Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 3-42

SECTION 4 - SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

The following ideas were generated by the VE Team and thought to have considerable merit. These ideas are
thought to offer improvements, but either the economics were not calculable or the idea could not be developed
because of insufficient information.

The VE Team suggests that these recommendations be carefully reviewed and given as much thought and
effort as the formal VE Proposals.

SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY TABLE

PROPOSAL

NO. VE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS PAGE

NO.
AWSA Water Availability
SR01-064 Review and evaluate ACCEPT
divertible water supply and project It is necessary.
yield. 4-5

Recommendations for Added Value

SR01-012 Implement a staged and construction that is based on be a necessity.
project development plan that optimized supply potential versus 4-12
provides an current and projected demand.
initial Gila diversion and an initial or ACCEPT
base level of storage, selected and Given the time involved and the
designed to facilitate staged design financial resources, this appears to
operational criteria for diversion
storage alternatives.
ACCEPT 4-14

SR01-026 Develop project objectives and

operation rights and enforcement, and how it
and accounting of water flows into takes into account the excess water
SR01-006 Divert Gila River return and out of the project. diverted to provide adequate
flow by exchange or recapture. SR01-027 Align the technical pressure head.
(engineering), NEPA, and Section ACCEPT
404 alternatives This would apparently be necessary
development and evaluation for the project to continually
processes. accomplish its purpose.
SR01-037 Develop purpose and ACCEPT
need (P&N) statement as NM may be able to partially fund
foundation for this through (vii)(D)(2)Section 107
alternatives development and of the AWSA.
evaluation. ACCEPT
TABLE This would appear to save a great
This is probably challenging due to deal of time and effort.
CUFA constraints and/or non-point
SR01-019 Add additional erosion return flows. In addition, returns are ACCEPT
protection at the proposed diversion needed by downstream users. If This will be formulated as part of
structures to NM can demonstrate return flow, it NEPA, if NM chooses to develop
prevent flanking of the structures by could probably just negotiate a the AWSA water.
riverine erosion during large floods. credit and divert water under CUFA 4-16
SR01-020 Add an ALERT/SCADA terms. There are also questions
system to enable opitimized system regarding how this affects water
 4-19 4-23 4-27 4-30

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-1
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

PROPOSAL
NO. VE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS PAGE NO.
SR01-030 Develop and/or expand water depth, clean water, and channel than the Coanda screen,
and use the existing Freeport- adequate supplies of water and the aesthetic appeal of the area
McMoRan (FMI) diversions might be lost. It is accepted,
Tyrone (Bill Evans Lake) facilities into the intake screen area for however, that something needs to
for conveyance to Spar Reservoir. be done to prevent flanking across
water storage, pumping, and SR04-002 Do not provide a the floodplain (SR01- 019).
pipeline separate pipe or cast-in-place
conveyance for Mimbres basin concrete lining for the TABLE
water tunnel. There needs to be additional
requirements. TABLE geological/geotechnical information
FMI's facilities are designed for the and research.
uses at the mine and for diversion 4-32
of lower flows than those of AWSA.
In addition, Bill Evans Lake likely
does not have much additional
capacity. Bill Evans Lake accepts
only crystal clear, sediment free
water. This might be solely to
protect their pump impellers. They
divert at low flows, whereas under
the SWRWS project, sediment-
laden water needs to be diverted at
high flows.
However, FMI's existing power
infrastructure could be used to
SR02-004 Construct a low head serve pump stations for the
dam at the BHI diversion point on reservoirs (eg Greenwood). In
the Gila River addition, the route along Mangas
comprised of concrete fixed weir Creek through Tyrone Mine could
wall, be used for SWRWS pipeline to
piling cutoff walls, and sediment Deming.
bypass sluiceway to provide DECLINE
sufficient This seems more “invasive” of the
4-35 4-37

Recommendations for Further Study by the ISC

SR01-005 Establish a target ground water/surface water model This would have to be done at
delivery amount and location(s) for to help some point. However, it would likely
environmental flow define operational parameters, to be done when consulting with the
augmentation. monitor the effectiveness of US Fish and Wildlife Service and
environmental bypass flows, and to during the NEPA process, if NM
account for non-point discharges of chooses to pursue this project.
return flows into the Gila River that ACCEPT
could be recaptured and reused. This could likely be built upon the
SR01-052 Develop an integrated TABLE model developed by SSPA.
 4-40 4-42

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-2
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

PROPOSAL

NO. VE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS PAGE NO.

SR01-007 Considering a) BHI's likely already been considered in the ISC
single-liner lined reservoir, changes in seasonal flow rates due model. This could be more
homogenous dam over and to expanded later.
an unimproved alluvial foundation, climate change.
and b) Reclamation's zoned earthfill SR01-035 Pump water from San DECLINE
over a cutoff foundation without Carlos Reservoir back to southwest With the AWSA, NM already has
reservoir seepage control, New terms negotiated and ratified. Legal
additional Mexico. and physical aspects of this
alternative designs should be ACCEPT proposal are really challenging.
considered that robustly address Safety and seepage would need 4-44
dam additional attention in next design
safety and seepage management. phase.
SR01-050 Perform additional
detailed hydraulic modeling of the
proposed diversion
structure to assess its performance
under a wider range of likely flow
rate ACCEPT
and sedimentation conditions. This is necessary in the next design 4-47 4-49
SR01-021 Perform a Monte Carlo phase. Perhaps even a 3D scale
simulation of key system operations model could be constructed in a
elements laboratory.
relating to the capture and delivery
of ACCEPT
AWSA waters to further This could be done In lieu of
demonstrate modifying the ISC CUFA model for
project feasility, identify project additional climate variability (SR01-
vulnerabilities, and identify potential 049). 4-52 4-55
improvements in system
performance.
SR01-049 Make the climate change
impact analysis in the ISC water
availability
TABLE
model more robust by including
The seasonal flow rates have
 Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.
Final Report 4-3
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

AWSA WATER AVAILABILITY

 Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.
Final Report 4-4
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION NO. 01-064

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION:

Review and evaluate divertible water supply and project yield.

Additional Description:

Complete a review and evaluation of the magnitude and timing of water available
for diversion by the Project. Complete a review and evaluation of the yield of the
project which considers the proposed structural improvements, the anticipated
water demands, and the estimates of the amount of water availale for diversion.

Related Value Engineering Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations:

SR01-020 - Add an ALERT/SCADA system to enable opitimized system

operation and accounting of water flows into and out of the
project.
SR01-049 - Make the climate change impact analysis in the ISC water availability
model more robust by including likely changes in seasonal flow rates
due to climate change.
SR01-050 - Perform additional detailed hydraulic modeling of the proposed
diversion structure to assess its performance under a wider range of likely flow
rate and sedimentation conditions.
SR01-052 - Develop an integrated ground water/surface water model to help
define operational parameters, to monitor the effectiveness of
environmental bypass flows, and to account for non-point discharges
of return flows into the Gila River that could be recaptured and
reused.
 Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.
Final Report 4-5
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

EVALUATION
Idea Number: 01-064
Idea Description: Review and evaluate divertible water supply and project
yield. Advantages of alternative concept:
1. Will provide refined estimates of Project yield
2. Will facilitate an understanding of how water is diverted, conveyed, stored and
used
3. Will facilitate optimization and sizing of reservoir and conveyance facilities
Advantages of original concept:
1. None apparent
Risks of implementing alternative concept:
1. None apparent

DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS:

It is important to review and refine the estimates of divertible flow and Project water yield.
If the Project proceeds to further planning stages, the development of an integrated water
supply and operations model is recommended to assist with this evaluation.

A reconnaissance level review of the water supply estimates was completed by the VE
team in association with development of this supplemental recommendation. A summary
of the observations from this reconnaissance level review are provided below. It should
be noted that this reconnaissance level was not intended to be a substitute for the water
supply assessment recommended above, but instead was completed to help understand
water availability and to facilitate development of recommendations associated with the
VE study.

Pertinent Materials Reviewed (partial list):

∙ USBR Appraisal Level Report, July 2014

∙ Summary of CUFA operational constraints provided by ISC
∙ ISC “Divertible Flow” Spreadsheet
∙ Gila River Flow Needs Assessment, The Nature Conservancy, July 2014

Estimates of Divertible Flow

Divertible flow is the amount of water that can diverted by the Project from the Gila River.
Divertible flow is not the same as project yield, as project yield is also dependent upon
other variables such as capacity of reservoir storage. However, estimates of divertible flow
are required in order to complete a yield assessment for the Project.

Estimates of daily divertible flow have been developed by both the ISC and The Nature
Conservancy (TNC). Flow estimates are available for the period of Gila River stream
gauge records which extend from the 1937 water year to the present. We performed a

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-6
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

limited review of the ISC spreadsheet model. The TNC model was not available for
review.

The ISC spreadsheet model provides reasonable estimates of divertible flow on a daily
basis that are adequate for water supply planning purposes. This spreadsheet
appropriately applies the CUFA limitations as we understand them. The historical stream
flow records for the Gila River at the proposed diversion site provide reliable estimates of
historical physical water availability. We made several minor updates to the ISC
spreadsheet model. These updates did not markedly alter the estimates of divertible flow.

The two independent analyses (ISC and TNC) appear to model San Carlos Reservoir
limitations somewhat differently. However, as noted by TNC (Appendix 2), the difference
in the modeling approaches is not a sensitive factor and does not markedly affect
estimates of divertible flow.

Mean annual divertible flow estimates derived from the VE updated spreadsheet, and the
divertible flow estimates provided by TNC, are summarized below for historical conditions.
These estimates are similar and comparable, and include a 150 cfs winter bypass.

∙ ISC Spreadsheet (VE update) = 12,225 AF/yr (1937 to 2013)

∙ TNC = 12,038 AF/yr (1937 to 2001)

Water is available for diversion in most years. However, it should be noted that water
availability is highly variable, and little or no water is available for diversion during low flow
conditions that can extend for several years. This variability creates the need for a
substantial amount of water storage in order to provide a reliable supply of water from the
project.

Observation: Based upon our initial review, we believe that the ISC spreadsheet
provides reasonable estimates of divertible flow for historical conditions, and that
for the historical period of 1937 to the present, the average annual amount of
divertible for the project was about 12,000 AF/yr.

Perubahan iklim

The ISC developed divertible flow estimates for one climate change scenario. Under this
scenario, Gila River historical gaged flows less than 400 cfs were reduced by 15%, flows
above 800 cfs were increased by 10 %, and historical flows between 400 cfs and 800 cfs
were not adjusted. The VE updated ISC spreadsheet estimates a mean annual divertible
flow of about 11,920 AF/yr with these adjustments, which is a slight decline from the
ISC's historical estimate of 12,225 AF/yr.

TNC evaluated several climate change scenarios. The results of these climate models
are not consistent. One of the models indicated a decline in divertible flow in the future,

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-7
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014
while one model indicated an increase in future divertible flow (Table 3, page 114). These
disparate projections are consistent with recent climate change modeling for the
southwest United States. The USBR considered 112 different climate model scenarios in
its recent evaluation of the Colorado River basin, and while many models simulated a
decline in water availability, some models predicted an increase.

For comparative purposes, we evaluated a 10% “across the board, year-round” decline in
stream flow for a climate change scenario. From our experience, the 10% reduction in flow
is a commonly applied factor for planning at a reconnaissance level. Using the updated
ISC model, the 10% reduction in stream flow results in an annual divertible yield of 11,900
AF/yr, which is essentially equal to the ISC climate change scenario.

Observation: The ISC estimates of divertible flow under a climate change scenario
are reasonable for reconnaissance level planning purposes. If the Project proceeds
to further planning stages, a more detailed assessment of climate change should
be considered.

Project Yield

The amount of divertible flow from the Gila River is highly variable. The actual yield of
the Project will vary in relation to many variables including but not limited to:

∙ Reservoir(s) capacity
∙ Delivery system losses
∙ Evaporation
∙ Reservoir seepage
∙ Timing and magnitude of water demands
∙ Environmental requirements

A robust operational model of the project should be developed (see SR01-026). The model
should consider the above variables, and should also evaluate pre-project and post-
project stream flow at key downstream locations.

We understand that operational models for portions of the project may have been
developed, however, these models were not available at the time of our evaluation. To
facilitate the development of VE proposals, we developed a simple “single bucket”
reservoir operation model for the SWRWS project. This model was used to review the
potential yield of the project and to better understand reservoir capacity requirements.

The model operates on a daily time step and considers the following variables and
information:

∙ Divertible flow (output from ISC spreadsheet)

∙ Reservoir Capacity (total, active and dead pool)
∙ Evaporation (based on representative area-capacity data for Sycamore
Reservoir)

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-8
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014
 ∙ Reservoir Seepage
∙ Water Supply Demands (M&I, irrigation and environmental)

An illustration of the setup page for this simplistic model is attached.

In order to evaluate yield of a project, it is important to understand the timing, frequency

and amount of water demands. For example, environmental reservoir releases may be
desired to supplement certain stream flow conditions that may primarily occur during dry
periods only, while municipal and industrial demands (M&I) may be relatively constant.
Without understanding the desired amount and timing of withdrawals from reservoir
storage, it is difficult to evaluate the yield of a project.

We recommend that additional information related to water demands (timing,

amount, purpose, etc.) be developed in association with the implementation of this
supplemental recommendation.

For purposes of the VE assessment only, we have completed a simple “firm yield”
assessment with the “single bucket” model that was developed. For purposes of this
analysis, “firm yield” is the amount of water that can be delivered from reservoir storage
at a constant year-round rate for every year of the study period. Please note that actual
reservoir releases will likely occur at variable rates, and the definition of “firm yield” used
in this reconnaissance level evaluation may not be appropriate. The assessment was
conducted for the “climate change” hydrology scenario.

Results of the assessment are summarized in the table below.

ESTIMATED FIRM YIELD OF SWRWS (For VE Purposes Only)

CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIO (ISC Method)
(Acre Feet per Year)
Reservoir Seepage (% of Water in
Active Reservoir Capacity (AF) Storage per Year) 1% 3% 5%
15,000 2,250 2,100 1,950 20,000 3,075 2,875 2,675 25,000 3,925 3,700 3,450 30,000
4,575 4,225 3,900 35,000 5,100 4,725 4,350 40,000 5,675 5,225 4,825 45,000 6,200 5,725
5,250 50,000 6,425 5,925 5,425 55,000 6,625 6,075 5,525 60,000 6,800 6,200 5,625 65,000
7,025 6,375 5,750 70,000 7,250 6,550 5,900 75,000 7,475 6,725 6,025

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-9
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

The amount of water that can be delivered from the Project will substantially increase if
the reservoir is not operated on a strict “firm yield” basis. If it is acceptable to reduce or
eliminate water deliveries during infrequent dry cycles, and concurrently increase reservoir
releases (perhaps for irrigation) during other time periods, the amount of water that can
be delivered from storage will increase. For example, it may be possible to rely on ground
water sources for municipal use during drought cycles, in lieu of water from reservoir
storage. This method of operation would allow storage be drawn down on a regular basis,
which would concurrently increase releases from storage in many years.

We have applied the “single bucket” model to estimate the average annual yield from the
Project that may occur under an alternative reservoir operation such as that described
above. We calculated that about 8,000 to 9,000 acre feet of water can be delivered from
storage on an average annual basis, depending upon the capacity of storage that is
constructed.

The above yield estimates are preliminary, reconnaissance level estimates for VE
purposes only. Pursuant to this supplemental recommendation, the development
of an integrated water supply and operations model is recommended to refine the
estimates of divertible flow and Project water yield.

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-10
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014
 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDED VALUE

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-11
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION NO. 01-012

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION:

Implement a staged project development plan that provides an initial Gila diversion
and an initial or base level of storage, selected and designed to facilitate staged
design and construction that is based on optimized supply potential versus current
and projected demand.

Additional Description:

Related Value Engineering Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations:

SR01-026 - Develop project objectives and operational criteria for diversion

storage alternatives.
 Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.
Final Report 4-12
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

EVALUATION
Idea Number: 01-012
Idea Description: Implement a staged project development plan that provides an initial
Gila diversion and an initial or base level of storage, selected and designed to
facilitate staged design and construction that is based on optimized supply potential
versus current and projected demand.
Advantages of alternative concept:
1. Defers significant initial capital cost.
2. Provides lessons learned from partial system and operation evaluation prior to
completion of the full system.
3. May provide for earlier diversions than under full project development plan 4. May
provide opportunity to develop minimal and early upper Gila irrigator diversions and
defer higher cost components more applicable to Mimbres needs. In this scenario,
recapturing and utilizing all Gila releases to extinction becomes more important.
5. May provide basis for tangible, early utilization of initial guaranteed funds.
Advantages of original concept:
1. Allows initial full project utilization.
2. Allows maximum initial storage.
3. Spreads costs for environmental compliance into all components and does not
burden initial project users.
4. Provides better assurance that project construction and implementation occurs
within the time frames established by the environmental permits.
5. Contains project development to current adversity and current regulatory
requirements.
Risks of implementing alternative concept:
1. Initial system operation does not fully utilize AWSA diversion flows. 2.
Early system operation reveals new reasons for opposition that threaten
development of the later stage(s).
3. Future construction or development cost increases outpace projected escalation.
4. Environmental compliance and permitting will likely be required for the entire (all
stages) project up front.

DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS:

Proposal 01-026, and its related ideas, addresses evaluating and modeling the system
supply and demand. When more is understood about the quantity, type and timing of
demand, and more is understood about likely dependability of diverted supply, a better
assessment of storage components and delivery components can be made. A staged
development plan should reflect this supply and demand understanding.

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-13
 Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION NO. 01-026

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION:

Develop project objectives and operational criteria for diversion-storage

alternatives.

Additional Description:

Project objectives and operational criteria are needed to inform alternatives

development and screening, sizing of project facilities, and estimates of
project yield.

Related Value Engineering Proposals and/or Supplemental

Recommendations:

SR01-027 - Align the technical (engineering), NEPA, and Section 404

alternatives development and evaluation processes.
SR01-037 - Develop purpose and need (P&N) statement as foundation for
alternatives development and evaluation.
SR01-021 - Perform a Monte Carlo simulation of key system operations
elements relating to the capture and delivery of AWSA waters to further
demonstrate project feasility, identify project
vulnerabilities, and identify potential improvements in system
performance.

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-14
Value Engineering Study
 SWRWS Project November 2014

EVALUATION
Idea Number: 01-026
Idea Description: Develop project objectives and operational criteria for diversion
storage alternatives.
Advantages of alternative concept:
1. Project objectives and operational criteria will provide the basis for describing how
the alternative would be operated; assessing the potential effects of project
operations; determining the size and locations of the facilities that are needed; the
amount, reliability, timing and location of water to be delivered; and the priorities
for delivery of water (environmental flows, M&I and ag.).
2. Can provide for a more efficient project.
Advantages of original concept:
1. None apparent
Risks of implementing alternative concept:
1. None apparent

DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS:

Project objectives and operations are needed for a variety of processes including
alternatives development and screening, design, NEPA, ESA compliance, Section 404
permitting, and describing the project to agencies, interested stakeholders and the public.

For permitting and design purposes, an operations model of the project will be required.
The model should simulate daily operations of the project and should provide the following
types of information, preferably on a daily time step:

∙ Project diversions from the Gila River

∙ Location, amount, timing and type of water demands
∙ Amount of water diverted to each reservoir, canal and pipeline
∙ Amount of water released, pumped or otherwise delivered for each Project use,
through each project component
∙ Transit or delivery losses associated with project releases
∙ Operation of each storage facility including storage content, evaporation, amount
stored and seepage estimates
∙ Irrigation and other return flows
∙ Pre- and post-project streamflow at the Gila River diversion site
∙ Pre- and post-project streamflow at all downstream locations of environmental
significance

The model should also provide a unified platform for the assessment of alternatives to
the original concept. As noted above, an alternatives evaluation will be required for
permitting and other planning considerations.

The model may provide a platform for managing real-time operation of the Project.

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-15
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014
 SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION NO. 01-006
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION:

Divert Gila River return flow by exchange or recapture.

Additional Description:

Pursuant to the AWSA, irrigation and other return flows to the Gila River Basin can
be used to extinction. The proposal would quantify the amount, location and timing
of return flows. It is anticipated that a comprehensive ground water modeling and
monitoring program would be implemented for the quantification.

When streamflow conditions allow, the quantified return flows would be diverted
from the Gila River into reservoir storage. These diversions may occur by exchange
or a similar process.

As an alternative, the reusable return flows could be physically recaptured at one

or more small downstream diversion structures on the Gila River. These recaptured
return flows to the Gila River could be pumped back to local irrigated fields which
may reduce the amount of reservoir releases and increase the yield of the project.

This proposal will not save costs for the initial proposal, but it will add value by
increasing project water supplies.

Related Value Engineering Proposals and/or Supplemental Recommendations:

SR01-052 - Develop an integrated ground water/surface water model to help

define operational parameters, to monitor the effectiveness of
environmental bypass flows, and to account for non-point discharges
of return flows into the Gila River that could be recaptured and
reused.

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-16
Value Engineering Study
SWRWS Project November 2014

EVALUATION
Idea Number: 01-006
 Idea Description: Divert Gila River return flow by exchange or
recapture. Advantages of alternative concept:
1. Increase yield of Project
2. Fully utilize water available pursuant to the AWSA
3. Provide cost effective supplemental irrigation supplies
Advantages of original concept:
1. This proposal is supplemental to the original concept and would rely upon facilities
associated with the original concept
Risks of implementing alternative concept:
1. The return flows may, at times, provide important environmental benefits to the
Gila River, and the recapture of the return flows may reduce any such benefit 2.
Without proper administration, this concept could injure or reduce water available to
local irrigators
3. The return flows may not accrue to the river at a location where the water can be
easily recaptured or where it is in proximity to irrigated lands
4. Construction of additional Gila River diversion dams to recapture return flows may
have undesirable environmental effects and may require substantial permitting
activities

DISCUSSION AND/OR CALCULATIONS:

Pursuant to the AWSA, irrigation and other return flows to the Gila River Basin can be
used to extinction. The proposal would quantify the amount, location and timing of return
flows. It is anticipated that a comprehensive ground water modeling and monitoring
program would be implemented for the quantification.

When streamflow conditions allow, the quantified return flows would be diverted from the
Gila River into reservoir storage. These diversions may occur by exchange or a similar
process.

As an alternative, the reusable return flows could be physically recaptured at one or more
small downstream diversion structures on the Gila River. These recaptured return flows
to the Gila River could be pumped back to local irrigated fields which may reduce the
amount of reservoir releases and increase the yield of the project.

This proposal will not save costs for the initial proposal, but it will add value by
increasing project water supplies.

Approximately 4,300 acres of land are irrigated in the Cliff-Gila and Virden valleys. Most
of the land is flood irrigated, particularly in the Cliff-Gila area. Return flow from flood
irrigated areas can commonly exceed 50% of the application. A conservative and
reasonable planning level assumption is that 30% to 40% of water applied to irrigation

Solutions Engineering & Facilitating, Inc.

Final Report 4-17