Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />f~ <br /> <br />l\) <br />w::.. <br />l\) <br />w::.. <br /> <br />replacement water needed, Hydrologic computer modeling work pre- <br />viously done to determine the design size of the deSalting plant <br />indicated, after statistical, analysis, that an average of 46,000 acr",- <br />, <br />feet per year of reject would, be discharged from the plant, This <br />quan~ty of 46,000 acre-feet, then, was established as the standard <br />replacllment quantity for this study. <br />In conjunction with the replacement quantity, two further <br />criteria for the study were established by the enabling legislation, <br />First, any potential replacement sources were limited to the States of <br />Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and those portions Of <br />Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming which are within the natural drainage <br />basin 'of the Colorado River, Second, the study results had to be <br />presented to Congress not later than June 30; 1980, <br /> <br />Setting <br /> <br />~ of the alternative replacement sources identified in this <br />report' are located in either southern California or southwestern <br />Arizona, 'Possible replacement sources were considered during the <br />initial 'stages of the ,study in the other States identified in the <br />enabling legislation, but due to the large quantity of replacement <br />water required, as well as certain other institutional parameters <br />associa'ted with. specific States, no viable sources' were located any~ <br />where except in those areas discussed in this report, <br /> <br /> <br />Alternatives <br /> <br />" <br />"', <br /> <br />Eight alternatives are identified in this report, <br />below, . <br />1. Yuma Mesa Division Entitlement Exchange <br />2, Alamo River Desalting Facility <br />3, San Onofre Desalting Facility <br />4. High Recovery at the Yuma Desalting Plant <br /> <br />They are listed <br /> <br />~".i <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />.._iO" <br />