Laserfiche WebLink
<br />w <br />00 <br />-.J <br />~ <br /> <br />Table 1. - SUDmary <br /> <br />-. -~. -.. ------- -- -- ..--- - _.' - -- ---- ----------- - -- -- -------- ------ --- ------- -- --------,-------- <br /> <br />Unit <br /> <br />INrER lOR <br />Grand Valley, stage I <br />Meeker DOllle <br /> <br />Gr,and V.alley, Stage II <br />L,a's Ve~:l-3S W.a1ih <br />Par.3dox Valley <br /> <br />Lower Gunnison, WW <br />Lower Gunnison, Stage I, tot <br />McEllllo Creek <br />Big Sandy Rivfi!r <br />Saline Water Use <Pricel <br />, <br />L.as Veg,as Wash) <br />Sinb.ad (flLlD <br /> <br />Uinta Basin <br />Price-San Rafael Rivers <br />Dirty Devil River <br />Lower Virgin ~iver <br />Palo Verde Ir~ig !list <br />Lower GIJnr,isori, - North Fork <br />San Juan River <br /> <br />LaVerkin Springs <br />Glenwood-Dotseto Springs <br />Crystal Geyser <br /> <br />USDA - 1982 prices <br />Grand V.311ey 1/ <br />Uinta B.3Sin <br /> <br />Virgin Valley <br />Bi~~ S.3ndy <br />Moapa V.alley <br />Lower G'Jnni son <br />Mc/Hmo Creek <br />Mancos Valley, preliM <br />San Rafael, prelim <br />PI' ice, prelill <br /> <br />Potential Estimated <br />Salt Salt <br />Reduction 11 Reduction <br />to date <br />(ktonlyr) (kton/yr) <br /> <br />28 <br />57 <br /> <br />14.2 <br />48.0 <br /> <br />Annual <br />Cost <br />Effect- <br />iveness 12 <br />( $/torfJ <br /> <br />80-100 <br />75 <br /> <br />190 <br />121 <br />o <br /> <br />Effect at Imperial D;1I1 <br /> <br />72- <br />15 <br /> <br />77 <br />10 <br />25 <br /> <br />4 <br />71 <br />50 <br />69 <br /> <br />90 <br />35 <br />74 <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br />24 <br />'!16 <br /> <br />9 <br />30 <br />38 <br />56 <br />79 <br />89 <br /> <br />IDS <br />Reduc- <br />tion <br />IIg/L <br /> <br />13.6 <br />9.2 <br />18.0 <br /> <br />8;0 <br />14.1 <br />2.4 <br />7.8 <br /> <br />16.1 <br />0.7 <br /> <br />2.6 <br />3.0 <br />2.0 <br /> <br />1.1 <br /> <br />5.3 <br />28.4 <br />0.3 <br /> <br />13.0 <br />7.6 <br /> <br />3.7 <br />3.5 <br />2.0 <br />33.5 <br />3.3 <br />2,,0 <br />6.2 <br />6.2 <br /> <br />Annual <br />Cost <br />Et:fect~ <br />iveness /2 <br />(i/llg/Ll <br />($1000) <br /> <br />2.8 <br />4.8 <br /> <br />719 <br />152 <br /> <br />141 <br />92 <br />180 <br /> <br />80 <br />141 <br />;)4 <br />78 <br /> <br />161 <br />7 <br /> <br />;)6 <br />30 <br />20 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />53 <br />284 <br />o <br /> <br />130 <br />76 <br /> <br />17.7 <br />1;).8 <br /> <br />766 <br />102 <br />250 <br /> <br />44 <br />712 <br />500 <br />691 <br /> <br />800,.1000 <br />751 <br /> <br />903 <br />350 <br />740 <br /> <br />280 <br /> <br />1900 <br />1210 <br /> <br />240 <br />960 <br /> <br />90 <br />300 <br />380 <br />560 <br />790 <br />890 <br /> <br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------- <br /> <br />37 <br />35 <br />20 <br />335 <br />33 <br />20 <br />62 <br />62 <br /> <br />11 Reflects val'Jes presently incl'Jded iI', CRSS d,3ta bue. <br />2l The estimates represent, at best, appraisal level costs in some cases. and feasibility <br />level costs in other cases. Caution must be used in drawing comparative conclusions <br />in attempting to prioritize projects on the basis of these costs-effectivness values. <br />Common evluat'ion criteria will be developed over the next year. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />'~i~ <br />'Jt1 <br />