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

plan B-1. Fumo Water from Protective and Reaulatorv Pumoina Unit
(PRPU) Wells to the NIB.
Cost $36.7 million, TVS 1067 points, Category V.

I

I

Approximately 20,000 acre-feet per year could be pumped from the
PRPU and delivered upstream of Mareloa Dam as a substitute for an
equal amount of drainage water that would be bypassed down the
By-Pass Drain. The quality of the pumped water (1500 mg/L) would
be better than Wellton-Mohawk drainage, but poorer than Colorado
River water. The plan would require construction of a pipeline
and pumping plant to deliver water to the Colorado River. The
annualized cost of this plan includes reduced production from the
YDP, capital cost of the pipeline and pumping system, and annual
pumping cost. Reject stream requirements would be about 31,200
acre-feet per year.

I

I

I

Advantages:
"Fossible use for lower quality ground water.

I

Disadvantages:
"Partial solution, must be used with other plans.
"Requires water right from Arizona.
"Salinity higher than in the Colorado River - other plans would
need to make up the difference for salinity differential.

I

I

Plan B-2. Pumo Water from PRPU to Arizona Water Users.
Cost $37.9 million, TVS 1052 points, Category V.

I

About 20,000 acre-feet of water could be pumped from PRPU and
then delivered to present users of Colorado River water in Yuma
Valley, Arizona. In exchange, an equal quantity of Yuma Valley's
Colorado River water would be delivered to Mexico and an equal
amount of drainage water wasted through the By-~as3 Drain. The
total Arizona allotment to the Colorado River is not diminished.
This plan would require the construction of a pipeline and
pumping plant to deliver the water to existing distribution
systems. Since the quality of the pumped water is considerably
poorer than Colorado River water, acceptance of the plan by local
water users appears doubtful. About 31,300 acre-feet would be
required for reject stream replacement.

I

I

I

Advantages:
'Makes part of Arizona's entitlement available for bypass until
an alternate use is developed (or California may take the extra
water available).
'Arizona's use of higher salinity water may appease Mexico.

I

I

Disadvantages:
'Only a partial solution, must be used in conjunction with other
plans.

I

20

I