ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
REPORT ON
AN INVESTIGATION OF PESTICIDE POLLOTION
IN THE
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN - 1973
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER-I
DENVER, COLORADO ^ '
AND ^'*
REGION IX ^
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
REPORT ON
AN INVESTIGATION OF PESTICIDE POLLUTION
IN THE
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN - 1973
National Field Investigations Center-Denver
Denver, Colorado
and
Region IX
San Francisco, California
December 1973
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
III. STREAM SURVEY 5
A. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES 5
B. CHEMICAL STUDIES 7
C. WATER OUALITY 8
IV. APPLICATION TECHNIQUES, TYPES OF PESTICIDE MATERIALS
USED AND CURRENT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES 9
V. METHODS AND MATERIALS . 12
A. BIOLOGY 12
B. CHEMISTRY 13
REFERENCES 17
APPENDIX 18
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
SAMPLING STATIONS, LOWER COLORADO RIVER
PESTICIDE INVESTIGATION
AChE ACTIVITY LEVELS OF EXPOSED CHANNEL CATFISH
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
PESTICIDE RESIDUE ANALYSES OF NATIVE FISH
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIOUID
COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF WATER GRAB SAMPLES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
RESULTS OF PESTICIDES ANALYSES
TILE DRAINAGE
LOWER COLORADO RIVER
RESULTS OF SEDIMENT ANALYSES FOR
TOXAPHENE RESIDUES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
WATER OUALITY DATA, LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
EFFICIENCY OF RESIN COLUMNS FOR
RECOVERY OF PESTICIDES
(0.1 me/1 SOLUTIONS) FROM WATER
Page
19
21
22
23
35
36
37
38
39
Figure No.
1
2
LIST OF FIGURES
Areas of Pesticide Application
Sampling Stations in the Lower
Colorado River Basin
Follows
Page
iii
-------
o
GLOSSARY
C - Temperature in deerees centigrade = 5/9 (°F-32)
cfs - Flow rate in cubic feet per second = 0.0283 cubic meters
per second = 28.3 liters per second
cm - Length in centimeters = 0.3937 inches = 0.03281 feet
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
°F - Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit = 1.8°C + 32
ft - Length in feet = 0.3048 meters
g - Weight in prams = 0.0353 ounces
gal. - Volume in gallons = 3.785 liters
hr - Time in hours
in. - Leneth in inches = 2.54 centimeters
kg - Weight in kilograms = 2.21 pounds
km - Distance in kilometers = 0.621 miles
1 - Volume in liters = 0.2642 gallons
3
m"/sec - Flow rate in cubic meters per second = 22.8 million
gallons per day = 35.3 cubic feet per second
mf? - Weight in milligrams = 1/1000 of a cram
mg/1 - Concentration in milligrams per liter
ug/g - Concentration in micrograms per gram = parts per million
ml - Volume in milliliters = 1/1000 of a liter
pi! - Logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the hydrogen-ion
concentration
RM - River mileage (e.g., RM 184.2) denoting the distance in
miles upstream from the mouth of the Colorado River
sec - Time in seconds
iv
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Colorado River forms the boundary between Arizona and
California from near Needles, California to near Yuma, Arizona.
The river also forms the boundary between the United States and
Mexico from near Yuna, Arizona to San Luis, Sonora.
In 1968 the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
conducted an investigation of the water quality of the Lower
Colorado River and concluded that pollution problems were caused
by indiscriminate pesticide application practices on irrigated
lands in both Arizona and California from Parker Dam to the
Southerly International Border.— The major applications of these
pesticides reportedly occurred in five major irrigation areas
(Colorado River Indian Reservation, Palo Verde Irrigation District,
Yuma Project Reservation Division, Yuma Project Valley Division and
the Welton-Mohawk Project) [Figure 1].
Subsequent to 1968, only limited pesticide analyses were made
even though through the years the total pesticide usage was known
to have increased. As a result of this paucity of data and the con-
cern that a more severe problem may have been present, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement in Washington, B.C.
and the Director, Enforcement Division, Region IX, requested NFIC-
Denver to undertake a survey of the Lower Colorado River and the
major irrigation drains from Headgate Rock Dam to the Southerly
International Boundary.
-------
-N-
NOT TO SCALE
HEADGATE ROCK DAM
PARKER
COLORADO RIVER
INDIAN RESERVATION
PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM
PALO VERDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT
YUMA PROJECT RESERVATION DIVISION
CALIFORN.I.A
MEXICO
YUMA PROJECT VALLEY DIVISION
Figure 1. Areas of Pesticide Application
-------
The investigations were conducted 20 July through 9 September
1973, and concentrated on the following objectives:
1. Assess the pesticide pollution problem in the Lower
Colorado River.
2. Determine if Arizona and California Water Quality Standards
are being violated by discharges of pesticides (biocides)
into the Lower Colorado River.
3. Determine if pesticide concentrations are interferring
with the water uses of the Lower Colorado River.
4. Determine the necessity of pollution abatement and
recommend control measures as appropriate.
In the course of these investigations, valuable information and
assistance were received from private citizens, pesticides distrib-
utors, and municipal, county, state and federal agencies. The Sur-
veillance and Analysis Division, Region IX, EPA provided liaison
between NFIC-Denver and cooperating Federal agencies. The cooperation
extended by these individuals is gratefully acknowledged.
-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
During the Summer of 1973, an extensive study was conducted to
assess the pesticide pollution problem of the Lower Colorado River.
The study area included the River from Headgate Rock Dam to the
Southerly International Boundary and major irrigation return drains
serving five large irrigation areas in Arizona and California.
Biological studies included the controlled in situ exposure of chan-
nel catfish at 17 stations to assess potential toxic effects of pes-
ticides and the collection of native fish for pesticide residue ex-
aminations. Continuous water quality sampling was conducted at 10
stream and drain locations for evaluation of pesticide concentrations.
In addition, water and sediment grab samples were collected at var-
ious locations for pesticide analysis. A summary of the findings is
as follows:
1. Normal acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity of a control group
of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) ranged from 1.21 to 1.66
micromoles of acetylcholine hydrolyzed per hour per millipram of
brain tissue. Fish exposed in the study area exhibited an activity
range of 1.23 to 1.59 micromoles of acetylcholine hydrolyzed per
hour per milligram of brain tissue, well within the normal range.
Organophosphate or carbamate pesticides were not present in the
river in sufficient quantities to be harmful to fish.
2. Analyses of native fish indicated that contamination by
organo-chlorine pesticides has been insignificant.
3. Of 140 water samples collected continuously by polymeric
-------
adsorbent resins, none contained pesticide residues at significant levels,
4. Grab samples of water collected monthly from eieht locations
not continuously sampled contained no detectable pesticide residues.
Sediments from eight locations were analyzed for toxaphene with none
being present at detectable levels.
5. No pesticides were detected in representative samples of water
collected from tile drains in the study area.
6. From the data contained in this report, the conclusion is made
that a pesticide pollution problem did not exist in the Lower Colorado
River during the study period. Additionally, data on organo-chlorine
pesticides indicates that these compounds have not been present for
the past one to three years in quantities sufficient to contaminate
fish. Thus, the Water Quality Standards of Arizona and California for
pesticides (biocides) were not violated.
7. Although total pesticide usage and the acreage of irrigated
land has climbed upward in recent years, changes in agricultural prac-
tices have taken place to lessen the likelihood of contamination of
the Colorado River by pesticides.
8. The improved pesticide application practices observed during
the course of this investigation and the very limited concentrations
of pesticides detected in the Colorado River, even though pesticide
usage has increased, attest to the fact that receiving waters can be
protected from pesticides pollution by careful application practices.
Stringent permit limitations on the agricultural discharge of pesticides
are thus justifiable.
-------
III. STREAM SURVEY
Investigations of the possible pesticide contamination of the
Lower Colorado River, from Headgate Rock Dam (RM 184.2) to the
Southerly International Boundary (RM 22.8), and of the major apri-
cultural irrigation return drains [Table 1] were conducted from
20 July to 9 September 1973. This time period corresponds to the
principal cotton growing season when pesticide applications are
the heaviest and most frequent.
The Arizona and California Water Quality Standards contain
basic standards applicable to all waters of the States that require
freedom "from toxic, corrosive, and other deleterious substances
attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable
sources at levels or combinations sufficient to be toxic to human,
2 37
animal, plant or aquatic life..."—'— In this investigation, em-
phasis was placed on determining adverse effects to the aquatic
biota by pesticide residues in the water.
A. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES
Pesticide use data for the Lower Colorado River Basin indicated
that in recent years there has been a significant increase in the use
of readily degradable organo-phosphate and carbamate pesticides in
addition to the continued use of persistant organo-chlorine compounds,
With this in mind, biological studies centered around the fact that
these newer compounds were designed to inhibit acetylcholinesterase
(AChE), an enzyme essential in the transmission of nervous impulses
from the brain to various bodily organs.
-------
Channel catfish were exposed iri situ at 17 stations [Figure 2
and Table 1] for periods of 3 to 14 days. After all fish had been
removed from a station, a new group was exposed. Fish were kept
at each station for 52 days.
AChE activity is expressed as micromoles of acetylcholine
hydrolyzed per hour per milligram of wet brain tissue. During the
sampling period, 63 unexposed control fish were analyzed to establish
a normal range of AChE activity for the test fish. The normal range
for unexposed channel catfish was 1.21 to 1.66 [Table 2]. Ninety-five
percent of the fish exposed in the survey area had activities ranging
from 1.23 to 1.59. AChE activities were considered to be abnormally
low if they were less than 1.13 (80 percent of the control mean of
1.41). Only three of the 146 samples analyzed fell into this category,
having activities of 1.08, 1.08 and 1.11. Since all three samples were
collected from different stations on different dates and none of the
low values were repeated at a later date, it was concluded that these,
values do not reflect substantial water quality degradation.
The remaining AChE test data [Table 2] indicate that at no tine
during the sampling, period was an AChE inhibiting substance present in
the water in sufficient concentrations to have an acutely toxic effect
(severe stress or death within 14 days) on the test animals.
Collections were made of native fish from the Palo Verde Diversion
Dam area, Imperial Dam area, Mittry Lake (an ox-bow lake near Imperial
Dam) and the Yuma Project Valley Division Main Drain. These fish were
analyzed for organo-chlorine pesticide residues in the tissue. Only DDT
-------
PARKER DAM
HEADGATE ROCK DAM
COLORADO RIVER
INDIAN RESERVATION
CRIR-UPPER MAIN DRAIN
PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM
PALO VERDE
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
PALO VERDE OUTFALL DRAIN
CRIB-LOWER MAIN DRAIN
VUMA PROJECT
VALLEY
DIVISION
IMPERIAL VALLEY
VUMA PROJECT
RESERVATION DIVISION
WELTON-MOHAWK
PROJECT
WELTON MOHAWK OUTLET DRAIN
GULF OF
CALIFORNIA
Figure 2. Schematic of Irrigation Diversions, Drains and Sampling Stations •
Lower Colorado River Pesticide Pollution Investigation
-------
was detected [Table 3] (in fish from the Yuma Project Valley Division
Main Drain). Interpreting these results in terms of biomagnification
(the accumulation and retention of a pesticide by an organism) indi-
cates that organo-chlorine pesticide concentrations in the water and
foodchain were insignificant during the preceding year. Studies by
Macek, e£ al, indicate that within six months to one year, flesh and
A/
viscera of fish can be purged of pesticides.— These laboratory
studies corroborate the observed purging and reduced exposure of
native fish in the Lower Colorado River during the period from 1968
to 1973.
B. CHEMICAL STUDIES
To evaluate pesticide residues in the water, automatic sampling
units were installed at ten sampling sites [Figure 2 and Table 1].
Samplers were operated continuously from 20 July to 9 September 1973
at eight sites with a ninth sampler alternated between Stations 13
and 19 (see Section IV). Samples were collected by two methods: (1)
by passage of water through a polymeric adsorbent resin, and (2) by
liquid composites. A total of 140 resin samples and 22 liquid com-
posite samples were analyzed. No pesticide residues were detected
in any sample analyzed [Table A].
Liquid grab samples collected monthly from eight areas not con-
tinuously sampled contained no pesticide residues at detectable lev-
els [Table 5].
Discharges from three tile drains on the Colorado River Indian
-------
Reservation (CRIR) and from two tile drains in the Palo Verde Irriga-
tion District (PVID) were analyzed for pesticide content. Pesticides
were not present in detectable concentrations [Table 6].
Sediment samples were collected from eight areas and analyzed for
toxaphene content [Table 7]. None was present at a detectable level.
A review by Bell of water quality data and pesticide production
and sales statistics, on a nationwide basis, indicates a general
trend toward reduced usage of persistent pesticides and concomitant
reductions in concentrations of persistent pesticides in surface
streams.—
C. WATER QUALITY
Water quality characteristics (temperature, DO, and pH) of the
study area were recorded. Temperatures ranged from 22 to 37°C
(72 to 99°F), DO ranged from 2.6 mg/1 to 25 mg/1 and pH ranged be-
tween 7.1 and 8.6 [Table 8], The alkalinity of the waters of the
study area (as indicated by generally high pH values) would cause
the rapid degradation of organo-phosphate and carbamate pesticides.
A general increase in temperature was noted from Headgate Rock
Dam to the Northern International Border, as would be expected, with
only slight variations in the DO levels and pH values. An exception
to the limited range of DO values was the Gila River. During the
3
course of this study, flows were generally low (ca. 0.2 m /sec or
7 cfs) in this stream and an intensive algal bloom occurred. As a
result, DO values varied from an early morning low of 2.6 mg/1 to a
daytime high of 25 mg/1.
-------
IV. APPLICATION TECHNIQUES, TYPES OF PESTICIDE MATERIALS
USED AND CURRENT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
To maintain the high quality of their agricultural products and
a high level of productivity, the farmers of the Lower Colorado River
Basin depend heavily on pesticides to combat problems associated with
insects, weeds and diseases.
Of the major pesticides applied in this area, about 75 percent by
weight are applied by aircraft. In terms of acreage, about 65 to 85
percent is applied aerially.
In recent years, a significant increase in the use of organo-
phosphate and carbamate pesticides, in addition to the continuing
heavy use of organo-chlorine pesticides, has occurred. These changes
have been brought about by: (1) the banning of DDT and related per-
sistent compounds, (2) the need for more toxic substances to overcome
tolerances attained by some species of pests, and (3) the widespread
belief by farmers, distributors and applicators that the shorter-lived
organo-phosphates are a lesser hazard to the environment. However,
organo-chlorine use remains substantial, particularly upon cotton.
The total pesticides and herbicides applied to croplands within
the five subject areas during 1972 are summarized as follows:
Class of Compound 1972 Applications
(kg) (lb)
Organo-phosphorus 814,000 1,794,000
Organo-chlorine 426,000 940,000
OP-OC combinations 87,000 192,000
Carbamates 502,000 1,106,000
Herbicides 530,000 1,169,000
Total applications in 1972 2,359,000 5,201,000
-------
10
By comparison, in 1968 about 454,000 kg (1,000,000 Ib) of organo-
chlorine and 45,400 kg (100,000 Ib) of organo-phosphates were applied
to the same areas. Minor use of carbamates prevailed at that time.
Thus, use of organo-chlorines has remained nearly constant; use of
organo-phosphates has increased 18-fold; and carbamate use has reached
proportions comparable to total pesticide use in 1968.
The intensity of pesticide application, and thus the potential
hazard to Colorado River water users, reaches, a peak during the four
months (July to October) of the cotton growing season. For example,
estimated uses within the Arizona portion of the study area during the
height of the 1972 and 1973 cotton seasons are summarized as follows:
Weight Applied Weight Applied
Class of Compound July-Aug. 1972 July-Aug. 1973
(kg) (Ib) (kg) (Ib)
Organo-phosphorus 134,600 296,700 138,400 305,100
Organo-chlorine 53,700 118,300 78,100 172,200
Carbamates 51,400 113,400 53,200 117,300
Herbicides 30,300 66.900 43,200 95,200
270,000 595,300 312,900 689,800
While total pesticide usage has climbed upward, coupled with a
significant increase in total irrigated land, changes in agricultural
practices have taken place that appear to lessen the likelihood of
environmental contamination.
A number of agricultural techniques are being employed to reduce
the economic loss caused by insect pests, such as: (1) the use of
better strains of pest-resistant crops as newer strains resist attacks
from insects, suppress or destroy the insects, or tolerate insects
-------
11
without loss of of vigor or yield: (2) planting a preferred host plant
in with a desirable crop (e.g., a 16 to 32 ft wide strip of alfalfa
across a cotton field to attract Lygus bugs); and (3) planting and
harvesting earlier so that the crop is at a stage of development where
major outbreaks of insect pests will do less damage, or the crop is
harvested before major outbreaks occur.
Even though methods of control are slowly coming into general
application, the use of chemicals still remains high. However, certain
changes have taken place in recent years in the manner in which pesti-
cides are used. The use of buffer zones between agricultural fields
and water courses, more attention to spray drift and weather conditions,
a more judicious selection of the material to be used, the proper timing
of applications to catch the pests at their most vulnerable stage, and
the apparent alleviation of the practice of disposal of unused pesti-
cides in waters of the Basin have all contributed to lessening the haz-
ard of pesticide contamination.
-------
12
V. METHODS AND MATERIALS
A. BIOLOGY
•s,
Evaluation of AChE inhibition in channel catfish was accomplished
by exposing the fish for 3- to 14-day intervals at 17 stations in the
Lower Colorado River and the principal irrigation return drains.
Fish used in these studies were obtained from the California State
Warm-Water Fish Hatchery at Niland. All were young-of-the-year, ranging
in size from 5 cm (2 in.) to 11 cm (4 1/4 in.).
