Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Q <br />..c. <br />w <br />~ <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br />entitlements. This analysis delineates the regions and <br />expenditures in which salinity control projects should be <br />initiated to achieve these salt reductions at minimum cost. <br />The marginal costs and marginal benefits of control programs <br />are compared with respect to various levels of salinity <br />control. <br />The results also identify the optimal salinity control <br />pOlicy for various levels of development, and can indicate <br />the best salinity management practices as a function of time <br />or development. Any new project which would be expected to <br />cause an increase in downstream salinity concentration <br />could be identified with the most cost-effective salinity <br />control project to offset its impact. <br />Conceivably, optimal salinity control strategies could <br />include indirect methods for individual water development <br />projects to offset their salinity detriments to the Colorado <br />River. A new project's salinity impact may be best cor- <br />rected by a water quality improvement program elsewhere in <br />the Basin. Consequently, a number of important institutional <br />issues can be expected to arise when considering salinity <br />control as a large scale problem. The optimal plan for <br />offsetting the salinity associated with water development in <br />one state may be the treatment of an existing system in <br />another state. If such a pOlicy were to be constrained, by <br />not allowing an interstate or regional view of salinity <br />control, the costs would be higher. Comparison of the <br />optimal strategy with the corresponding constrained <br />