Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />c:...,; <br />r='"~ <br />M:'- <br /> <br />[" ..) <br /> <br />w <br /> <br />Location cf Supply Options Minimum Sustained Flow for <br />Supply For Overall Water Riparian Corridor and/or Other Periodic Pulse/Flushing Comments Quantity of Cost Pros & Cons <br />Option Management Plan Environmental Needs Flows and/or Cienega Needs Water <br />Action <br />United Remove mounded and other Dedicated flows or flows Dedicated flows or water Most usable groundwater in Pro- Possible additional water supply for Mexico. <br />States & ground-water from Imperial piggybacked on other dedicated piggybacked on other dedicated Imperial County for M&I and Con- Seepage recovery along All American <br />Mexico County for use in Imperial flows to meet minimum sustained flows to meet total pulse flow agricultural purposes occurs as Canal would adversely affect only water supply <br /> Valley in lieu of Colorado River flow needs needs accumulated All American canal for M&I users and federal lands in California <br /> diversions or deliver to Mexico seepage that has been earmarked along the Colorado River with insufficient rights <br /> by exchange for environmental for the Lower Co.lorado Water or without Colorado River contracts. Could create <br /> purposes Supply Project and accumulated a binational groundwater issue. Deliveries to <br /> Coach ell a Canal seepage for Mexico of such water would reduce supply <br /> which there may be competing available to California. Quality of pumped <br /> United States' uses. groundwater discharged into the canals could be <br /> Mexico already using a portion of an issue for IID and/or CVWD. <br /> All American canal seepage <br /> through induced migration of <br /> seepage by groundwater pumping <br /> in Mexico <br /> Potential for effect on <br /> geothermal energy production <br /> would need to be investigated <br />United Remove shallow groundwater Dedicated flows or flows Dedicated flows or water Assurances required from Pro- Aids in groundwater management in the area <br />States & from SIB/Yurna area for piggybacked on other dedicated piggybacked on other dedicated Mexican government that water <br />Mexico delivery to Mexico for flows to meet minimum sustained flows to meet total pulse flow would be dedicated to Con- Temporary, limited supply. Decree I <br /> environmental purposes flow needs needs environmental uses, i.e., non- accounting issues. Affects supplies available to <br /> agricultural or municipal uses. Arizona. Colorado River water quality may be <br /> affected depending on location( s) chosen for <br /> pumping if groundwater is discharged to the <br /> Colorado River <br />United Deliver some of Mexico's 1.5 Does not contribute to minimum Does not contribute to periodic Subject to space available, system Up to 14.4 kafy -$420/af Pro- Consistent with current Tijuana emergency <br />States & maf through the Met/San Diego sustained flow pulse/flushing flows constraints for 5 years wheeling delivery agreement <br />Mexico system to Tijuana/Rosarita (lBWC Draft charge <br /> Report 11 /02) Con- Not a long-term supply or reliable <br /> delivery means for Mexico; would establish a <br /> precedent for deliveries on an other than <br /> emergency basis <br /> <br />DRAFT-Confidential and Privileged Information <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />