Laserfiche WebLink
<br />::.0 <br />r-. <br />\~ <br />o <br /> <br />("') <br /> <br />:::J <br /> <br />SUMMARY (Continued) <br /> <br />both stabilizing prices and reducing the present inventory; however, the <br />increase in anyone year of construction would not exceed 1 percent of <br />the total number of households in the county. <br /> <br />Short- and Long-term Impacts and Irreversible <br />and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources <br /> <br />Short-term impacts of alternatives A or B would include increases <br />in employment and population. The schools, housing, and other facilities <br />in the area could easily support these increases. Construction impacts, <br />such as traffic disruption, noise, dust, and soil erosion, would occur <br />and could temporarily cause adverse impacts; therefore, provisions in <br />construction contracts would be strictly enforced to protect against <br />these problems. <br /> <br />Summary Table 1 presents the short- and long-term impacts to various <br />resources from implementation of alternative A or B. <br /> <br />Comparison of Alternatives and <br />Selection of Recommended Plan <br /> <br />The annual increases in operation, maintenance, and replacement <br />costs for alternative B, selected as the recommended plan, are substan- <br />tially less than for alternative A--$716,000 per year for B, $1,660,000 <br />for A. Because alternative B uses pipe laterals, it is considered much <br />safer than the open laterals proposed in alternative A. Through the <br />Grand Valley Salini ty Coordinating Commi ttee, the water user groups <br />strongly expressed a preference for using pipe laterals. The primary <br />environmental impact of both alternatives would be to reduce the salt <br />loading to the Colorado River. Alternative B would have a greater ef- <br />fect in reducing salinity at Imperial Dam (13.1 mg/L compared to 12.6 <br />mg/L for alternative A). Total investment costs for alternative Bare <br />slightly higher than for alternative A. The annual operation, mainte- <br />nance, and replacement costs are, however, substantially less, and the <br />annual salt reduction is greater; thus, alternative B is the most cost <br />effective. It is also considered the environmentally preferred plan, <br />mainly because it maximizes salinity reduction and also improves safety <br />conditions along the canals and laterals. <br /> <br />The no-action alternative would not result in any salinity reduc- <br />tion. Summary Table 2 compares alternatives B (the recommended plan), <br />alternative A, and the no-action alternative. <br /> <br />S-l1 <br />