My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07376
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07376
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:27:00 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:18:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8278.100
Description
Title I - Yuma Desalting Plant
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
8/1/1988
Author
USDOI/BOR
Title
Operation and Maintenance Funding for the Yuma Desalting Plant, Draft Special Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />status: Both Arizona and Califomia OfPOse this plan. Since the water <br /> <br />CCIleS fran the states, their position is that it would reduce water <br /> <br />available to them and it does not meet the constraints inposed by <br /> <br />legislation. <br /> <br />B8 . Provide Off-stream storace <br /> <br />Potential savings - none. Substitute water would be obtained by storing <br /> <br />excess flows in offstream re~irs for later release in exchange for <br /> <br />bypassed drainage flows. Analysis of this plan indicated that no new sites <br />are available that would provide adequate storage capacity, so this plan is <br />not considered technically feasible at this tilre. If adequate sites =1d <br /> <br />be found, the average yield would not exceed 75,000 a=e-feet, assuming the <br /> <br />punping capacities were large enough to punp all of the exess flows. <br />Smaller punping capacities would result in smaller yields. Estimated <br /> <br />annual cost is about $105.4 million. <br /> <br />J\dvantages: <br /> <br />o states less likely to have a problem with water rights issue. <br /> <br />DiSadvantages: <br /> <br />o MJre costly than operating YDP. <br /> <br />o Partial solution only. <br /> <br />o Yield and cost not predictable. <br /> <br />o Water rights issue exists. <br /> <br />o No known sites available. <br /> <br />o High cost. <br /> <br />Status : <br /> <br />No further action on this <br /> <br />_"" ~~, ij 0::'0 ~ ~ ~.1.J <br />alt~~e" """ ..\\ ',-';', <br />r' '~~ f: l~ ~ ?/j ~"..j E:~:, j \~ '~ <br /> <br />'.". "0- <br /> <br />~""'\~'":.I <br />?: ~.: ~ <br />Ii "'J~ <br /> <br />~.:. or.-,._ (1/ <br />II'"' "./: <br />~'.:, ~~.:, lr <br />I.. '-~:J- " <br /> <br />f' ~:?'Ii t-l <br />" ~ '. ""oJ <br />j ~ U ~-\1 <br /> <br />28 C- ~ <br />)~. <br /> <br />D <br />j, <br /> <br />7"' t~ '-r <br />~"~ . <br />: :, l: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.