Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i"'! 0.. n 3 !'l 2 <br />U l _~ <br /> <br />accrue up to some predetermined cap. The amount of annual deposits <br />committed to the shortage contingency fund could range from the estimated <br />cost associated with fallowing and forbearance agreements to the estimated <br />cost of operating the YDP at full capacity plus the additional cost associated <br />with replacing the volume of the reject stream. These funds would be utilized <br />to fund temporary forbearance agreements, economic mitigation, or other <br />temporary use reduction measures to reduce shortage risks to water users <br />when shortages are declared or to fund anticipatory mitigation measures in <br />low reservoir conditions. This would allow accumulation of the financial <br />resources necessary to mitigate the impacts of bypass flows to reservoir <br />storage during periods of relative water abundance (when physical <br />replacement of the bypass flows is least likely to benefit water users and could <br />result in storage of water that would subsequently be spilled). These resources <br />could then be expended to make significant contributions to the preservation <br />of reservoir storage and mitigate drought impacts during periods of water <br />scarcity (when the risk of shortage caused by the cumulative impacts of failure <br />to replace bypass flows is most likely to impact water users). <br /> <br />4. Water banking and recovery - This option would be modeled after the <br />Arizona Water Banking Authority program which stores water underground <br />until it is needed in a time of shortage on the Colorado River. Under this <br />option, the u.s. would offset the impact ofthe bypass flow in times of <br />shortage by providing junior priority water users water from the banked <br />supply that the u.s. had purchased in prior years. <br /> <br />5. Changes to Minute 242 ~ Under this option, the impact of delivering water <br />supplies from sources that have higher salinity levels (such as Yuma area <br />drainage water) would be accepted by the Mexican government. This would <br />allow additional water sources to be used to meet the Mexican Treaty <br />obligation which do not involve releases from upstream storage. This option <br />would need to be used in conjunction with other options which provide an <br />offsetting benefit to Mexico. <br /> <br />E. Infrastructure ~ In addition to legal, monetary, and institutional measures, there <br />will need to be some utilization of "bricks and mortar" components to allow the <br />implementation of some ofthe water supply measures. <br /> <br />1. Yuma Desalting Plant ~ The YDP can be operated to improve the quality of <br />brackish water by removing salts. The plant can be operated at 1/3,2/3, or <br />full capacity based on its modular design. It may also be possible to increase <br />the output of the plant beyond the current maximum design through <br />improvements in technology. Water sources for the YDP could be from the <br />Wellton-Mohawk drainage supply, the Yuma area drainage supply, or some <br />combination ofthe two. Generally, it will be less expensive and more efficient <br />if the source supply is the Yuma area drainage water since much of the water <br />is of lower salinity than the Wellton-Mohawk supply. Yuma area <br />groundwater requires less pretreatment prior to desalination and is also lower <br />in salinity. <br /> <br />Recommendations of the YDP/Cienega Workgroup <br /> <br />15 <br />