Laserfiche WebLink
<br />", <br /> <br /><" <br /> <br />recl-eational enhancement, and. making water available [or other benefici.al uses <br /> <br />in Colorado, New Hexico, Texa'i, and 'the United States of Mexico. The first <br /> <br /> <br />priority for water availability is to assist Colorado in making its annual deli-- <br /> <br /> <br />very of water to the Colorado-.New N"xico State line per the Rio Grande Compac to <br /> <br />The project division would be constructed in four stages, starting from the <br /> <br />south, near the Rio Grande, and progressing ~n units or stage's northerly, up <br /> <br />through the sump area of thf~ Closed Baf;in~ The construction technique would be <br /> <br />- -an-aiagous to modular-eons-tr-uc-ti-o-n) th-at -is, incr.e-a-s-in.g w.at.er deliveries- .to_ the <br /> <br />Rio Grande by adding units, in this case, "ellfield stages. Experience from <br /> <br />each stage(s) would be projected to the next succeeding construction stege. <br /> <br />This experJ.ence would encompass such data as construction and ope.ratiDn costs, <br /> <br />well production and "ater table dra<<do,m histories, wate'r quality regulation, <br /> <br />environmental-effects, etc. A reasonable assessment of a ground water salvage <br /> <br />project is based upon extrapolations of actual, on-site production history. <br /> <br />That is, one starts with staged development, using flexibility to modify <br /> <br />construction and operation practices as one goes. This project division is <br /> <br />designed to be very flexible, and operational controls are built into the <br /> <br />authorization. <br /> <br />Financial analyses in the November 1979 DPR were broken into cumulative, staged <br /> <br />construction segments, that is, estimated benefits and costs were displayed for <br /> <br />Stage 1-2, for Stages 1-2 and 3, and for Stages 1-2, 3, 4, and 5. The DPR <br /> <br />analyses, using January 1979 prices, showed that: <br /> <br />1. Construction of only Stage 1-2 would be below the indexed cost ceiling but <br /> <br />would be less than a unity benefit-cost ratio (0.74-1, which is not economically <br /> <br />feasible). <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />