WSP07437

• File Number: 8276.851
• Description: La Verkin Springs Unit - Colorado River Salinity Control Program
• State: UT
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 1/1/1984
• Title: La Verkin Springs Unit Utah Preliminary Findings Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

J. JlnRODUCTION

This report addresses a project characterized by the collection and
total evaporation of the La Verkin Springs (Figure 1) and a project
which collects dnd desalts the La Verkin Springs returning a product
water to the river.

A reexamination of the hydrologic analysis, from the previous 1981
Concluding report, was considered necessary to more fully explore the
possible sources of Littlefield Springs and to take advantage of the
recently developed future effect equations presented in Progress
Report 110. 11 (January 19(3). The use of these equations is the
present "state of the art" method of evaluating salinity control
projects at this level of detail.

I J. CONCLUSION

The conclusions (displayed on Table 1, Attachment A) reached from the
calculations displayed en Tables 2 through 6 (Attachment A) are
discussed belov::

1. If the Virgir, River infiltration loss near Bloomington, UtJh is
not the source cf the Littltfield Springs flow, and 100-
percent of the La Verkin Spr1ngs flow is removed and replaced by
water from Quail Creek Reservoir, a reduction in the salinity at
Imperial Dam of 5.2 mg/L wDuld occur and last the duration of the
project. (This was calculated using the future effect equat10n,
Progress Report No. 11, January 1983 for the year 2010).

2. If the infiltration loss near bloomington, Utah, is the source of
L lttlefit ld Sprir.ss floVl ana 100~, of the La VerkiGSprings flov:
is remDved and replaced by water from Quail Creek Reservoir, a
reduction in sal ir,ityat Imperial Dar. of 5.2 mg/L would occur and
l"it for the first 22~ years of project life. After the first
22' years, the sal1nity reduction at Imperial Dam would increase
to 8.S mg/L and last the remainder of the project l,fe. (This
was calculated using the future affect equation for year 2010.)

3. Given th~ desalt1n; plant alternative from the previous
ir,\'est1g~ti0r OD~ratin9 O~ lG.9 ftj;sec of La Ver~.ln ~~rinss
ir:stEcid 0f l2 ft~jsec a~d 2.9 ft-/stc 01 water frc~ CJoil Crtc~.
Reservoir, the sclinity reduction at Imperial Dar, vloula be
S.4 GG!l.

If the infiltration near Bloo~ingtoG, Utah is the source of
Littlefield Spr1ngs, this salinitj reduction at Imperial Dam
would increase to 8.7 mg/L after 22 ~ years of operation.

.u

Realisticly La Verkin Springs could o.,ly be diverted %;, or less
of the tire but 100' diversion is used to simplify calculations.

1

rG~G>t