WSP05341

• File Number: 8278.100
• Description: Title I - Yuma Desalting Plant
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 12/23/1992
• Author: USDOI/BOR
• Title: Yuma Desalting Plant - Alternatives for the Interim Period
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

term supply. With the large carryover storage of the Colorado River
reservoirs, the probability that shortage will occur in the foreseeable
future is relatively low, and there is a good probability that the
reservoir system will fill, and flood control releases will be required.
Hence, the water storage saved through retirement of WMIDD land and
reduced consumptive use may eventually be spilled and in part be wasted.

Use Of Temporary Entitlement Is Authorized

The 1974 Act allows and envisioned the use of the 132,000 af per year of
conserved water to assist the Secretary in replacing the additional
water released from storage. Use of the water conserved from lining the
Coachella Canal would be sufficient to replace the additional water
released from storage to meet the delivery obligation to Mexico during
the interim period and allow the Desalting Plant to be shutdown.

CONS:

Consent of District Required

Section 101 (f) requires the consent of the district in authorizing the
Secretary to acquire additional lands. As the Yuma agricultural economy
is on the rebound, strong resistance is expected from WMIDD. It is
highly unlikely that consent of WMIDD could be obtained.

Loss of Research Capability

By shutting down the Desalting Plant, the Test Plant would no longer be
operational for conductjng desalting research, and desalting expertise
within Reclamation would be lost. The opportunity envisioned in
Section 203 (b) of the authorizing Act to advance water treatment
technology relative to lowering treatment costs and making advance
treatment more practical by operating the Desalting Plant would be
foregone. This includes the potential value to reducing the Nation's
costs in meeting requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, reuse, hazardous waste management clean up, and in augmenting
water supplies.

Restarting Prohibitively CostlY

After having recently completed construction and initiated operation
under this alternative, the Desalting Plant would now be disassembled.
The structure of the Desalting Plant would remain; however, uncontrolled
deterioration would be expected. Contracts would be cancelled, and the
Reclamation staff expertise in desalting would be lost. The time and
costs for restarting the Desalting Plant in the future (about 6 years
and $70 million) would likely be prohibitive, making this form of non-
operation a permanent decision. This alternative would also appear
illogical in view of recent activities to complete constructioQ and
begin operation of the Desalting Plant.

Opposition From Basin States and Mexico

The Basin States would protest this action very strongly. Their
arguments would focus on:

32