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

"Requires water right from Arizona.
'Salinity higher than Colorado River - other plan must make up
the difference.
'Probably unacceptable to Arizona water users.

I

I

Plan B-3 Finance Cost of Onfarm Imorovements (Below Imoerial
Daml.
Cost $20.4 million, TVS 1057 points, Category III.

I

A series of onfarm water conservation measures would be provided
for ~ater users in the Yuma Mesa and Yuma Valley. Implementing
the conservation measures could conserve up to 92,000 acre-feet
annually. However, about one-half of that amount is already
returning to the river as return flow. Thus, about 46,000 acre-
feet per year would be available as substitute water. Some
examples of this plan include lining farm ditches, implementing
irrigation scheduling, and installing drip irrigation. Even
though conservation measures would be provided by the Federal
Government, local water users may be reluctant to give up any
water for delivery to Mexico. This plan would require about
22,000 acre-feet for reject stream replacement.

I

I

I

I

Advantages:
-Improves irrigation efficiency making conserved water available
for other uses (possibly to deliver to Mexico until Arizona
develops alternate uses).
-Could reduce required plant production.

I

Disadvantages:
-Requires water right from Arizona and/or California.
-This is a partial solution - must be used in conjunction with
other plans.

I

I

Plan B-4.
acre-feet
Cost $7.8

Imolement Weather Modification. (With 80,000
delivered to Mexico)
million, TVS 970 points, Category II.

I

Weather modification could enhance the watershed runoff by about
2,000,000 acre-feet per year. Based on apportioning the
increased flow, up to 80,000 acre-feet of water could be
delivered to Mexico, and in turn, about 80,000 acre-feet of poor
quality drainage water could be bypassed. As a result, YDP
production could be reduced by about 2/3. This plan would cost
about $7.8 million and would require about 10,400 acre-feet of
reject stream replacement. This plan could also create
additional costs to local governments for activities such as snow
removal.

I

I

I

I

21