OPTIMIZING CONTROL STRATEGIES
UPPER
Gay lord V. Skogefboe
Department of Agricultural anl Chemical Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
January 1981
AER80-81RGE-WRW-GVS1
-------
OPTIMIZING SALINITY CONTROL STRATEGIES
FOR THE
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
by
Robert G. Evans
Wynn R. Walker
Gaylord V. Skogerboe
Department of Agricultural and Chemical Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Grant No. R-806148
Project Officer
James P. Law, Jr.
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
ABSTRACT
OPTIMIZING SALINITY CONTROL STRATEGIES
FOR THE
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
Salinity is the most serious water quality problem in
the Colorado River Basin. The impact, felt largely in the
Lower Basin, is acute because the basin is approaching
conditions of full development and utilization of all avail-
able water resources. Current estimates indicate that each
mg/1 increase in concentration at Imperial Dam results in
$450,000 annual damages. Therefore, in order to offset
salinity caused by the development of the vast energy
supplies and to allow the seven Colorado River Basin states
to fully utilize their allocation of Colorado River water,
it is necessary to implement cost-effective salinity control
programs in the basin.
A simple multi-level nonlinear optimization procedure
was utilized to formulate the most cost-effective array of
salinity control strategies for the Upper Colorado River
Basin. The incremental cost-effectiveness methodology
qualitatively indicates the location and general type of
alternatives to be implemented in a least cost basin-wide
salinity control program. The results also qualitatively
indicated the anticipated salt load reduction and expected
annual costs of each salinity reduction increase for any
preselected level of control. The analysis was limited to
-------
projects designated in PL 93-320. Costs and salinity con-
tributions associated with various alternatives were gener-
ated using January, 1980, estimated conditions.
Cost-effectiveness functions were developed for each of
the major canals and laterals, the aggregate laterals under
each canal, and an array of on-farm improvements for each
agricultural project area. Similar functions were also
developed for point sources such as Paradox Valley, Glenwood-
Dotsero Springs and Crystal Geyser. Collection and desali-
nation of agricultural return flows were also considered.
Marginal cost analysis based on current damage esti-
mates indicate that the optimal cost-effective salinity
control program in the Upper Basin would cost about $30
million annually and remove about 1.2 million megagrams of
salt per year. In addition, it was concluded that mainte-
nance of the 1972 salinity levels at Imperial Dam cannot be
cost-effectively achieved and should be allowed to rise by
as much as 180 mg/1. Optimal salinity control programs are
presented for the individual alternatives, for individual
areas or projects, for the states of Colorado and Utah and
the Upper Colorado River Basin. Sensitivity analysis showed
that very large errors in costs and component salt loading
would have to be evident to change the optimal salinity
control strategy for the Upper Colorado River Basin.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant
No. R-806148 by Colorado State University under the sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
111
-------
report covers the period of September 18, 1978 to January 17,
1981.
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is essentially the Ph.D. dissertation of
the senior author (Evans, 1980). Dr. Walker served as the
dissertation advisor and project leader.
Financial support for the study was furnished by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Grant No. R-806148.
The efforts and advice of the EPA Project Officer,
Dr. James P. Law, have been extremely helpful in the suc-
cessful conclusion of this project. He has generously given
of his time to cooperatively achieve the goals of this
project.
To name the many governmental and private individuals
who gave freely of their time would be impossible, but their
valuable assistance is very much appreciated. Persons from
the Water and Power Resources Service who deserve special
mention are Mr. Robert Strand of the Water Quality Office,
Mr. Ken Ouellette and Mr. Jack Cunningham of the Grand
Junction Projects Office, Mr. Mark Buetler and Mr. Fred
Barnes of the Central Utah Project Office in Provo, Utah,
whose cooperation and assistance were extremely beneficial.
The assistance of Mr. Jim Louthan, Mr. Duane Klaitun and Mr.
Earl Hess of the USDA, Soil Conservation Service, in their
respective states of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado is grate-
fully acknowledged. Mr. Gene Reetz in the Denver Regional
Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was also
very helpful and his assistance is appreciated.
-------
A very special thanks to Ms. Mary Lindberg for her
good-natured and expeditious typing of the early drafts of
this manuscript. Also, a heartfelt thank you to Ms. CeCe
Cupparo and Mrs. Peggy Stumpf for their cheerful assistance
in typing the final draft. The work of Mr. John Brookman
and Ms. Hanae Akari in drafting many of the figures in the
text is very much appreciated.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
FIGURES ix
TABLES xiii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES OF INVESTIGATION 4
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION 5
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 9
2 CONCLUSIONS 14
3 RECOMMENDATIONS 18
4 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER
COLORADO RIVER BASIN 21
GEOLOGY 21
WATER SUPPLY OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER . 27
DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN. . 38
5 EXISTING UPPER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PLANS. 48
6 METHOD OF ANALYSIS 59
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 59
SEGREGATION OF SALINITY SOURCES 70
EVALUATION OF SALINITY CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES 74
7 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 109
PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS 109
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS 112
AREAWIDE ANALYSIS OF SALINITY CONTROL
PROGRAMS 116
IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DESALINATION . 136
"SAVED" WATER 137
AGGREGATE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAMS ... 140
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 146
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 152
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
REFERENCES 160
BIBLIOGRAPHY 176
APPENDIX 1, BASIC HYDROLOGIC AND SALINITY
DATA 187
APPENDIX 2, DESCRIPTION OF PL 93-320
SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT IN
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN ... 202
APPENDIX 3, COSTS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS . . 275
APPENDIX 4, OPTIMAL CANAL LINING STRATEGIES. 284
Vlll
-------
l.TT.T OF FIHURKS
Figure Page
1 Colorado River Basin 2
2 The Upper Colorado River Basin 15
3 Schematic geologic cross-section through
the Upper Colorado River Basin 16
4 Areal extent of the primary sedimentary
marine shales and sandstone in the Upper
Colorado River Basin 18
5 Surface water salinity concentrations
in the Upper Colorado River Basin ... 21
6 Isoheytal map of average annual precipi-
tation in the Upper Colorado River Basin 23
7 Map of average stream volume and total
dissolved solids concentration of the
Colorado River at Lee's Ferry, Arizona . 24
8 Areas of irrigation development in the
Upper Colorado River Basin 33
9 Coal deposits in the Upper Colorado
River Basin 34
10 Oil shale deposits in the Upper
Colorado River Basin 35
11 Known major uranium deposits in the
Upper Colorado River Basin 36
12 Significant tar sands deposits in the
Upper Colorado River nasin 37
13 Salinity control projects designated
by PL 93-320 48
14 Salinity increase at Imperial Dam
projected by the Water and Power
Resources Service 50
15 Schematic diagram of the multilevel
optimization analysis 54
16 Schematic representation of the
simplified optimization procedure
for each alternative or area 60
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
17 General flow chart of the canal cost-
effective function and aggregate
optimization 64
18 Dimensionless optimal on-farm salinity
control implementation program 89
19 Dimensionless on-farm cost-
effectiveness function 90
20 Annual costs of salt removed by reverse
osmosis (RO) desalination process at
various feedwater concentrations .... 94
21 General schematic flow chart of
project area, state and basin-/ ti.de
optimization and development of the
cost-effectiveness function 103
22 Example of salinity control cost-
effectiveness function for a 750,000
Mgm reduction and an annual cost of
$30 million 106
23 Optimal Grand Valley Salinity Control
Program 112
24 Optimal salinity control programs for
the Lower Gunnison with and without
winter water in the canals 115
25 Optimal salinity control program for
the Uncompahgre Valley with no winter
livestock water in the canals 118
26 Optimal Uintah Basin Salinity Control
program 120
27 Optimal salinity control program for the
Price-San Rafael River and Muddy Creek
drainages without winter livestock
water in the canals 122
28 Optimal salinity control program for
McElmo Creek 126
29 Optimal Big Sandy Salinity Control
Program 128
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
30 Effect and cost of desalination for
agricultural salinity control 131
31 Optimal Upper Colorado Piver Basin
Salinity Control by alternatives .... 135
3?. Optimal Upper Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program delineated
by state 136
33 Optimal salinity control program for
Colorado delineated by project and
by alternatives 140
34 Sensitivity of the optimal Upper
Colorado River Basin cost-effectiveness
function to a 50 percent increase in
lateral and on-farm costs for every
area, holding all other costs constant . 142
35 Cost-effective implementation strategy
for optimal level of salinity control
alternatives in the Upper Colorado
River Basin 146
36 Cost-effective implementation strategy
by state for optimal levels of salinity
control in the Upper Colorado River
Basin 148
37 Comparison of average and actual
marginal costs 149
2-1 The Grand Valley Canal System also
showing location of the Grand Valley
Salinity Control Demonstration Project
and Stage One of the USDI, WPRS .... 203
2-2 Irrigation areas in the Lower Gunnison
Salinity Control Project area 211
2-3 Areal extent of Mancos shale and
terrace deposits in the Lower Gunnison . 213
2-4 Irrigated lands in Uintah Basin, Utah . 225
2-5 Canal system in the Uintah Basin .... 227
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
2-6 USDI and USDA study areas in the
Uintah Basin 234
2-7 Irrigated lands, canal distribution
systems and energy development in the
Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek drainages . 237
2-8 Location map of McF.lmo Creek Salinity
Control Project and the Dolores Project. .750
2-9 Pig Sandy Salinity Control Project
area 258
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Paqe
Estimated 1980 depletions and salt loads
of CRSP and salinity control projects
which are constructed and/or authorized
for construction 27
2 Upper Colorado River future energy-fuels
related development proposals 38
3 Summary of salt loading attributed to
the various sources and the estimated
attainable salinity control levels for
total programs of projects designated
by PL 93-320 in the Upper Colorado
River Basin 51
4 Suggested naximum attainable irrigation
application efficiencies in the Upper
Colorado River Basin 81
5 Annualized average costs for selected
irrigation systems 84
6 Point source contributions in the Upper
Colorado River Basin 100
7 Optimal salinity control cost effective-
ness parameters for agricultural
salinity control programs in the Upper
Colorado River Basin 110
8 Optimal Grand Valley Salinity Control
Program 113
9 Optimal Lower Cunnison Salinity Control
Program 117
10 Optimal Uintah Basin Salinity Control
Program 121
11 Optimal Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek
Drainages Salinity Control Program .... 124
12 Optimal McElroo Creek Salinity Control
Program 127
13 Optimal Upper Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Proqram 134
xlii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
Recent best-estimate of Upper Basin use
of Colorado River water in thousands of
hectare-meter including known proposed
energy development 137
1-1 Compilation of estimates of salinity
contributions for the various areas in
the Upper Colorado River Basin 188
1-2 Significant identified point sources in
the Upper Colorado River Basin, springs,
and abandoned flowing wells 196
1-3 Usable active storage capacity of major
irrigation and power reservoirs in the
Upper Colorado River Basin 198
2-1 Mean annual Grand Valley water and salt
budgets 205
2-2 Maximum salt load reductions of the Grand
Valley canal systems 207
2-3 Maximum salt load reduction from laterals
in the Grand Valley lateral systems . . . 208
2-4 Optimization parameters for the Grand
Valley canal systems 208
2-5 Maximum salt load reduction for canals
and ditches in the Lower Gunnison system . 214
2-6 Maximum salt load reduction of the Lower
Gunnison lateral systems 217
2-7 Optimization parameters for the Lower
Gunnison canal systems 218
2-8 Maximum salt load reduction for canal
and major lateral lining in the Uintah
r.asin 229
2-9 Maximum salt load reduction of the Uintah
Basin lateral systems 231
2-10 Optimization parameters for the Uintah
canal system 232
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
Maximum salt load reduction of canals in
the Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek drainages 242
2-12 Maximum salt load reduction from laterals
in the Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek
drainages 243
2-13 Optimization parameters for the laterals
in the Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek canal
systems 244
2-14 Maximum salt load reduction for canal
and major lateral lining in McF.lmo Creek,
Colorado 253
2-15 Optimization parameters for the major
McElmo Creek canals and laterals 254
3-1 Cost index comparisons for surface
water supply 277
3-2 Annual maintenance costs as a percent
total initial capital costs of each
component 278
3-3 Representative labor requirements in
hours per acre per irrigation 279
3-4 Expected lifetime of irrigation equipment
with good maintenance 280
3-5 Approximate materials cost for large lots
of commonly available sizes of irrigation
pipe as of February, 1979 282
4-1 Optimal canal lining program for the
Grand Valley, Colorado 285
4-2 Optimal large canal lining program for
the Lower Gunnison, Colorado 286
4-3 Optimal salt control lining program for
the Uintah Basin, Utah 289
4-4 Optimal canal lining program for the Price-
San Rafael-Muddy Creek drainages, Utah . . 293
4-5 Optimal canals and major lateral lining
program for the McElmo Creek drainage,
Colorado 294
xv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The primary water quality problem in the Colorado River
Basin (Fig. 1) is salinity. This concern tends to be so
dominant that it overshadows most other water quality con-
siderations. Fortunately, the salt pollution of the Colorado
River by either man-made or natural depletions and/or dis-
charges is not a general health hazard. Salinity is basi-
cally an economic problem in which a progressive build-up in
concentration toward the lower reaches causes a reduction of
the water's utility to urban and agricultural users.
Salinity increases in the Colorado River are not a
recent phenomenon. Salinity has been increasing as a
result of all water resource development projects since the
1800's when some degree of salt concentration due to irri-
gation was tolerated as the price for development (Law and
Skogerboe, 1972). Salinity levels also fluctuate with
natural weathering and runoff processes. The Colorado River
and its tributaries travel more than 2,300 km from the
headwaters in the Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of California
2
and drain about 622,000 km in seven states. The drainage
area is approximately one-twelfth of the area of the con-
terminous United States. The annual total salt burden is
about 10 million Megagrams (Mgm).
Concentrations of salinity in the Colorado River range
from less than 50 mg/1 in the high mountain headwaters to
-------
-2-
GRAND
DIVISION
SCALE
25 0 251 30 75 100 125 150 miles
50 0 50 100 ISO 200 280 kilom»»»r»
SAN JUAN
DIVISION
Figure 1. Colorado River Basin
-------
-3-
more than 850 mg/1 at Imperial Dam. Further deterioration
of Colorado River quality is expected as a result of water
and energy resource development. This will occur even if
salinity reduction measures are instituted although it would
occur at a slower rate. If no salinity control measures are
developed, it is anticipated that salinity increases at
Imperial Dam will range from 1,150 mg/1 (USDI, BR, 1979a) to
1,340 mg/1 (Colorado River Board of California, 1970) by the
year 2000.
All of the salinity control planning which has been done
to date has been oriented toward only reducing the salt load
of the Colorado River. The economics of control have not
been of overriding concern. Furthermore, development of
cost-effective programs or the construction of projects with
1 enefit-cost ratios greater than one has not been high prior-
ity even though costs have been compared to estimated annual
damages at Imperial Dam. The argument presented in favor of
the non-economic approach is that Congress (PL 93-320) man-
dated certain projects and that these projects would include
specific construction items such as canal linings. However,
since that legislation was passed the results of numerous
investigations have become available which permit the
formulation of cost-effective salinity control programs.
The control of salinity on the scale needed in the
Colorado River Basin will undoubtedly involve a combination
of several individual control measures in each area of
salinity contribution. For any specific source of salinity,
-------
-4-
local conditions will dictate that some measures will be
more feasible than others. Furthermore, the measures best
suited to an area's conditions change with the level of
control scheduled in the area. For example, in an irrigated
area contributing 500,000 Mgm to the river system annually,
of which 20 percent is to be controlled, lining several
miles of the major canals may be the least costly alter-
native. However, if the desired level of salinity control
was increased to 60 percent, the optimal salinity control
strategy may involve canal lining as well as several forms
of on-farm improvements. Any time more than a single
salinity control measure is employed, the relationship
between the marginal costs of control and the marginal
reductions in salinity will increase with the scale or
level of the program (Walker, 1978). Consequently, the most
important decision regarding salinity control in the Colorado
River Basin is the optimal level and manner of abatement to
be achieved at each salinity source.
OBJECTIVES OF INVESTIGATION
The principal objective of this research effort is to
apply an optimizational analysis to salinity control plan-
ning in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) in order to
identify the most cost-effective strategies for alleviating
salinity detriments downstream. Intermediate goals of the
project may be summarized as follows:
-------
-5-
(1) To delineate the regions in which salinity control
projects should be implemented to achieve the
maximum salinity reductions for various levels of
available funding;
(2) To evaluate the best salinity control policies as
functions of alternative water development sce-
narios in the basin, i.e., interbasin transfers,
energy industry developments, and expanded agri-
cultural diversions;
(3) To determine the impact of state and federal
policies on the costs of Upper Basin salinity
management plans; and
(4) To assess the sensitivity of the derived optimal
policies to assumptions regarding the physical
nature of the salinity system, and costs of
alternative control measures, and the effective-
ness of salinity control programs.
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The salinity problem in the Colorado River Basin is
characteristic of arid and semi-arid river systems approach-
ing conditions of full water resource development. Several
years of intensive research and demonstration of alternative
salinity control technologies have yielded results which
should be applicable throughout the river basins in the
western United States as they reach full development. The
Colorado River salinity control program, therefore, might be
expected to serve as a model for future efforts elsewhere.
One major aspect of the Colorado River Basin salinity
problem has not heretofor been addressed. An analysis
integrating the existing information concerning alternative
salinity control measures into a basin-wide policy for water
quality improvement has not been made. It was necessary to
take the final step in developing salinity control technology
-------
-6-
on a large scale. The preliminary basis for this type of
analysis has been developed by Walker (1978) and partially
tested by Walker et al. (1978).
This project was developed in order to evaluate the
alternative strategies for controlling salinity in the Upper
Basin, and therefore, identify components of individual
salinity programs throughout the Upper Basin in the context
of how best to use available funds. At the local scale,
only the results reported by Evans et al. (1978a,b), Plug
et al. (1977), Walker (1978) and Walker et al. (1978) have
been concerned with optimal salinity control strategies.
These studies have been completed in only one area, the
Grand Valley in western Colorado. Erlenkotter and Scherer
(1977) developed an economic optimization model for the
entire Colorado River Basin, but stopped short of an
ultimate framework for basin-wide salinity management.
This writing delineates a cost-effective salinity
control policy for future water resource development in the
Upper Colorado River Basin taking into account: (a) salin-
ity control; (b) energy development; and (c) new water
demands. The feasibility of maintaining 1972 levels of
salinity at Imperial Dam set forth by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the seven basin states has also been
evaluated. Under this criterion, it can be expected that
approximately 2 to 3 million Mgm of salt must be eliminated
from the flows passing into the Lower Basin in order to
offset the development of the remaining Upper Basin
-------
-7-
entitlements. This analysis delineates the regions and
expenditures in which salinity control projects should be
initiated to achieve these salt reductions at minimum cost.
The marginal costs and marginal benefits of control programs
are compared with respect to various levels of salinity
control.
The results also identify the optimal salinity control
policy for various levels of development, and can indicate
the best salinity management practices as a function of time
or development. Any new project which would be expected to
cause an increase in downstream salinity concentration
could be identified with the most cost-effective salinity
control project to offset its impact.
Conceivably, optimal salinity control strategies could
include indirect methods for individual water development
projects to offset their salinity detriments to the Colorado
River. A new project's salinity impact may be best cor-
rected by a water quality improvement program elsewhere in
the Basin. Consequently, a number of important institutional
issues can be expected to arise when considering salinity
control as a large scale problem. The optimal plan for
offsetting the salinity associated with water development in
one state may be the treatment of an existing system in
another state. If such a policy were to be constrained, by
not allowing an interstate or regional view of salinity
control, the costs would be higher. Comparison of the
optimal strategy with the corresponding constrained
-------
-8-
strategies indicate the added costs of individual
restrictions. Other results evaluate the problems of
treating one type of existing use, such as irrigated agri-
culture, to offset the salinity attributable to new water
developments.
There is by no means an absolute certainty in any
planning effort. Data must be collected and evaluated
during the course of time in order to update and refine
earlier conclusions. While this work is no exception, and
the strategies developed may be easily modified as new
information becomes available or political attitudes alter
the importance of salinity, the results illustrate an
important and necessary first step. Sensitivity analyses
have been used to identify important areas needing special
studies and particular data requirements which would most
effectively assist accurate determination of future programs
and policies.
The scope of this work, in a mathematical sense, is
also limited by the choice of optimization criteria.
Minimum capital, operation, and maintenance costs expressed
as an equivalent annual cost are used to systematically
compare salinity control alternatives. While recognizing
the much broader economic concepts that operate in the real
systems this more restricted indicator is believed to be
defensible. Most funding for salinity control projects, as
currently authorized, is expected to come from federal
sources because the real economic system is unable to return
-------
-9-
economic detriments to the salinity sources as a means of
self-regulation. In addition, legislative action has already
set constraints, on allowable Lower Basin salinity levels,
so the planning problem is not to solve the problem in an
economically optimum fashion, but to meet the standard.
Thus, minimizing costs is consistent with the problem
structure.
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Salinity of the Colorado River and its tributaries has
been the subject of many studies and investigations. Various
socio-economic, engineering, environmental and other aspects
of the salinity problem and potential control measures have
been pursued by the U.S. Department of the Interior; Water
and Power Resources (formerly the Bureau of Reclamation);
the U.S. Geological Survey; the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and its predecessor agencies; the Water Resources
Council, Colorado River Board of California; U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and Science and
Education Administration (Agricultural Research); state and
local governmental entities; and several universities and
consulting engineering firms.
In 1975 Utah State University prepared a comprehensive
regional assessment report for the National Commission on
Water Quality on the Impacts of PL 92-500 (Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and amendments of 1972) on the salinity
problem of the Colorado River (Utah State University, 1975).
-------
-10-
However, the majority of the conclusions were extrapolated
from results of studies on the Green River drainage in Utah.
Riley and Jurinak (1979) extended this work and suggest
approximate salt loading rates from the various areas in the
Upper Basin. A good summary of past and present research
and other salinity control programs of the Water and Power
Resources Service is contained in the most recent biannual
report, Progress Report No. 9, Quality of Water, Colorado
River Basin (USDI, BR, 1979a).
Differences among the various studies have been
inevitable and have been primarily centered around quantita-
tive historical salinity conditions, salt loadings, concen-
trating effects and respective magnitude of contribution
from the various sources and combinations of sources. These
numerical differences have been the result of nonuniformity
in data sets, procedures, assumptions, and, sometimes,
incorrect extrapolation of events and/or data. However, the
general qualitative conclusions and the stated needs for
control of most of these studies are basically similar. The
major sources of salinity are nonpoint natural sources,
irrigation nonpoint sources, natural and man-made point
sources, reservoir evaporation, out-of-basin transfers and
municipal and industrial uses. These studies will be men-
tioned in succeeding paragraphs where pertinent. There have
also been studies similar to this one and a brief review of
these may be helpful in setting forth the contributions of
this work.
-------
-11-
Thore are basically three sets of optimization studies
in the Upper Colorado River Basin which specifically identify
salinity as a goal. These are discussed in the following
paragraphs. Other indirect economic input-output studies
such as Howe et al. (1972) and Morris (1977) also evaluated
salinity effects but did no optimization. Bishop et al.
(1975) performed a linear programming analysis of the
effects of energy development in the Upper Basin on water
resources in Utah.
Erlenkotter and Scherer (1977) developed a fairly
comprehensive deterministic investment planning mixed-
integer optimization model for salinity control on the
Colorado River. They assumed given values of future diver-
sions and associated salt loads and examined the benefit-
cost balance between expenditures for salinity reduction,
associated with given projects, and the economic damages
which would be incurred if the expenditures were not made.
The deterministic simulation portion of the model also
permitted the projection of when and which projects should
be undertaken in a general sense. Scherer (1977) also
developed a static net benefit-maximizing model of irri-
gation related salinity control measures. However, these
models only indicated when total aggregate projects should
come on-line and did not provide for optimal combinations of
individual components from within the various projects for
the most cost-effective program. Erlenkotter and Scherer
(1977) and Scherer (1975) considered 15 basin-wide Water
-------
-12-
and Power Resources Service (WPRS) projects including
minimal on-farm programs in the Grand Valley and Uncompahgre
Valley. Consequently, the majority of the projects were
composed of only canal and lateral linings. Desalination
was not considered. Much of data used for the Grand Valley
and Uncompahgre Valley in Colorado was from a study by
Westesen (1975).
Flug et al. (1977) developed a multi-level minimum cost
linear programming model to evaluate impacts on the salinity
and quantity of flow in the Upper Colorado River Basin by
potential energy development. The results of this model
indicated that water availability would be the largest
constraint to energy development in the Upper Basin.
Development policies which utilized high salinity waters
could actually result in a net decrease in salinity at Lee's
Ferry, Arizona.
Narayanan et al. (1979) developed a uni-level linear
program model of the economic effect of water allocation
changes and salinity resulting from energy development in
the Upper Colorado River Basin. Changes in salinity were
predicted by a mass balance approach; and least-cost struc-
tural and nonstructural strategies to maintain desired
salinity levels were formulated. The "economic" optimal
salinity control concentration levels at Lee's Ferry were
identified under the objective function of maximizing joint
net returns of agriculture and energy outputs. This approach
solely utilized data from projects of the WPRS portions of
-------
-13-
the Colorado Salinity Control Program. The only on-farm
structural alternative considered was aggregate sprinkler
systems.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. The conceptual model, simple nonlinear optimization and
the resulting array of cost-effective salinity control
strategies for the Upper Basin represent and illustrate
the use of an easily used environmental quality planning
tool.
2. Cost-effective salinity control strategies to compensate
for new resource development or water transfers into or
out of the basin which affect salinity can be easily
developed and evaluayed.
3. As new data become available or changes in political
attitudes or directives may dictate, the optimal salin-
ity control strategies can be easily and continually
updated and re-evaluated.
4. The methodology and results indicate with a fair degree
of certainty the priority and magnitude of control for
each alternative, for each area, and for the basin-wide
PL 93-320 salinity control program.
5. Some degree of on-farm improvements and lateral linings
are cost-effective in every agricultural area examined
in the Upper Basin. However, this must be accompanied
by greatly increased technical assistance to the growers
by the implementing agency and/or extension personnel.
These programs are the most cost-effective and better
-------
-15-
information and/or data are not likely to affect their
implementation as a salinity control measure.
6. One hundred percent of the laterals or 58 percent of
the on-farm improvements (cutback irrigation) in the
Grand Valley should be constructed before lining any of
the Government Highline Canal. In fact, some on-farm
and lateral linings should be done in all agricultural
areas before canal lining is initiated.
7. At current damage estimates of $450,00/mg/l at Imperial
Dam, only about 57 percent of the canals in the Grand
Valley should be lined. The Grand Valley has the
largest amount of canals to be lined of any area at
this level of damages.
8. Most of the on-farm, lateral lining, and the very small
canal (actually smaller than many laterals) lining
salinity control program should be constructed in the
Lower Gunnison area before canal linings are initiated.
9. Programs in the Uintah Basin, Price-San Rafael rivers.
Muddy Creek, and McElmo Creek will basically consist of
on-farm and lateral linings with very little canal
lining.
10. The use of canals for winter livestock water causes
substantial salt loading from several areas in the
basin and contributes numerous local waterlogging and
soil salination problems.
-------
-16-
11. The barrier well network and Sublette Flat evaporation
area as proposed by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service,
and minimal on-farm improvements is the most cost-
effective salinity program for the Big Sand area in
Wyoming. The "buy-out" alternative as proposed by some
local landowners was evaluated and not found cost-
effective.
12. Collection and reverse osmosis desalination of agri-
cultural return flows should be included as a viable
salinity control alternative in all irrigated areas.
However, at current estimates of downstream damages,
desalination would not be implemented.
13. The by-pass alternative for the Paradox Valley was
evaluated and found to be more cost-effective than the
proposed Radium evaporation pond alternative. This was
primarily due to the greatly increased costs of evapor-
ation ponds.
14. The proposed desalination of the Glenwood-Dotsero
Springs in Colorado was evaluated in detail as part of
this study. It was concluded that the most economical
alternative was a primary reverse osmosis plant fol-
lowed by a much smaller secondary multi-stage flash
distillation unit. However, at current average damage
estimates, this project is marginally feasible.
-------
-17-
15. The use of average costs per mg/1 of treatment is mis-
leading and should not be used in the delineation or
phasing of salinity control projects.
16. At current average damage estimates, it is cost-
effective to treat only about 48 to 50 percent of the
total attainable salt load reduction from the projects
designated in PL 93-320.
17. All of this analysis points to the fact that the
arbitrary target of maintaining 1972 salinity levels at
Imperial Dam cannot be cost-effectively attained. In
fact, these results indicate that the target level
should be increased to about 1,030 or 1,040 mg/1 or
more.
18. Present trends indicate that all of the cost-effective
salinity control programs should be on-line no later
than 1995. The damage costs due to delayed construc-
tion of these projects can be substantial.
19. Sensitivity analysis of the data and the optimization
procedure indicate that substantial error in costs and
the respective salt load contributions of the indi-
vidual alternatives would have to occur to change the
optimal order of implementation of a basin-wide salin-
ity control program.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is necessary to determine the desired level of
salinity control which should be implemented as soon as
possible since this will dictate the type and extent of
many of the alternatives. This is especially the case
for on-farm improvements.
2. Because on-farm improvements and lateral linings are
cost-effective in all of the irrigated areas which were
examined in this analysis, it is recommended that the
list of areas included in PL 93-320 be expanded. It
appears that these basic on-farm improvements should be
implemented in all of the agricultural areas as the
initial most cost-effective salinity control program.
3. The Soil Conservation Service, the Extension Service
and the other technical agencies involved in salinity
control should make a long-term commitment of adequate
technical assistance to the growers. The on-going work
in the Grand Valley clearly indicates the need for this
type of program. It will be necessary to recruit and
specially train personnel for this type of activity.
4. On-farm improvement and lateral lining programs con-
sistent with selected levels of a basin-wide salinity
control policy should be started as soon as possible in
all of the irrigated areas.
-------
-19-
5. The Sublette Flats evaporation area and a network of
barrier wells and a minimal on-farm improvement program
should be initiated as the total salinity control
program for the Big Sandy area in Wyoming.
6. The use of canals and laterals for winter livestock
water should be eliminated, if dependable alternative
water supplies such as rural water districts or ground-
water could be developed.
7. Design and construction of the by-pass alternative for
the Paradox Valley salt source should begin as soon as
possible. In addition, it may be necessary to con-
struct a series of small wells to intercept some of the
groundwater inflow to the salt dome-brine interface.
8. A salinity damage function is presently being developed
under contract to the Water and Power Resources Service.
When this information becomes available it is recommended
that the feasibility of maintaining the 1972 salinity
concentration levels at Imperial Dam be re-evaluated.
9. Results of this analysis indicate the advisability of
implementing the identified most cost-effective salin-
ity control program regardless of where or which state
the salinity increases occurred. Colorado will contain
the major programs, and these projects will serve to
counter-balance salinity increases in other areas.
Wyoming could not physically be able to control its own
salinity increases.
-------
-20-
10. The scope of the Lower Gunnison project should be
expanded by the Water and Power Resources Service to
include all of the irrigated lands in the area, and not
be restricted to only the Uncompahgre Project lands.
The canal and lateral lining program which has been
proposed by the WPRS is not cost-effective and should
be re-evaluated. The possibilities for gravity-powered
sprinkler systems and closed conduit canal and lateral
linings in the North Fork of the Gunnison River should
be examined.
11. There is a definite need to obtain a better data base
for several of the areas, especially McElmo Creek in
southwestern Colorado. The groundwater base flows in
the Lower Gunnison, McElmo Creek and the Uintah Basin
require further effort. Seepage rate data for canals
and laterals in almost all of the areas are lacking and
need to be collected in order to define the most cost-
effective incremental canal and lateral lining programs
for each area.
12. It is recommended that studies be initiated in the
Price-San Rafael, Uintah, McElmo and Lower Gunnison
areas to determine the relative magnitude of the
natural salt contribution for the irrigated areas.
This information would be necessary to delineate the
more exact cost-effectiveness functions for a detailed
construction program.
-------
SECTION 4
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS IN THE
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
The Upper Colorado River Basin, detailed in Figure 2,
is rich in mineral, energy, agricultural and recreational
resources. Consideration of salinity control options
requires that a number of physical conditions be reviewed.
In the following paragraphs a brief review of the basin's
geology, water supply, present and future developments of
water and energy, and present salinity conditions have been
abstracted from the large body of available information. A
summary of planned salinity control projects and their
anticipated impact will be presented in the next chapter.
GEOLOGY
The geology of the basin is extremely variable since
the area has been subjected to glaciation, numerous fold-
ings, severe erosion, uplifts and inland seas; and the high
mountain ranges are extremely rugged with many peaks over
4,200 meters. This complex variation is illustrated in
Figure 3. Areas which are not mountainous tend to be
characterized by spectacular eroded sedimentary rock and
desert landscapes of which the Grand Canyon is the most
noted example.
The mountains are formed primarily of igneous and very
old metamorphic rock. In general, the water leaving the
-------
-22-
Figure 2. The Upper Colorado River Basin.
-------
GENERAL GEOLOGIC fORMATlONS
| ] MIOCENE DEPOSITS
] UlNTAH
[Ty* \ j WASATCN
{." yj FORT UNION
| | MESAVEROE
y&gi MANCOS
'-~>;-^ TRIASSIC AND JURASSIC
£•^3 PALEOZOIC
a o to ao *c
GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION, U,-U,
UNCDMPAHGRE UPL.(fT PARADOX BASIN SAN JUAN DOME
N)
U)
I
Figure 3. Schematic geologic cross-section through the Upper Colorado River
Basin (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1967 and 1972).
-------
-24-
mountains is of very high quality. The nonmountainous
regions of the basin have been subjected to intermittent
inundations by great inland seas. Many of the thick sedi-
mentary rock formations underlying the basin were deposited
at the bottom of the seas and are consequently high in
residual salts. Figure 4 illustrates the areal extent of
the main sedimentary deposits. These sedimentary deposits
are also the location of the oil, oil shale, coal, uranium,
and other large potential energy resources of the basin.
The most significant formations in terms of salinity
contribution from irrigated areas are the Mancos Shales of
the Cretaceous Age. These shale, sandstone and mudstone
deposits form a thick formation that lies between the under-
lying Dakota sandstones and the overlying Mesa Verde forma-
tions. The thickness of the Mancos Shale usually varies
from between 900 to 1,500 meters. Due to its great thickness
and its ability to be easily eroded, this shale forms many
of the large irrigated valleys of western Colorado and
eastern Utah.
The effect of these shales is illustrated by Bently
et al. (1978). They report that sampling runoff from Spring
Creek in the Price River drainages above and below a Mancos
Shale outcrop resulted in a threefold increase in dissolved
solids concentrations. Irrigation return flows on Mancos
Shales in the Huntington Creek in the San Rafael and Muddy
Creek in the Dirty Devil River drainages result in as much
as a tenfold increase in dissolved solids concentrations.
-------
-25-
Figure 4. Areal extent of the primary sedimentary
marine shales and sandstone in the Upper
Colorado River Basin (American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, 1967, 1972).
-------
-26-
This increase is typical of many of the marine shales
although generally not as pronounced. Other marine forma-
tions which contribute significant amounts of salt are the
Wasatch and Green River formations and the Uintah-Duchesne
formation which underlies the irrigated areas in the Uintah
and Big Sandy drainages.
The saline Paradox formation of Pennsylvania Age under-
lies a large area of western Colorado and eastern Utah, but
has few surface exposures. The most notable salt contribu-
tion from this formation is the Paradox Valley on the
Dolores River in western Colorado.
Natural point salinity sources like the Glenwood-
Dotsero and the Steamboat Springs are also the result of
geologic conditions. Water moving downward into the earth
along fractures and bedding planes increases in temperature
and in the ability of the water to dissolve mineral constit-
uents. When the saline waters eventually return to the
surface, their salt content is usually very high. Hagan
(1971) reports that the salt discharge of major thermal
springs in the Colorado River Basin exceeds 500,000 Mgm per
year.
Geologic investigations have been made in many parts of
the basin in connection with coal, uranium, oil and gas and
other minerals. Although the vast majority of these investi-
gations are not hydrologically oriented, the results can
still be useful in the interpretation of data on the quality
of surface and shallow groundwaters. The geology of the
-------
-27-
is tho dominant factor in the chemical quality of the
basin's waters. Figure 5 depicts the surface water quality
concentrations associated with the various areas in the
Upper Colorado River Basin. Comparing Figures 4 and 5 will
indicate the geologic importance to water quality.
WATER SUPPLY OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER
The largest and most prominent constraints to the water
supply in the Upper Basin are the various treaty and compact
rights. The 1922 Colorado River Compact guarantees a total
of 9.25 x 10 ha-m over each consecutive ten-year period to
the Lower Basin for an annual average of about 9.25 x 10
ha-m. The 1944 Mexican Water Treaty effectively raised this
annual average amount to 1.02 x 10 ha-m, assuming that one-
half of the water promised to Mexico comes from the UCRB
allocation (Holburt, 1977). In addition, several other
legal, legislative and international obligations have tied
the salinity concentrations and control to the water supply.
Mann et al. (1974) produced an interesting legal-political
history of the Upper Basin which is helpful in understanding
the development of the Colorado River.
Precipitation
The majority of the water supply in the Colorado River
Basin comes from high mountain snowpacks. Flow duration
tables and curves describing the seasonal and annual water
supply variability of the Upper Colorado River and its major
tributaries are presented by lorns et al. (1965). Extreme
-------
-28-
Weighted-average concetration of
dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter
Less than 100
__2_| 100 to 250
250 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 2000
2000 to 3000
| | More than3000
IOO 150 200 Z5O MIKi
Figure 5. Surface water salinity concentrations in
the Upper Colorado River Basin (Price
and Waddell, 1973).
-------
-29-
precipitation events are discussed and analyzed by Hansen
et al. (1977). The extreme cyclic nature of the stream
flows typical to the Basin have necessitated large amounts
of surface storage facilities.
Forty-two percent of the area of the Basin receives
less than 300 mm of precipitation per year. These internal
deserts contribute very little water to the Colorado River
Basin. Figure 6 is an isohyetal map of the average annual
precipitation in the Upper Colorado River Basin indicating
that approximately 10 percent of the land area contributes
about 85 percent of the total water supply.
Streamflow
The average annual recorded flow of the Upper Colorado
River Basin at Lee's Ferry has ranged from a low of
690,500 ha-m in 1934 to a high of 2,960,700 ha-m in 1917.
Figure 7 presents a map showing the relative stream volumes
and their respective salt load as a percentage of the
average annual Lee's Ferry conditions.
The 1922 Colorado River Compact divided water rights
between the Upper and Lower Basin based on an optimistic
average annual virgin flow of 1.997 x 10 ha-m/yr. However,
a part of the Lake Powell Research Project (Stockton and
Jacoby, 1976) estimated the "long-term annual virgin runoff"
of the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry to be 1,664,550 ha-m/yr
based on the analysis of tree-ring data. From the analysis
of existing hydrologic data, Tipton and Kalmback, Inc.
(1965) estimated the annual virgin flow at Lee's Ferry at
-------
-30-
Figure 6. Isoheytal map of average annual precipitation in
the Upper Colorado River Basin (Flug et al. 1977)
-------
— 31 —
Figure 7. Map of average stream volume and total dissolved
solids concentration of the Colorado River at
Lee's Ferry, Arizona (lorns et al. 1965).
-------
-32-
1,071,540 ha-m/yr. In comparison/ data published by the
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI, BR, 1979a) indicate
an actual observed average flow of 1.27 x 10 ha-m at Lee's
Ferry for the period of 1941-1978.
The difference between virgin and observed flows should
ideally represent the consumptive use in the Upper Basin.
Estimates of consumptive use and water availability vary
widely. The USDI (1974) estimated the present depletion to
be about 4,562 x 10 ha-m/yr, and using different assump-
tions, the Westwide Study (USDI, ER, 1975b) estimated the
1975 total consumptive use to be about 3,946 x 10 ha-m/yr.
The USDI estimated that an average of 7.15 x 10 ha-m of
water is the total available water supply in the Basin,
leaving about 260,000 ha-m for future development.
The most obvious conclusion which can be derived from
the above data is that there is little water for new develop-
ment without conflicting with present use. The USDI (1974)
calculated that 1.85 x 105 to 2.28 x 105 ha-m/yr of addi-
tional water would be consumed for nonenergy uses by the
year 2000. Plotkin et al. (1979) presented data which
indicates that just energy development consumption by the
year 2000 could be between 74,000 and 136,000 ha-m/yr.
The WPRS developed the "1976-Modified Base (1)" which
states that 1,158,030 ha-m/yr water with a concentration of
1,100 mg/1 at Imperial Dam depicts conditions expected by
1900 (USDI, BR, 1979a). This "base" includes existing
observed conditions in 1976 plus effects of projects under
-------
-33-
construction, those authorized for construction or those
with an approved environmental impact statement (EIS) as of
1976. The expected depletions and expected salinity contri-
butions from various Water and Power Resources Service
projects are summarized in Table 1.
Weather modification programs will potentially augment
Upper Basin water supplies by an estimated 62,000 ha-m or
more per year (USDI, BR, 1979a). Groundwater supplies can
also be utilized as an interim or conjunctive supply source
although the constraints of water quality and streamflow
depletion effects must be considered. Most of the future
demands and further use of Upper Basin Compact allocations
will require substantial additional surface storage
facilities.
Through the proper selection of energy extraction
technologies, low water consuming cooling alternatives,
careful attention to all potential water reuse opportuni-
ties, and site selection, it would be possible to affect
substantial reductions in individual energy plant water
demands. Opportunities to reduce agricultural water use are
much more limited. Changing to more efficient irrigation
practices and lining canals may not change the agricultural
consumptive use. Proposals to "conserve" agricultural water
must include reducing consumptive use by crops or reducing
evaporation. Where the water is not tied to the land, water
transfers in the UCRB are limited by state laws to only the
amount of existing crop water use and effectively removes
-------
-34-
< I F'Mmitw. 1900 4tpliclon« «od »«lt load* of rRRF «iV ullnlry control project! which tr« centiruet«d and/or •utrv>rli«
-------
-35-
these lands from crop production. Private sector land
retirement through water transfers reduces the agricultural
consumptive use although the net consumptive use of the
river system is only slightly affected. An added benefit
for salinity control is that these "retired" lands are
usually marginal and the most inefficiently irrigated.
In the case of energy development and in many other
industries, the transferred water is generally totally
consumed on-site, therefore, the salinity detriments are
limited to concentrating effects due to the reduced amount
of water available for dilution. The high salt loading
component from the irrigated lands is eliminated.
Storage
There is more than 5.2 x 10 ha-m of storage available
in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Table 1-3 in Appendix 1
lists the major irrigation and power reservoirs. However,
there are a great many livestock water retention, recrea-
tional and municipal reservoirs, which are not listed. Most
of the unlisted reservoirs and lakes are very small, although
some, such as Dillon Reservoir (Denver, Colorado, municipal
water supply) are quite large. As of 1965, Shafer (1971)
indicated a total of 208 reservoirs with an active capacity
of 403,540 ha-m had been constructed. Since then the amount
of storage capacity has been increased by more than 100,000
ha-m through the completion of Navajo, Curecanti and other
projects.
-------
-36-
Groundwater
The small role of groundwater in the Upper Colorado
River Basin has primarily been one of furnishing domestic
and livestock needs. Groundwater occurs under almost all of
the area. However, many of the wells are small and/or water
quality is poor. The alluvial valley-fill aquifers gener-
ally have the highest potential capacity for wells, although
most are hydraulically connected to the streams. Most of
the valleys are narrow, consequently the water withdrawn
from the wells affect the streams in relatively short time
periods. Because of the low volumes involved, this is not
expected to be a significant problem in the basin for many
years.
Shallow groundwater is generally of very poor water
quality and not suitable for agricultural or municipal uses
in the Upper Basin. In much of the basin, wells capable of
producing 60 Ips (1,000 gpm) or more can be developed pro-
vided that the wells are drilled to sufficient depths. The
most productive aquifers are in sandstone formations in the
southern portion of the basin and in the Green River forma-
tion in the Piceance Creek Basin. In most other areas, the
wells must be drilled thousands of meters deep to tap all of
the available aquifers.
Groundwater is considered as a potential short-term
supplemental water supply to energy development. The USDI
(1974) estimated that the "average annual replenishment" of
the groundwater supply in the Upper Colorado River Basin is
-------
-37-
about 500,000 ha-m. This is an estimate of the sum of
stream base flows, phreatophyte evapotranspiration, well
pumpage, and subsurface water movement out of the basin.
This quantity does not represent a sustained yield since
eventual adverse effects on streamflow and phreatophyte
vegetation will result from long-term continued depletions.
Thus, the long-term reduction of groundwater inflows to the
streams would probably have a beneficial impact on total
salt loading although recreational uses and fisheries may
be damaged.
Transbasin Diversions
The more than 10 transmountain diversions to the
eastern slope of Colorado amounting to about 70,000 ha-m/yr
represents the largest aggregate transbasin diversion from
the UCRB. The Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project
follows with an expected volume of 20,500 ha-m/yr. There is
only one small diversion (320 ha-m/yr) into the basin from
the Paria River near Tropic, Utah (Hedland, 1971). The
total out-of-basin water exports are approximately 110,000
ha-m/yr.
At the present time, there is a diversion of 900 ha-
m/yr wich is expected to increase to 3,000 ha-m into Douglas
Creek from Wyoming tributaries of the Green River. These
diversions are part of the Laramie-Cheyenne water supply
system (USDI, BR, 1979a).
The Sevier River in Utah receives water from several
small transmountain diversions from the Colorado River
-------
-38-
System. There is one diversion from Gooseberry Creek in the
Price drainage (USDI, BR, 1964), and there are 13 diversions
from the San Rafael headwater to the San Pitch Basin (USDA,
SCS, 1979d) of the Sevier River. These diversions are high
in the mountains, of very high quality water and individually
rarely exceed 300 ha-m/yr.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
Irrigation Development
The earliest known irrigation development in the
Colorado River Basin was apparently practiced by the Hohokam
Indians in the Salt River Valley near Phoenix, Arizona,
where canal remnants can still be found today (Keys and
Strand, 1979). The more modern irrigation systems started
in the 1850"s. This development was primarily in the allu-
vial valleys directly bordering the streams and was limited
by great quantitative and temporal fluctuations in the water
supply. With the development of storage facilities and more
intricate distribution systems, the irrigated areas greatly
expanded. For the interested reader, Goslin (1978) presents
an excellent review of the history of water resources
development in the Colorado River Basin.
The amount of irrigated land in the UCRB is presently
estimated at about 656,000 ha or 2 percent of the total land
area. Much more land could be irrigated if water were
available. The Soil Conservation Service has classified a
total of 2,855,900 ha of land as "suitable" for irrigation
-------
-39-
in the UCRB (Gardner and Stewart, 1978). About 99 percent
of the irrigated land is served entirely by surface water
supplies. Figure 8 indicates the extent of irrigation
development in the basin.
Energy Development
USDI (1974) states that, although salinity is presently
the most serious water quality problem in the Upper Colorado
River Basin, energy development also presents some poten-
tially serious problems. Additional municipal and industrial
wastes, sediment, heavy metals, toxic materials, and unde-
sirable bacteria, temperature and dissolved oxygen content
levels in the streams and rivers pose future concerns for
the basin. Without strict monitoring and enforcement of
existing water quality laws, localized problems, in addition
to salinity, such as sediment production, can be expected to
occur on the minor tributaries.
Because of the present energy shortage, the slow
development of solar power, and the long delays in nuclear
power plant construction, the use of the large coal (Fig. 9)
and oil shale (Fig. 10) deposits in the Upper Colorado River
Basin appear critical to the nation's energy needs. Other
significant energy resources are uranium (Fig. 11) and tar
sands deposits (Fig. 12).
Corsentino (1976) presented a listing of known planned
and proposed energy developments in the western United
States (Table 2), including 125 areas located in the Colorado
River Basin. There have been other projects proposed and
-------
-40-
Figure 8. Areas of irrigation development in the
Upper Colorado River Basin.
-------
-41-
50-900 m overburden
less than 50 m overburden
greater than 900 m over-
burden
H.
Figure 9. Coal deposits in the Upper Colorado River Basin
(Flug et al. 1977).
-------
-42-
Figure 10. Oil shale deposits in the Upper Colorado River
Basin (Flug et al. 1977).
-------
-43-
Figure 11. Known major uranium deposits in the Upper
Colorado River Basin (Flug et al. 1977).
-------
-44-
H
Figure 12. Significant tar sands deposits in the
Upper Colorado River Basin (Reefer and
McQuivey, 1979).
-------
Table 2. Upper Colorado River future energy-fuels related development proposals
(Corsentino, 1976 and USDI, 1974).
Type of Development
Arizona
Coal mines and 2
expansions
Coal gasification
plants
Coal slurry pipelines
Coal electric power 1
plants and expansions
Hydropower Electric
Power plants and
expansions
Oil shale
Tar sands
Natural gas processing
plants
Uranium mines and
exnansions
Geo thermal
Railroads
TOTAL' 3
Colorado
33
1
54
2
71
42
2
51
State
New Mexico Utah
3 273
2 1
1 I5
1 53
24 64
1
3
3
5 3
23
12 46
7
Wyoming Total
9 74
1 4
3
2 11
44 17
3
I4 10
3
1 1
8
4
4
13 125
l/l
I
1 Mobil Oil. Texaco, Chevron, and Cities Service Company all hold oil shale lands although no definite
development plans have been announced. Also, the Dept. of the Interior ]ust announced plans to
lease up to four more additional tracts.
2 Application for leases only.
3 Includes Kaiparowits project which is apparently abandoned.
4 USDI, 1974 estimate, otner numbers reflect Corsfintine '1976) ur.less noted.
5 USDI, GS, 1979
6 Most probable values.
7 '•iot :.'ic:jiinc i-'S" 19-" estimates.
-------
-46-
dropped since this report was issued, but the relative
numbers can be expected to remain approximately the same.
Energy interest groups have been actively involved in
the purchase of agricultural water rights. The actual
extent and quantity of this activity is difficult to assess,
but the economic viability of many minor tributaries will be
severely affected by these water transfers. The USDI (1974)
conservatively estimates that about 5 percent (11,100 ha-m)
of current agricultural water supplies in Colorado and Utah
will be transferred to energy users by the year 2000.
