WSP00088 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"*'" lsi,;.~ll "-<::.:'.'? J-OO.. CD -.,J ~ . Gardner and Young '.~" - . ma~ize a ~\lb~eq\lW.ll.t regional task force'~ ~tudie~ of agricultural. municipal, and in- direc.t ~alinity damage~. Related inve~ti- .gations have been reported by Qyarzabal and Young coilcerning impactsin.Mexlco and Bo~ter and Martin regarding central Arizona. The u.s. Bureau of Reclamation (1980) s\lmmarized the government'~ analy~~ of expected economicimpact~. The Colorado Water Quality Improve- mentProgram has over~een ~tudie~ of the co~t~ of ~pecific ~alinity control project~ (USBR.1983). Although the total program co~t could exceed one-half billion dollar~, little profe~~ional di~cu~~ion of the pro- gram 'ha~ en~ued. The USBR. for it~ part, ha~ cho~en a "co~t-effectivene~~. ap- proach." The co~t (in dollar~ per milli- gram~ per liter) of annual ~alt load reduc- tion in the River ~e~timated. and priority given to tho~e project~ exhibiting loweSt co~t per unit of ~alt reduction. General- ized Lower Ba~inbenefit~ of ~alinity abatement have al~o been developed (USER, 1983:21). Curiously. however. no direct project-by-prOject compar~on of benefit~ and cost~ has been publicly re- ported.. Cost~ are identified in differing place~ and format from reported benefi.t~, and only a per~~tent ~peciali~t i~ likely to ~ucceed in piecing together the total pic- ture. There are indication~ .that federal of- . ficialdom. while willing to prioritize proj- ects according to co~t-effectiveneSS, would prefer nof to .evaluate the program on a full economic efficiency criterion. We be- lieve, in contra~t. thai the economic effi- ciency criterion~hould playa major role in evaluating .thi~ program, and tha.t only tho~e projects ~houldbe funded for which the economic gain~ todown~tr<'am water u~er~ clearly outweigh co~t~. . From our review of the procedure~ em- ployed in developing the. economic ben- efit e~timatio,,~repbrted by .the Bureau of Reclamation, it appears that the .treat- ment of benefit~overl06k~ ~cveral impor- . tant conceptual is~ue~. We believe that the official e~timates significantly ovei~tate the.. '.- . . - -.- '{?~I~! .Salln/ty Control Eoaluatton down~trea:m dainage~ caused! by the Col- orado River and therefore over~tated the. economic benefit~ of ~alinity abatement. The objective of thi~ article i~ to report the assumption~ and prOcedure~ of our re- evaluation of the i~ue, and .to provide a project-by-project examination of the .eco- nomic feasibility of the ~alinity control program. Procedure Benefit~ of ~alinity control are defined in term~ of "economic darhage~ avoided." Our general approach i~ to re-e~timate ag- . ricultural damage~-avoided and update the municipal damage~-avoided e~timate~ from the earlier basin-wide impact ~tudy (USER. 1980). The~e revi~ed damage~- avoid<:d e~tima.te~ are then adju~ted to ac- count for the ~everal year~ required for ~lt pickup reduction~ from .the Upper Ea- . ~in control project~ to be recorded as low- er ~alinity at Imperial Dam. Expected an- nual benefits are compared with e~timated equivalent uniform annual cost~ for each of nineteen project~ to ass~ economic feasibility. Econoinic feasibility ~ defined a~ real annual equivalent benefit~ in exce~~ of real annual equivalent cost~ aam~ and Lee, pp. 509-12). Costs and Co~t-Effectj1Jeness . Due to lack of both expert~e and re- . . ~ources,we utilize without adjustml;inl the federal e~timate~ of project co~t~ and of the phy~ical reductions in ~lt loading (USER, 1980). However, previous experi- ence ~ugge~t~ tha.t the e~timate~ of both project co~t~ and effectivene~ in reducing ~alt are highly problematicaL There i~ limited directkilowledge of the. phy~ical and hydrologic relation~hip~ underlying the ~alt-loading proce~, and experhnen- tation to refine knowledge i~ expen~ive and. time'con~uming when it i~ po~~ible at all. 3 ~~~~;~~;j~:~~.:~.;;!;:!~ .- ':'-":'_:""":'-"