Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table A. - Cost-effectivness for Reclamation salinity control projects <br /> <br />?8H <br /> <br />Unit <br /> <br />Primary features <br /> <br />Cost-effectiveness <br />in dollars <br />per mq/l <br />(1981 I <br /> <br />Salinity <br />reduction <It <br />Imperial Ddm <br />(m,llI II <br /> <br />Tons of sdlt <br />remover! <br /> <br />Pdrado~ Valley <br />Grdnd Valley (St<lge I) <br />(overdllJ <br /> <br />Ld':. Vegas Wdsh <br />ldVerkln Springs <br />Lower Gunnison Bdsln <br /> <br />x <br /> <br />Ulntil Basin <br />McE lme Creek BdS in <br /> <br />Palo Verde Irrigotion <br />District (10 percent <br />of are;}) <br />Glenwood-Dolsero <br />Springs <br />Bi9 Sdndy River <br />SalIne wdter use <br />and di sposa) <br />opportunIties 1/ <br /> <br />Deep well injection <br />Canal/laleral lining <br /> <br />Bypass Channels <br />Des<ll t ing/ponds <br />Canall1<1lerdl lining <br />Recommended plan <br />Selective canal/laleral lining <br />Combining canals/selective <br />lining <br />lilteral lining -+ onfarm -+ IMS <br />(joint project with SCS) <br /> <br />Collection/evaporation ponds <br />(preferred plan) <br /> <br />Industrial use <br /> <br />local use for energy development <br />long distance export disposal <br />Coal e;lurry pipel ine <br /> <br />$100.000-250.000 <br />*644,000 <br />560.000 <br />96,000-107.000 <br />1,480,000 <br /> <br />18 <br />2,5 <br />27 <br />6,2 <br />21 8.4 <br /> <br />180,000 <br />24.000 <br />2AO.OOO <br />71,000 <br />103.000 <br /> <br />762.000 <br />900. 900 <br /> <br />769.000 <br /> <br />l' <br />2,' <br />2,' <br /> <br />141.000 <br />24,000 <br />24.000 <br /> <br />2Al,OOO <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />4/ 67.400 <br /> <br />852.000 <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br />314.000 <br /> <br />668.000 <br />520,000-880.000 <br />1,850.000-5,130.000 <br />240.000-518.000 <br /> <br />8 <br />A' <br />77-194 <br />IS-50 <br /> <br />75.000 <br />878,000 <br />768.000.1.975.000 <br />351.000.531.000 <br /> <br />* The $644,000 ie; the latest cost.effectiveness figure available dnd is different than presented on paqe 43. <br />1/ All concentr ilt i on reduc t ions were cal cu I ated us j ng CRSS projected 2010 flow and sa 1 t load Cand i t ions. The concen- <br />trdtlny effect of ~dter depletion was not considered in thi.. calculation. <br />21 Annudl equivalent value of salinity reduction. The ultimate value after a 22-yedf buildup periOd would be 11 mQ/l. <br />3/ Edfly dppraic,al or inventory estimates. <br />!/ Tons of salt removed would decreae;e to 50.200 by 2010 and an dse;ociated mg/l of 6. <br />