Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br /> <br />N <br />W <br />l\.:. <br />N <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Temperature <br />Chloride <br />pH <br />Dissolved O2 <br />Boron <br />TDS <br />Suspended solids <br /> <br />130C <br />729 mg/I <br />8.0 <br />10.2 mg/I <br />0.8 mg/I <br />2,774 mg/I <br />317 mg/I <br /> <br />sodium <br />barium <br />calcium <br />silicon <br />iron <br />sulfate <br /> <br />500 mg/I <br />0.18 mg/l <br />220 mg/I <br />26.7 mg/I <br />.06 mg/I <br />500 mg/I <br /> <br />These data were used in determining desalting costs. <br /> <br />Uncertainties <br /> <br />If the proposed desalting plant's high salinity reject stream were <br /> <br />discharged back into either the New or Alamo Rivers, the salinity of <br /> <br />the Salton Sea would increase at a rate faster than its present rate of <br /> <br />increase. Evaporation ponds, however, would require between 6,000 <br /> <br />and 7,000 acres of land for the New River facility and about 2,000 <br /> <br />acres for the Alamo River facility. Removal from production of this <br /> <br />amount of improved agricultural land would not only substantially <br /> <br />increase the cost of replacement water, but would adversely affect the <br /> <br />local economic base. <br /> <br />Costs <br /> <br />Costs, both plant investment and operation and maintenance, for <br /> <br />primary treatment, secondary treatment, and activated carbon filt"rs <br /> <br />were obtained from a Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc. report published in <br /> <br />1970. Cost indices were used to estimate costs for 1975. Desalting <br /> <br />costs were calculated using the DesaltinQ Handbook for Planners, an <br /> <br /> <br />Office of Saline Water (now Office of Water Research and Technology) <br /> <br />23 <br />