Upon receipt all fish were placed in pre-conditioning chambers
located at Headgate Rock Dam and Yuma, Arizona (a procedure necessary
due to the logistics of fish distribution).
After a 48 to 72 hr pre-conditioning period, 20 fish were placed
in each of the 17 exposure cages. At given intervals, beginning three
days after initial exposure, five fish were collected from each exposure
cage and transported to laboratory facilities in Yuma, Arizona, where
the brains were removed for AChE analysis. The final group of five fish
was removed on the 14th day and another group of 20 fish replaced them.
Laboratory experiments at NFIC-D prior to the study demonstrated
that a 14-day exposure was sufficient time to cause changes in AChE levels.
*
Principal equipment used for the AChE analysis was a Sargent re-
cording pH-stat. The technique used was that developed by the EPA Gulf
Breeze Environmental Research Lab, Gulf Breeze, Florida. Briefly, the
procedure is: brains of 5 fish from the same exposure site were pooled
Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
13
wet weighed, and homogenized in distilled water. The brains were
then further diluted with distilled water to a tissue concentration
of 5 mg/ml. Four ml of the diluted homogenate were then mixed with
4 ml of 0.03 M acetylcholine iodide (which provides a specific base
for the enzyme AChE). The pH-stat was then used to titrate liberated
acetic acid with 0.01 N NaOH. The reaction was carried out at pH 7.0
and 22°C (72°F) (with a nitrogen purge over the surface of the reac-
tion vessel to prevent absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide).
Micromoles of acetylcholine hydrolyzed were calculated from the
micromoles of NaOH required to neutralize the free acetic acid. AChE
activity was expressed as micromoles of acetylcholine-hydrolyzed per
hour per mg of brain tissue.
B. CHEMISTRY
Monitoring of the Lower Colorado River was accomplished by the
use of continuous flow-through automatic samplers. These samplers
were fabricated by NFIC-Denver personnel to collect both a continuous
sample on a resin column and a liquid composite sample. Grab samples
were collected to obtain background levels at selected locations.
Prior to the beginning of the Lower Colorado River field investi-
gation, the performance of resin columns on pesticides recovery was
tested. Among the relatively stable compounds tested (parathion,
methyl parathion, and diazinon), recoveries after 48 hr ranged from
105 to 120 percent of grab samples subjected to conventional liquid/
liquid extraction [Table 9] indicating that the resin columns perfor-
med at least as well as liquid/liquid extraction. Alkaline (pH 8.5)
-------
14
solutions of phosdrin, furadan, zectran, carbaryl and diazinon degraded
too rapidly to be recovered by the resin columns; however, these com-
pounds were also undetectable in grab samples taken 12 hr after the
solutions were mixed.
Samplers were installed at 10 key points in the study area [Figure 2
and Table 1], A pump was installed near the sample source and the intake
line, 2.5-cm galvanized iron pipe which had been cleaned with solvent,
was laid into a well-mixed portion of the stream. The source water was
then pumped into the sampling apparatus with a portion wasted downstream
of the pump intake. Commercial electrical power was provided at all
sampling locations with the exception of Station 5 near the mouth of the
Colorado River Indian Reservation Lower Main Drain where a 3.5-KVA
gasoline-driven generator was installed.
The flow in the sampling apparatus was directed through a three-way
electric solenoid valve to the resin column, then into a constant head
tank and metered through a metering device. Prior to this, the column
was cleaned with a series of acetone rinses followed by a methylene
chloride rinse and then filled as follows:
a) 5-cm polyurethaiie foam plug
b) 50 grams of a 50-50 mixture of Amberlite XAD-2 and XAD-7 resins
c) 10-cm polyurethane foam plug
d) glass wool filter
Water for the liquid composite sample was taken off the system at
the three-way solenoid valve. The sample was pumped from the valve to a
-------
15
19-liter (5 gal.) sampling container which had been placed in a
refrigerated cabinet. Extraction solvent (0.9 liters of freon or
methylene chloride) was initially added to the sampling collection
container. The solvent and sample were mixed continuously by means
of a magnetic stirrer. The temperature of the refrigerated cabinet
was maintained at 10°C (50°F) to keep the extraction solvent from
boiling off. Aliquots of sample (55 ml for a 72-hr composite and
80 ml for a 48-hr composite) were collected every 15 minutes. The
time interval was controlled by a timer.
Extraction of the solvent from the composite water sample was
made with a modified 1-liter Imhoff cone. The Imhoff cone was en-
larged to accommodate a 2-liter sample and a teflon stopcock was
attached to the bottom so that the extract could be drained off.
The sample extraction procedure used was as follows:
1. The Imhoff cone was cleaned by thoroughly rinsing with tap
water followed by a careful rinse down the sides with 100 to 200 ml
of acetone.
2. At the end of the sampling period, most of the water was dis-
charged until only the solvent and about 500 to 700 ml of water were
left. The amount of water poured off was measured and recorded.
3. The remaining solvent-water mixture was poured into the
Imhoff cone and the two layers were allowed to separate for about
one minute. The organic layer was emptied into a sample container.
From 20 to 50 ml solvent was used to clean the sides of the Imhoff
cone. This solvent was also decanted into the sample container.
-------
16
4. The amount of water left in the cone was measured.
5. Sodium sulfate (50 grams) was added to the solvent carefully
to avoid splashing. After the sodium sulfate was added, the cap was
replaced and the container was shaken vigorously for 30 seconds.
6. The date, sample location, and volume of water in the com-
posite sample were recorded on the bottle containing the solvent.
7. The sample was iced and transported to the NFIC-Denver
laboratories for analysis.
Grab samples were collected in glass sample containers pre-rinsed
in acetone and methylene chloride. Samples taken in the above contain-
ers were extracted with a freon or methylene chloride solvent. A 2-liter
glass separatory funnel was used as the separation container. The sample
extraction procedure used was as follows:
1. The separatory funnel was cleaned by adding 100 ml of solvent,
mixed thoroughly, and drained through the stopcock. This procedure was
done twice.
2. The water sample was poured from the sample bottle to the
separatory funnel and 100 ml of solvent was used to rinse the sample
bottle.
3. The two layers were allowed to separate and the solvent
layer drained into a 250-ml sample bottle.
4. The extraction was repeated using 50 ml of solvent. When
completed, this extract was added to the 250-ml sample bottle.
Sodium sulfate (20 grams) was added, the sample iced and then shipped
air freight to the NFIC-D laboratory for analysis.
-------
17
REFERENCES
I/ Investigation of Pesticide Pollution of the Interstate and
International Waters of the Lower Colorado River Basin-A
Preliminary Report., U.S. Department of the Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Denver, Colo.,
1968. Unpublished Report.
2/ Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters in Arizona, Arizona
State Department of Health, Phoenix, Arizona., July, 1968.
3.7 Water Quality Control Policy for the Colorado River in California,
Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, Indio,
California, March, 1967.
4/ Macek, K. J., Rogers, C.R., Stalling, D.L., and Korn, S., "The
Uptake, Distribution, and Elimination of Dietary C-DDT and
C-Dieldrin in Rainbow Trout", Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society, 99 (4), 1970, pp 689-695.
57 Bell, H. L., An Appraisal of Pesticide Usage and Surface Water
Quality Effects in the United States, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Field Investigations Center-Denver, Denver, Colo.,
1974.
-------
18
APPENDIX
-------
TABLE 1
SAMPLING STATIONS
LOWER COLORADO RIVER
PESTICIDE INVESTIGATION
19
Sta.
No.
Description
Colorado River upstream of
Headgate Rock Dam
Colorado River upstream of
CRIR Upper Main Drain-
Type Remarks
B^ C— Control station upstream
of the study area
B Representative of water
quality in Colorado River
upstream of CRIR Upper
Main Drain
CRIR Upper Main Drain
at mouth
Colorado River downstream
from CRIR Upper Main Drain
Colorado River upstream of
CRIR Lower Main Drain
BC Drainage suspected of
containing pesticides
B Monitors effects of dis-
charge of pesticides by
CRIR Upper Main Drain
B Representative of water
quality In Colorado River
upstream of CRIR Lower
Main Drain
CRIR Lower Main Drain
at mouth
Colorado River downstream
from CRIR Lower Main Drain
BC Drainage suspected of
containing pesticides
B Monitors effects of dis-
charge of pesticides by
CRIR Lower Main Drain
10
11
Colorado River upstream of
PVID=- Drain
Palo Verde Drain at Highway
78 Crossing
Palo Verde Drain at mouth
Colorado River downstream
from PVID Drain
B Representative of water
quality in Colorado River
upstream of PVID Drain
BC Drainage suspected of
containing pesticides
B Drainage suspected of
containing pesticides
B Monitors effects of dis-
charge of pesticides by
PVID Drain
12
Gila River near mouth
BC Flow reconstituted by
drainage from Welton-
Mohawk Irrigation District
and North Gila Valley.
Suspected pesticide pol-
lution source.
13
14
Colorado River at Yuma BC
Water Treatment Plant Intake
Yuma Project Reservation
Division Main Drain
BC
One of two sources of
domestic water supply for
Yuma Arizona. Water quality
is affected by upstream ir-
rigation drains. Represen-
tative of water quality
upstream of Reservation
Main Drain
Drainage suspected of
containing pesticides.
-------
TABLE 1 (Cont.)
SAMPLING STATIONS
LOWER COLORADO RIVER
PESTICIDE INVESTIGATION
20
Sta.
No.
15
16
17
18
Description
Colorado River downstream
from Reservation Main Drain
Yuma Main Canal at Colorado
River Siphon
19
Colorado River at the
Northerly International
Boundary
Yuma Project Valley
Division Main Drain
Welton-Mohawk Drain at
Yuma Water Treatment Plant
Type Remarks
B Monitors effects of dis-
charge of pesticides by
Reservation Main Drain
C One of two sources of
domestic water supply for
Yuma Arizona. Representative
of water quality in All-
Amerlcan Canal which is
domestic water supply for
eleven communities In
Southern California
BC Monitors effects of pesticide
pollution sources within
the study area. Evaluates
pesticide content of
Colorado River water
entering Mexico.
BC Drainage suspected of
containing pesticides.
Drain crosses Southerly
International Boundary
near San Luis, Arizona-
Sonora
C Drainage suspected of
containing pesticides
a/ Biological evaluation site.
b/ Chemical evaluation site.
c/ Colorado River Indian Reservation.
d_/ Palo Verde Irrigation District.
-------
21
TABLE 2
AChE ACTIVITY LEVELS OF EXPOSED CHANNEL CATFISH
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Sta.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
17
18
Location
Headgate Rock Dam-
Upstream of CRIR Upper Main
Drain"'
CRIR Upper Main Drain
Downstream from CRIR Upper
Main DrainS/
Upstream of CRIR Lower^
Main Drain
CRIR Lower Main Drain
Downstream from CRIR Lower
Main Drain"-/
Upstream of Palo Verde Drain-
Palo Verde Drain at Hwy 78
Palo Verde Drain at Mouth
Downstream from Palo Verde
Drain57
Colorado River at Yuma
Water Treatment Plant
Intake^/
Yuma Project Reservation
Main Drain
Downstream from Yuma Project
Reservation Main Drain£/
Northerly International-
Boundary
Yuma Project Valley Main Drain
at San Luis
Control - Unexposed
TOTALS (Excluding Control)
No. of
Samples
7
6
9
4
7
7
7
9
10
10
10
11
13
11
12
11
63
144
Dates
7/30-8/30
7/30-8/9
7/30-9/9
8/16-9/9
7/30-9/9
7/30-9/9
7/30-8/20
7/30-9/9
7/30-9/9
7/30-9/9
7/30-9/9
7/22-9/9
7/23-9/9
7/22-9/9
7/22-9/3
7/22-9/9
7/19-9/9
No. of
Fish
Analyzed
35
29
47
17
32
35
35
46
50
52
49
57
66
63
66
54
313
733
AChE .
