Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Disadvantages: <br /> <br />o Ground-water losses. <br /> <br />o Groundwater quality of the acres considered had higher salinity <br /> <br />than Colorado River water. <br /> <br />o High costs. <br /> <br />status: No further action on this alternative. <br /> <br />B7. Develoc other Well Fields <br />Potential savings $3.3 million. Substitute water wouJ.d cane fran existing <br /> <br />gro=d-water supplies, or fran long-tenn mining. This plan use the <br /> <br />Colorado River to convey pumped water depending upon location of the well <br />field. A few basins have the potential for developing the needed quantity <br />of water, but serious institutional problems wouJ.d probably preclude <br /> <br />developrent since any water developed wouJ.d belong to either the state of <br /> <br />Arizona or California. This plan is assurred to provide 116,000 acre-feet <br /> <br />per year. Estimated annual cost, including a typical well field, is about <br /> <br />$24.2 million. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />J\dvantages: <br /> <br />o Possible use for lower quality water. <br /> <br />Disadvantages: <br /> <br />o Partial solution only. <br /> <br />o Severe institutional problems. <br /> <br />t~ 0~ ~: ~J ;;\:' /; l;~ ~ /.~l ~~' \/1 <br />.I tril.:.;~.~.k-", Joi '.Ie ~ ..'J.O " ;1 <br />27 ", ., <br />S U ~ '';- i1"'~'" ~~ ~"\ ',~ ~.." n - . <br />:l..1 .. ~ ',i t rl'", ...' ~ ~ \:;' " I.'." . <br />:oJtli iu i\tljt)~ON <br />