Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,-0 <br />c-. <br />e": <br /> <br />(" <br />c: <br /> <br />, ') <br /> <br />This is significant in that the latter two options would salvage the <br /> <br />bulk of the blowdown water which would otherwise be lost by use of <br /> <br />evaporation ponds. Further, it is significant that these costs are <br />within the range of the cost of proposed single-purpose salinity <br />control projects as shown in the following table. <br /> <br />TABLE 2 <br /> <br />ESTIMl,TED COST OF SOME PROPOSED <br />S~LINITY CONTROL PROJECTS IN THE COLORaDO RIVER BASIN <br /> <br />Proposod Salinity <br />Control Pro.iect <br /> <br />Salt <br />Removed <br />(tons/Yr) <br /> <br />Salinity <br />of Source <br />Water <br />(pm) <br /> <br />Annual <br />Project <br />Costs <br />(Thou- <br />sands of <br />dollars) <br /> <br />Unit Costs <br />of Salt <br />Removal <br />($/ton /Yr) <br /> <br />La Verkin Springs, Utah <br />(Diversion, impoundment; <br />and evaporation of 7JOOO <br />af/yr) <br /> <br />600 <br /> <br />7.50 <br /> <br />80,000 <br /> <br />8,400 <br /> <br />Blue Springs, Ari zona <br />(Diversion) conveyance, <br />and desal ination nf <br />159,000 af/yr) <br /> <br />16,000\ <br /> <br />32.00 <br /> <br />500,000 <br /> <br />2,300 <br /> <br />Glen~ood ~nd Dotsero <br />Springs, Colorado <br />(Diversion and desalin- <br />ation of 17,500 af/yr) <br /> <br />15,500 <br /> <br />5,000 <br /> <br />13.50 <br /> <br />370,000 <br /> <br />Big Sandy Creek Irriga- <br />tion Pro ject, l'!yoming <br />(Drainage irllprovemen t <br />of existing irrigation <br />I)rciject--~ of costs <br />assu~8d to bo allocated <br />to ~gricultural bene- <br />fits. 40,000 <br /> <br />490 <br /> <br />6.30 <br /> <br />-6- <br />