Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Agenda Item 23 j <br />July 23-24,2001 Board Meeting <br />Page 2 00 <br /> <br />. irrigated lands, improve irrigation efficiencies and utilize Painted Rock Reservoir as may <br />be neeessary in accordance with the obligations of Minute 242. <br />Of particular interest is Section 102(a) of Title I of the CRBSCA which <br />authorized the Secretary of Interior to line approximately 49 miles of the Coachella Canal <br />and to temporarily use the quantity of water conserved to meet the salinity control <br />objectives of Minute 242. To date, given the high cost of operating the Yuma Desalter <br />(about $23,000,000 per year), the Secretary as used the approximately 132,000 AF <br />conserved to offset the need to operate the Yuma Desalter. This is accomplished by <br />simply allowing the 118,000 AF of highly saline drain waters from the Wellton-Mohawk <br />area to flow into the MOD and MODE and down the bypass drain to the Santa Clara <br />Slough. This temporary use, as authorized, may continue until the Secretary delivers <br />main stream Colorado River water to California in an amount less than requested. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Lower Division States are arguing that with the adoption of the Interim <br />Surplus Operating Criteria, that the Secretary's temporary use of the conserved water <br />from the lining of the Coaehella Canal is now over and the use of that water now belongs <br />to California. As a result, the Secretary must now either begin operation of the Yuma <br />Desalter or find another source of water of suitable quality to offset the need to operate <br />the Desalter. None action would mean that the U.S. could begin to accumulate a debt <br />against this obligation. Thus, the legal and policy questions under discussion are: <br />1. Has in fact the interim period during which the Secretary may utilize the <br />water conserved by the lining of the Coachella Canal to offset the need to <br />operate the Yuma Desalter legally ended? <br />2. If the interim period has ended, is there another source of water of suitable <br />quality that can be used to offset the need to operate the Desalter? <br />3. If there is another suitable water source, should that source be available on a <br />pennanent basis, or is another temporary arrangement acceptable? <br />4. Given the desire to restore the Colorado River Delta in Mexico, would it even <br />be politically acceptable to operate the Yuma Desalter if it reduced the <br />amount of water, and decreased the quality, flowing to the Santa Clara <br />Slough? The water treated by the Desalter would be delivered to the river, as <br />part of the 1944 Treaty obligation and only the very highly saline water of the <br />reject stream from the Desalter would flow to the Slough. <br />5. If a suitable water supply can not be located to offset the need to operate the <br />Desalter and operation of the Desalter is not acceptable because of the <br />reduction in flows to the Santa Clara Slough that would occur, what other <br />options might Colorado and the other basin states fmd acceptable? <br />6. Could Reclamation release water from any upstream reservoir without further <br />authorization from the Congress? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Currently, Reclamation is working on the assumption that the interim period is in <br />fact over and that another source of suitable quality water needs to be found. Most of the <br />focus to date has been mining a groundwater mound located beneath Yuma Valley (see <br />attached map). However, Arizona would only be willing to allow the use of this <br />