WSP00088

• File Number: 8273.100.50
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - Bureau of Reclamation
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1985
• Author: Gardner & Young
• Title: An Economic Evaluation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.(~;e
'?W?'
'-'~"J

.....
CD
'"'-J
00

July 1985

:;.;;i;'

_ !\:~~~i

. '-~b'. . ,
TABLE 4. Ec(!nomic Fifasibility of U,S,. Bureau of Reclamation Salinity Control Units, .

. W ~stern Journal of Agncultu1dl Economics -
. - -! - .

Unit

Annual Cost Per
Mg/liter Salinity
Reduction-

Tons of Salt
Removed Annually"

Annual Cost Per
Ton Of Salt
Removed

Benefill
CO~I"

@
Oe9
OA
Oe4
~

$107,000- 180,000 $10e80-
$266,000 $26.90
$642,000 24,000 $69.30
$597,000 280,000 $60.30
$102,000- 71,000 $10.30-
$114,000 $11.50
La Verkin Sprlng~ $1,578,000 103,000 $159.30
Lower Gunni~on Ba~ln$812,000 141,000. $82.00
Uinta Ba~ln $960,000 24,000 $97.00
McElmo Creek Ba~in $820,000 24,000 $82.80
Glenwood-Dot~ero Spring~ $908,000 314,000 $97.10
. Big Sandy River . $712,000 . 75.000 $71.90
Coal Slurry Pipeline . $256,000- 351,000- $25.90-
. $552;000 531,000 $58.00

. From USBR'~ CRWQIP Statu~ Report, 1983:18, updated to 1982 dollar~ by the GNP defiator.
'A~sumed 9,900 ton~ of ~alt equ.l~ 1 mg/llter at Imperial Dam. .
. B/C ratios derived. by dividing column 3 by e~t1mated annual benefits (damageS-aVOided) per ton of ~alt re-
moved ($26 per ton). See text for explanation.. .

Paradox Valley

Grand Valley-Stage One
Overall
La~ Vega~ Wa~h

lated work .on other on-farm ~alinity con-
trol actitivie~ indicate the value of labor
~aved can off~et a~ much as one-fourth to
one-third of project co~t~ (Gardner and
Young). However, reducing SCSco~t~ by
labor sa ving~ of that magnitude would not
change the conclu~ion~ regarding the ~ix .
infea~ible unit~ in Table 3.
A ~econd con~ideration i~ that SCS proj-
ect cost~ are made con~iderably more ex~.
pen~ive becau~e the choice of the im-
provement~ made in each area i~ a
technical and political one. Several alter- .
native~ were developed .for each unit, and
the public wa~ invited to help in choo~ing
. one for implementation. In the case of the
Grand Va.lley, Lower Gunni~on, and
McElmo Creek unit~, the preferred alter-
native was 35 to 70 percent higher hi co~t
than the lea~t co~t option. (See, for ex-
ample, U.S. Soil Con~ervation Service,
1981b:3). Farmer~, of cour~e, choo~e the
plan that benefit~ them mo~t, butthe co~t
to the public of gaining farmer coopera-
tion i~ thereby increased.. Some addition
to ~ocial co~t may be nece~~ary when
farnier~ are a~~umed to have no liability
for theirsalt di~charge~. Neverthele~~, the

10

<

"

. 0.2
0.3
0.3 '
0.3
0.3
0.4
eQ,,'
0.5.

inclusion of l~~ co~t-effective. activitie~-
~uch as ~ome ~prinkler and drip irrigation
~y~tem~, land leveling,. and range im-.
provements-tend~ to reduce the overall
economic feasibility of a project.

USBR Salinity ControlProject~

Cost e~timates for relevant Bureau of
. Reclamation ~alinity control uriit~ either
under. con.~truction Or inve~tigation,
(USBR, 1983:18) were updated to 1982
dollar~. The~e co~t~ are compared in Table
4 with the authpr~> benefit e~timate, ad-
justed to rellectfifty_year USBR project
live~ (ver~u~ twenty year~ for .on-farm im-
provement~).
. Table 4~how~ that benefit~ exceed co~t
e~timate~ for only two of eleven project~.
Only. the. Paradox Valley and Las Vegas
~a~h umt~ appear eConomically fea~ible
WIth all benefit e~timate~. The Paradox _
. Valley unit con~i~t~ of Pumping brine from
~.low the Dolore~ River and di~po~ing of
It In deep well~. Municipal wastewater and
irrigation return fIow~ would be collected
and bypa~~ed around the~alty La~ V ega~
Wa~h.

/'

~

. ,

.,....
...

'.