Laserfiche WebLink
<br />W 3, Desalting Plant in Im~erial Valley - Considers a desalting plant <br />~ to desalt either New River or A amo River water, at a unit cost of from <br />W $256 to $443 per acre-foot. <br /> <br />4. Domestic Wastewater Reclamation - Considers treatment of effluent <br />from urban areas large enough to provide the maximum quantity of replace- <br />ment water, at a unit cost of $62 per acre-foot, <br /> <br />. 5. Federal AC~Uisition of Water Rights - Considers Federal purchase <br />of private water rig ts to the extent of providing an adequate amount of <br />replacement water, at an estimated cost of from $20 to $150 per acre-foot. <br /> <br />6. Geothermal - Considers extracting geothermal fluid from the ground <br />and desalting it, using the heat and pressure of the fluid itself as the <br />power source, at a unit cost of from$27g to $340 per acre-foot. <br /> <br />7. Ground Water - Considers extracting ground water in the vicinity <br />of the U.S. Army Proving Ground near Yuma, Arizona,at a unit cost of $27 <br />per acre- foot. <br /> <br />8. Ground-Water Pumping Along the All-American Canal - Considers <br />intercepting southward flowing seepage from the All-American Canal before <br />it reaches'Mexico, at a unit cost of $26 per acre-foot. <br /> <br />9. High Recovery - Considers increasing the Yuma Oesalting Plant <br />recovery rate from 70 percent to 90 percent, at a unit cost of $440 per <br />acre- foot, <br /> <br />10. power~lant Coolant - Considers converting existing powerplant <br />evaporative coo ing systems to once-through or dry cooling systems, at a <br />unit cost of from $512 to $800 per acre-foot. <br /> <br />11. Vegetative Management - Considers water salvage through control <br />of water-consuming phreatophytes, at a unit cost of $11 per acre-foot. <br /> <br />These 11 possible ideas for reject stream replacement, along with some of <br />the other initial ideas, were developed into preliminary plans and presented <br />to the public during four separate public involvement meetings held in <br />April 1977. Input from the meetings, which included position statements <br />from various State and Federal agencies on certain of the pl ans, was 'heavily <br />considered during the planning team's evaluation process. The evaluation <br />process considered each plan on a technical, economic, social-environmental, <br />and institutional basis, and five were identified as feasible replacement <br />source alternatives. They included (1) canal lining, (2) a desalting plant <br />in the Imperi a 1 Valley, (3) geothermal resource development, (4) ground- <br />water withdrawal, and (5) high recovery at the Yuma Oesalting Plant. <br />Detailed investigations of these five alternatives are now underway. <br /> <br />14 <br />