WSP07975

• File Number: 8278.100
• Description: Title I - Yuma Desalting Plant
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 10/1/1987
• Author: USDOI/BOR
• Title: Yuma Desalting Plant Operations Study - Draft Special Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

I

I

I

I

feet would be requi~ed for reject stream replacement. Estimated
annual cost of this plan is about $28.3 million per year with
reject stream replacement (A-B) I and $23.4 million without reject
stream replacement (Plan A-SA described later). Solar power
generation has been demonstrated elsewhere on a small scale but
would require a substantially larger installation than is
currently operational or even planned to meet desalting plant
power demand.

I

I

Advantages:
"Could beneficially use reject stream.
"Reduces requirement for brine stream replacement, assuming water
rights are obtained for power production.
'Plan generates power without affecting current power users.
'Generates power for sale when it is not needed for desalting
plant.
.provides some good quality water for consumptive use or delivery
to Mexico as a byproduct.

I

I

I

Disadvantages:
"Authorization would be needed for major construction.
"Combining two newer technologies, desalting and solar pond
powerplant, may reduce reliability for water production.
.High salinity solar ponds may meet resistance from environmental
groups and other local interests.
'Time for authorization and construction could take up to the
year 2000 or longer.

I

I

Plan A-8A. Install Solar Pond Generation to Beneficiallv Use the
Re;ect Stream. (Without reject stream replacement.)
Cost $23.4 million, TVS 1062 points, Category III.

I

If the solar pond system can produce new usable product water,
the brine stream replacement may not be required.

I

I

Advantages:
.Same as plan A-B, except brine stream replacement is not
required.

Disadvantages:
.Same as plan A-B.

I

I

I

I

18

I