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

Plan 8-15. Modifv Paint~d Rock Reservoir Ooerations.
Cost $36.1 million, TVS 94 points, Category V.

I

Conservation storage space would be provided for surplus Gila
River flows. This could be done by converting some of the flood
control space into conservation space and/or by transferring some
of the flood control space to new storage sites. This plan would
require negotiations with the Corps of Engineers, the state of
Arizona, and local farmers to permit use of the reservoir for
conservation storage and to modify the release criteria.
Modified operation would yield about 30,000 to 40,000 acre-feet
per year. Like Plan B-14, high evaporation and infrequent inflow
could deteriorate the water quality to the point that the water
is unusable for substitute water.

I

I

I

I

Advantages:
.Same as 5-14.

Disadvantages:
.Same as 8-14.

I

Plan 8-16. OeveloD
Cost $48.0 million,

Ground-Kater Recharae.
TVS 945 points, Category V.

I

Surplus Colorado River flows would be stored in aquifers for
later use as substitute water. The recharge basin must be within
a reasonable conveyance distance from the Colorado River, a
tributary, or major distribution system. High pumping costs for
this plan are anticipated. Extremely large pumping facilities
would be required to maximize the storage of surplus flows during
the short periods of time when surpluses occur. Specific basins
were not defined. The estimated average yield will not exceed
75,000 acre-feet if the pumping capacity is large enough to pump
all the surplus flows. Smaller pumping capacities would result
in smaller yields.

I

1

Advantages:
.No evaporation losses.
-Better possibility of Obtaining recharge water right.

Disadvantages:
.Ground water losses.
'partial solution only.
'High costs.

27