Plotkin et al. (1979) believe that the UCRB will be the site
of a substantial amount of conflict between energy and
agriculture for water supply, and that water will be the
largest constraint to energy development.
Water consumption by energy related users is associated
with, in order of expected usage, oil shale, thermal-electric
fossil fuel power generation, coal gasification and lique-
faction, and conventional coal mining. The remainder
generally has little water requirements except for those
associated with the increased population. Excluding coal
slurry lines and based on some rather tentative high water
requirements data, it is estimated that about 107,300 ha-
m/yr of water will be needed to meet energy development
needs in the UCRB by the year 2000 (USDI, 1974).
It is estimated that even moderate synfuels development
in the state of Colorado will require water storage projects
costing as much as $2.5 billion. By the year 2000 it is
-------
-47-
projected that there will be a 64,000 m /d shale oil indus-
try and a quadrupling of uranium milling capacity, coal
production and electric generation in Colorado. The water
availability question in the Upper Basin states is discussed
in more detail by Hansen (1976) and USDI, BR (1974). The
potential conflicts of energy development and the existing
legal water rights structures in the UCRB are examined by
Weatherford and Jacoby (1975) and Gardner et al. (1976).
-------
SECTION 5
TXTSTING UPPER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PLANS
THE GENERAL SALINITY PROBLEM
Early impressions of water quality in the Upper Basin
are recorded in the names given to the streams in the area.
Names such as Alkali Creek, Pleasant Creek, Bitter Creek,
Mudhole Creek, Killpecker Creek, Sweetwater Creek, Poison
Springs, Stinking Springs, and the Dirty Devil River, can be
found in every region of the basin. As the names would
indicate the water was often found to be undesirable for
many uses due to natural processes.
Controlling salinity in a major river basin is a
difficult task because it generally consists of a complex
mixture of natural and man-made, point and diffuse sources.
Some sources are amenable to preventative measures. Saline
springs can be diverted and disposed of off-stream, irri-
gation return flows can be reduced or eliminated by reha-
bilitating the irrigation system and improving irrigation
practices, reservoirs can be managed to minimize evaporation,
and new water developments can be sited and operated to
minimize water quality impacts. Other sources of salinity
such as natural runoff may extend over such large areas that
the only feasible measure for control is to desalt some of
the aggregate flow at a downstream point. Skogerboe et al.
(1979b) discuss some of the methodologies to determine and
-------
-49-
implement the most cost-effective salinity control program
in an area.
At the planning level, the sources of salinity must be
identified in conjunction with the detriments associated
with salinity contributions. If the damages are more costly
than the measures required to alleviate the problem, a
salinity control project is needed.
The total salinity contributions for the various areas
and subbasins in the UCRB have been tabulated in four main
reports. The report by lorns et al. (1965) is the most
complete and is generally the most useful. The second set
of reports of consequence are the biennial progress reports
on the Quality of the Colorado River Basin by the Water and
Power Resource Service (USDI, BR, 1979a). These reports
describe each of the salinity control projects and tabu-
late the existing stream gaging station data. These reports
extend the data of lorns et al. (1965) to the present. The
third report was compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and others (EPA, 1971) and presents the results
of a limited study (June, 1965 - May, 1966). The specific
data and conclusions presented in this report often widely
disagree with other published results. Finally, the study
by Hyatt et al. (1970), which was developed from an elec-
trical analog computer model of the Upper Colorado River
Basin, schematically presents the water and salt flows of
the basin. Again, these results agree very well with
aggregated results of other studies, but the individual
-------
-50-
agricultural loading values tend to be much smaller. This
is due to the fact that the agricultural salinity contri-
bution was based solely on concentrating effects.
Natural runoff contributes 52 percent of the salt load
from the Upper Basin (EPA, 1971). In an effort to control
any salinity effects due to soil disturbance by livestock
grazing and energy development in the basin, the Bureau of
Land Management is pursuing a program of more restrictive
grazing controls, interseeding of contour furrows, and chain-
ing and seeding to control salinity from surface hydrologic
events (Bently et al. 1978). Much of this program is based
on work by Gifford et al. (1975) in the Price River area.
Ponce (1975) and Ponce et al. (1975) reported on non-
point salt loading from grazing and its effects on Mancos
Shales in the Price River Basin. Whitmore (1976) and White
(1977) reported on the salinity aspects of Mancos soils and
the effect of microchannels, respectively. All of these
studies basically concluded that a practice which compacts
or otherwise disturbs the soil structure, reduces infiltra-
tion and increases runoff and/or erosion on saline soils
will increase salt yields. Similar results were obtained by
Laronne and Schumm (1977) for the Grand Valley area. Thomas
(1975) investigated the use of gully plugs and contour fur-
rows to control erosion and had good success. McWhorter and
Skogerboe (1979) investigated interflow as a transport
mechanism for salt on Mancos soils, and determined that it
had little effect.
-------
-51-
The general consensus of investigations on nonpoint
diffuse sources of salinity in the UCRB is that measures
such as grazing controls, contour furrow and strict regu-
lation of road and site development, construction of energy
exploration activities will reduce man-caused salinity from
these lands. However, the extreme natural variation in
hydrologic events, stream and reservoir evaporation and
other "buffering" effects will tend to mask the relative
magnitude of these programs.
Economic Damages Caused by Salinity
The salinity levels expressed as total dissolved solids
concentration or electrical conductivity may not adequately
reflect the impacts on specific users. Domestic users are
primarily concerned with hardness caused by calcium and
magnesium. The important salinity constituents for indus-
trial users, such as electrical power plants are primarily
calcium carbonates and sulfates. Calcium carbonate is often
the first salt to precipitate in recirculating cooling tower
water and high levels can increase the amount consumed
and/or treated.
The costs associated with using water impaired by high
salinity levels are imposed on industrial, domestic and
agricultural users. Industrial and domestic costs are
associated with extra costs of treatment and softening, and
with premature replacement of plumbing, boilers, water
heaters, etc. Domestic damages can also be experienced by
loss of landscapes with low salt tolerance. Estimated costs
-------
-52-
due to salinity increase in the Los Angeles area have been
reported by Eubanks and d'Arge (1976), Lawrence (1975), and
Tihansky (1974).
Agricultural costs can be measured by crop yield
reduction, high leaching requirements which often neces-
sitate costly subsurface drainage systems, special tillage
practices and higher labor costs (Anderson and Kleinman,
1978, Robinson et al.f 1976; and Moore et al., 1974). The
soils and soil structure also can be severely damaged by
excess salinity requiring many years to be reclaimed. Moore
(1972) presents an interesting discourse on the necessary
and sufficient conditions for long-term agriculture, pri-
marily related to salinity. Moore et al. (1974b) have
developed crop production functions relating quality and
supply of water in the Colorado River Basin. Kleinman et al.
(1974) and Kleinman and Brown (1977) discuss the damages to
agricultural production by salinity in the UCRB.
The Soil Conservation estimates the total municipal
damages in the Lower Colorado River Basin change at an
annual rate of $291,200 per mg/1 change in salt concentra-
tion. Agricultural damages increase $124,800 annually per
mg/1 (USDA, SCS, 1979b).
The USDI, WPRS (1980a) is presently using a total
annual damage figure of $447,700 per mg/1 increase at
Imperial Dam (January 1, 1980 prices) for the range of
concentrations expected in the next 20 years (825-1225
mg/1). These damage values do not consider costs passed
-------
-53-
into the Mexican use sector or the value of good
international relationships. Oyarzabal-Tamargo and Young
(1976) presented preliminary damage estimates at $5 million
per year in 1975.
Public Law 93-320
Water resource development as well as all of the
associated water demands of energy development can poten-
tially increase the salinity in the Colorado River. The
purpose of Public Law 93-320 (Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act, June 24, 1974) is to mitigate salinity increases
caused by the individual Colorado River Basin states in
developing their respective allowances of water from the
Colorado River. Title II of PL 93-320 (Section 207) specifi-
cally states that "nothing in this title shall be construed
to alter, amend, repeal, modify, interpret, or be in con-
flict with the provisions of the Colorado River Compact (45
Stat., 1957), the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact (63
Stat., 31) . . .," or any other compact or agreement and/or
any project which allocates the Colorado River as to quantity.
PL 93-320, Title II directs the Secretary of the
Interior to investigate, plan and implement a salinity
control program in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Cooper-
ation and coordination by the Secretary of Agriculture and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were also required.
The legislation authorized four projects for construction:
(1) Grand Valley, Colorado; (2) Paradox Valley, Colorado;
(3) Crystal Geyser, Utah; and (4) Las Vegas Wash, Nevada.
-------
-54-
Twelve other projects above Imperial Dam were identified
for further study.
The Lower Cunnison, Hintah Basin, Colorado Indian
Reservation, and the Palo Verde Irrigation District were
specifically identified as "irrigation source control pro-
grams." Point sources were identified as La Verkin Springs,
Littlefield Springs, and Glenwood-Dotsero Springs. Other
diffuse sources mentioned in the legislation which should
also be investigated were Price River, San Rafael River,
McElmo Creek, and the Big Sandy River. Measures by which
the individual program goals should be obtained were speci-
fied only for the authorized construction projects. All of
the authorized and potential projects are located in
Figure 13.
According to a U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO)
Report in 1979, it is doubtful that the Salinity Control
Program as defined in PL 93-320 will reduce the salt in the
Colorado River as much as predicted. Furthermore, at least
six of the seventeen projects are questionable economically.
For example, Crystal Geyser and Las Vegas Wash, as formu-
lated, have very high costs and will have a "minor impact in
reducing the river's salinity . . ." However, the GAO'
analysis only examined the projects in aggregate as formu-
lated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and did not
address the fact that individual components of a salinity
control project may indeed be very cost-effective while a
total program may not be economically viable. Therefore,
-------
-55-
* Authorized Water Development Projects''
A Authorized for Construction Water Quality
Improvement Project, Title H
A Water Quality Improvement Project
Under Investigation, Title H
• Water Quality Improvement Project, _.._J
Title I
*-« Transmountain Diversions
I) Dots not include d«v«lopm«nti Milling Prior to
Authorization of Colorado Rivtr
Storog* Projtct
NEVA
SUN JUAN GHANA
SOUTHERN
NEVADA KITE
!5 28 10 75 KX) I1C l»0 mitt
SCALE
so o so 100 i6o too ISO hilomtltri
Figure 13. Salinity control projects designated by
PL 93-320 (USDI, BR, 1979a).
-------
-56-
the logical conclusion is that perhaps only selected
portions of various salinity control projects should be
constructed.
The primary question left unanswered by PL 93-320 is to
what extent shall salinity control programs be constructed
or how much effort should be expended in pursuit of the
goals of this legislation. For example, without regard to
benefits and costs, the WPRS (USDI, BR, 1979a) presents data
illustrated in Figure 14 that indicate the difficulty of
maintaining the 1972 salinity levels at Imperial Dam.
Preliminary analyses has clearly shown that several of the
projects noted in PL 93-320 have benefit cost ratios much
less than one based on annual damages of $450,000 per mg/1
increase at Imperial Dam.
Appendix 2 describes each of the significant projects
in the Upper Basin which were specified in PL 93-320. This
discussion has been divided into nonpoint and point source
control projects. A summary of the salt loading from the
respective area and the currently estimated potentially
controllable salinity is given in Table 3.
-------
- 1300
04
0>
1200
ir MOO
ui
a.
>-
l-
1000
V)
900
iu 800
3
tc
UJ
5
700
SALINITY AT IMPERIAL DAM
PROJECTED BY WATER AND POWER RESOURCES SERVICE
879 mg/J?
1972 Salinity Standard at Imperil Dam
43 Development Projects
without Salinity Control
Curve A+4 Authorized
Salinity Control Projects
(Reduction of 575,300 Mgm)
Curve B + 13 Salinity Control
Projects under Study
(Reduction of 1,710,000 Mgm)
(Need Reduction of 2,570,OOO Mgm)
1980
1990
YEAR
2OOO
2000 +
ui
^j
i
Figure 14. Salinity increase at Imperial Dam projected by the Water and
Power Resources Service (USDI, BR, 1979d).
-------
-58-
Table 3. Summary of salt loading attributed to the various sources
and the estimated attainable salinity control levels for
total programs of projects designated by PL 93-320 in the
Upper Colorado River Basin.
Source Total Salt
Load Contribution
Mgm
Salt Load Estimated
Reduction mg/1
Mgm Reduction
at Imperial Dam
AGRICULTURAL CONTROL PROJECTS
Grand Valley
Lower Gunnison
Uncompahgre Valley
Uintah Basin
Price-San Rafael Drainage
Dirty Devil River
McElmo Creek
Big Sandy River
630,000
800,000
350,000
395,000
210,000
52,000
85,000
125,000
372,000
570,000.
220,000
182,000
50,000
24,000
50,000
81,000
43
65
25.3
21
7.3
2.8
6.0
9.3
POINT SOURCE CONTROL PROJECTS
Paradox Valley
Glenwood-Dotsero Springs
Meeker Dome
Crystal Geyser
180,000
400,000
29,500
2,720
163,000
214,300
29,500
2,720
18.7
25.0
3.4
0.3
202.90
LCanal and Lateral Lining Only (USDI, WPRS, 1980c)
-------
SECTION 6
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The research approach developed for this work consisted
of four phases:
1. Development of a cost-effectiveness analysis appli-
cable to the salinity control problem in the Upper
Colorado River Basin;
2. Evaluation of salinity sources in the basin;
3. Selecting an array of salinity control alterna-
tives; and
4. Application of the analytical procedure to the
Upper Basin conditions.
The fourth phase is encompassed in the following section.
The second phase was described in general terms in Section 5
and will be expanded somewhat in this section.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
The method of salinity control program analysis was
originally developed in a study of water quality improvement
alternatives in the Utah Lake drainage area in central Utah
(Walker et al., 1973). The approach involved decomposing a
basin-wide problem into first hydrologic subbasin problems
and from there into technological subunits. The principal
assumption in the decomposition was that by evaluating net
mass emission of salts from each subbasin, the problem
consists of mutually exclusive components that could be
added together in arriving at the basin-wide optimal program,
-------
-60-
This assumption implies physically that: (1) water utili-
zation at one location is not significantly affected by a
change in water use practices elsewhere; and (2) salinity
is a completely conservative pollutant. Walker and
Skogerboe (1980) discuss the physical assumptions and show
mathematically the relationship between the physical system
and these assumptions.
A schematic view of the conceptual model is given in
Figure 15 (Walker, 1978). The basic structure of the model
is a function relating the cost of salinity control and the
effectiveness of the investment in terms of reducing mass
emission (Mgm/yr). Associated with each cost-effectiveness
function are indications of how much of the cost and effec-
tiveness is allocated to each alternative encompassed in the
optimization. Examination of Figure 15 in some detail will
serve to illustrate the additive construction of the overall
optimal strategy.
Consider the analysis to begin at "Level 2" with four
basic alternatives whose cost-effectiveness function is
given and the allocation among "Level 1" alternatives is
known. Two "Level 3" cost-effectiveness functions are
developed by adding "Level 2" functions in an optimization
analysis. The addition of individual cost-effectiveness
functions becomes the objective function for the next level
of aggregation. Constraints consist of limitations on the
total effectiveness of each individual alternative and
aggregate effectiveness at the level being developed.
-------
Cost
Cost of achieving desired
salinity control at
lavel 4
LEVEL 4 SALINITY CONTROL
COST-EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTION
: Optimal investment in
alternative 2 at level 3
,^\ Optimal investment in"~~
^^ | alternative I at level 3
Cost
Optimal level 3
Costs from level 4
X
, Itvel 2 investments
Cost
Optimal level 2
Cost from level 3
Effectiveness
Desired salinity control
at level 4
^ level I
/ costs
Effectiveness
Optimal level 2
Cost from level 3
Effectiveness
/ALTERNATIVE 2.
/ LEVEL 3 COST-
I
cn
Effectivenett
Effectiveness
Figure 15. Schematic diagram of the multilevel optimization analysis (Walker, 1978)
-------
-62-
Detailed mathematical descriptions of these procedures are
given by Walker et al. (1979).
Optimization Procedure
The relationships between costs and salinity reductions
are generally nonlinear. Aggregating the level to level
cost-effectiveness function, therefore, requires an under-
standing of the various techniques for nonlinear optimiza-
tion. Most water quality planners do not have sufficient
background in these subjects for a technique like originally
used by Walker (1973) and Walker et al. (1973) to be widely
useful. As a result, a very simple optimization procedure
was developed for application and demonstration in this
writing. In fact, the entire basin-wide optimization was
accomplished on an HP9825A desktop computer with only a
total of 24K bytes of capacity.
For purposes of illustration, consider an irrigated
valley which is supplied water through canals. Each canal
has a total length of L. meters, an inlet wetted perimeter
of Wm meters and an inlet capacity of Qm cubic meters per
second. Walker (1978) reviewed canal lining cost-
effectiveness for salinity control and derived -the following
relationship:
1 - (1 -
Lt
(1)
in which,
-------
-63-
C = capital construction cost necessary to impact the
mass emission of salts due to seepage by S, Mgm/yr;
K,, K2, K- = empirical constraints relating canal size
and lining costs;
b = empirical function describing the spatial distri-
bution of canal deliveries to individual farm
turnouts;
K1 =
f(S,) =
Lt/(l + K2)b;
t 2
2Lt .
