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

Intent of the Congress

The Basin States would argue that Congress authorized and appropriated
funds for construction consistent with the authorizing Act so as not to
diminish water appropriated to the Basin States in meeting the 1944
Treaty obligations to Mexico and that Congress intended for the
Desalting Plant to be operated once construction was completed for
conservation of the water of the Basin States.

Reduces Arizona's Entitlement

Through the purchase and retirement of Arizona agricultural land, the
United States would be securing water apportioned to Arizona for use in
meeting the provisions of Minute No. 242. Inasmuch as the waters of the
Colorado River are apportioned only to the Basin States and that in
accordance with the 1964 United States Supreme Court ruling in
Arizona v. California that water is charged to the state in which
consumptive use occurs, Arizona could use its full 2.8 million af per
year apportionment, leaving the United States without the use of the
water it purchased. The Court's 1964 decision ensures a state of the
use of its full apportionment. Arizona would likely argue that the
purchase of WMIDD lands, in lieu of Desalting Plant operation, violates
Arizona's apportionment and deprives Arizona of the full use of its
apportioned water supply. Similarly, the Basin States could argue that
any alternative which allows the irrigation drainage be bypassed and
lost from use deprives the Basin States of their full apportioned water
supply.

However, the above legal arguments, which could. be presented by the
Basin States, have not been given a full legal review. It can be argued
that the United States is within its rights to enter the market and
purchase water for use in bypass replacement.

Continues Loss Of Drainage

WMIDD drainage of 97,000 af per year, would continue to be lost from
use. The Basin States could argue that under the 1974 Act, the
Secretary was authorized, though not directed, to operate the Desalting
Plant except at times when surplus flows were being delivered to Mexico.
The reservoirs on the Colorado River are drawn down, having experienced
the 6 driest years on record. If the Federal Government does not feel
compelled to operate the Desalting Plant, and shuts the Desalting Plant
down, there may be some loss of credibility with the Basin States
regarding future Federal commitments.

ALTERNATIVE D2: LEASE OR FALLOW AND DEACTIVATE

Under this alternative, the Desalting Plant would be deactivat~d as
described in B1 and, after the interim period, 17,100 acres of
agricultural land would be leased or fallowed as replacement for the
additional water released from storage. Irrigation drainage bypass of
97,000 af per year would be allowed to continue to be lost from use.
Should this alternative be pursued, the activities listed under
Alternative D1 would need to be undertaken.

33