|
<br />.....
<br />If")
<br />C\!
<br />'=>
<br />~-)
<br />
<br />-'
<br />
<br />SUMMARY SHEETS (Continued)
<br />
<br />effectiveness comparison
<br />Effect on
<br />Imper ial Dam
<br />Tons/year MR/Ll/
<br />24,500 2.5
<br />
<br />Unit
<br />Grand Valley, StaKe One
<br />Grand Valley, Stage Two
<br />West end Government Highline
<br />laterals
<br />East end Government Highline
<br />laterals
<br />Grand Valley Canal laterals
<br />Middle Government Highline
<br />laterals
<br />Price Ditch laterals
<br />Kiefer Extension laterals
<br />Grand Valley Highline laterals
<br />Independent Ranchmen's laterals
<br />Orchard Mesa Canal No.1
<br />laterals
<br />Grand Valley Mainline laterals
<br />Stub Ditch laterals
<br />West end Government Highline
<br />Canal
<br />Orchard Mesa Canal No.2
<br />laterals
<br />East end Government Highline
<br />Canal
<br />Middle Government Highline
<br />Canal
<br />Total
<br />Lower Gunnison Basin
<br />Winter water replacement 74,300
<br />East Canal system 14,900
<br />Selig Canal system 17,800
<br />South Canal system 20,800
<br />Garnet Canal system 4,900
<br />Loutzenhizer canal system 7.900
<br />Total 140,600
<br />Based on Progress Report No. 11.
<br />Except Stage One, based on January 1983 prices. Interest rate for Grand Valley
<br />5 5/8 percent; for Lower Gunnison, 7 3/8 percent.
<br />"As constructed" costs.
<br />
<br />Cost
<br />
<br />17,400
<br />
<br />8,600
<br />12,600
<br />
<br />27,100
<br />10,000
<br />3,400
<br />5,900
<br />3,900
<br />
<br />5,400
<br />6,100
<br />600
<br />
<br />5,300
<br />
<br />1,200
<br />
<br />13,700
<br />
<br />18,500
<br />139,700
<br />
<br />1/
<br />Ii
<br />Unit was
<br />]j
<br />
<br />1. 76
<br />
<br />.87
<br />1.27
<br />
<br />2.74
<br />1.01
<br />.34
<br />.06
<br />.39
<br />
<br />.55
<br />.62
<br />.06
<br />
<br />.54
<br />
<br />.12
<br />
<br />1.38
<br />
<br />1.87
<br />14.12
<br />
<br />7.5
<br />1.5
<br />1.8
<br />2.1
<br />.5
<br />.8
<br />14.2
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />Incremental
<br />effectiveness
<br />($/m./L)2/
<br />
<br />247,000
<br />
<br />283,000
<br />295,000
<br />
<br />308,000
<br />328,000
<br />332,000
<br />417,000
<br />495,000
<br />
<br />553,000
<br />584,000
<br />600,000
<br />
<br />824,000
<br />
<br />908,000
<br />
<br />1,408,000
<br />
<br />1,460,000
<br />
<br />49,000
<br />1,423,000
<br />1,521,000
<br />1,694,000
<br />1,733,000
<br />2,007,000
<br />
<br />Overall cost
<br />effectiveness
<br />($/m./L)
<br />31719,000
<br />
<br />1.-
<br />
<br />618,000
<br />
<br />794,000
<br />
|