1
K2 b
0.5
(2)
(3)
and
(!
- Q,
WPm x 10
-6
(4)
where,
AS = change in salt concentration between irrigation
water and groundwater, mg/1;
N, = number of days seepage occurs;
ASR = change in seepage rate due to linings, m/day,
which may vary throughout the year;
Q = total agricultural inputs to the groundwater
system, ha-m; and
Q = phreatophyte use of groundwater, ha-m.
In order to develop an optimal cost-effectiveness
relation for lining as a salinity control measure, the
following problem must be solved repeatedly for various
values of the constraint value £f:
n _
C. = min I C (S,).
a i=1 c 1 i
(5)
subject to.
-------
-64-
and,
n _
I (S,). = S (7)
i=l x 1
where,
C^ = the minimum cost of lining sufficient canal
lengths to produce a total salinity reduction of
S, megagrams;
CG = the cost of lining the specified length of the ith
canal (Eq. 1} , millions of dollars;
(S1)i = the salinity reduction to be achieved by lining
the ith canal, Mgm/yr;
(ST) . = the maximum achievable salinity reduction
achieved by lining the entire length of the ith
canal , Mgm/yr ; and
n = the number of canals or ditches that can be lined
to reduce salinity.
This curve of cost versus salt reduction always has the
property of convexity, a necessary condition for optimality
(Wilde and Beightler, 1967) , and can be considered what
Erlenkotter and Scherer (1977) refer to as a "continuous
project." In other words, a cost can continually be assigned
for any variable value of salt reduction. The functional
relationship of this curve remains the same throughout the
entire optimization process. The curve has the same basic
shape and properties for canal lining in an individual area
as well as for a basin-wide salinity control program. This
property greatly simplifies the optimization process and the
determination of the individual components of salinity
control at any level of control.
-------
-65-
Siraplifying the Optimization —
As noted earlier, the optimization process requires
that Equations 5-7 be solved repeatedly for values of S
n
ranging from zero to I (S_) . , generating data from which
i=l T 1
the optimal function for canal lining is derived. The
resulting canal lining cost-effectiveness function is charac-
terized by increasing marginal costs with scale but the
nonlinear ity is not great. These functional features pro-
vide the opportunity to condense Equation 1 into a simple
regression function. For example, the following expression
has been found to produce good results:
S
- -
C ~
C ~ hS1 + B
For specific canal, ditch, or lateral, the only unknowns in
Equation 8 are C (dependent variable) and S, (independent
C .L
variable) . A range of S, values within the interval from
zero to the maximum value of ST can be generated from
Equation 1 when different lengths L are arbitrarily substi-
tuted into the equation. Corresponding values of C are
C
then calculated providing the x-y data for a regression
fitting. A linear regression can be used for curve fitting
if Equation 8 is transformed to:
y = Ax + Bx (9)
where y = 1/C_ and x = 1/S . .
C Jt
This function can also be compared in an optimizational
context with other similar strategies to formulate plans on
-------
-66-
a large scale. While this development still requires some
prior understanding of operations research methodologies for
those not so prepared, Equation 8 leads to a simple optimi-
zation solution based on the unique algebraic structure of
the modified cost-effectiveness functions. The complex
optimization procedure is reduced to a facile series of
arithmetical calculations. If necessary, most of this
procedure could be done with hand-held calculators.
The derivative or the slope of the particular function
illustrated by Equation 8 has the simple form of:
t
+ B) 2
The derivative has the significance of being the marginal
cost of lining the ith canal for the specified salt load
(S,) .. Thus, the smaller the value of the derivative, the
more cost-effective the linings. The marginal cost values
of represented Equation 8 must be equal for all individual
lining projects at the specified value of total salt to be
reduced, S. They must also be constrained by the physical
limits of each individual canal's values of (ST)i- Thus for
their respective ranges of salt contribution:
0 i i i (Vi (11)
The value of IT is determined from the combination of optimal
least-cost values corresponding to each (S1)i- The simpli-
fied step-wise procedure is illustrated in Figure 16. The
procedure is as follows:
-------
dCc
dS£
-&)+*•>
ds£'min
£ 8(0
L=l *• '
S.(Uj.,
L»l " *
kA
Salt Reduction, Mgm
Figure 16. Schematic representation of the simplified optimization procedure
for each alternative or area.
-------
-68-
Two arrays are calculated using Equation 10 for
every canal in the area being considered for
lining. The first array will be for values at
(S,). = 0, and the second will be for (S,). =
(Srp).^. Then, from the total array of_ minimum
values the overall minimum value, -j^p- is
1 min
selected. Similarly, the maximum value of the
dC
derivatives, gg— , is determined. All of the
1
remaining values in both arrays are then discarded,
After the maximum and minimum values have been
selected, the marginal cost interval represented
by these two values is divided into k increments,
A, where k is any arbitrary value.
A =
(12)
A is now used to increment the value of
for subsequent calculations. Rearranging terms of
Equation 10 for S., the following equation is
obtained:
_1_
A,
Bi
1/2
(13)
3. Equation 13 is solved for each (S,). at every sue-
cessive value of dC
given by
-------
-69-
JA (14)
where j = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , k. Since all of the
marginal costs are equal at each point, only the
canals which have a value of (S1)i greater than
zero are cost-effective.
4. The calculated values of (S,). must be checked
against their respective physical constraints and
adjusted if necessary. These constraints are:
a) if 0 <_ (S1)i 1 (ST)i; then (S1)i = (S^ ± (15)
b) if (S^ 1 0; then (S1)i = 0 (16)
c) if (S^ 1 (ST),.; then (S^ ._ = (S^ (17)
5. The constrained values of (S^) ^ are then substi-
tuted back into their respective cost-effectiveness
equation which has the form of :
t (S,) . * B.
and the costs for all canals are summed to obtain
the total cost of reducing salinity by S~,
_ n
S = I
-------
-70-
additional clarity. The above procedure is also utilized to
optimize other practices and develop optimal functions for
areas and subbasins. A general flow chart of the procedure
is given in Figure 17.
SEGREGATION OF SALINITY SOURCES
This work did not involve any new data collection
activity, but relied almost entirely on data which have
been collected by the various governmental agencies. Data
were obtained from the Soil Conservation Service, the Water
and Power Resources Service, various state agencies and
regional councils of governments for 208 studies. Topo-
graphic maps and aerial photographs were utilized to esti-
mate canal and lateral lengths as well as to provide an
indication of cropping patterns and field sizes. Automobile
trips were made to the various areas to collect data from
local organizations and to discuss the agricultural problems
and practices with farmers and local administrators. Never-
theless, much of the data is incomplete and estimates of
existing conditions were made based on data collected else-
where, and the author's experience and judgment.
State and federal water records and existing reports
were utilized to establish a basic water and salt budgets
for each area including stream flow quality and quantity,
qualitative and temporal distribution of individual diver-
sions and groundwater quality. Then, within the structure
of the areawide budgets, canal by canal water and salt
-------
-71-
( START )
~^
Dimensions
and
Common Data
Coefficients and
Capital recovery factors
for N canals or laterals
Set increment step
k
for k increments
Calculate
Incremental
Cost-Effectiveness
for each canal
CURVE FIT
Individual Canal
Cost-Effectiveness
Function
Figure 17.
General flow chart of the canal cost-effective
function and aggregate optimization.
-------
-72-
OPTIMIZE
for k increments
for N canals
Calculate
(dC/dS)max
(dC/dS)min
Select minimum
value
Select maximum
vulue
I
Set increment, &
Calculate
salt
for each canal
at (dC/dS)
Greater
than
Maximum
Salt
Calculate
Costs of
Salt Level
from each
Cost-Effectiveness
Functions
CURVE FIT
Aggregate Canal
or Lateral Lining
Cost-Effectiveness Function
Print Out and/or
Store
Optimal Strategy
( STOP J
Figure 17.
General flow chart of the canal cost-effective
function and aggregate optimization (continued)
-------
-73-
budgets were developed for each canal and the collective
laterals under each canal. Existing seepage losses were made
using existing seepage test data, if available, or extrapo-
lated from other canals or areas. Equilibrium groundwater con-
centrations were estimated from well data and base flow water
quality records from drains and streams in the areas for each
canal. It was assumed throughout this study that groundwater
concentrations would not change as a result of the projects,
and this assumption has been reasonably validated by investi-
gations in several areas in the basin (Skogerboe et al.,
1979a; King and Hanks, 1975; and Bliesner et al, 1977).
Wetted perimeters and canal capacities were established
from state engineers' records and other data sources relative
to the inlet capacity. Utilizing aerial photographs and
other data sources, the flow capacity at the end of each
canal was estimated or measured. The wetted perimeter and
flow were then assumed to vary linearly throughout the
length of the canal. Average seepage volumes were computed
and multiplied by the average number of estimated or known
days of annual operation at the various selected water
levels. The equilibrium concentrations of the groundwater
were multiplied by the total annual seepage volume to
obtain an estimated mass emission of salt from each canal
and the aggregate laterals under that canal.
Annual existing aggregated on-farm mass emissions of
salt which included estimated head ditch and tailwater ditch
seepage losses were calculated from Soil Conservation Service
-------
-74-
data, Water and Power Resources Service data, or other
published results. The amount of time water was generally
available was estimated by published water records or by
conversation with farmers and local ditch company officials.
The individual budgets were aggregated and compared to
the areawide water and salt flows. If the results appeared
to be unreasonable, the individual budgets were re-examined
and re-computed if necessary. The results were compared
with other studies and some were discussed with local water
officials, and it is believed that they reasonably represent
conditions in each of the irrigated areas.
The individual parameters were tested for sensitivity
on the individual budgets. All of the budgets reacted to
changes in the groundwater concentrations, and this is
probably the single most difficult parameter to accurately
determine. It is believed that the values which were used
are within 10 percent.
Costs and salt contributions and attainable levels of
reduction for Paradox Valley, Glenwood-Dotsero Springs and
Crystal Geyser were taken almost entirely from reports by
the Water and Power Resources Service. The projects were
adjusted to January, 1980 prices and conditions and re-
evaluated to determine the most cost-effective treatment.
EVALUATION OF SALINITY CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives of managing salinity on a basin-wide
scale fall into two categories: (1) those that reduce
-------
-75-
salinity concentrations by dilution or minimizing the loss
of pure water from the system by transpiration and evapora-
tion; and (2) those that improve water quality by reducing
the mass emission of salt. Examples of the first category
include weather modification to enhance stream flow, evapor-
ation suppression, and phreatophyte control. In the second
category, such measures as saline flow collection and treat-
ment, reduction in agricultural return flows, and land use
regulation can be applied to reduce the volume of salinity
entering receiving waters. Although it is not necessarily
the case, the two categories are often considered antitheti-
cal when considering individual projects because of the
complicated interrelationships. At the present time,
federally authorized salinity control projects involve only
saline flow collection and treatment and reductions in
irrigation return flows. This study in assuming the ana-
lytical structure presented above is also limited to these
salinity control alternatives.
There is also a breakdown of mass emission control
measures between what might be called "structural" and
"nonstructural" measures. Authorized salinity control
programs primarily emphasize the structural components for a
number of reasons. First, salinity problems in areas like
the Lower Colorado River Basin demand attention in the near
future. Many nonstructural measures such as influent stand-
ards, water markets, taxation, land retirement, etc., re-
quire basic changes in the existing legal system. A second
-------
-76-
reason for structural emphasis is that nonstructural
strategies must be preceded in several cases by structural
measures. Furthermore, nonstructural strategies which are
actually improved water management practices require long-
term commitments from federal technical assistance and
enforcement agencies. Manpower, funding, and internal
agency restrictions often limit the duration of federal
involvement.
Agricultural Salinity Control Options
For areas which primarily contribute salinity due to
salt pickup, the emphasis of an agricultural salinity con-
trol program is to reduce the quantity of conveyance seepage
and deep percolation losses. Individual practices will
consist of canal and lateral lining to reduce seepage losses
and minimize deep percolation by improved on-farm water
management practices such as installation of accurate flow
measurement devices, irrigation scheduling, and more uniform
water applications. Since salinity problems result from a
combination of both salt concentration and salt pickup
effects, an integrated site-specific combination of the
above types of strategies is usually required.
Achieving high irrigation efficiencies and other
improved irrigation management practices are goals not only
of water quality planners, but often of individual irrigators
and irrigation organizations as well. King and Hanks (1975)
and willardson and Hanks (1976) discuss many of the effects
of irrigation management on irrigation return flows. The
-------
-77-
technological solutions to salinity problems are often the
solutions applicable to reducing agricultural energy consump-
tion, achieving higher farm production and higher profits.
Improving the physical aspects of the irrigation system,
including structural rehabilitation and redesign and insti-
tuting better management practices for the operation of the
water delivery system by irrigation scheduling, call periods,
and limiting wastes, must be jointly considered in any
program for improving the efficiencies of irrigation.
Institutional constraints may also contribute to the
salinity of the basin. For example, much of the irrigated
agriculture in the Upper Colorado River Basin is marginal
and the income is often minimal or even negative. However,
many ranchers and farmers freely admit that the only reason
they maintain these lands in production is to meet forage
production requirements for government grazing leases.
These regulations should perhaps be re-examined in relation
to salinity control programs.
Another nonirrigation practice which contributes to the
salinity via the irrigation system is the diversion of water
during the winter months for livestock water purposes which
is commonly practiced in many irrigated areas in the Colorado
River Basin, such as the Lower Gunnison and Price-San Rafael
drainages. This is an often necessary, simple solution to
provide water for cattle and sheep herds which winter in the
lowlands, but this constant source of canal seepage has a
very marked effect on the waterlogging and salination of
-------
-78-
lands below the canals. In the Lower Gunnison alone this
practice contributes as much as 75,000 Mgm per year. There
is little doubt that alternative supplies of livestock water
would reduce salt loadings from these areas. The piping of
livestock water should be included in salinity programs for
regions which require the use of water supplies for these
purposes, because the groundwaters are usually much too
saline for even livestock use.
Within each basin grouping of salinity control
alternatives, various combinations of specific projects can
be selected to accomplish the control program goals. For
the purpose of this case study, four groupings of agricul-
tural salinity control alternatives will be considered: (1)
canal and ditch lining; (2) lateral linings; (3) on-farm
improvements; and (4) desalination of return flows. These
agricultural salinity control programs listed above are not
the only methodologies applicable in the UCRB, but they are
the currently most accepted "Best Management Practices"
(BMPs) and will indicate the proper approach to a basin-wide
control program. However, a planner should not limit the
array of potential solutions too quickly since optimal
solutions are rarely intuitive in nature. A general dis-
cussion of selecting salinity control options for irrigated
agriculture is given by Skogerboe et al. (1979b).
Canal and Lateral Linings—
Many unlined canals, ditches, laterals, and watercourses
traverse long distances between the point of diversion and
-------
-79-
the farm. Where soils are well structured and permeable,
seepage losses may be considerable. Traditionally, reaches
with high seepage losses have been lined with a variety of
alternative materials such as concrete, asphalt, bentonite
clays, compacted earth, and plastic sheeting to prevent
seepaqe with the economic justification based on the value
of the water saved. Converting to a closed conduit of con-
crete, asbestos-cement (A-C) or plastic is an effective
alternative that offers advantages of better traf f icability,
reduced evaporation, maintenance of pressure due to gravity,
and aesthetics.
Cost of conveyance channel lining vary with approxi-
mately the square root of the channel capacity, so unit
costs diminish with increased scale of construction.
Seepage rates per unit of channel area, on the other hand,
tend to be higher with smaller-sized channels because of
less maintenance, greater depths to a water table, and
larger ratios of wetted perimeter to discharge capacity.
A review of concrete linings costs in the western
United States by Walker (1978) indicated a reasonably high
correlation between capacity and cost. Data presented by
the USDI, Bureau of Reclamation (1952, 1963), and personal
communication (USDI, BR, 1976) and Evans et al. (1976)
indicate the following general form:
cc = Kl Q2 + K3 (20)
in which,
-------
-80-
C = unit lining cost, in dollars per meter;
c
Q = conveyance capacity, in cubic meters per second;
KI and K2 = empirical site-specific coefficients;
K. = fixed costs, in dollars per meter.
The slope of the canal would affect values of K.^ and K,
since a given discharge can be conveyed in a smaller channel
if the slope is increased. Many large canals have fairly
flat slopes and can be estimated with Equation 20. If the
channel slope is greater than 0.001, the coefficients should
be re-evaluated.
For conditions in western Colorado and indexed to
January, 1980 time base, the value of K, was found to be
99.34, K2 was 0.56, and K., ranged from $25-$95/m with an
average value of $61.60/m. The costs included in the first
term on the right-hand side of Equation 20 are earthwork,
relocation, lining costs, service facilities, engineering
and investigative and administrative expenses. Fencing,
special diversion and cross drainage and safety structures
are included in the coefficient, K-. In a main irrigation
delivery system, the discharge of the network declines along
its length due to continuous withdrawal for irrigation and
less acreage serviced per unit length.
Small ditches including field head ditches and laterals
have basically the same cost-effectiveness characteristics
as larger scale linings. However, two differences should be
noted. First, the small capacities generally do not warrant
expensive fencing, diversion, and safety structures and
-------
-81-
therefore K.. in Equation 20 will be much smaller, and for
head ditches it can be considered negligible. For laterals,
K3 is primarily related to inexpensive flow measurement
structures which should be provided at each farmer's turn-
outs. The second difference is that the operation of smaller
conveyance channels is distinctly different from larger
systems. Ownership is often private and sharing of flow is
often rotated. Consequently, the discharge capacity gener-
ally does not diminish significantly along the channel
length. For these conditions, Equation 1 reduces to:
K2
C = KA sa (21)
The coefficients include costs for earthwork, relocation and
lining costs as well as investigations, flow measurement,
diversions and road crossing structures, etc. They do not
include fencing or other special safety structures since
these are not necessary on small canals.
It is worth noting that using the large canal values
of K,, K~, and K- coefficients for small ditches may intro-
duce significant cost overestimation errors. Small ditches
often have larger slopes and thereby carry a higher flow
rate in a smaller cross-section. However, the largest
source of error is that the construction specifications do
not have to be as stringent, thereby reducing the costs.
Low cost plastic pipelines can also be used to replace the
small open ditches where feasible. For January 1980, values
-------
-82-
of K, = 48.5, K2 = 0.56, K, = $2.35/m appear to give repre-
sentative values for lateral and small ditch concrete linings
in the UCRB.
Defining the coefficients in Equation 21 can be accom-
plished by using typical values of 1980 contractor prices
for Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS) cost-sharing programs of slip-form concrete small
ditch and lateral lining costs in the western United States,
approximately 5-8 cm thickness, using the sulfate resistant
specifications of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. These costs are currently about
2
$7.50/m including all base preparation. Total lining costs
for ditches carrying up to 0.4 m /sec range from 12/m to
$25/m. Thus, for a specified slope, the perimeter can be
calculated, multiplied times the length and unit cost for an
estimate of SCS lining costs. Administrative, investigative,
engineering costs by the supervising agency, and other
indirect costs can be estimated (usually 25 to 33 percent of
construction costs), and the salinity related cost-
effectiveness function is then determined directly. For
purposes of this report, SCS values will be used since it is
anticipated that they will be doing most of the lateral and
head ditch linings.
The costs of converting a small ditch or lateral to a
pipeline conveyance involves two cost estimates. The deri-
vations of the cost-effectiveness functions are the same as
given above. Irrigation pipeline materials range from
-------
-83-
plastic to concrete to metal. In addition to the costs of
the pipe itself are the costs of installation. These
installation costs for just the pipe are generally estimated
at $3.50/m to $4.00/m depending upon the pipe size and local
excavating conditions. The Soil Conservation Service in the
Grand Valley is presently estimating pipeline costs, materi-
als plus installation at $0.55 per inch of diameter per foot
($0.72/cm diameter/meter) including flow measurement, trash
screens and inlet structures.
As a general rule, slip-form concrete and low head
(50 feet-head) PVC pipelines have about the same salinity
control cost-effectiveness. However, the use of low-head
PVC pipe is generally not recommended. The use of other
materials in these small capacity systems result in much
higher costs and are, therefore, not generally cost-effective
in comparison. The costs of commonly available pipeline
materials are summarized in Appendix 3.
On-Farm Improvements—
The most significant improvements to reduce water
diversions and control waterlogging and salinity problems
potentially come from improved on-farm water management.
This is particularly true for areas containing large quan-
tities of naturally occurring salts in the soil profile.
Poor irrigation practices on the farm are the primary cause
of excessive water diversions, as well as the primary source
of irrigation return flow quality problems.
-------
-84-
A common misconception concerning salinity control is
that improving irrigation efficiencies and reducing canal
and lateral seepage would decrease the volume of percolating
water, but may not decrease the total amount of salt leached,
This would be true only if salt concentrating effects were
the only phenomenon present and if the leaching water had an
infinite capacity to dissolve salts. However, in most arid
areas such as the Colorado River Basin, salt pickup rather
than concentrating effects is the dominant source of salin-
ity.
The exact chemical phenomenon involved with water
moving through the soil profile is very complex and diffi-
cult to accurately predict or model. However, the basic
processes are as the dilute irrigated water moves through
the soil profile it tends to dissolve salts which are inher-
ent in the soil, while the salts which were concentrated by
crop use tend to precipitate out of solution into the soil.
Thus, as irrigation efficiencies are increased, the dis-
solved solids concentration in the soil also increase and
there is a gradual shift from dissolution of salts to condi-
tions favoring their precipitation. Therefore, an increase
in irrigation efficiency will always reduce the amount of
salt in the subsurface return flows (van Schilfgaarde and
Oster, 1977) .
The amount of salts which will be reduced by improve-
ments in water management is very often nonlinear and diffi-
cult to access. Fortunately, in the UCRB the chemical
-------
-85-
properties of the saline soils and parent materials tend to
force a linear relationship between the amount of deep perco-
lation and the corresponding salt reduction by imposing an
upper limit on the groundwater concentrations. In other
words, the reduction in salts is directly proportional to
the reduction in subsurface flow volumes.
Increasing seasonal farm application efficiencies of an
area to at least 65 percent will be a very difficult task
almost anywhere in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Most of
the fields are small with irregular shapes and variable
slopes. Improvements in irrigation practices will be locally
motivated and justified by increasing production and/or
lower labor and other operational costs/ and not by concerns
for improved water quality.
The variety of structural improvements that might be
effective in increasing irrigation efficiency includes
lining or piping head and tailwater ditches to eliminate
seepage conversion to alternative irrigation systems which
applies water more uniformly with better control of the
application depth. Modification of existing systems such as
adding flow measurement devices, land leveling and automation
should also be included. It is assumed in the analyses that
all structural improvements also include sufficient techni-
cal assistance from federal agency and extension personnel
so that the systems will operate as designed.
The improvement of irrigation efficiencies through on-
farm seepage control can be evaluated with the methods
-------
-86-
outlined by Walker et al. (1977, 1979) for conveyance
linings. On these small systems, the parameter, K3, would
normally be zero and K, would be reduced to a value which is
about one-third of K, for large canal linings since construc-
tion specifications are less rigid and the ditches contain
fewer control structures. The use of pipe rather than
concrete linings, particularly gated pipe, can also be
included in this manner.
The effectiveness of amending existing systems or
converting to other methods of irrigation depends on the
difference in application efficiency that can be achieved.
Specifically, the change in deep percolation can be written
as:
ADp = (1 - AEa) Da (22)
in which,
ADp = reduced depth of deep percolation in centimeters;
D = average depth of applied water in centimeters.
cl
By assuming that the soil chemical reactions can be consid-
ered in equilibrium, the prediction in salt pickup associ-
ated with a change in deep percolation is developed from:
/Q - Qp\ _4
ASE = AScADp( -SL P Jx 10 (23)
where,
ASF = reduction in salt loading due to improved appli-
cation efficiencies, in megagrams per year per
hectare.
-------
-87-
Evaluation of the term, AE_, is a difficult task. It
cl
requires that existing efficiencies be characterized and
that expected efficiencies for potential improvements be
predictable. Both tasks are compounded by the highly vari-
able and diffuse nature of irrigation systems. However, for
the purposes of this report, attainable application effi-
ciencies in Table 4 were used.
Cost of Irrigation Systems—
A general model describing irrigation system costs for
various farming conditions is not readily available. It is
not a difficult task to estimate these costs if the specific
conditions at the farm are known, but in the absence of this
information, irrigation improvement costs are usually given
as representative values. The cost estimates presented here
are annual costs per hectare and include capital and con-
struction costs, operation and maintenance costs, and pump-
ing energy costs. These cost estimates are current as of
January, 1980.
Not all irrigating costs are included in this analysis
because many are incident to the farming enterprise and do
not affect the choice of system improvements for salinity
control. This assumption is based on the fact that a
farmer is committed by choice to the contribution of a
certain level of labor, energy, capital, and water resources
for continued irrigated agriculture. For example, seed,
fertilizer, pesticides, taxes, and insurance are costs only
minimally affected by system improvements and are not
-------
-88-
Table 4. Suggested maximum attainable irrigation application
efficiencies in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Irrigation Method
Maximum Probable Attainable
Efficiency
Gated Pipe
Siphon Tube-Furrow
Automatic Cutback Furrow
Automated Gated Pipe Furrow
Sprinklers
Drip
Borders
Level Basins
Automated Basins
Tailwater Reuse Systems
60
60
80
80
85
90
60
75
90
80
-------
-89-
considered. Actually, many of these costs are often com-
pensated for by higher yields and greater land values. It
is obvious that the costs on which a specific on-farm salin-
ity control measure should be compared with others are the
differences between the total annual cost of the improved
system minus the pre-implementation total annual costs and
minus increases in net farm profit incurred as the result of
better irrigation practices.
The pre-implementation of "base" conditions in the
salinity affected regions of the UCRB is most likely to be
the furrow irrigated field having moderate slopes less than
1.5 percent and relatively low intake soils. The water
supply is delivered to the field in unlined ditches from
river diversions or at the farm from wells. Water supply
costs are already being paid and therefore would not affect
the choice of the on-farm improvement. The exception is the
case of the water supply being groundwater requiring a pump
and a well. If the system improvement was to be a sprinkle
or trickle system, the new pumping plant and higher energy
costs must be included in the evaluation regardless of water
source because these facilities would require substantial
modification.
The base topological condition one might also expect
would be relatively well graded fields, thereby eliminating
large land shaping costs for most improved systems except
for possibly wide border and basin irrigation. Water dis-
tribution on the farm itself would typically be with unlined
-------
-90-
ditches and application to the fields would be accomplished
with cuts in the earthen ditch bank, siphon tubes, spiles,
or small check structures. New systems and improvements
would replace all of these facilities except siphon tubes.
Rebuilt or new structures for flow measurement and
regulation would be added.
Costs were developed for pressurized and gravity
irrigation systems obtaining water from surface and ground-
water sources. The results of averaging the scale distri-
buted capital and construction costs are shown in Table 5.
Depending on the type of improvement selected, annualized
capital costs range from below $30/ha to more than $600/ha.
Systems currently utilizing a groundwater resource and
converting to a pressurized system involve substantial
upgrading of the pumping systems thus such changes would not
be necessary for the gravity or surface irrigation methods.
Appendix 3 presents suggested annual maintenance costs
for various pressurized and surface irrigation systems, data
on labor requirements per irrigation for selected types
of systems, and listing of expected equipment life of various
irrigation system components with a good maintenance pro-
gram. Replacement costs of short-lived components are
included in 0 & M cost estimates.
Annual expenditures to operate and maintain irrigation
improvements are also given in Table 5. These costs which
include labor are higher in all cases than the base condi-
tions because of the previously stated assumption that
-------
Table 5 . Annualized average costs for selected irrigation systems
Annual Capital and Annual Annual
Description of System or Improvement Construction Cost O & M Costs Energy Costs
$/ha S/ha S/ha
Concrete Ditch Linings
Gated-pipe Replacement of Head Ditches and
Piped Connecting Systems
Automated Cutback System
Gated-pipe Tailwater Recovery and
Reuse System
Big Gun Traveler Sprinkler System
Solid-Set Sprinkler System with Above
Ground Aluminum Piping
Solid-Set Sprinkler System with Below
Ground PVC Piping
Hand Move Sprinkler System with Aluminum Piping
Sideroll Sprinkler System
Center Pivot Sprinkler System
Trickle Irrigation System for Orchards and
Widely Spaced Row Crops
Automated Basins
33 70
29 60
83 17 0
95 19 33
272 - 3491 83 - 1071 125 - 1881 1
vo
362 - 4051 185 - 2061 120 - 1891 V
642 - 6831 196 - 2091 109 - 1731
137 - 1751 70 - 891 120 - 1891
119 - 1471 49 - 601 50 - 881
70 - 911'2 21 - 281 '2 55 - 801'2
312 127 19
1 Range of costs for surface water supplies (small values) and groundwater supplies (large values).
2 For center pivot systems covering more than 32 ha.
-------
-92-
improved management would be a part of the program. Speci-
fically, a farmer whose improvements ranged from simple head
ditch linings to complex pressurized systems would be
expected to include irrigation scheduling components at peak
operating efficiency. If these assumptions are not valid or
not included in the quality control program, many improve-
ments would actually show negative 0 & M costs because of
labor savings. The pressurized system should still have
added 0 & M costs because of greater equipment complexity.
The costs of pumping and adding pressure to the irri-
gation water, above those for the base conditions, are pre-
sented in Table 5. These costs have been delineated from
the 0 & M costs to illustrate the consequences of changing
irrigation systems. Energy costs are increasing much faster
than other irrigating costs and, therefore, should be evalu-
ated carefully in selecting on-farm salinity control measures
The energy cost results shown in the last column of
Table 5 should be understood since the impression may be
given that converting to sprinkle and trickle irrigation
systems always means more energy bills. This may not be
true if an existing groundwater supplied surface irrigation
system is highly inefficient. For example, conversion to a
sprinkler system may actually reduce energy costs since the
increased efficiency means less water pumped even though the
pressure is higher.
The total annual costs associated with each alternative
irrigation system improvement can be determined by summing
-------
-93-
the average values. One can see that annual costs cover a
wide range in the irrigation industry. Simple head ditch
linings are more than an order of magnitude cheaper than
most of the pressurized conversions. However, the improve-
ment in application efficiency is also a factor in the
cost-effectiveness of the measure as a salinity control
alternative. Head ditch linings would improve the irriga-
tion efficiency by the amount of seepage prevented, whereas
the remaining improvements also create increases due to
better water control and uniformity.
The values presented in Table 5 agree quite closely
with the data presented by Reed et al. (1977) for the same
field sizes. Reed et al. (1977) did not include annualized
initial investment costs, but did include taxes, insurance,
and depreciation.
Development of the On-Farm Cost-Effective Analysis--
The cost-effectiveness function for the on-farm
improvements meets the same general criteria as the other
salinity control measures. Specifically,
C. = X(m.) (24)
subject to:
0 ^ m. ^ m. (25)
where,
C- = the annual cost of reducing the mass emissions of
salt by mg;
-------
-94-
A . = unit control cost associated with the j— on-farm
-1 improvement which may be either linear or scale
dependent ; and
in. = total controllable pollutant reduction achieved
3 by full treatment.
The values of X . are defined from irrigation system design
and can include management costs and has the form of:
where ,
<26>
c. = total annual cost of the improvement, $/ha/yr; and
R- = changes in pollutant emission achieved by the j —
3 improvement, Mgm/ha/yr, and includes the effects
of efficiency.
On-farm optimizations are subjected to the same linear
constraints presented in Equations 6 and 7, but also require
an additional constraint to prevent more than one on-farm
improvement being applied at the same source. For example,
lining a head ditch and conversions to. sprinkler systems are
mutually exclusive in most cases. This constraint can be
written as follows:
n m. n
I r1 1 E »-i (27)
j=l Af j=l 3
where,
Af = the total of irrigated lands, hectares; and
n = the total number of the selected on-farm improve-
ments to be considered for the area.
However, this constraint could not be easily included in the
algebraic optimization procedure outlined earlier.
-------
-95-
Due to the linearities of annual costs for the various
irrigation systems over the range of field sizes and condi-
tions applicable to the Upper Colorado River Basin, the
aggregate on-farm strategy was optimized by linear program-
ming. Figure 18 presents the dimensionless optimal combi-
nation of on-farm salinity control measures to be implemented
in any area in the UCRB. Figure 18 also illustrates the
potential range of salt reduction obtainable for each measure
when implemented in the optimal sequence as shown.
The program for the optimal on-farm salinity control
program depends on the desired level of control which was
selected prior to implementation. Depending on the chosen
level of salinity control for an area, head ditch lining
would be the first measure to be implemented until approxi-
mately 42 percent of salt is to be removed, at which time
cutback furrow irrigation (semi-automated) would start to
replace the head ditch linings to remove up to 67 percent.
If control above the 67 percent level is desired, then con-
struction of gated pipe tailwater reuse systems or other
similar automated systems are initiated to remove up to 80
percent of the attainable salt before sideroll sprinklers
become cost-effective. Drip irrigation, if applicable, is
the last alternative to be implemented. This additive
approach is illustrated by Figure 19 which shows the non-
linearity of the cumulative on-farm cost-effectiveness
function. The annual costs can be computed using Equation 8
and establishing the on-farm A and B values for each
-------
-96-
o
o
a
CO
0>
0>
£
a.
