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

Advantages:
'States less likely to have a problem with water rights issue.

I

I

Disadvantages:
'Partial solution only.
'Yield and cost not predictable.
'Water rights issue exists.
oNo known sites available.
"High cost.

I

Plan B-13 Enlarae
Cost $30.9 million,

Frooosed Sorino Canvon Reservoir.
TVS 1026 points, Category III.

I

I

Surplus flow could be stored in the proposed Spring Canyon
Rese~voir in Ari~ona, but these surplus flows may be insufficient
to completely eliminate the YDP production. Also, maximum water
surf$ce elevation for the proposed reservoir enlargement is
limieed to 2,000 feet m.s.l. (mean sea level). The average yield
would not exceed 24,000 acre-feet if the pumping capacity was
large enough to pump all the surplus flows. Smaller pumping
capacities would result in smaller yields. With this yield,
About 34,900 acre-feet of reject stream replacement would be
required.

I

I

I

Advantages:
.Federal Government could participate in the cost fo~ its share
of sto~age.

I

Disadvantages:
'Status of project uncertain.
.Water rights issue may be a problem.

I

Plan 8-14. Enlarae
Cost $42.1 million,

Painted Rock Reservoir.
TVS 964 points, Category V.

I

Surplus Gila River (Arizona) flows would be stored for later use
as substitute water or as irrigation water for Wellton-Mohawk.
The dam would need considerable rehabilitation to reduce leakage.
Yields would be about 40,000 to 60,000 acre-feet per year. The
infrequent periods of inflow would cause water quality in the
reservoir to deteriorate rapidly because of the high rate of
evaporation. The costs include enlarging the reservoir and
continued cost of operating the YDP.

I

I

Advantages:
'Same as 8-12.

I

Disadvantages:
'Partial solution only.
'Yield and cost not predictable.

I

26