WSP06975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w 0) ~ N .<~ ,~l ,I f " ~:i --:;i Central Arizona Project (CAP) begins diversions (1985). Delivery of excess flows to the NIB, in lieu of desalted HMIDD drainage, could permit cqmp1ete .~" plant shutdown about 35 percent of the time during the 1981-1986 time frame. The 96-Mga1/d desalting plant's ability to provide an average 115 p/m salinity differential improves as HMIDD drainage flows are reduced, When and if drainage flows are reduced to about 152,000 acre-feet annually, no bypassing will be likely, Therefore, efforts to improve the irrigation efficiency within the HMIDD and thereby reduce the drainage flows should continue. When possible, drainage flows should be completely bypassed and surplus releases from Imperial Dam should be used for delivery to Mexico, This will teq~ire some coordination of reservoir operations with desalting plant'and drainage operations. F, ~eject Stream Replacement ?l Authotization for the Reject Stream Replacement Study, encompassed in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of June 24, 1974, directed xhe Secretary of the Interior to identify feasible measures which could ade- quate1y replace that water lost through reject from the proposed Yuma Desalting Plant. The sQurce of any such replacement water was limited by the Act to the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and those portions of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming which are within the natural drainage basin of the CQlorado River. The Act also specified a study completion date of not 1ater:than June 3D, 1980. ~i -<1 ';i l {1: i~ I d -j Hydrologic computer modeling, previously undertaken to determine desalting p1ant;design specifications, had identified 46,000 acre-feet per year as the maximum amount of reject that could be expected from the plant during years:of maximum production. The Lqwer Colorado Region of the Bureau of Reclamation then established a multiqiscip1inary planning team to develop a study plan, outline a Public involvement program, identify and analyze all feasible ideas for rejElct stream replacement, and evaluate them so as to recommend the best ones for the f~asibi1ity level of investigation, Many possible solutions were first hypot~esi zed, but the team eventually i dentifi ed from among them 11 p1 ans as possible means of replacement, Costs cited here are based on Jan~ary 1976 ~rice levels. 1. Canal Lining - Considers lining a reach of the All-American Canal betweEin Pil ot Knob and Drop 1 to salvage seepage water, at a unit cost of $47.5Q per acre-foot, -j ~- ' 2. Desalting Ocean Water - Considers a desalting plant on the California coast at Los Angeles to desalt ocean water, at a unit cost of $617 per acre-foot, 13 .-~