Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ability of Title I to Support Program Objectives <br /> <br />In the future, ifWMIDD irrigation drainage <br />pumping is permanently reduced to <br />108,000 acre-feet per year (the volume the <br />YDP is sized to accommodate) and the YDP <br />is operated at full capacity, no untreated <br />irrigation drainage will be bypassed except <br />when there are no surplus flows to Mexico <br />and the salinity of the river is very low <br />(about 600 ppm at Imperial Dam, a very <br />rare event). Should this occur, some <br />WMIDD irrigation drainage would be <br />bypassed to the Santa CllU'll Slough, The <br />actual volume bypassed would correspond <br />directly to the volume of irrigation drainage <br />pumped. <br /> <br />The YDP will conserve water by maximizing <br />the recovery ofWMIDD irrigation drainage <br />for treaty deliveries to Mexico. <br /> <br />Previous Replacement Water <br />Studies <br /> <br />Section 101(c) of Public Law 93-320 directed <br />the Secretary to identify feasible measures <br />to adequately replace water lost through the <br />reject stream and bypassing WMIDD <br />irrigation drainage, The law limited the <br />source ofthe replacement water to Arizona, <br />California, Colorado, New Mexico, and those <br />portions of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming <br />within the natural drainage basin of the <br />Colorado River, Reclamation identified <br />eight possible measures: <br /> <br />1. Yuma Mesa Division Entitlement <br />Exchange-proposal to use an unused <br />portion of the division's irrigation <br />entitlement for a specified period. <br /> <br />2. Alamo River Desalting Facility-proposal to <br />desalt water from the Alamo River in <br />California's Imperial Valley, <br /> <br />3. San Onofre Desalting Facility-proposal to <br />desalt ocean water on the southern <br />California coast. <br /> <br />4. High recovery at the Yuma Desalting <br />Plan~roposal to add a high-recovery unit <br />to the plant, thereby decreasing the volume <br />of reject stream. <br /> <br />5. All American Canal Well Field-proposal to <br />in tercept canal seepage and ground water <br />through well-field pumping south ofthe <br />canal. <br /> <br />6. Butler Valley Well Field-proposal to <br />withdraw ground water from a large <br />aquifer underlying Butler Valley in <br />west-centrl1I Arizona. <br /> <br />7, Protective and Regulatory Pumping <br />Unit-proposal to use the well fields to <br />pump ground water not currently needed <br />for delivery to Mexico or for use in the <br />United States, <br /> <br />8. All American Canal Relocation-proposal to <br />line a segment of the existing unlined canal <br />to salvage seepage water, <br /> <br />As required by Public Law 93-320, these <br />possibilities were presented in a report <br />submitted to the Congress in June 1980, <br />Colorado River Basin Salinity Control <br />Project, Title 1 Division, Reject Stream <br />Replacement Study, Californw-Arizona, <br /> <br />To date, a penIlanent source of replacement <br />water has not been found because of two <br />primary legal and institutional constraints: <br /> <br />. All Colorado River water is apportioned; <br />the United States has no entitlement to <br />this water, <br /> <br />. No Colorado River water user bas <br />expressed an interest in substituting an <br />alternative water use for an existing <br />Colorado River water use. <br /> <br />Despite these constraints, Reclamation has <br />pursued, and continues to pursue, sources of <br />replacement water and measures to reduce <br />loss of water to the Basin States, <br /> <br />29 <br />