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

The further 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.

ALTERNATIVE 81: Deactivate Desalting Plant. Under this alternative, the
Desalting Plant would be deactivated but preserved. Mechanical parts would be
preserved and stored, and the technical operating staff at the Desalting Plant
would be reduced, but the Desalting Plant would be capable of restarting. The
Test Plant would continue to be operated to improve water treatment
technologies. The water conserved by lining the Coachella Canal, combined
with irrigation management improvements, would be used during the interim
period to replace the additional water released from storage to meet the
delivery obligation to Mexico.

A preliminary analysis found the costs of this alternative to be about
$12.5 million for the first year, $7 to $9 million for the second year, and
$3 million per year thereafter. As the time and cost required to restart the
Desalting Plant (about 3 years and $18 million) would be high, keeping the
Desalting Plant on standby would be more cost-effective than deactivating if
restarting the Desalting Plant was likely in 2 to 3 years. While not a
permanent commitment, under this alternative, the United States would be
committing to not operating the Desalting Plant for an extended period of
time. Opposition by the Basin States and Mexico would be similar, though not
as strong, as described in Alternative AI.

ALTERNATIVE 82: Desalting Plant in Standby. Under this alternative, the
Desalting Plant would be kept ready to operate during the interim period, and
the water conserved by lining the Coachella Canal, combined with irrigation
management improvements, would replace the additional water released from
storage to meet the delivery obligation to Mexico. This solution would cost
about $10.6 million per year. The Test Plant would continue to be used to do
desalting research. It is not known if the desalting membranes, which have
already been purchased at a cost of $18 million, can be stored for a long
period of time without deteriorating. As a result, the investment in
membranes may be lost under this alternative. Some opposition from the Basin
States and Nexico would be expected for the reasons described in AI.

ALTERNATIVE Cl: Operate At Partial Capacity. Under this alternative, the
Desalting Plant would be operated at one-third capacity, costing about
$13.5 million per year ($2.9 million greater than standby) until 1996 and
about $16.5 million per year ($5.9 million greater than standby) thereafter.
The additional operating costs are for purchasing additional membranes and
constructing sludge basins. Lon9-term operation of at least one section of
the Desalting Plant would confirm plant operating and design data, maintain
research and technical expertise, and would utilize the $18 million invested
in membranes. Use of the water conserved from lining the Coachella Canal
combined with irrigation management improvements would be sufficient'to
replace the additional water released from storage to meet the delivery
obligation to Mexico. For the additional $2.9 to $5.9 million in annual cost,

v