O
w
a>
(0
o
a
o
O
o
CO
3
•o
•- T3
&
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
Heod Ditch Linings(Gated Pipe)
Cutbock Furrow Irrigation ,
Gated Pipe Tailwater Recovery and Reuse /
Sideroll Sprinklers (Field Crops)
Trickle Irrigation (Orchards)
0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0:6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Relative Salt Load Reduction From On-Farm Controls
Figure 18.
Dimensionless optimal on-farm salinity control
implementation program.
-------
-97-
Relative On-farm Optimization Strategy
Interest Rate 7'/8 %
20 Year Life
0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Relative Salt Reduction
Figure 19. Dimensionless on-farm cost-effectiveness function.
-------
-98-
irrigated area. Throughout this analysis it was assumed
that irrigation scheduling and a higher level of management
would be imposed on the on-farm irrigation programs.
This array of on-farm alternatives is not intended to
be all inclusive, but rather to indicate the types of systems
which should be implemented to achieve a desired level of
control. The Soil Conservation Service or other implement-
ing agency should approach this strategy in terms of estab-
lishing policies or priorities for distributing cost-sharing
monies for on-farm improvements. For example, a graduated
scale of cost-sharing percentages could be formulated with
the highest level of government contribution being available
for the most efficient on-farm improvements.
Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Return Flows—
In many cases where salt pickup is a particularly
severe problem, subsurface return flows from irrigated lands
may be so brackish that no further use of the water is
possible. Such flows significantly degrade the quality of a
river, stream, or groundwater resource. An alternative to
expenditures aimed at reducing the volume of these flows by
improving irrigation efficiency is to collect the subsurface
return flows before they enter receiving waters. The col-
lected flows can then be directed to a desalination plant
that removes most of the salts and returns the water to the
stream or directly to a disposal area. Major disposal
alternatives include deep well injection and evaporation
-------
-99-
ponds. Various desalination methods are discussed in detail
by Walker (1978).
The costs of collection, desalination, injection wells,
and evaporation ponds are described for planning purposes by
the United States Department of the Interior (1972). A
mathematical description of the same information is given by
Walker (1978). In general, the costs of the collection,
desalination, and brine disposal for salinity control exceeds
the costs required to achieve the same level of salt reduc-
tion by improving irrigation efficiencies. However, by
comparison, lining large conveyance systems or implementing
highly automated irrigation systems is costlier. The desali-
nation alternative is relatively free of the institutional
complications involved in improving an entire irrigated
area, but is an intensive user of energy.
Desalination—
For regional salinity control evaluations, desalting
costs are expressed in dollars per unit volume of salt
extracted in the brine discharge rather than the conven-
tional index of costs per unit volume of reclaimed product
water. In this manner the respective feasibility of desali-
nation and other alternatives for salinity management can be
systematically compared during the processes of developing
strategies for actual implementation of salinity controls.
A desalting system as used herein consists of facilities for
supplying raw water (water to be desalted) to the plant, the
desalting plant itself and facilities to convey and dispose
-------
-100-
of the brine. Transportation of product water beyond the
confines of this system is not considered.
While recognizing the site-specific nature of desalting
technology as applied to regional water quality management,
some generalization of the cost-effectiveness relationship
can be made. A detailed evaluation of input parameters to a
desalting cost analysis was presented by Walker (1978).
All systems are most sensitive to the capacity of the de-
salting plant. When the costs are expressed in terms of
salt removal, the unit costs stabilize to nearly constant
values when the capacities are greater than about 10-15,000
m /day. Since desalting would be most competitive with the
salinity control alternatives when the unit costs are mini-
mal, only systems with capacities greater than 0.17 m /s
(15,000 m /day) should be considered. The result of this
consideration is that the desalting cost-effectiveness
functions are approximately linear.
For the purpose of formulating a desalting cost-
effectiveness function which can be evaluated along with
other salinity control measures, the model by Walker (1978)
was updated to January, 1980 conditions. Then, the model
was used to generate cost-effectiveness curves for feedwater
saline types ranging from 1,000 to 9,000 mg/1. These func-
tions shown in Figure 20 were then considered into the
following mathematical form:
Cd = 0.5 + M'S1 (28)
-------
-101-
100
200 300 400 500 600
Annual Salt Removal in mgm x 10~3
700
Figure 20.
Annual costs of salt removed by reverse osmosis
(RO) desalination process at various feedwater
concentrations.
-------
-102-
in which,
C, = annual cost in $ million of removing S,, thousands
of megagrams per year; and
M1 = 1,404 TDSi - 1.18
where,
TDS. = feedwater salinity, mg/1.
The disposal of brine from desalination plants and/or
brine pumping programs such as the Paradox Valley Project,
is a severe problem in many of the salinity control programs.
The alternatives which are most commonly discussed are
evaporation ponds and deep well injection. Ponds are limited
by area and volume availability whereas injection techniques
depend on the physical and chemical characteristics of the
geologic formation where brine is to be stored.
There is some consideration of supplying brines to
industries such as oil shale if they would want it or could
use it. Milliken et al. (1979) discuss the legal and insti-
tutional factors associated with transfers of saline water
to energy related users. In addition, there is some atten-
tion being given to alternatives such as piping the brines
to natural salt sinks such as Sevier Lake in Utah.
Evaporation Ponds—
The area required for evaporation ponds depends on the
total brine flow and natural precipitation and the rate of
evaporation. For example, if the average annual evaporation
rate for Paradox Valley or Glenwood Springs was about one
-4
meter, then the evaporation rate would average 3.2 x 10
-------
-103-
3 3
m /s/ha of pond surface and an inflow rate of 0.06 m /s
would require a 190 hectare pond. Additional evaporation
area capacity is required because the evaporation rates are
depressed with increasing concentration (Crow, 1980; USDI-
USDA, 1977). These ponds should also include storages for
seasonal variations in evaporation since the inflow from a
desalination plan or brine well field would be constant.
The useful life of the pond depends on the salt and sediment
deposition on the bottom. The density of rock salt is about
2.18 gin/cm and a salt loading of 163,000 Mgm/yr into a pond
would consume a minimum of 75,000 m of capacity each year,
and 236,000 Mgm/yr would annually deposit 104,000 m of
salt. The life of the ponds could be extended indefinitely
if the salt had any marketable value and would be period!--
cally removed.
Watersaver, Inc. (1980) indicated material costs for a
36 mil exposed reinforced Hypalon-type liner, not including
2
earthwork, to be about $4.74/m or $47,360/ha. Laying and
sealing costs could be estimated on labor requirements of
150-200 man-hours/ha at $15.00/man-hour which results in
labor costs of $2230 to $2975/ha.
If the Hypalon-type liner were to be covered by earth,
at least another $7200/ha might be expected. A 30-mil PVC
liner could not be exposed and would have to have an earthen
covering, and total installed costs would be about
$38,500/ha, however, PVC would probably not be as durable as
Hypalon-type liners. For purposes of this report, a
-------
-104-
conservative value of $54,600/ha for installation and a
total installed cost of $102,000/ha was used. The USDI,
WPRS (1980a) indicated that total costs including earthwork
could approach $2,480,000/ha. The USDI, WPRS (1979) esti-
mated that 247 ha of evaporation ponds, 6.1 m deep with a
20 mil PVC buried liner costs about $178,650/ha for the La
Verkin Spring Project (October, 1978 prices). Inflating
this cost to January, 1980, using the Engineering News
Record Building Cost Index (ENR, 1980) factor of 1.10, the
unit costs would be about $197,000/ha.
Deep Well Injection—
Deep well injection as a method of brine disposal
offers several environmental benefits. The primary advan-
tage is that very little terrestrial surface area is re-
quired since the brines are injected into subsurface geologic
formations. The technology of deep well injection is fairly
well developed and has seen wide use in the petroleum indus-
try where oil field brines have been brought to the surface
during the production of gas and oil. The oil field brines
are usually reinjected into the same formation in which they
originated, and there is presently a considerable effort in
using the reinjected brine in the secondary recovery of oil.
Injection wells have also been used for the permanent
underground storage of industrial wastes, radioactive wastes,
wastes from small scale desalination plants and some from
advanced waste treatment plants. However, the injection of
these wastes has usually been on a fairly low volume at less
-------
-105-
than 3.16 Ips in wells and on a short-term basis, unless
some types of underground chambers had been prepared. For
example/ chambers have been made in salt domes for waste
disposal and oil storage in places where the brine produced
by the making of these chambers could be disposed by other
means. Another method of making chambers is the use of
nuclear explosives which has been demonstrated in Colorado
and Wyoming to help in natural gas production as part of the
Plowshare Program.
Deep well injection is generally not a long-term solu-
tion to a continuous disposal program because of reservoir
limitation and the need to drill new wells at further and
further distances from the source. The new wells are very
expensive to construct and new piping systems are required.
Bouwer (1974) indicated that well costs, up to about 1,000
meters deep in 1974, were about $160/m. In 1980, these
costs would be about $265/m. Deeper wells would be much
more expensive on a unit cost basis because of the different
types of equipment required. In addition, the pressures
involved in the injection process often exceed 100 atmos-
pheres, and the pumping power requirement can be large.
Other Brine Disposal Possibilities—
The USDI, WPRS (1980a) is presently assessing several
alternatives to the brine disposal problems for their salin-
ity control projects in the Colorado River Basin. One
possible alternative which they are examining is supplying
the brine water to industries, such as oil shale, for their
-------
-106-
use. Another possibility is to construct a collection
system and convey all of the brine to a suitable salt sink
such as Sevier Lake in Utah or even to the Pacific Ocean.
Collection, Treatment, and/or Disposal of Other Saline
Flows—
The Upper Colorado River Basin contains a number of
natural saline springs and seeps which add substantial
amounts of salt to the river. Alternatives for eliminating
these salts include desalination as discussed earlier as
well as direct collection and disposal through evaporation
pond to deep well injection. The desalination cost-
effectiveness for the nature saline springs and seeps are
the same as described for the treatment of agricultural
return flows.
Hagan (1971) and EPA (1971) estimated that the salinity
contribution from point sources in the Upper Colorado River
Basin is about 9 percent of the total salt load at Lee's
Ferry, Arizona. The majority of these point sources are
thermal springs, and lorns et al. (1965) calculated that the
annual discharge and dissolved solids concentration by all
the thermal springs in the upper basin to be 7,287 ha-m and
491,500 Mgm, respectively. Dividing the flow and concentra-
tions due to thermal springs among the three divisions is
presented in Table 6. The major point sources of the UCRB
are listed in Table 1-B in Appendix 1.
The EPA (1971) calculated that the total contribution
of point sources in the Lower Basin is an additional 645,900
-------
-107-
Table 6. Point source contributions in the Upper Colorado
River Basin.
Drainage ha-m
Grand Division 5,060
Green Division 1,960
San Juan Division 270
TOTAL 7,290
Salt
Contribution
Mgm/yr
437,400*
516,000*
44,10oi
131,950*
9,980*
10,400*
491,500*
658,500*
804,900J
1Iorns et al. (1965)
2Hagan (1971)
3EPA (1971)
-------
-108-
Mgm/yr which is about 15 percent of the total salt load from
the Lower ttasin. The USDI, BR (1979a) estimates the point
source contribution in the Lower Basin at 687,000 Mgm/yr of
dissolved solids. Thus, point sources account for about 21
percent of the total salt leaving the Colorado River Basin
and is not a minor problem.
There are about four point sources in the Upper Colorado
River Basin that might be cost-effective to treat. Paradox
Valley, although not technically a point source, is probably
the most cost-effective at this time if the by-pass alterna-
tive is adopted. The second most favorable is probably the
thermal-mineral springs on the Colorado River near Glenwood
Springs and Dotsero, Colorado. Crystal Geyser, near Green
River, Utah, is an abandoned oil well and does not appear to
be cost-effective at this time.
The salinity contribution of Meeker Dome, which is
believed to result primarily from old abandoned oil wells
which were improperly capped, is presently being investi-
gated to determine a suitable treatment for reducing the
salinity. One well was capped in 1968 and reduced the
salinity contribution by about fifty percent (USDI, WPRS,
1980a).
Most of the salinity control point source treatments
involve desalination and/or evaporation of the brines or
deep well injection of the brines.
-------
SECTION 7
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
There is a lack of good data outside of the Grand Valley
for the irrigated areas in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
In addition, there is substantial uncertainty associated
with projections of future developments and their antici-
pated water demands. Nevertheless, decisions must be made
and salinity control programs developed using these data.
The results generated by these calculations suggest a
foundation on which to formulate a basin-wide salinity
control program. The analysis presented in this text
demonstrates the procedures and data necessary to determine
the most cost-effective basin-wide program.
PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
Once the hydro-salinity evaluation of a river basin is
completed, it is only necessary to define the first level
cost-effectiveness parameters for each area before the
entire basin-wide analysis of the second, third and fourth
level cost-effectiveness functions are only mathematical
extensions of the Level 1 optimization. Figure 21 depicts
the simplicity of this methodology. This easily applied
procedure is further illustrated by the fact that the entire
analysis was performed using a small desk-top computer with
less than 24,000 bytes of capacity.
Throughout this analysis average values were used to
represent the general conditions of each canal and/or area.
-------
-110-
l START J
Select Type or
Combination for
Optimization
Basin-Wide
Cost-Effective
Strategy
by State.
Cost Effective
Strategy by
Project
Basin-Wide
Cost-Effective
Strategy by
Alternative
Individual Area
Strategy
Aggregate Canal Lining CE
Aggregate Lateral Lining CE
Aggregate On-Farm Improvements CE
Desalting or other CE
Glenwoo
Dotsero
prings
/
Optimize
I (same as
\ canal lining) l
CURVE FIT
(cubic)
Cost-Effectiveness
( END J
Figure 21.
General schematic flow chart of project area,
state and basin-wide optimization and develop-
ment of the cost-effectiveness function.
-------
-Ill-
It was further assumed that the groundwater salinity concen-
trations would remain unchanged as a result of any salinity
control program. January, 1980, costs and estimates of
conditions were used throughout the development of these
results.
Salinity is basically a conservative pollutant, and it
was assumed that the problem could be linearly decomposed
into various levels in order to arrive at a basin-wide
salinity control strategy. The lack of physical interaction
and water utilization practices between the various areas
delineated by PL 93-320 facilitated this analysis.
The Grand Valley of western Colorado was used to verify
these procedures and assumptions because it is the only area
in the Upper Basin where sufficient data are available to
permit this type of analysis. Also, the Grand Valley is
geologically and topographically similar to the other large
agricultural salt producing areas in the basin. For example,
field sizes are generally small with moderate slopes and have
soils with low water intake rates.
The degradation of water quality associated with the
irrigation of agricultural lands is usually most economically
controlled on the croplands where the water is applied. The
preventative structural measures, which were included in
this analysis were limited to concrete canal and lateral
linings and five broad categories of on-farm irrigation
system improvements. Desalination of agricultural return
flows by reverse osmosis procedure was included as the final
-------
-112-
measure to be implemented in the most cost-effective salinity
control strategy. However, it was assumed that the on-farm
program would include long-term and capable technical assist-
ance in order to maximize the benefits of the respective
systems.
The criterion of minimum cost was utilized in this
analysis for two main reasons. One, the salinity problem
and the associated damages are a classic example of a true
economic externality, and purely economic forces are unable
to cause remedial measures. Second, the goal of maintaining
the 1972 salinity levels in the Colorado River Basin is a
mandated requirement, and also not an economic consideration.
Thus, the control must be accomplished via governmental
action and minimum costs are an acceptable criterion for
determining salinity control strategies.
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
Figure 22 illustrates the graphical presentation of
areawide salinity control programs. The heavy dark line
represents the aggregate cost-effectiveness function for the
area in terms of annual costs and salt load reduction. The
area above the cost-effectiveness curve represents the salt
load reduction which can be obtained from each alternative
for any level of salinity control. Correspondingly, the
area below the cost-effectiveness function defines the costs
associated with each alternative. For example, the dashed
lines in Figure 22 represent the optimal strategy for a
-------
Desalination
Latera I
Linings
180,000
Mega grams
120,000
rtegograms
100,000
Mega grams
On-Farm Improvements
350,000 Megograms
Desalination
j $ 6.0 Million
$6.5 Million
Lateral Linings
$ 7.5 Million
On-Farm Improvements
$ 10 Million
i
100
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Salt Load Reduction , Megagrams x I0~5
900 1000
Figure 22. Example of salinity control cost-effectiveness function for a 750,000 Mgm
reduction and an annual cost of $30 million.
-------
-114-
given area to remove a total of 750,000 Mgm per year at a
cost of $30 million annually. The values of salt and dollars
which are listed on the "policy spaces" of Figure 20 cor-
respond to this level of salinity control. The total salin-
ity impact is achieved by investments of $10 million/yr in
on-farm improvements, $7.5 million/yr in lateral linings,
$6.5 million/yr in canal linings, and $6.0 million/yr in a
desalination program. Each of these systems would be im-
proved sufficiently if totally constructed to reduce salinity
by 350,000 Mgm/yr, 180,000 Mgm/yr, 120,000 Mgm, and 100,000
Mgm/yr, respectively. A similar salinity control strategy
can be identified in such diagrams as the delineation of the
coordinates of the cost-effectiveness function.
