Laserfiche WebLink
<br />W <br />A <br />o <br />~ <br /> <br />Unit <br /> <br />Cost-effectiveness <br />(to deliver water <br />to plant boundary) <br /> <br />Net Federal <br />cost-effectiveness <br />(after adjustments <br />for incremental <br />cost and/or credit) <br /> <br />LaVerkin Springs <br />McElmo Creek <br />B;g Sandy River <br /> <br />$ 392,000 <br />1,017,000 <br />1,820,000 <br /> <br />$795,000 <br />880,000 <br />520,000 <br /> <br />A review of table 4 earlier in this report shows that cost-effectiveness <br />varies widely for the various units and the saline water use and dis- <br />posal opportunities alternatives --from a low of $240,000 annually for one <br />coal slurry pipeline to over $5 million a year for long distance export <br />di sposal. <br /> <br />Assuming a cost of $2 million per mg/L would be required to remove the <br />remaining 1.6 million tons of salt annually or an equivalent of about <br />160 mg/L, the annual cost could be as much as $320.000,000. Or, if the <br />second lowest alternative was used to remove 160 mg/l at $520,000 per mg/L, <br />the annual cost could be as low as $83,200,000. Using the relationship of <br />investment costs to annual costs suggested in table 8, the investment cost <br />of removing 1.6 million tons of salt would be approximately $832,000,000 to <br />$3,200,000,000, <br /> <br />In summary, the range of total estimated construction funding costs to meet <br />full program objectives is shown below: <br /> <br />$ millions <br /> <br />For total reduction of 1.2 million tons <br />of salts dnnual by agricultural <br />source control and Paradox Valley Unit <br /> <br />690 - 770 <br /> <br />For total r-eduction of 1.6 million tons <br />of salts annual by other means (desalt- <br />ing, evapor-ation, energy uses, etc.) <br /> <br />832 3,200 <br />$1,522 3,970 <br /> <br />STATUS OF INVESTIGATIONS <br /> <br />Units Author-;zed for Construction <br /> <br />At the initiation of the CRWQIP, prior studies of the EPA, the Colorado <br />River Board of California, and the Bureau of Reclamation were reviewed to <br /> <br />39 <br />