Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;J <br />~3 <br /> <br />."1 <br />.' <br />..'..... <br />" <br />. <br /> <br />CHAPTER I I <br /> <br />PIAN FORMULATI~ <br /> <br />:~ <br />U <br /> <br />By assuming the average December surface outflow water quality <br />(2,775 mg/L) to represent the base flow water quality at the terminus of the <br />SSA, the base flow separation technique yields a net salt loading rate of <br />1.2 tons per acre-foot. <br /> <br />Cost Effectiveness Analysis <br /> <br />A cost effectiveness analysis was conducted to determine if any of the <br />SSA delivery systems presented cost effective salinity control opportunities <br />through implementation of a lining or winter water replacement program. <br /> <br />Cost estimates were prepared for lining the Grand View, Crawford Clipper, <br />Needle Rock, Al, A2, and Aspen delivery systems using procedures similar to <br />those described for the Tongue Creek area. <br /> <br />.,~ <br />rj <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /><<;~." <br />'?;J <br />~...~ <br /> <br />!!"l <br />H The cost effectiveness values for lining individual systems ranged from a <br />11,. low of $84 per ton for the Needle Rock laterals to $679 per ton for the Aspen <br />canal with an overall weighted average cost effectiveness value of $180 per <br />~~ ton for the entire SSA. <br />~;:J <br />c.:.iJ <br /> <br />;~:' <br /> <br />Cost estimates were also prepared for a replacement stockwater delivery <br />system. Since there are no existing rural domestic water systems in the area, <br />it was assumed that replacement stockwater would be provided through a piped <br />raw water delivery system, paralleling the existing irrigation delivery <br />systems. No allowance was made for on-farm facilities that would be required <br />to dispense the stockwater. The cost effectiveness analysis indicated an <br />overall cost effectiveness value for the entire SSA of $54 per ton. Total <br />salt load reduction for this salinity control increment is estimated at <br />1l,lOO tons per year. <br /> <br />Due to the poor cost effectiveness associated with canal and lateral <br />lining in the SSA, the canal and lateral lining component was eliminated from <br />further consideration. Although winter water replacement in the SSA appeared <br />to present a cost effective salinity control option, the cost estimate used in <br />this analysis did not account for on-farm facilities which have been <br /> <br />Lj <br /> <br />~-:'1 <br />i:~l <br /> <br />r ;::~ <br />x_':{ <br />"oj <br /> <br />~":1 <br />~:~ <br />~.o <br /> <br />',~ <br />ii':, <br />iij <br /> <br />demonstrated to equal approximately 50 percent of replacement system costs in <br />the Lower Gunnison Basin unit winter Water Replacement program. Based on this <br />uncertainty and the relatively small salinity control benefit, this component <br />was also eliminated from further consideration. <br /> <br />$;'ct <br />~~~~ <br />ti:) <br /> <br />North Delta Canal and lateral lining <br /> <br />~~-l <br />~.' <br /> <br />Area Description <br /> <br />The North Delta area consists of lands served by the North Delta canal <br />and Hartland Ditch. The area includes approximately 3,560 acres of irrigated <br />land on the north side of the Gunnison River near the city of Delta. <br /> <br />North Delta Canal and Hartland Ditch serve approximately 2,470 and 1,090 <br />acres, respectively. Both systems obtain their water supply from the <br />Gunnison River, with the North Delta Canal diversion located about 2.5 miles <br />upstream of Austin and the Hartland Ditch 2.5 miles upstream from Delta. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />000939 <br /> <br />::," <br />