Transcript Investigation of Binational Desalination for the Benefit of Arizona and Sonora

December 5, 2008
AMC/CSA Meeting
Investigation of Binational
Desalination for the Benefit of
Arizona and Sonora
Guy W. Carpenter, P.E.
Project Manager
[email protected]
1-602-522-4337
Arizona-Mexico Commission/Comision Sonora Arizona
Water Committee Mission Statement/Principio Básico
 Promover la planeación para la
 To pursue water management
gestión del agua en la región
planning in the Arizona-Sonora
Sonora-Arizona, que de énfasis a
region that emphasizes
collaboration on programs for the la colaboración sobre programas
que promuevan los beneficios
advancement of economic,
económicos, sociales, y
social, and environmental
ambientales entre los dos
benefits of both states, and that
estados, y que surgen de
arise from constructive solutions
soluciones constructivas
to shared water supply issues.
relacionado a los asuntos
compartidos sobre recursos
hidráulicos.
Project Team
 Salt River Project (SRP)
1.0 MAF (1,233 hm3/año) of
annual Salt and Verde Rivers and
groundwater water deliveries
 Central Arizona Project (CAP)
1.5 MAF (1,850 hm3 /año) of
annual Colorado River water
deliveries
 HDR
7,000 employees and 150+ offices
Water, environmental,
transportation
Study Team
Funding Partners
Agency Partners
Cooperating Partner
Commonalities
 Population growth
 Arid environment
 Fast growing
 Planning for future
development
Water
Population Estimates and Projections 1900 to 2100
20,000,000
18,000,000
2100 = 18.1 million people statewide
15.2 million in CAP Service Area
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
1920 = 344,000 people
4,000,000
2000 = 5.1 million people statewide
4.1 million in CAP Service Area
2,000,000
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
CAP Service Area
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
Outside CAP Service Area
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 1900 to 2000; Arizona Department of Economic Security 2010 to 2050 (April 2006 Projections); Global Institute of
Sustainability 2060 to 2100 (June 2006)
Population Projection on Arizona - Sonora Border
3,000,000
2,500,000
Population
902,804
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
520,725
2,017,336
Sonoran Municipalities
AZ Counties
1,159,908
500,000
0
2000
2010
2020
Year
Source: INEGI and DES County Projections
2030
Sonora Outlook





Fully allocated surface water
Groundwater mining
Future growth
Access to the ocean
92% of water use is agriculture
5 MAF: 1.6M acres
6,167 hm3/año: 607,000 hectares
 7% of water use is municipal
and industrial (310,000 AFY:
~382 hm3/año)
Arizona Outlook






Fully allocated surface water
Groundwater mining
Future growth
No access to ocean
68% of water use is agriculture
32% of water use is municipal
and industrial
The Idea
 Arizona and Sonora need more water to sustain
economic growth
 Need data to support developing a new supply of
water for Arizona and Sonora
 Timing: near- and long-term
 Project
 Ocean desalination
 Brackish groundwater desalination
Not a New Idea
 1968: Nuclear power and water desalting plants for
Southwest United States and Northwest Mexico
 United States
 Mexico
 International Atomic Energy Agency
 Project never advanced
 Central Arizona Project authorized by Congress –
although future supplies for augmentation still needed
AMC/CSA Provides the Opportunity





Expanding trade
Increasing economic development
Improving quality of life
Advancing environmental benefits
Preparing region for prolonged droughts
Project “Roadmap”
 Background (Mexico Treaty, 1968 Study, etc.)
 Description of study
 Institutional framework (AZ, Sonora, U.S., and
Mexico)
 Water supplies (brackish groundwater and ocean)
 Quantify water demands
 Water production
 Ocean (location, quality, technology, energy, costs)
 Brackish GW (location, quality, technology, energy,
costs)
Project “Roadmap” - Continued
 Pipeline/canal alignments
 Energy needs
 Evaluation of alternatives
Both Studies Matter to Each Other
 Success of Puerto Peñasco project planning and
execution paves the way for future successes
 Environmental, ocean, and policy impacts will
influence future projects
 Report findings should be consistent with one
another
 Working together to share information and ideas
Scenario #1: 120,000 AFY
Desalination facility
120,000 AFY
148 hm3/año
Pipeline (dia, length)
78-IN, 150 mile
200-cm, 241 km
Power requirements
73.5 MW
73.5 MW
Scenario #2: 1.2 MAFY
Desalination facility
1,200,000 AFY
1,480 hm3/año
Pipeline (dia, length)
78-IN, 150 mile
200-cm, 241 km
1.08 MAFY capacity
150 mile
1,332hm3/año
241 km
621 MW
621 MW
Canal (capacity, length)
Power requirements
Point of Reference
 Ashkelon, Israel
 94,640 AFY, (117 hm3/año)
 Capital cost
$250M (U.S.)
 Production cost
$2.95/1000 gal ($0.78/m3)
 Twice as big as largest
previous plant
 Globally, facilities will get
bigger as water scarcity
increases
Description of Actions to Date





Met with Peñasco, toured site
Attended initial desalination meeting in CA
Bouchard and HDR sharing information
Scenarios agreed upon
Draft investigation report prepared
Next Steps




Finalize the report
Discuss opportunities with Sonoran partners
Report back to AMC Spring 2009
Future steps