Activity^'
Range
1.29-1.44
1.08-1.44
1.26-1.44
1.11-1.42
1.08-1.47
1.23-1.41
1.26-1.42
1.29-1.42
1.14-1.47
1.36-1.44
1.23-1.52
1.34-1.59
1.32-1.53
1.30-1.52
1.27-1.53
1.22-1.42
1.21-1.66
1.08-1.59
AChE .
Activity5-'
Mean
1.35
1.33
1.37
1.29
1.33
1.31
1.34
1.36
1.33
1.40
1.38
1.43
1.41
1.42
1.39
1.31
1.41
1.37
a/ Expressed as micromoles of acetycholine hydrolized per hour per milligram of brain tissue.
b/ Stations on the Colorado River.
-------
TABLE 3
PESTICIDE RESIDUE ANALYSES OF NATIVE FISH
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973.
22
Location
Date
Collected
Species
No. Fish
per
Sample
Pesticide
Concentration
(Whole Fish)
(yg/g)
Upstream of Palo
a/
Verde Diversion Dam-
Upstream of Palo
Verde Diversion Dam
Upstream of
a/
Imperial Dam—
Hittry Lake
Hittry Lake
Yuma Project Valley
Division Main Drain
Yuma Project Valley
Division Main Drain
Yuma Project Valley
Division Main Drain
Yuma Project Valley
Division Main Drain
8/23/73 Largemouth Bass 1
8/23/73 Buffalo 2
8/23/73 Bluegill 1
7/16/73 Largemouth Bass 2
7/16/73 Channel Catfish 2
7/16/73 Largemouth Bass 1
7/16/73 Bluegill 1
7/16/73 Smallmouth Bass 2
7/16/73 Buffalo 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.30 (DDT)
ND
0.36 (DDT)
0.18 (DDT)
a./ Stations on the Colorado River.
b/ ND = None Detected.
-------
23
TABLE 4
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
7/20
7/23
7/25
7/27
7/30
8/01
8/03
8/06
8/08
8/10
8/13
8/15
8/17
8/22
8/22
8/24
8/24
8/27
8/27
8/29
8/29
8/31
8/31
9/03
9/03
9/05
9/07
Type of
Sample
CRIR
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Llq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Llq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Duration
(hr)
Upper Main
(Station No,
48
72
48
48
72
48
48
72
48
48
72
48
48
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
Volume of
Water Sampled
(liters)
Drain
. 3)
102
155
113
101
157
108
107
110
116
103
167
117
50
106
20
105
14.8
247
18.5
132
13
122
8.0
189
16.2
73
75
Pesticides .
Concentration—
ND*'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA^
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
-------
24
TABLE 4 (Cent.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
7/20
7/20
7/25
7/25
7/27
7/27
8/01
8/01
8/03
8/03
8/08
8/15
8/15
8/17
8/17
8/22
8/24
8/24
8/27
8/31
8/31
9/03
9/03
9/05
9/05
9/07
9/07
Type of
Sample
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Liq. Comp
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Resin Col
Liq . Comp
Duration
(hr)
CRIR Lower Main
(Station No.
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
72
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
Volume of
Water Sampled
(liters)
Drain
6)
28
11.2
22
2.6
29
2.6
73
12.2
42
7.5
26
21
8
31
20
56
43
8.1
96
.48
7.2
78
10.0
64
8.0
38
5.5
Pesticides .
Concentration—
ND
si4/
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
-------
25
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
7/27
7/30
8/01
8/01
8/03
8/06
8/08
8/08
8/10
8/10
8/13
8/13
8/15
8/15
8/17
8/17
8/20
8/20
8/22
8/22
8/24
8/24
8/27
8/27
8/29
8/31
8/31
9/03
9/03
Type of
Sample
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Volume of
Duration Water Sampled
(hr) (liters)
Palo Verde Drain
(Station No. 10)
48
72
48
48
48
72
48 .
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
72
72
51
165
82
12
101
154
90
13
112
13
154
14
83
12
117
18.5
160
14
. 97
, 14
103
14.8
140
16.5
92
84
16.5
152
14.5
Pesticides .
Concentration—
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
-------
26
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
9/05
9/05
9/07
9/07
Type of
Sample
Palo
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Duration
(hr)
Verde Drain
(Station No.
48
48
48
48
Glla River near
(Station No.
8/03
8/03
8/06
8/06
8/08
8/08
8/10
8/10
8/13
8/13
8/15
8/15
8/17
8/17
8/20
8/20
8/24
8/24
8/27
8/29
8/29
8/31
8/31
9/03
9/03
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
Volume of
Water Sampled
(liters)
(Cont.)
10)
89
12.0
191
16.5
Mouth
12)
75
14.0
65
14.5
85
15.0
102
15.0
162
10.0
85
13
95
9.0
0
10.5
94
16.5
74
.86
13
96
16
137
15
Pesticides .
Concentration—
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
-------
27
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIOUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
Type of
Sample
Volume of
Duration Water Sampled
(hr) (liters)
Colorado River at
Yuma Water Treatment Plant
(Station No. 13)
7/20
7/20
7/23
7/23
7/25
7/25
8/15
8/15
8/20
8/22
8/22
8/24
8/24
8/27
8/27
9/05
9/05
9/07
9/07
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
Intake
122
15.2
148
13.2
104
16.1
120
14.0
96
116
18.0
113
4
169
15
HI
16
119
17
Pesticides .
Concentration—
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
Welton-Mohawk Drain at
Yuma Water Treatment Plant
(Station No. 19)
7/27
7/27
7/30
7/30
8/01
8/01
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
48
48
72
72
48
48
89 '
14
133
9.5
224
12.0
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
-------
28
TABLE 4 (Cent.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
8/03
8/03
8/06
8/06
8/08
8/08
8/10
8/10
8/13
8/13
8/29
8/29
8/31
8/31
9/03
9/03
Type of
Sample
Welton
Yuma
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Duration
(hr)
Mohawk Drain at
Water Treatment
(Station No. 19)
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
Volume of
Water Sampled
(liters)
(Cont.)
