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-B. ImDrove
Cost $8.0 million,

Irriaation Systems - California.
TVS 851 points, Category IV.

I

I

The only irrigation system in the Califo~nia po~tion of the Lower
Colorado River Basin having the potential for developing
substitute water by implementing system improvements is the
Imperial Irrigation District. prior Reclamation studies have
shown that about 129,000 acre-feet of water could be conserved by
lining and automating some canals. An additional 225,000 acre-
feet of water might be conserved by implementing other structural
and onfarm measures. Unfortunately, provisions of the "Law of
the River" and opposition of Colorado River water users within
the state make use of water conserved by this plan highly
unlikely.

I

I

I

Advantages:
'Improves irrigation efficiency making conserved water available
for other uses (possibly to deliver to Mexico until Arizona or
California develop other projects).

I

I

Disadvantages:
'Conserved water reduces California's.diversion, therefore, water
conserved could be used for other projects rather than going to
Mexico.
'Requires water right from California.
"Partial solution - must be used in conjunction with other plans.
"Likely to be strong oppo,ition from state of California and
Imperial Irrigation District.

I

I

Plan 8-9. Install Well Field Adiacent to All-American Canal.
Cost $18.4 million, TVS 863 points, Category IV.

I

About 57,000 acre-feet of canal seepage water could be pumped
from a well field adjacent to the AAC. An equal quantity of
water normally delivered through the AAC would be diverted to
Mexico as replacement water for an equal volume of bypassed
drainage water. Opposition to the plan by Mexico, the state of
California, and Colorado River water users in California is
expected to be intense. Annual cost of this plan would be about
$18.4 million per year. Approximately 18,100 acre-feet of reject
stream replacement water would be required.

I

I

I

Advantages:
oMake3 part of California's entitlement available for bypass
until an alternate use is developed.
Disadvantages:
.Only a partial solution, must be used in conjunction with other
plans.
"Requires water right for ground water from California.
.Probably unacceptable to California water users.

I

I

24