My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00390
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00390
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:25:47 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:42:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8277.500.20
Description
Uinta Basin Unit - Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program
State
UT
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
7/1/1981
Title
Uinta Basin Unit Status Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Two options were considered; (1) lining of the canals with saved <br />water being used for irrigation on presently irrigated lands; and (2) <br />lining of the canals with no irrigation use of saved water. Also under <br />each option the plan formulation analysis considered two approaches. <br />In the first approach ent it led the "incremental analys is" reaches of canals <br />(evaluation units) were included in the plan if they had a cost equal to or <br />less than $1 million per mg/L reduction in concentration at Imperial Dam. <br />In the second approach entitled the "cumulative analysis" reaches of canal <br />(evaluation units) were included in the plan as long as the total average <br />cost for the plan was equal to or less than $1 million per mg/L reduction <br />in concentration at Imperial Dam. The ultimate decision on which approach <br />to follow will need to be made by Bureau officials as feasibility studies <br />continue. Using this procedure, each option has two candidate plans for a <br />total of four candidate plans. Tables 2 and 3 which follow give a break- <br />down of each evaluation unit, its cost, and a comparison of cost- <br />effectiveness for incremental and cumulative analysis. <br /> <br />OPTION 1 (use of saved water) <br /> <br />Candidate Plan No. 1 (Incremental Analysis) <br /> <br />Under this plan improvements in 8 of 19 evaluation units would be <br />made. The total construction costs (including interest) for this plan, as <br />shown in Table 4, would be $27,962,000 and the total annual cost would be <br />$2,243,500. <br /> <br />The reduction in salt concentration at Imperial Dam would be 3.94 mg/L <br />per year, with a cumulative cost effectiveness of $569,400 mg/L. <br /> <br />Candidate Plan No. 2 (Cumulative Analysis) <br /> <br />Under this plan improvements in 16 of the 19 evaluation units would be <br />made. The total construction costs (including interest) for this plan, as <br />shown in Table 5, would be $73,428,000 and the total annual cost would be <br />$5,844,600. The reduction in salt concentration at Imperial Dam would be <br />6.07 mg/L per year, with a cost effectiveness of 962,900 mg/L. <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />,:ilL'lfC::'" <br />v ~ . :<"'0 <br /> <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.