Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PART VII <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM <br /> <br />Table C <br />Salinity control program summary <br /> <br />Potential <br />salt <br />reduction!..! <br />(1,000 <br />tons/year) <br /> <br />Estimated <br />salt <br />reduction <br />to date <br />(1,000 <br />tons/year) <br /> <br />Annual <br />eost <br />effec- <br />tiveness.Y <br />(dollars/ <br />ton) <br /> <br />Unit <br />U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) <br />Authorized for construction <br />and/or completed <br />Grand Valley, Stage I <br />Grand Valley, Stage II <br />Las Vegas Wash <br />Lower Gunnison Basin <br />McElmo Creek <br />Meeker Dome <br />Paradox Valley <br />Authorized for planning <br />Big Sandy River <br />Dirty Devil River <br />Glenwood-Dotsero Springs <br />LaVerkin Springs <br />Lower Gunnison Basin, <br />North Fork <br />Lower Virgin River <br />Palo Verde Irrigation <br />District <br />Price-San Rafael Rivers <br />Saline Water Use <br />San Juan River <br />Sinbad Valley (BLM) <br />Uinta Basin <br />U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)~/ <br />Authorized for construction <br />Big Sandy River 35 <br />Grand Valley!/ 130 <br />Lower Gunnison Basin 335 <br />Mancos Valley, preliminary 20 <br />McElmo Creek 38 <br />Moapa Valley 20 <br />Price River, preliminary 62 <br />San Rafael River, preliminary 62 <br />Uinta Basin 77 <br />Virgin Valley 37 <br />1/ Reflects values presently included in CRSS data base. <br />I/ The estimates represent, at best, appraisal-level costs in some cases <br />costs in other cases. Caution must be used in drawing comparative conclusions <br />prioritize projects on the basis of these cost-effectiveness values. <br />3/ Figures not available. <br />I/ Indexed to 1982 prices. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />28 <br />136 <br />92 <br />141 <br />24 <br />57 <br />180 <br /> <br />78 <br />20 <br />284 <br />53 <br /> <br />3/ <br />I./ <br /> <br />11 <br />30 <br />160 <br />3/ <br />-7 <br />26 <br /> <br />17.7 <br /> <br />48 <br /> <br />23.3 <br /> <br />12.8 <br /> <br />63 <br /> <br />72 <br />77 <br />10 <br />71 <br />50 <br />15 <br />25 <br /> <br />69 <br />74 <br />121 <br />190 <br /> <br />3/ <br />I/ <br /> <br />28 <br />35 <br />3/ <br />3/ <br />75 <br />90 <br /> <br />30 <br />24 <br />56 <br />89 <br />79 <br />38 <br />3/ <br />3/ <br />96 <br />9 <br /> <br />Effect at <br /> <br />TDS <br />reduction <br />(mg/L) <br /> <br />2.8 <br />13.6 <br />9.2 <br />14.1 <br />2.4 <br />4.8 <br />18 <br /> <br />7.8 <br />2 <br />28.4 <br />5.3 <br /> <br />3/ <br />I/ <br /> <br />1.1 <br />3 <br />3/ <br />3/ <br />0.7 <br />2.6 <br /> <br />3.5 <br />13.0 <br />33.5 <br />2.0 <br />3.3 <br />2.0 <br />6.2 <br />6.2 <br />7.6 <br />3.7 <br /> <br />Imperial Dam <br />Annual <br />cost <br />effec- <br />tiveness.Y <br />(dollars/ <br />mg/L) <br /> <br />719,000 <br />766,000 <br />102,000 <br />712,000 <br />500,000 <br />152,000 <br />250,000 <br /> <br />691,000 <br />740,000 <br />1,210,000 <br />1,900,000 <br /> <br />3/ <br />I/ <br /> <br />280,000 <br />350,000 <br />3/ <br />3/ <br />751-;-000 <br />903,000 <br /> <br />300,000 <br />240,000 <br />560,000 <br />890,000 <br />790,000 <br />380,000 <br />3/ <br />3/ <br />960-;-000 <br />90,000 <br /> <br />and feasibility-level <br />in attempting to <br />