Plant
201
11.0
173
17.0
130
15.0
141
9.0
197
15.5
78
14
110
13
166
10
Pesticides .
a /
Concentration—
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
Yuma Project Reservation
Main Drain
7/23
7/23
7/25
7/25
7/27
7/27
7/30
7/30
8/01
8/01
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
(Station No. 14)
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
132
9.5
101
8.6
103
8.1
154
14.0
100
16.0
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
-------
29
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIOUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
Type of
Sample
Duration
(hr)
Volume of
Water Sampled
(liters)
Pesticides ,
Concentration^-
Yuma Project Reservation
Main Drain (Cont.)
(Station No. 14)
8/03
8/03
8/06
8/06
8/08
8/08
8/10
8/10
8/13
8/13
8/15
8/15
8/17
8/17
8/20
8/20
8/22
8/22
8/24
8/24
8/27
8/27
8/29
8/29
8/31
8/31
9/03
9/03
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
103
19
147
16.4
100
15.1
103
16.0
157
19.0
107
18.5
99
17.5
131
13
100
16.0
99
18
148
18
96
10
68
13
133
13
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
-------
30
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
Type of
Sample
Volume of
Duration Water Sampled
(hr) (liters)
Pesticides .
Concentration--
Yuma Project Reservation
Main Drain (Cont.)
(Station No. 14)
9/05
9/05
9/07
9/07
7/20
7/20
7/23
7/23
7/25
7/25
7/27
7/27
7/30
7/30
8/01
8/01
8/03
8/03
8/06
8/06
8/08
8/08
8/10
8/10
8/13
8/13
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
48
48
48
48
Yuma Main Canal at
Colorado River Siphon
(Station No. 16)
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
95
16.5
99
14
88
15.0
149
13.0
97
16.0
97
15
142
13.0
99
15.5
101
15.6
146
14.6
99
14.5
99
9.5
155
14.5
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
-------
31
TABLE 4 (Cent.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
Type of
Sample
Volume of
Duration Water Sampled
(hr) (liters)
Pesticides ,
Concentration—
Yuma Main Canal at
Colorado River Siphon (Cont.)
(Station No. 16)
8/15
8/15
8/17
8/17
8/20
8/20
8/22
8/22
8/24
8/24
8/27
8/27
8/29
8/29
8/31
8/31
9/03
9/03
9/07
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq • Comp •
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
Colorado River at
Northern International
(Station No. 17)
7/23
7/23
7/25
7/25
7/27
7/27
7/30
7/30
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
48
48
48
48
48
48
72
72
108
17.0
101
19.0
153
11
98
16.0
99
16.5
146
16
182
14
106
15
129
14
133
Border
48
17.5
82
16.0
90
16.0
148
17.5
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
-------
32
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
8/01
8/01
8/03
8/03
8/06
8/06
8/08
8/08
8/10
8/13
8/15
8/17
8/20
8/22
8/24
8/27
8/29
8/31
9/03
9/05
9/07
Type of
Sample
Northern
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resiii Col.
Resin Col.
Volume of
Duration Water Sampled
(hr) (liters)
Colorado River at
International Border
(Station No. 17)
\
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
72
48
48
72
48
48
72
48
48
72
48
48
(Cont.)
93
16.1
110
16.3
131
13.0
74
8.3
76
24
107
55
124
91
110
148
96
102
128
91
95
Pesticides ,
Concentration—
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
Yuma Project Valley Division
Main Drain at San Luis
(Station No. 18)
7/20
7/20
7/23
7/23
7/25
7/25
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
48
48
72
72
48
48
82
8.8
158
14
82
12.8
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
-------
33
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
RESULTS OF RF.SIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSrS
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Becinnlnp:
Date
7/27
Till
7/30
7/30
8/01
8/01
8/03
8/03
8/06
8/06
8/08
8/08
8/10
8/10
8/13
8/13
8/15
8/15
8/17
8/17
8/20
8/20
8/22
8/24
8/27
8/29
8/29
8/31
8/31
Type of
S amp 1 e
Yuma
Main
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Liq. Comp.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Resin Col.
Liq . Comp .
Duration
(hr)
Volume of
Hater Sampled
(liters)
Pesticides ,
Concentration—
Project Valley Division
Drain at San Luis (Cont.)
(Station Mo. 18)
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
48
48
72
72
48
48
72
48
48
48
48
109
19
142
15.5
79
15.5
122
15.5
159
16.5
98
10.4
96
8.0
142
7.0
97
19.5
92
18.5
118
12.0
45
97
138
98
16
87
7
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
-------
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
RESULTS OF RESIN COLUMN AND LIQUID COMPOSITE ANALYSES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Beginning
Date
Type of
Sample
Duration
(hr)
Volume of
Water Sampled
(liters)
Pesticides ,
Concentration^-
Yuma Project Valley Division
Main Drain at San Luis (Cont.)
(Station No. 18)
9/03 Resin Col. 72 139 NA
9/03 Liq. Comp, 72 19 NA
9/05 Resin Col. 48 84 ND
9/05 Liq. Comp. 48 13 NA
9/07 Resin Col. 48 98 ND
9/07 Liq. Comp. 48 15 NA
a/ Results above background and blanks of gas chromatographic analyses using
EC, AF, and Coulson detectors.
b_/ None Detected.
c/ Not Analyzed. Samples not analyzed were collected to insure that sufficient
samples would be available for additional analyses if high pesticide concen-
trations were detected.
d/ This sample was lost during analysis.
