|
<br />SUMMARY (Continued)
<br />
<br />o
<br />N
<br />N
<br />~
<br />
<br />Cost-effectiveness comparison
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />Unit
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Grand Valley, Stage One
<br />
<br />Grand Valley, Stage Two
<br />West end Government Righllne
<br />laterals
<br />East end Government Rlghllne
<br />laterals
<br />Grand Valley Canal laterals
<br />Middle Government Hlghl1ne
<br />laterals
<br />Price Ditch laterals
<br />Kiefer Extension laterals
<br />Grand Valley Blghllne laterals
<br />Independent Rancnmen's laterals
<br />Orchard Mesa Canal No. 1
<br />laterals
<br />Grand Valley Hainline laterals
<br />St~b Ditch laterals
<br />West end Government Righllne
<br />Canal
<br />Orchard Me88 Canal No. 2
<br />laterals
<br />East end Government Righllne
<br />Canal
<br />Middle Government 81ghllne
<br />Canal
<br />Total
<br />
<br />Lower Gunnison Basin
<br />Winter water replacement
<br />East Canal system
<br />Selig Canal system
<br />South Canal system
<br />Garnet Canal system
<br />Loutzenhlzer Canal system
<br />Total
<br />
<br />Meeker Dome
<br />
<br />Eff@ct
<br />Imperial
<br />Tons/year)
<br />
<br />24,500
<br />
<br />17 ,400
<br />
<br />8,600
<br />12,600
<br />
<br />27,100
<br />10 , 000
<br />3,400
<br />5,900
<br />3,900
<br />
<br />5,400
<br />6,100
<br />600
<br />
<br />5,300
<br />
<br />1,200
<br />
<br />13,700
<br />
<br />18,500
<br />t39,700
<br />
<br />74,300
<br />14,900
<br />17,800
<br />20,800
<br />4,900
<br />7,900
<br />140,600
<br />
<br />15,800
<br />
<br />at
<br />Dam
<br />(...g!L)
<br />
<br />;./z.5
<br />
<br />1. 76
<br />
<br />.87
<br />1.27
<br />
<br />2.74
<br />1.01
<br />.34
<br />.06
<br />.39
<br />
<br />.55
<br />.62
<br />.06
<br />
<br />.54
<br />
<br />.12
<br />
<br />1.38
<br />
<br />1.87
<br />.YI4.12
<br />
<br />7.9
<br />1.6
<br />1.9
<br />2.2
<br />.5
<br />.9
<br />~15.0
<br />
<br />111.6
<br />
<br />Incremental
<br />cost effec-
<br />tiveness
<br />($!tng!L)l!
<br />
<br />Overall
<br />cost effec-
<br />tiveness
<br />($!mg!L)
<br />
<br />1/719,000
<br />
<br />247,000
<br />
<br />283,000
<br />295,000
<br />
<br />308,000
<br />328,000
<br />332,000
<br />417,000
<br />495,000
<br />
<br />553,000
<br />584,000
<br />600,000
<br />
<br />814,000
<br />
<br />908,000
<br />
<br />1,408,000
<br />
<br />1,460,000
<br />
<br />618,000
<br />
<br />44,000
<br />1',264,000
<br />1,366,000
<br />1,533,000
<br />1,642,000
<br />1,691,000
<br />
<br />712,000
<br />
<br />1.1149,000
<br />
<br />11 Based on January 1983 prices, except for Grand Valley Stage One and Meeker
<br />no~.- Interest rate for Grand Valley Unit Stage Two was 5 5/8 percent; ~oweT Gunnison
<br />Basin Unit, 7 3/8 percent.
<br />21 The formula used for evaluating the salinity reduction in mg/L at Imperial
<br />Dam was calculated by multiplying 1.01 by 10,000 tODa/year of sale removed, as pre-
<br />sented in Quality of Water Colorado River Basin, Progress Report 11 for the projected
<br />year 2010 common base.
<br />31 "As constructed" costs.
<br />41 The Lower Gunnison Basin Unit uses a formula based on Quality of Water Colo-
<br />rado River Basin, Progress Report 10, of multiplying 1.06 by 10,000 tooslyear of salt
<br />removed at Imperial Dam to determine the reduction at Imperial Da~ in mg/L for the
<br />expected conditions at the time the project would come on line in 1990.
<br />1/ "AS expended~ costj interest rate 7 7/8 percent.
<br />
<br />S-4
<br />
|