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

26,200 af per year of water would be conserved, at about $111 per acre-foot to
$225 per acre-foot. Given the near-term potential for river reservoirs to
fill, it is possible that the Basin States would concur that the conserved
water could be credited against future obligations of the United States after
the interim period ends, or be sold to help offset operating costs.

ALTERNATIVE 01: Buy Out WHIDO and Shutdown. Under this alternative, the
Desalting Plant would be shutdown as described in Alternative AI, and after
the interim period, WHIDD agricultural lands would be purchased and retired
from production. The purchase of 17,100 acres would be sufficient to leave
78,500 af per year of water in the river. This would substitute for the
78,500 af per year of additional water recovered by full-scale operation of
the Desalting Plant and used to reduce releases from storage to meet the
delivery obligation to Hexico. The Secretary would allow the 97,000 af per
year of remaining WHIDD irrigation drainage to be bypassed and lost.

Total annual costs for purchasing 17,100 acres and for maintenance of the
shutdown of. the Desalting Plant would be approximately $14.9 million per year,
and consent of WHIDD would be required to allow the purchase, as required
under the 1974 Act. It is unlikely that the consent of WHIDD could be
obtained. Further, 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 Hinute No. 242. It is likely
that Arizona as well as the other Basin States would object to such an
arrangement.

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 the use of its full
apportionment.

ALTERNATIVE 02: Lease and fallow lands and Deactivate. Under this
alternative, the Desalting Plant would be deactivated as described in
Alternative B1, and after the interim period, 17,100 acres of agricultural
land irrigated with Colorado River water would be leased and fallowed as
replacement for the additional water released from storage.

As a fallowing agreement does not involve the purchase of land or the purchase
of a water right, it may be undertaken with less specific authority than that
required for purchasing lands as considered in Alternative 01. Costs for
leasing or fallowing would be about $11.8 million per year. In addition, the
$3.0 million per year costs of deactivation of the Desalting Plant, as
described in Alternative B1, would also be incurred. Even though this
alternative would not permanently require the commitment of any single Basin
State's apportioned Colorado River entitlement, it is likely that the Basin
States would also object to this alternative. As in Alternative 01, the Basin
States could oppose the United States in attempts to use any leased water.

vi