Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C) <br />~ <br />~ <br />tv <br /> <br />projects designated in PL 93-320. Costs and salinity con- <br />tributions associated with various alternatives were gener- <br />ated using January, 1980, estimated conditions. <br />Cost-effectiveness functions were developed for each of <br />the major canals and laterals, the aggregate laterals under <br />each canal, and an array of on-farm improvements for each <br />agricultural project area. Similar functions were also <br />developed for point sources such as Paradox Valley, Glenwood- <br />Dotsero Springs and Crystal Geyser. Collection and desali- <br />nation of a~ricultural return flows were also considered. <br />Marginal cost analysis based on current damage esti- <br />mates indicate that the optimal cost-effective salinity <br />control program in the Upper Basin would cost about $30 <br />million annually and remove about 1.2 million megagrams of <br />salt per year. In addition, it was concluded that mainte- <br />nance of the 1972 salinity levels at Imperial Darn cannot be <br />cost-effectively achieved and should be allowed to rise by <br />as much as 180 mg/l. Optimal salinity control programs are <br />presented for the individual alternatives, for individual <br />areas or projects, for the states of Colorado and Utah and <br />the Upper Colorado River Basin. Sensitivity analysis showed <br />that very large errors in costs and component salt loading <br />would have to be evident to change the optimal salinity <br />control strategy for the Upper Colorado River Basin. <br />This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant <br />No. R-806l48 by Colorado State University under the sponsor- <br />ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This <br /> <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 <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />iii <br />