|
<br />\
<br />
<br />Table 5
<br />Option 1--Use of saved water
<br />Candidate Plan 2--Cumu1ative cost-effectiveness
<br />Evaluation Cost
<br />Units (January 1981)
<br />Pahcease $617,000
<br />Zimmerman Wash 1,324,000
<br />Pleasant Valley 6,195,000
<br />Grey Mountain 10,276,000
<br />Purdy-Midview 2,818,000
<br />South Fork Dry Gulch 4,049,000
<br />Duchesne Feeder 388,000
<br />Henry Jim 1,301,000
<br />North My ton Bench 4,566,000
<br />Dry Gu1ch-Riverdale 3,872,000
<br />My ton Townsite 8,971,000
<br />Ouray School 990,000
<br />Whiterocks-Eas t Uint a 5,285,000
<br />Bench 4,638,000
<br />Hancock Cove 4,557,000
<br />Highline 11,053,000
<br />Subtotal 70,900,000
<br />Interest during
<br />construction
<br />Tot al
<br />Annual equivalent cost
<br />Operation, maintenance,
<br />and replacement costs
<br />Total annual cost
<br />Reduction in concentration
<br />at Imperial Dam (mg/L)
<br />Cost per mg/L at Imperial Dam
<br />
<br />2,528,000
<br />73,428,000
<br />5,577,600
<br />
<br />267,000
<br />5,844,600
<br />
<br />6.07
<br />962,900
<br />
<br />OPTION 2 (no use of saved water)
<br />
<br />Candidate Plan No, 1 (Incre~enta1 Analysis)
<br />
<br />Under this plan improvements in 11 of the 19 evaluation units would
<br />be made. The total construction costs (including interest) for this plan,
<br />as shown in Table 6, would be $47,478,000 and the total annual cost would
<br />be $3,796,300. The reduction in salt concentration at Imperial Dam would
<br />be 7.33 mg/L per year, with a cumulative cost effectiveness of $517,900 mg/L.
<br />
<br />" .
<br />\ I; I:
<br />'''- ~ .
<br />
<br />~.. ~
<br />'" .. U
<br />
<br />19
<br />
|