WSP06476

• File Number: 8271.300
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - General Information and Publications-Reports
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 6/1/1978
• Title: Salinity Management Options for the Colorado River -- Part 1 of 2 -- Title Page - Page 168
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

(::>
'-)
~
...,]
N
....

t811 area due to utilization of Colorado River water can
be estimated by extrapolation to be between $880
million and $1.44 billion in present value terms, or
approximately $70 to $115 million as an annual cost.
An improvement of 10 mg/l TDS in the Colorado
River water delivered to Los Angeles residences, by
implication, would lead to a cost saving of approxi-
mately $14 million in present value terms of $1.12
million per year. This estimate is likely to be
downward biased because it does not include all types
of housebold aavings such as on .purchases of soaps,
detergents, acid rinses for swimming pools, and
others. On the other hand, it is likely to be upward
biased because it does not include potential techno.
logical advances that partially ameliorate the physical
d'amages at costs less than economic losses.

THE CENTRAL ARIZONA AND LAS VEGAS
AREA INVESTIGATION

The Bureau of Reclamation elected to conduct
onsite surveys in order to establish a broader
statistical base from which to estimate damages
attributable to salinity for the Phoenix, Tucson, and
Las Vegas areas. The same questionnaire used in Los
Angeles was also used for plumbing contractors and
appliance dealers in the corresponding standard
metropolitan statistical areas of the above three
locations.

As a result of the analysis, pecuniary estimates of
damages were derived for the following household
items: galvanized water pipes. water heaters, toilet
flushing mechanisms, dishwashers, and garbage
disposals. A statistical analysis compared the estima-
ted mean lifetime of these items between two
municipal groups of differing water qualities. One
group was comprised of the SMSA of Phoenix plus the
Boulder City and Henderson areas from the SMSA of
Las Vegas. The second group contained the remaining

Table 20. Test for significantly different sample mea"..

Water Heater
Galvanized Wastewater Pipes
Galvanized Water Pipes
Toilet Flushing Mechanism
Copper Water Pipes
Plastic Water Pipes
Copper Wastewater Pipes
Plastic Wastewater Pipes
Dishwashers
Washers
Garbage Disposals
Brass Faucets

San Fernando
Valley
(210 mgfl)
8.74
30.94
17.28
7.68
44.08
48.33
43.82
42.50
9.60
8.50
8.47
10.40

portion of the Las Vegas SMSA plus the SMSA of
Tucson. The water quality of the first group is
estimated to average 735 mg/I while the second was
observed to have a somewhat better quality of 500
mg/l.

Plumbing contractors and appliance dealers
serving each of the above areas were contacted to
provide estimates of average lifetimes for various
plumbing fixtures and water using household appli-
ances.

These estimates enabled a distribution to be
constructed of average years of life by type of
plumbing fixtures and appliances. A comparison of
lifetime estimates between the two groups indicated
that the following items had a statistically significant
difference (longer average lifetime for Las Vegas.
Tucson lower TDS area): galvanized water pipes,
toilet flushing mechanisms, water heaters, dish-
washers, and garbage disposals. No statistically
significant difference was found for cast iron
wastewater pipes, brass faucets, washing machines,
and evaporative coolers.

A typical household was constructed for these
areas based on the percentage of homes containing the
various water related items. Estimated economic
costs for the representative household was derived in
present value terms, utilizing an 8 percent discount
rate for the damages in the range in water quality
from 500 to 735 mg/l.

Data Collection

Primary data were collected in the SMSA's of Las
Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson by asking similar
questions as used in the Los Angeles area. Plumbers
and appliance people were contacted and asked to
provide estimates centered around the effect of
salinity on the lifetimes of water related consumer
goods.

Estimated Mean Ufetime (Years)

Costa Mesa.
Newport Beach
(728 mg/I)
5.22
10.14
11.25
6.63
47.50
60.00
43.78
53.00
6.50
7,38
6.86
6.00

Statistical
Significance
Different at 0.005
Different at 0.005
Different at 0.100
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
Different at 0.005
Different at 0.'100
Different at 0.100
Different at 0.050

21

h,