My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12538
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12538
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:33 PM
Creation date
7/30/2007 11:59:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.400
Description
Colorado River Operations and Accounting - Deliveries to Mexico
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
8/1/2001
Author
Jennifer Pitt - Chris W Fitzer - Lisa Force
Title
Replacing the Bypass Flow on the Colorado River - Economic and Environmental Considerations - RE-Colorado River-Mexican Delta Issues - 08-01-01
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />, 001991 <br /> <br />- , <br /> <br />Pitt et aI, August 2001. Replacing the Bypass Flow On The Colorado RiVei'. <br /> <br />Pumped groundwater would be diverted through the Yuma Mesa Conduit, north towards. the <br />Colorado River.37 Their proposal would increase groUndwater pumping over the most recent 10- <br />year average by 50,000 acre:"feet per year for 5 years and 30,000 acre-feet per year thereafter.38 <br />Y A WRMG recommends that Arizona trade 25,000 acre-feet per year of pumped groundwater <br />for a period of 10 years (subject to renewal) in exchange for financial support from BOR, For a <br />modest $8.80 per acre-foot, BOR can secure water to replace MODE flows diminished by the <br />lease of water from WMIDD. Calculated alternatively, it adds $2 to the cost of an acre-f~t of <br />water leased from WMIDD. <br /> <br />, However, before any changes are made to the Yunia Area groundwater pumping regime, BOR <br />must evaluate the environmental impacts with a full review as required by the National <br />Environmental Policy ACt.39 Expected impacts, include loss of groundwater flows to the Gila <br />River and the Colorado River mainstem in its limitrophe reach, loss of groundwater flows to <br />Mexico, and lowering of water tables in adjacent aquifers and surface waters. Further impacts <br />include increased salinity in the Colorado River mainstem from the balarice of groundwater <br />pumped from the Yuma Mesa area that Yuma area irrigation districts will claim as return flows. <br />Significantly, the salinity of Yuma Mesa groundwater is' expected to increase over time. <br />increasing the salinity of pumped water, and leading to increased water irrigation rates and an <br />increased need for groundwater pumping. Furthermore, increased groundwater pumping <br />reinforces the extraordinarily high rates of water use for irrigation in the Yuma area irrigation, <br />districts. If the BOR were to give Yuma area irrigators incentives to conserve water, <br />groundwater problems might be solved with the added ben~fit of reduced depletions to the <br />Colorado River mainstem. BOR must evaluate these impacts and weigh them agaiilst the <br />potential benefits of Yuma area groundwater pumping. , <br /> <br />An additional uncertainty of the Y A WRMG proposal is the term of the arrangement. Arizona's <br />recent population growth boom is likely to continue, and with it, Arizona's urban water demand. ' <br />After the 10-year term of Y A WRMG's proposal, Arizona has the option to refuse contract <br />renewal with BOR. Thus it is important that BOR evaluate the Y A WRMG proposal as a <br />, temporary source of water. Finally, the Y A WRMG's 'proposal 'would facilitate the routing of <br />pumped Yuma Mesa groundwater to the Yuma DeSalting Plant, which is problematic for reasons <br />outlined in the section below (see Operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant). ' <br /> <br />Because the Y A WRMG has indicated some urgeqcy to the need for increasing groundwater <br />pumping in the Yuma Mesa area, it is likely that pumping may begin before the end of the <br />interim period for which the federal government receives credit for water conserved by the lining <br />of theCoachella Canal. Under these circumstances, BOR will be receiving 25,000 acre-feet of <br />water for which it has no obligation. BOR would then be free to use .this "new" water to <br /> <br />37 The YA WRMG proposal includes the construction of a trifurcation structure at the terminus of the Yuma Mesa <br />Conduit, allowing pumped groundwater to be diverted'to the Colorado River, the MODE, or the Yuma Desalting <br />Plant. For reasons discussed below (see Operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant), treatment of pumped groundwa~ <br />at the Yuma Desalting Plant may not be feasible. <br />38 Y A WRMG, supra note 36. <br />, 3942 D.S.C. ~ 4321-4370 (1994). <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.