of replacement criteria. The range of criteria included from replacement or <br />YDP recovery occur in all years except for flood control years, to replacement and or <br />recovery based on a criteria which steps up the replacement rate as storage in Lake Mead <br />is drawn down. The storage based criteria assumes that Lake Mead storage could drop <br />from near flood control conditions to near shortage conditions in 7 years, and steps up the <br />replacement rate in 15 kaf increments as storage levels approach shortage conditions. This <br />..................,~.. <br />storage based replacement strategy assures that by the time near shortage conditions are <br />reached the replacement program would be fully replacing the bypass, and includes an <br />additional 20 kaf per year of replacement during near shortage conditions to replace any <br />unreplaced bypass that may have accumulated since the last flood control event. <br /> <br />The analysis, over the range of replacement criteria assumptions, based on 6% interest, <br />found that replacing the bypass through the year 2050 resulted in a present value savings <br />ranging from a minus $14 million to a positive $324 million. Consistent with Table 2, at <br />the highest replacement costs of $250 per acre-foot, the additional $5.1 million per year of <br />maintenance cost would make it comparable to operating the YDP at a cost of about $309 <br />per acre foot. The analysis supports moving forward with the recommended two pronged <br /> <br />~/~ <br />~ Y.o~ <br />JJ VJ\eql <br />~'I) <br /> <br />20 <br />