|
<br />060885
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />,
<br />'"
<br />,
<br />
<br />, '
<br />
<br />, ,
<br />recreational enhancement, and making water available for other be~eficial uses
<br />I, I
<br />in Culorado, New Mexico, Texas, and the United States of MeXiCO. The first:
<br />
<br />priority for water availability is to assist Colorado in ,making I its annual reli-
<br />
<br />, I
<br />very of water to the Colorado-New Mexico State line per the Rio Grande Compact.
<br />,
<br />I
<br />
<br />starting from the
<br />
<br />,
<br />The project 'division
<br />
<br />I I ' I
<br />would be constructed in four stages"
<br />
<br />south, neat the Rio Grande, and progressing in units or ~tages northerly, up
<br />I I I I
<br />
<br />through the sump area of the Closed Basin.
<br />
<br />I
<br />analagous to modular construction, that is,
<br />
<br />The construction technique would pe
<br />I ' ,
<br />, , I d l' , I h
<br />lncreas1ng waterl e lverles 'to t e
<br />
<br />Rio Grande by adding units, in this case, wellfield stages. Experience from
<br />I
<br />" ,i "
<br />each stage(s) would be projetted to the next succeeding construJtion stage. I I
<br />, 'I '
<br />
<br />This experience would encompass such data as construction and o~eration costs,
<br />,II I
<br />I
<br />well production and water table drawdown histories, water 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 flexiJility to modify
<br />I
<br />construction and operation practices as one goes. This proj~ct 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 benefita and costs were displayed for
<br />
<br />Stage 1-2, for Stages 1-2 and 3, and for Stages 1-2, 3, 4,
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />and 5.
<br />
<br />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 />I
<br />feasible). I
<br />
<br />2
<br />
|