Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c.> <br />c:;>. <br />~ <br />...... <br />t-v <br />o <br /> <br />Location of 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 New Supply-Cooperative Piggyback on other dedicated Piggyback on other dedicated Water deliveries through 30 kaf Seawater Pro- Could help address growing water needs in <br />States, interstate and international flows to meet minimum sustained flows to meet total pulse flow exchange, utilizing desalted water (Black & $1000-$1600/af Basin on a reliable basis both in U.S. and Mexico <br />Basin seawaterlbrackish water flow needs, or needs in California or Mexico with <br />states, & desalting either desalting ocean. forbearance arrangements that Veatch, 1993) Brackish water Con- Cost of desalination and conveyance to <br />Mexico water from the Pacific or sea Provide sufficient desalted water transfer Colorado River water $600-$100/af points of use, resolution of administrative, legal, <br /> water from Sea of Cortez volume to address additional right to other participants (Black & international, and pricing issues <br /> Mexican urban demands Veatch, 1993) <br />Mexico Conservation of Mexican Conserved water piggybacked on Piggyback on other dedicated Water deliveries via new 30-130 kaf (Cost not Pro- Mexico to make more effective use of its <br /> inflows to New River other dedicated flows to meet flows to meet total pulse flow infrastructure and/or exchanges (USBR, 1991) estimated) available waters <br /> minimum sustained flow needs needs and/or as substitute for By- and forbearance arrangements Con- Mexico's existing and pianned use of su<:h <br /> pass drainage. Allows operation of Request North American waters for powerplants and potential agricultural <br /> Yuma Desalter without impacting Development Bank grant use. Reduced inflows may increase toxicity of <br /> Cienega if inflows meet Cienega financing for border infrastructure New River flows. Salton Sea impacts-reduced <br /> needs inflows and increased salinity. Costly to provide <br /> as a substitute for By-pass drainage. <br />United' Unavoidable regulatory losses Other dedicated flows Other dedicated flows Small amount if avoidable losses Pro- Provides environmental credit for <br />States from United States - use in piggybacked on regulatory losses piggybacked on regulatory losses are eliminated. unavoidable losses <br /> Iimitrophe for MSCP credit to meet minimum sustained flow to meet total pulse flow needs Con- Small uncertain amount assuming Senator <br /> needs Wash fix and construction of new offstream <br /> reservoirs near All American Canal <br />Mexico & Intentionally defer Treaty Dedicate flows when needed to Dedicate flows to meet total pulse Could have alternating minor Pro- Meets pulse flow requirements with existing <br />United deliveries for subsequent year meet minimum sustained flow flow or Cienega needs in absence negative and positive effects on infrastructure without impacting water available <br />States higher deliveries, e.g. 1.4, 1.4, needs of other water Lower Colorado River salinity and to Basin states <br /> 1.4, 1.8 maf environmental resources Con- Inconsistent with Mexican Water Treaty 1.5 <br /> Raises question of whether maf delivery requirement. Would require Treaty <br /> deferred deliveries would be modification that could open other issues <br /> stored in Lake Mead only or both <br /> Lakes Powell and Mead, and <br /> whether such water would be <br /> released first from Lake Mead in <br /> the event flood releases are <br /> required <br /> <br />DRAFT-Confidential and Privileged Information <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />