Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C> <br />C'> <br />I-"-~ <br />...... <br />t.y <br />I-" <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 All American Canal turn out for Any resulting increased supply Any resulting increased supply Furthers international cooperation, 30-130 kaf $2-10 million Pro- Enhanced cost effective Mexican water <br />States & Mexican deliveries and flood piggybacked on other dedicated piggybacked on other dedicated supply, increased Mexicali Valley agricultural <br />Mexico flows for Mexican gTOundwater flows to meet minimum sustained flows to meet total pulse flow Undertaken to advance (USBR,199l) (USBR,199I) productivity and greater water reuse opportunities <br /> recharge flow needs needs international comity, not obligated from delivery of lower salinity water, frees up <br /> to do other water for Delta needs through possible <br /> forbearance and/or exchange arrangements. Net <br /> increase in power generation <br /> Con- Binational operational issues: accounting of <br /> salinity/salinity differential and water deliveries <br />United Defer discretionary fall space Could serve as seasonal dedicated Provides for pulse flows when While releases would be made Pro- Utilizes existing infrastructure, would not <br />States & building releases (anticipatory flows to meet minimum sustained surplus condition exists consistent during period oflow water reduce water supply to Basin states; Could <br />Mexico flood control releases) and flow needs with timing of environmental deliveries, it would increase provide an additional supply for other uses if <br /> release as winter pulse flows needs potential for flooding damages short-term priorities change <br /> Con- Increase potential for flooding damages. <br /> Not a reliable or long-term predictable supply <br />Mexico Divide By-pass drain flow Piggyback on other dedicated Piggyback on other dedicated Assumes those flows would count Bypass Drain Pro- Would reduce need to operate Yuma <br /> between Cienega and Delta flows to meet minimum sustained flows to meet total pulse flow as part of 1.5 maf Treaty now carries Desalting Plant; would demonstrate Mexico's <br /> flow needs needs deliveries. Would require new about 120,000 commitment to other environmental resources <br /> IBWC Minute af/yr (Packard Con- Mexico would not likely concur because it <br /> Foundation <br /> Investigation of how Cienega's Report, p. ] 3) would reduce water presently available, could <br /> storage of water could be 2001 cause unintended impacts to the Cienega if not <br /> maintained through structural carefully implemented <br /> means may be warranted <br />United Yuma Desalting Plant operation Dedicated flows to meet minimum Conserved water piggybacked on Would require new IBWC Minute Pro- Provides for infrastructure funding, Cienega <br />States & monies used for conservation in sustained flow needs other dedicated flows to meet total and other enviTOnmental water supply with no <br />Mexico Mexico in exchange for By-pass pulse flow needs impact on Basin states; water costly for United <br /> flows credited as part of 1.5 maf States to provide as a substitute for By-pass <br /> Treaty deliveries drainage supply <br /> Con- Mexico would not likely concur because it <br /> would reduce water presently available and <br /> would not control Colorado River salinity <br /> <br />DRAFT -Confidential and Privileged Information <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />