Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SUMMARY (Continued) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />w <br />.... <br />en <br />CJ <br /> <br />permeable to water under pressure, it rejects salts. This creates d~- <br />Salted water on the low pressure side of the membrane and a concentrated <br />brine on the high pressure side. Electrodialysis also employs membranes <br />for desalinization. A direct current electrical charge separates the <br />salt ions through a selective membrane which results in a stream of fresh <br />water and another stream of saline watef". During initial stages of the <br />study, other desalting methods such as distillation and freezing were <br />eliminated because of their cost. <br /> <br />Conveyance options included open channels and pipelineR. Both lined <br />and unlined channels were studied, and several types of pipeline material <br />and locations were considered. <br /> <br />Deep well injection and evaporation ponds are the most frequently <br />used disposal methods at inland sites. Deep well injection requires <br />both small brine volume:9 and a site with suitable underground Reologic <br />formations to prevent contamination of ground water. Evaporation ponds <br />are technically feasible for areas with high evaporation rate~, low land <br />costs, and level terrain. Ponds have potential for electric power gen- <br />eration, algae growth and harvest, wildlife, recreation, and other uses. <br />Diversion of the salt water to another river basin was evaluated as a <br />disposal option. Transporting coal in a slurry pipeline was investi- <br />gated 8S an industrial use for saline water. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Initial concepts were screened with emphasis on economics. techni- <br />cal performance, and practicality. Five concepts found to merit addi- <br />tional consideration were formulated into alternativeL9ut e- f <br />these were later discarded. The remaining alternative, O'C-" n G, w re <br />analyzed in more detail as discussed below. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Alternatives <br /> <br />With Al ternat ive Q l.L.Dubic feet per second (c fs) of sal ine <br />water entering the Colorado River near Dotsero and !LLcfs entering at <br />Glenwood Springs would be collected and piped for IJI miles to evapora- <br />tion ponds on a 6,890-acre site which would be constructed northwest of <br />~ack near the Colorado-Utah State line. Surface flows would be collected <br />by intercepting natural saline spring flows before they reach the river, <br />while subsurface flows would be pumped from alluvial collector wells. A <br />total of 70 ponds in 4 sections and at varying elevations would be re- <br />quired to evaporate the collected water. and current design would require <br />three pump stations to lift the piped flows to the ponds. Transmission <br />lines would be constructed to provide power for the pump stations and <br />the collector wells. Construction and pet'Tllanent operating facilities <br />would be located near the evaporation pond area and in GlenwoOd Spring~. <br />Development of Alternative DG would result in an annual depletion to the <br />Colol'"ado River system of 1.51.S60 aCl'"e-feet at a cO~J_ 0~2110 per ton. <br />Implementation of this alternative would also result in a salt load re- <br />duction to the Colorado River of 287,000 tons ~nnually. <br /> <br />Alternative(g-. provides for intercepting natural spring and subsur- <br />face saline flows entering the Colorado River at Glenwood Springs only <br /> <br />5-4 <br />