Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'ot25H <br /> <br />- Anticipated land use and availability <br />- Growth patterns <br />- Water quality impacts <br />- Access to water supply <br />- Reliability of source <br />- Impact of canal operations <br />- Operational Flexibility <br /> <br />Water supply sources that were evaluated included: <br /> <br />- Direct diversion from the Colorado River <br />- Diversion from Yuma County Water Users facilities <br />- Diversion from Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District <br />facilities <br />- Development of ground-water <br />- Diversion from Yuma Desalting Plant <br /> <br />Following preliminary discussions with Reclamation staff, the <br />Yuma Desalting Plant was eliminated from consideration for the <br />following reasons: <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />During years of full desalting operation the Desalting Plant <br />could not provide supplies to Yuma and still meet the <br />provisions of Minute 242. <br /> <br />During surplus years the pretreatment of Wellton-Mohawk <br />return flow would have produced water of 2,700 p/m which was <br />of unacceptable quality. And there were no facilities for <br />diversion and treatment of Colorado River water. <br /> <br />OM&R costs associated with the Desalting Plant could <br />be significant. <br /> <br />After evaluating the remaining alternatives, Carollo recommended <br />expansion at the East Mesa Water Treatment Plant site. The <br />ultimate Expansion was estimated to cost $55 million. As taken <br />from the Carollo Report the costs, shown in Fig. were <br />developed based on 1989 costs and escalated at a rate of 6 <br />percent per year to the year of expenditure. <br /> <br />RECLAMATION PROPOSAL FOR USE OF DESALTING PLANT <br /> <br />During the fall of 1989 Reclamation staff met to further explore <br /> <br />11 <br />