-------
TABLE 5
RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF WATER GRAB SAMPLES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
35
Location
Headgate Rock Darn^
Headgate Rock Dam-
Headgate Rock Dam-
Gaging Station CRIR Upper Main Drain
Upstream of Canal Spillway at CRIR
Upper Main Drain
Upstream of Confluence with Gila River—
Upstream of Confluence with Gila River-
All American Canal at Control Structure
Settling Basin
All American Canal at Control Structure
Settling Basin
All American Canal at Control Structure
Settling Basin
Colorado River Upstream of Imperial Dam-
Colorado River Upstream of Imperial Dam-
Colorado River Upstream of Imperial Dam-
Colorado River Downstream from—
Imperial Dam
Colorado River Downstream from—
Imperial Dam
Colorado River Downstream from—
Imperial Dam
Colorado River at No. 4 Outfall-
of Desllting Works
Colorado River at No. 4 Outfall-
of Desilting Works
a/
Colorado River at No. 4 Outfall—
of Desilting Works
Date
7/17
8/22
9/09
7/19
7/19
7/17
8/19
7/18
8/19
9/08
7/18
8/19
9/08
7/18
8/19
9/08
7/19
8/19
9/08
Results of
GC Analysis
«£'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
V
a/ Stations on the Colorado River.
b/ None detected.
-------
TABLE 6
RESULTS OF PESTICIDES ANALYSES
TILE DRAINAGE
LOWER COLORADO RIVER
36
Sample
No.
BC //I
BC n
DF y/i
JN //I
CRIT //I
LMD #1
PVD #1
Source
Bill Chrismer Farms
#1 Tile Drain
Bill Chrismer Farms
#2 Tile Drain
Dana Fisher Farm
Tile Dr. Sump PVID
John Norton Farms
PVID Sec. 32T75R23E
Tile Drain Sump
Tile Drain to Lower
Main Drain
CRIR Lower Main Dr.
Near Mouth
Palo Verde Outfall Dr.
at Palo Verde
Date
Taken
11-5-73
11-5-73
11-5-73
11-5-73
11-5-73
11-5-73
11-5-73
Volume
(ml)
938
925
830
895
883
879
905
Pesticides
«ff
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
a/ None detected.
-------
37
TABLE 7
RESULTS OF SEDIMENT ANALYSES FOR TOXAPHENE RESIDUES
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
Location
Date
Results of ,
GC Analysis-'
CRIR Upper Main Drain
CRIR Lower Main Drain
Palo Verde Drain
Gila River near Mouth
Colorado River at Yuma Water
Treatment Plant Intake
Colorado River Downstream
from Yuma Project Reservation
Main Drain
Colorado River at
Northern International Border
Yuma Project Valley
Main Drain at San Luis
9/09
9/09
9/09
9/08
9/08
9/08
9/08
9/08
34% water
No Toxaphene detected
36% water
No Toxaphene detected
39% water
No Toxaphene detected
52% water
No Toxaphene detected
24% water
No Toxaphene detected
32% water
No Toxaphene detected
25% water
No Toxaphene detected
22% water
No Toxaphene detected
a/ Water analysis by weight loss.
-------
TABLE 8
WATER QUALITY DATA
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1973
38
Station
No. Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Headgate Rock Dam-
Upstream of CRIR ,
Upper Main Drain—
CRIR Upper Main
Drain at Mouth
Downstream from
CRIR Upper ,
Main Drain-
Upstream of CRIR ,
Lower Main Drain—
CRIR Lower Main
Drain at Mouth
Downstream from
CRIR Lower ,
Main Drain-
Upstream of Palo
Verde Drain-'
Palo Verde Drain
at Hwy 78
Palo Verde Drain
at Mouth
Downstream from .
Palo Verde Drain-'
Gila River near
Mouth
Colorado River at
Yuma Water
Treatment Plant
Intake-'
Yuma Project
Reservation
Main Drain
Downstream from
Yuma Project
Reservation .
Main Drain-
Yuma Main Canal
at Siphon
Northern Inter- .
national Border^
Yuma Project Valley
Main Drain at
San Luis
Welton-Mohawk Canal
at Yuma Water
Treatment Plant
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Avg
Range
Temperature
(°C) pll
25.0
22.0-28.0 7.2-8.4
27.0
23.0-31.0 7.5-8.6
26.0
22.0-30.0 7.5-8.3
26.0
23.0-29.0 7.4-8.3
26.8
23.5-30.0 7.4-8.6
26.5
23.0-30.0 7.2-8.2
28.0
26.0-30.0 7.3-8.2
27.5
25.0-30.0 7.3-8.4
29.0
25.0-33.0 6.9-8.3
29.0
26.0-32.0 7.5-8.4
28.5
26.0-31.0 7.7-8.4
31.0
25.0-37.0 7.5-8.6
28.5
24.0-33.0 7.2-8.2
25.7
21.0-30.5 7.2-8.2
29.0
25.0-33.0 7.1-8.2
28.0
25.0-31.0 7.1-8.2
29.0
25.0-33.0 7.4-8.0
30.0
26.0-34.0 7.3-8.1
26.5
23.0-30.0 7.4-8.3
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
7.2
6.4-8.3
8.1
6.4-9.4
7.2
4.8-8.8
7.3
5.5-9.0
8.2
6.4-9.7
7.4
5.4-9.2
7.1
6.2-8.4
7.9
6.0-10.2
7.0
5.2-7.9
8.3
5.7-11.0
8.1
6.3-10.5
11.4
2.6-25.0
7.1
5.9-8.8
6.5
5.2-9.2
6.8
4.0-10.1
8.4
7.1-10.4
7.0
5.1-9.5
6.9
5.7-9.0
8.4
6.8-10.7
a/ Stations on the Colorado River.
-------
39
TABLE 9
EFFICIENCY OF RESIN COLUMNS FOR
RECOVERY OF PESTICIDES
(0.1 mg/1 SOLUTIONS) FROM WATER
FIRST TRIAL
Recovery %
Compound Day 1 Day 11
parathion 95 12Q&
phosdrin b7 k/
furadan b_/ b_/
zectran b_/ b_/
carbaryl b_/ b_/
SECONDARY TRIAL
parathion 97 108
methyl parathion 114 105
thimet b_/ b/
diazinon 121 114
a/ Recoveries greater than 100 percent indicate that recoveries with
the resin columns were equal to or greater than those obtained by
conventional L/L extraction.
b_/ These compounds degraded too rapidly to yield useful results.
In all cases, the compounds had entirely or nearly disappeared
by the second grab sample (12 hours after addition of the
pesticide). The pH of the water was approximately 8.5.
------- |