Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />o <br />~ <br />1+...... <br />i"';'o <br />CD' <br /> <br />Locatio n of Supply Options Minimum Sustained Flow for <br />Supply For Overall Water Riparian Corridor andlor Other Periodic PlIlse/Flushing Comments Quantity of Cost Pros & Cons <br />Op.tion Management Plan Environmental Needs Flows andlor Cienega Needs Water <br />Action <br />United Use of brackish and Yuma Maximizes lower quality water for Pro- Does not interfere with operation of Yuma <br />States & Desalter reject water to establish habitat restoration similar to use of Desalter; water quality may be more suitable for <br />Mexico open water and habitat in inter- drainage water habitat to be established than for Cienega habitat; <br /> tidal zone potential for United States to take credit for <br /> contribution of water <br /> Con- Potential binational issues, capital cost <br /> depending on conveyance method selected to <br />. transport water to intertidal zone <br />United Multiple use - seasonal Mexican Dedicated flows to meet minimum Piggyback on other dedicated Request North American Pro- Increases regional storage options and <br />States & off-stream wetland storage and sustained flow needs flows to meet total pulse flow or Development Bank grant flexibility <br />Mexico deferred coordinated storage Cienega needs financing for border infrastructure Con- Capital and ongoing O&M costs, potential <br /> releases to meet environmental <br /> minimum and pulse flow needs to turn good quality water to brackish water; <br />Mexico Conserved water derived from Piggyback on other dedicated Piggyback on other dedicated Request North American 10-15 kaf $15-18 million Pro- Increases regional storage options and <br /> off-stream and system regulatory flows to meet minimum sustained flows to meet total pulse flow or Development Bank grant (USBR, 1991) (USB~, 1991) flexibility <br /> storage reservoirs flow needs Cienega needs financing for border infrastructure Con- Capital and ongoing O&M costs <br /> Enforcement & verification issues on transfer of <br /> water <br /> Need an overall water supply and management <br /> plan <br />United Re-regulation of Gila River Piggyback on other dedicated Piggyback on other dedicated Coordination with mainstem Pro- Increased operational flexibility and water <br />States & flood releases coordinated with flows to meet minimum sustained flows to meet total pulse flow or Colorado River releases and supply from coordination of Gila and Colorado <br />Mexico Mexico flow needs Cienega needs would require acquisition of land releases. Would increase reservoir system storage <br /> or flood easements at Painted Would result in less U.S. regulatory loss water <br /> Rock Dam and storage lost <br /> Con- Painted Rock Dam safety issues. Mexico <br /> would view it as less water available, acquisition <br /> of land or flood easements may be viewed <br /> negativ~ly by landowners <br /> <br />DRAFT-Confidential and Privileged Information <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />