WSP00088 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~D;'~j<<~~:~;f:;~~[:~.~ ;{i\:l .,{~ ~~~ -'---~'- '" -" ::,.- ....... ." ~- -. -' '. :;.~~.::; ". . ~~ Salinity C~trol Evaluation eardner 'and. Y Dung ..... CO -,J ()l . . '-~-'/ . ;~ . .' ! TABLE 2, Municiplit'Oamages from Salinity, or Municipal Benefits of Salinity C~ntrol, Metro Water Arizona Project Lower Main- Total Lower Basin District of So. Cal. Area stream .Area Annual Damage Per' Household (1982 $/mg/liter) Number of Full Seryice Equivalent Households . 1983-87 1,820,000 1988-2032 1,092,000 $0.1655 $0.2442 $0.1677 250,000 250,000 1,570,000 597,000 o 245,000 Annual ,Benefits of Salinity Control (1982 $ per mg/liter) 308,300 Lagged Sen.fit~. 218,700 Source: adapted from USSR, 1980.. . Lagged, benefits have .been ,dis,counted "to reflect approximate six.ye~r retention time of the reservoir system betwe.en the upstream project ',ocations and the points o! use. C) ~ ~ \. ""/ q '-0 8d; n. \.9' 'iJ' water ~upplie~ differ in ~alinity, Plumber~ and appliance dealer~ in each area were asked to e~timate average Iifetime~ of var" ious plumbing fixture~ and water u~ing appliance~. Generally, the lower the ~alin, ity of the water the les~ often fixture~ must be replaced, and the le~nhe ~alinity dam- age~. In addition to capital replacement co~ts, e~timated damage~ avoided include the co~t~ of bottled water, additional de- . tergent~,and central watcr ~oftening needed to mitigate the more ~aline water. The annual co~t~ per hou~ehold are con- .verted to 1982 dollar~ and li~ted in Ta- ble 2. The co~t~ mu~t be multiplied by the, number of hou~ehold~ to get annual area municipal damage~. E~tiinate~ of house- hold number~ are taken from USBR (1980: 14). (In practice,Colorado Riverwateri~ often blended to lower the concentration below the recommended level of 500 mg/ liter. Therefore, an e~timate of equivalent full ~ervice household~ which could be ~erved solely with Colorado River water Due to Iimitation~ on. re~earch re- ~ u~ed.) For the Metropolitan Water Dis- . ~ource~, thi~ analy~i~ utilize~ previou~ re-. trict of ~outhem California 1,05.2,000 acre- port~ (Ander~on and Kleinman, 1978:19; - feet of water are a~~umed to be used an- d' Arge and Eubank~; and u.s. Bureau of nually for. municipal purpo~e~, with a Reclamation, 1980) for e~timate~ of the cutback to 400,000 acre-feet after 1987. municipal benefit~ of ~alinity control. Annual use i~ a~~umed to be 0,67 acre-feet Tho~e e~timate~ were ba~ed on cro~~-~ec" per household. tional ~urvey~ of Lower Ba~in citie~ who~c An estimate of 245,000 full ~ervice & 5J,400(.IS)(,Q-S):: -,.170 $1 Lf00 (,I~(.~b) =GG.3o " (,7'9 '> = "090 (,'7q ) .- 57/0. (.t,;<1l) = 524(:;/ . 51,40<--' (.2$)(f,3 ) : ~I 00.6.< 9q</n . agriculture in the entire Lower Colorado Basin by accepting the USBR (1980) e~ti- mate that Imperial Valley damage~ are about 90 percent of the total. Thi~ as- ~umption tran~late~ to (in 1982 dollar~) $51,400 per ing/liter damage~ to agricul- ture in the Lower Ba~in. We further adjl\~t for the hydraulic re- tention time of the river and re~ervoir ~y~- tern. U~ing the hydrologic a~~umption~ de~cribed above and an eight percent di~- COl\nt rate, the pre~ent value of total an- nual agriculturalbenefit~ of ~alinity con- trol becom:e~ $89,100 per mg/liter or $8.95 per ton of ~alt removed. (We adopted the view that the ~ocial di~count rate ~hould reflect, in thi~ ca~e, the opportunity co~t of di~placedprivate~pending, further ad- ju~ted for the highri~k~ of ~alinitycontrol project~. Our cho~en rate al~o c1o~ely ap" proximate~ the W ater Re~ource~ Comicil mandated rate for fi~cal year 1988.) :I Municipal Benefit~ 7