Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />:e <br /> <br />l'-' <br />W <br />I-'" <br />.... <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />III. DESALTING OCEAN WATER <br /> <br />Desalting ocean water would provide an abundant source <br />of reject stream replacement water. Project authoriza- <br /> <br />tion limits the location of any possible desalting plant to <br />the California coast. If a plant were located in Los <br /> <br />Angeles Harbor, it might be possible to utilize the <br /> <br />existing facilities of the Metropolitan Water District's <br /> <br />Palos Verdes Reservoir to store product water and <br /> <br />thereby reduce the District's allotment of flows through <br /> <br />the Colorado River Aqueduct by an equal amount. This <br /> <br />alternative would have a total investment cost of <br /> <br />$118,605,000 and would provide 42,000 acre-feet of <br /> <br />reject stream replacement water at a cost of $617 per <br /> <br />acre-foot. <br /> <br />No contact has been made with the <br /> <br />Metropolitan Water District or the City of Los Angeles <br /> <br />to determine the viability of this particular approach to <br /> <br />the alternative. <br /> <br />Description <br /> <br />Desalinization of ocean water would provide a complete and <br /> <br />inexhaustible replacement source for the Yuma Desalting Plant reject <br /> <br />stream. <br /> <br />Location of a desalting plant would be limited to the <br /> <br />California coast, pursuant to project authorization. The area around <br /> <br />Los Angeles would provide an opportunity to tie a plant into existing <br />facilities of the Metropolitan Water District and thereby trade desalted <br /> <br />water to the District for an equal reduction in their allotted flows <br /> <br />13 <br />