(GP/GT) for Additional Water Supply in the Lower Rio Grande

The feasibility of utilizing geopressured resources to produce
potable water by desalination appears to have high near-term probability
of successful application, especially in areas of limited water supplies
such as the lower Rio Grande Valley region of south Texas, and the
central valley of California.
Studies made by Dorfman and others during the early program years of
the geopressured program indicate the Hidalgo county geopressured
reservoir could sustain a brine flow of 16,830,000 bpd without undue
depletion over a 20 year life, and a brine flow of 45,600,000 bpd is
estimated for Cameron and Hidalgo Counties (Dorfman and Morton, 1985).
After salt removal, -1.15 billion gal/d of desalinated water could be
recovered in a region that is characteristically low in water supplies
(Spencer, 1990).
Both of these areas have geopressured basins that have the potential
to be utilized for desalination. See Figure 6 for the approximate
location of the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and Los Angeles
Basins in California, and the Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin in Texas. As
reported by the Department of Water Resources, State of California, in
their drought Contingency Planning Guidelines for 1989, California
realized a $2.4 billion loss in the drought of 1976 to 1977, and the
current drought is worse. The suggestions for dealing with the drought
are all conventional (more surface reservoirs, water purchases from
surrounding states, etc.) Also, grandiose schemes such as digging a
canal to the Columbia River and moving icebergs from Antarctica are being
suggested by the City of Los Angeles. The Seattle Times, May 27, 1990,
notes that under a scheme called the North American Water and Power
Alliance, the Ralph Parsons Co., Pasadena, CA has developed a gigantic
water-transfer plan that includes waterways snaking down the continent
from Alaska, through Canada and the Northwest, to serve the freshwater
needs of southern California. The estimated cost is $200 billion. By
contrast, Nitschke and Harris'(1990) proposed system would provide -40%
of California's water demand at a cost of -$24 billion (Table 1). This
approach would include using geopressured resources found in the
23