Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-17- <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />Ii <br />I <br />, <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /><:) <br />.;. <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />15. The use of average costs per mg/l of treatment is mis- <br />leading and should not be used in the delineation or <br />phasing of salinity control projects. <br />16. At current average damage estimates, it is cost- <br />effective to treat only about 48 to 50 percent of the <br />total attainable salt load reduction from the projects <br />designated in PL 93-320. <br />17. All of this analysis points to the fact that the <br />arbitrary target of maintaining 1972 salinity levels at <br />Imperial Dam cannot be cost-effectively attained. In <br />fact, these results indicate that the target level <br />should be increased to about 1,030 or 1,040 mg/l or <br /> <br />more. <br /> <br />18. Present trends indicate that all of the cost-effective <br />salinity control programs should be on-line no later <br />than 1995. The damage costs due to delayed construc- <br />tion of these projects can be substantial. <br />19. Sensitivity analysis of the data and the optimization <br />procedure indicate that substantial error in costs and <br />the respective salt load contributions of the indi- <br />vidual alternatives would have to occur to change the <br />optimal order of implementation of a basin-wide salin- <br />ity control program. <br />