Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000156 146

Information

Digital ID
upr000156-146
Permalink
http://n2t.net/ark:/62930/d1td9qg4r
Details
Member of
LVLWC - Annual Report to Public Service Commission (2 of 2)
Rights
This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.
Digital Provenance
Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room
Publisher
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

75. indicates that a pipe line with a capacity of 60.0 MOD costs, over a period of 34 years, $1,498,000 more than the 34-year cost of a pipe line with a capacity of 30.0 MOD. The cost of a new pipe line with a capacity of 30.0 MOD is estimated at $3,220,000. Hence the comparative cost of a 60.0 MGD line is $4,718,000 as against two 30.0 MOD lines (constructed 34 years apart) of $6,440,000. Therefore, the cost of one 30.0 MOD line constructed now and a second 30.0 MOD line constructed 34 years hence is only about 1.36 times the cost of a single 60.0 MOD line constructed now. Based on these figures, it appears prudent to construct a 30.0 MGD pipe line from Lake Mead at the present time and to provide additional capacity when the need is established. The study tabulated in Table 17 was based on pipe lines delivering water at the rates of 20.0 MOD and 40.0 MOD. These rates are about the annual average rates for pipe line with maximum capacities (Maximum Month) of 30.0 MOD and 60.0 MOD, respectively. For the purposes of comparative study, these bases are reasonable. In the determination of the economical pipe diameter cognizance must be taken of the fact that sustained rates of delivery of 30.0 MOD must be accommodated. The maximum rate of 30.0 MOD with an annual average rate of 20.0 MOD through the pipe line results in an economical pipe diameter of 40 inches.