WSP04498 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(CJ ~ M C -:' .......' . CHAPTER VI PLAN FORMULATION Selection of the Recommended Plan Two new alternatives evolved from the nonviable representative alternatives by elimination of the unacceptable combining increments and the undemonstrated barrier cutoff wall components. These alternat ives displayed incrementally 1n Tables 12 and 13, were considered technically feasible and acceptable to the water users. Plan A involves concrete and membrane lining of canals and concrete lining of laterals, while Plan B provides for concrete lining canals and placing laterals in pipe. To form viable Plan A, the 15 most cost-effective increments were selected from the concrete and membrane lining alternative shown in Table l2, and for viable Plan B, the 15 most cost-effective components were selected from the concrete and pipe alternative arrayed in Table 13. Viable Plans A and B are presented on Table 14. As described 1n Chapter V, Plan A has been selected as the recom- mended plan. Of primary importance in selecting this alternative over Plan B was the total cost and cost effectiveness. The total investment required for Plan A is substantially less than for Plan B; also, the cost effectiveness of $618,000 per mg/L is much less than the $766,000 per mg/L. Increments 16 throuth 24 of the selected plan are less efficient in terms of cost effectiveness than increments 1 through 15. Al though increment No. 16, which is the first one deleted from the plan, is not significantly less cost effective than the one that precedes it, it does involve a portion of a different canal system--one that 1S privately owned and operated. Administrative and operational problems could be experienced if this private segment were lined. The cost effectiveness 63