My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC00006
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSPC00006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:47:49 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 1:53:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272
Description
Colorado River - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - CRBSCP
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/1/1990
Author
Unknown
Title
Meeting Municipal Needs with the Yuma Desalting Plant - Special Report - Second Draft
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.. r - ~ ,~ <br />-.; ~ .' ~ j} 0 <br /> <br />The variation in construction costs the impact of eliminating <br />East Mesa treatment which is near the area where future <br />population growth is expected. utilizing the Desalting Plant in <br />lieu of East Mesa (Alternates 2 and 4), results in higher <br />pipeline costs to convey the treated water to the eastern areas <br />of the city. <br /> <br />OPERATING COSTS <br /> <br />A summary of the operating costs as developed by Reclamation in <br />the Operating Costs Appendix, and are shown below. Tables 7, 8, <br />and 9 display the ~990 operating costs for the city treatment <br />plant features, the Desalting Plant when treating Colorado River <br />water (about 40 percent of the years) and Desalting Plant when <br />desalting Wellton-Mohawk water (about 60 percent of the years) <br />respectively. <br /> <br />** THE DESALTING PLANT OPERATING COSTS REFLECT THE INCREMENTAL <br />INCREASE IN COSTS THAT WOULD RESULT DUE TO PROVIDING TREATED <br />WATER TO YUMA AND DO NOT INCLUDE FUTURE COST ESCALATION. <br />RECOGNIZING THAT RECLAMATION WOULD BE ASSUMING ADDITIONAL <br />RESPONSIBILITIES AND RECLAMATION'S OBJECTIVE OF DEFRAYING <br />O~ERATING COSTS, THE ACTUAL OPERATING CHARGE TO YUMA WILL BE <br />GREATER ** <br /> <br />..,...,., <br /> <br />Delivery Charge <br />Delivery costs reflect the use charge by <br />delivering water through their system. <br />the All-American canal, Yuma Main Canal, <br />Canal. <br /> <br />irrigation districts for <br />These systems include <br />and the Gila Gravity <br /> <br />power <br />Since water would flow by gravity from the All-American Canal <br />into the Desalting plant there are no intake power costs for the <br />Desalting Plant features. Differences in Distribution System <br />Power costs between City features and the Desalting Plant reflect <br />the 67 Mills/kWhr. City power rate versus the composite rate of <br />35 Mills/kWhr. for Reclamation power. <br /> <br />Chemical <br />Chemical unit costs and dosage rates are the same for treating <br />Colorado River water whether treating the water using City or <br />Desalting plant features. During years of Desalting when the <br />partial lime softening will be required, these costs would be <br />incurred by the Federal Government whether or not the water is <br />delivered to Yuma. These operating costs are therefore not <br />presented in the tables. <br /> <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.