Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003140 <br /> <br />Page 39 <br /> <br />used, including submissions necessary to comply with federal licensing <br /> <br />requirements or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Otherwise, costs <br /> <br />were estimated using best professional judgement. For each project, a net value <br /> <br />of produced water was calculated from the gross marginal value, amortized <br /> <br />capital costs and operating costs. <br /> <br /> Table III-7 <br />Water-Use Priorities and Basis Costs and Values (Dollars/Acre-foot) <br /> Marginal Net <br />Node Name Value Value Rank <br />9 Upper Green Ag 10 10 70 <br />10 U.G. M&1 60 54 26 <br />11 U.G. Energy 60 0 80 <br />12 Yampa/White Ag 10 10 70 <br />13 Yampa/White M&1 60 60 20 <br />14 Yampa/White Energy 60 48 32 <br />15 West Utah Ag 10 9 71 <br />16 West Utah M&1 60 59 21 <br />17 West Utah Energy 60 4 76 <br />18 Upper Colo. Ag 10 10 70 <br />19 U.C. M&1 60 60 20 <br />20 U.C. Energy 60 0 80 I <br />22 San Juan Ag 10 7 73 <br />23 San Juan M&1 60 49 31 <br />24 San Juan Energy 60 60 20 <br />29 Az/Nv Non-CAP M&1 112 62 18 <br />30 Az/Nv Non-CAP Ag 30 30 50 <br />31 CAP 112 62 18 <br />32 Calif. Ag 30 30 50 <br />33 MWD 5 112 62 18 <br />34 MWD Extra 6 112 62 18 <br /> <br />For each node, the average net unit value was calculated as the weighted <br /> <br />average of net unit values for all projects. These data are shown in the fourth <br /> <br />column of Table 111-7. Each such value was then transformed into an objective <br /> <br />function weight by preserving ranking of those values (a high net value implies <br /> <br />a high water allocation priority, which is expressed by a low number). The <br /> <br />resulting objective function weights are shown in the fifth column of Table 111- <br /> <br />7 and as the unconstrained rank in Table 111-3. <br />