The linearities introduced by desalination in the
ranges where desalting would be implemented were better
represented by a cubic relation than Equation 8. This
equation has the form:
AS + BS2 + CS3 - Annual Cost (29)
where A, B, C are regression coefficients and S is the salt
load reduction. Otherwise, the exact procedures and method-
ology are followed as were outlined in the previous chapter.
Although it is not shown on the graphs, it should be men-
tioned that the very top of the desalting region is nonlinear
and turns very sharply upward. This rapid change is due to
the typically high costs of obtaining the last increment of
control. However, it was found that desalting would very
-------
-115-
seldom be implemented to that extent, and further correction
of the equation was not warranted in this analysis.
Tables presenting the data for the optimal areawide
salinity control program are included in this chapter. The
first column is the percentage of the total salt load which
has been treated, and the second column is the estimated
total combined annual cost. The third column is the esti-
mated average cost per mg/1 at Imperial Dam for these im-
provements; however, this is not marginal cost and should
not be compared against the $450,000/mg/l damages which are
a true marginal value. The columns under the various alter-
natives represent the amount of the attainable salt load
reduction attributed to that alternative. Due to the linear
relationship between the degree of salt loading and the
level of control, the columns for canal and lateral linings
can be almost directly translated into percent of lining
length to be implemented at each level of control. The
actual percentage of salt reduction in the canal lining
column in the areawide program corresponds directly to the
percentage of total salt reduction column in the specific
area canal lining strategy tables presented in Appendix 4.
Tables have not been presented for lateral lining because
they correspond very closely to canal lining. The same
seepage rates and groundwater quality for the aggregate
laterals under a canal were assumed to be the same as the
canal. Thus, the percentage of lateral lining in the
-------
-116-
areawide analysis will correspond directly to their respec-
tive canal in order of priority.
Tables listing the optimization parameters and the
characteristics of each of the major canals and large later-
als in each of the main agricultural areas can be found in
Appendix 2. These tables represent the best estimate of
representative conditions for each of the areas, and indi-
cate the results of the hydro-salinity analysis which was
performed for each area.
AREAWIDE ANALYSIS OF SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAMS
The areawide analyses of the individual salinity control
projects indicate a fairly high degree of uniformity in the
optimal order of implementation. In every agricultural
area, except the Grand Valley, the on-farm improvements were
the first programs to be implemented followed by lateral
lining, canal lining and desalination. Table 7 presents the
aggregate cost-effectiveness functions for canal lining,
lateral lining and on-farm improvements and their estimated
maximum salinity reduction potential.
The on-farm improvements are probably the most diffi-
cult components to quantify and to characterize in an opti-
mization context. In this analysis it was necessary to
assume a higher level of on-farm water management and long-
term technical assistance by the implementing agency and/or
extension personnel to the growers. The amount of salinity
control is much easier to establish for fixed structural
-------
Table i . Optimal Saljnity Control Cost Effectiveness Parameters for Agricultural Salinity Control Programs
in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Aggregate Function fdS~)
GRAND VALLEY CANALS
GRAND VALLEY LATERALS
GRAND VALLEY ON-FARM
LOWER GUNNISON LARGE 1
CANALS 2
LOWER GUNNISON SMALL
CANALS 3
LOWER GUNNISON LATERALS
LOWER GUNNISON ON-FARM
UINTAH CANALS4
UINTAH LATERALS
UINTAH ON-FARM
PRICE-SAN RAFAEL-
MUDDY CREEK CANALS 1
PRICE-SAN RAFAEL-
MUDDY CREEK LATERALS
PRICE-SAN RAFAEL ON-FARM
MCELMO CREEK CANALS4
McELMO CREEK LATERALS
McELMO CREEK ON-FARM
BIG SANDY ON-FARM
A
-1.598240E-07
-2.841952E-07
-3.829764E-07
-9.352244E-08
-1.147490E-07
-2.395381E-05
-2.196342E-07
-3.506144E-07
-1.114302E-07
-4.588612E-07
-1.049461E-06
-1.027021E-07
-1.773487E-07
-2.521342E-06
-4.794219E-07
-2.345824E-07
-3.101057E-06
-1.676666E-06
B
3.535953E-02
1.193<)53E-01
1.144168E-01
2.010311E-02
3.212852E-02
2.743582E-01
6.534075E-02
1.157612E-01
2.081652E-02
•S.888924E-02
1.173295E-01
1.896152E-02
3.752731E-02
1.264985E-01
1.739172E-02
8.033428E-02
1.183872E-01
1.171796E-01
\ /max
218.89
22.70
143.40
887.71
887.71
111.41
128.47
146.53
686.58
196.10
148.32
205.99
48.79
24.17
635.33
13.05
149.45
216.10
/JCc\
K)
\ / rain
26.99
5.87
3.74
21.58
16.90
5.35
7.22
8.64
25.30
8.52
52.58
22.22
8.44
20.26
12.45
8.45
8.53
Estimated
Attainable
Salt Load
Reduction
Mgm
110,000
140,900
225,000
176,200
152,600
8,860
174.600
250,000
119,700
62,250
85,000
62,000
43,900
39,000
21,100
8,000
29,100
56,000
Total Existing
Estimated
Salt Load
Contribution
Mgm
142,100
203,200
284,700
220,000
220,000
14,250
232,700
333,000
181,300
101,400
112,300
89,900
63,550
56,550
31,560
12,000
41,500
77,200
No winter water in canals, including an estimated annual salt load reduction of about 70,000 Mgm
With winter water in canals
Less than 0.4 m /s inlet capacity diverting directly from the rivers and streans
4
Includes most of major laterals
-------
-118-
measures such as canal and lateral linings. However, there
will also be an inherent amount of salinity reduction on the
farmers' fields as a result of the improved water application
and the easier water deliveries due to a conveyance lining
program, even if the farmers revert as much as possible to
past practices. Analysis of the areawide programs under
lower irrigation efficiencies still indicated that on-farm
improvements would be the first priority, but very little
would be done beyond head ditch linings. Desalination in
the agricultural areas would be increased to make up the
difference, and canal and lateral linings would not be
affected.
The array of on-farm practices used in this report is
intended to provide an indication of the types and extent of
improvements which would have to be implemented. There must
be an accompanying commitment from the government to assist
the farmers and to encourage their continued use of improved
water management practices including irrigation scheduling.
Grand Valley
Figure 23 illustrates the optimal cost-effective salin-
ity control program for the Grand Valley in western Colorado.
Table 8 presents the numerical data which is summarized in
Figure 23. As can be seen only 64 percent of the canal
linings, 100 percent of the lateral linings, and 83 percent
of the on-farm salinity reduction should be implemented
before desalination should take over the control practice.
Table 4-1 in Appendix 4 presents the optimal canal lining
-------
GRAND VALLEY SALINITY CONTROL COST EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTION
(O
ea
0
0
0
a
4>
a
0
u
0
c
0
4>
0
ON-FAR* IMPROVEMENTS
ON-FARM IMPROVEMENTS
in
S!B8S3&S81
•^NwSirt^^inwS
Salt Load Reduction. Mgm x 10-3
\O
Figure 23. Optimal Grand Valley Salinity Control Program.
-------
-120-
Table 8. Optimal Grand Valley Salinity Control Program.
X Total
Salt
5.44
ii.OO
15.78
19.96
23.64
26,93
29.88
32.56
34.99
37.22
38.22
39.02
39.76
40.44
41,09
41.69
42.26
42.79
43.29
44.23
45.28
46.28
47.24
48.14
49.01
49.83
56.62
8:8
52.81
53.48
54.12
54.75
55.35
55.93
56.48
57.03
57.55
58.05
co CA
JQ* n
59.02
59. 4b
59.93
60.36
61.78
61.19
61.59
61.98
62.36
62.72
IOC. 00
Total
Annual
Cost
305171
651021
980167
1294544
1596232
1886574
2166761
2437791
2700506
2955627
3075946
3177533
3276617
3373376
3467965
3569525
3651180
374IB43
3827218
3995948
4191999
4384704
4574231
4760730
4944342
5125198
is3tt
5823343
5992065
6158641
6323150
6485668
6646265
6805008
6961959
7117179
7270722
7422642
7572990
7721813
7869158
8015066
8159579
8302737
8444577
8585134
8724444
8862537
23098197
Average
$/mq/l
77179
81640
85700
89540
93218
96731
100128
103410
106591
109678
111164
112492
113844
115211
116589
117971
119354
120736
122114
124799
127879
130869
133777
136611
139377
142080
ii?rei
152346
154793
157199
159565
161893
164185
166444
168670
170865
173831
175169
177279
179364
181424
183459
185472
187462
189430
191378
193306
195214
319180
Canal
Lining
.10
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.10
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.64
6.08
9.36
12.47
15.44
18.27
20.97
It'll
30i?0
32.90
35.01
37.05
39.01
40.90
42.73
44.50
46.21
47.87
49.47
51.02
52.53
53.99
55.41
56.79
58.14
59.44
60.71
61.95
63.15
64.32
Percent
Lateral
Lining
17.01
31.41
43.81
54.64
64.20
72.72
80.37
87.30
93. 6i
99.39
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
lll:il
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Attainable Reduction
On- Farm
Improvements
4.58
11.12
16.75
21.66
26.00
29.87
33.34
36.49
39.36
41.98
44.39
46.62
48.69
50.62
52.42
54.11
55.70
57.19
58.60
59.93
61.20
62.40
63.54
64.63
65.67
66.66
67.61
AS. 5?
O7 « Jrf
70.23
71.04
71.81
72.56
73.28
73.98
74.65
75.30
75.92
76.53
77.12
77.69
78.24
78.78
79.30
79.81
80.30
80.78
81.24
81.70
82.14
82.57
Desalination
0.00
t.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.DO
0.00
0.00
0.00
e.oo
0.00
0.00
O.DO
O.DO
0.00
1.00
0.00
O.DO
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
1:1!
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
8.00
O.DO
8.00
0.00
8.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
O.DO
O.DO
8.00
C.DO
8.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
8.00
100.00
-------
-121-
program for the area. At the 64 percent level, the Govern-
ment Highline Canal, the Orchard Mesa Power Canal, and the
Redlands Power Canal are totally lined. Approximately 60
percent of the Grand Valley Mainline, the Grand Valley
Highline, the Mesa County Ditch, and 67 percent of the
combined Redlands ditches would be lined at this level.
Whereas, 34 percent of Price ditch, 40 percent of the Orchard
Mesa Canal and only 12 percent of the Keifer Extension are
lined. The remaining canals are not improved. The on-farm
program does not include sprinkle or trickle irrigation, but
does include improvements up to that point.
Lower Gunnison
The elimination of winter water from the canals in the
Lower Gunnison region in western Colorado greatly reduces
the importance of the canal lining program as can be seen by
comparing parts a and b in Figure 24. The two canal lining
programs shown in Figure 24 are intended to indicate the
probable maximum and minimum extent of lining construction.
The practice of winter livestock water via the canal system
contributes at least 40,000 Mgm/yr up to an estimated maxi-
mum of 75,000 Mgm/yr. The actual case undoubtedly lies
between the programs illustrated in Figure 22; however, this
only affects the relative amount of canal linings.
The Lower Gunnison is the only area where the very
small direct diversions from the rivers and streams were
included. These ditches are quite small with less than a
0.4 m /sec capacity. These were treated as a separate item
-------
-122-
LOVER GUNN1GON SALINITY CONTROL COST-EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTION
Salt. Load Reduction. Mgm x 10-3
(a) NO WINTER LIVESTOCK WATER
LOWER CUNNISON SALINITY CONTROL COST-EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTION
B
B
a>
aaaaaaaa
2 w m 3 s B B
Salt Load Reduction. Mgm x 10-3
WITH WINTER LIVESTOCK WATER
Figure 24. Optimal salinity control programs for the Lower
Gunnison with and without winter water in the
canals.
-------
-123-
because their costs would be the same as laterals. However,
the maximum salt load reduction from these small ditches was
estimated at only 8,860 Mgm, and the small costs and salt
contribution were not significant when plotted on the scale
of Figure 22. Table 9 numerically presents the optimal
salinity control program for the area.
The on-farm improvements do not include sprinklers or
trickle although certain portions of the area do appear to
offer substantial potential for gravity powered sprinklers
in orchards and field crops. Essentially all of the laterals
and only 20 percent of the canals should be lined. The
cost-effective canal lining program is limited to Mancos
Shale soil types. The total canal lining program can be
found in Table 4-2 in Appendix 4. It should be mentioned
that the Ironstone and M & D Canals were subjected to a
partial Level D analysis for the Mancos and nonMancos shale
areas.
The optimal salinity control program for the Uncompahgre
Valley portion of the Lower Gunnison is included (Figure 25) .
At the present time, this is the only portion of the area
which is being considered for improvement by the Water and
Power Resources Service. PL 93-320 specified the Lower
Gunnison as a potential salinity control project; however,
the WPRS has apparently restricted their investigation to
only the Uncompahgre River area. Stoppage of the winter
water in this case also greatly diminishes the importance of
canal lining for control in this area.
-------
-124-
Table 9. Optimal Lower Gunm'son Salinity Control Program.
% Total Total
Salt Annual
Cost
0.22
0.37
0.48
0.57
8.65
1.43
3.frV
5.64
7.35
8.87
10.22
11,44
tt.94
15.13
17.14
18.9V
20.70
22.2*
23.77
ft.U
26.45
27.68
28.83
29.91
30.94
31.92
32.85
'U.'/A
34.5V
35.38
36.14
36.88
37.56
36.26
38.91
3V. V*
40.14
40.71
41.2V
41.81
42.33
4/',b4
43.32
43.80
44.25
44.70
45.13
4S.S4
46.0?
46.69
47.34
47.98
48.59
49.19
4V , 7ii
S0.3S
50.91
51.45
51.98
52.49
100.00
5745
10858
15511
19810
23824
73919
228698
376157
517247
652727
783219
989234
1075911
1332793
1582368
1825228
2061887
2292797
2518357
2738923
2954813
3166312
3373677
3577143
3776928
3973203
4io6168
4355979
4542786
4726726
4907927
5086509
5436249
5687605
5776741
5943748
6108683
6271642
6432688
6591886
6749300
6904987
7059003
7211408
7362230
7511538
7659371
78319kO
8078836
8323449
8565821
8886013
9044082
9280085
9514874
9746099
9976209
18284451
10430870
31454714
Average
$/mg/l
28688
33105
36572
39629
42424
60643
73476
79194
83645
87574
91201
94619
98999
104921
109997
114534
118699
122587
126262
129764
133123
136361
139493
142533
145491
148374
151189
153943
156639
159282
161875
164423
169389
171813
174200
176553
178872
181159
183416
185644
187844
190017
192164
1942B7
196386
198461
200515
282908
206302
209624
212878
216870
219203
222280
225304
228278
231204
234086
236925
375126
Canal
Lining
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
O.OD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
!'!!
OiOB
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OD
O.OD
O.OD
0.00
0.00
0.49
2.40
4.25
6.04
7.80
9.50
11.16
12.78
14.36
15.90
17.40
18.87
20.30
Percent
Lateral
Lining
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.66
6.59
11.12
15.2V
19.15
22.74
26.08
29.20
32.13
34.89
37.49
39.94
42.26
44.46
46.56
48.55
50.44
52.26
53.99
5Z'24
5o!/6
60.23
61.64
62.99
64.30
65.56
66.78
67.95
69.09
70.18
71.25
72.28
73.28
74.25
75.19
76.10
76.99
77.85
78.69
79.51
80.31
81.08
81,84
82.57
83.29
83.99
84.68
85.35
Attainable Reduction
On-Farm
Improvements
0.00
O.OD
O.OD
0.00
0.00
2.11
8.55
14.12
19.00
23.32
27.18
30.66
33.81
36.69
39.32
41.75
44.00
46.09
48.03
49.85
51.56
53.16
54.68
56.11
57.46
58.74
59.96
61.12
62.22
63.28
64.29
S'il
47157
67.92
68.74
69.53
70.29
71.03
71.73
72.42
73.08
73.72
74.34
74.94
75.52
76.09
76.63
77.17
77.68
78.19
78.67
79.15
79.61
80.07
80.51
80.93
81.35
81.76
82.16
82.55
Small
Canal
Linings
15.79
26.91
35.28
41.88
8.25
.74
55.55
58.85
61.74
64.30
66.59
68.65
70.52
72.22
73.78
75.22
76.55
77.79
78.94
80.02
81.03
81.98
82.88
83.72
84.52
85.28
86.00
86.69
87.35
87.97
88.57
89.14
89 69
H:»
90.72
91.21
91,68
92.13
92.56
92.98
93.39
93.78
94.16
94.52
94.88
95.22
95. S6
95.88
96.20
96.50
96.80
97.09
97.37
97.65
97.92
98.18
98:43
98.68
98.92
99.16
99.39
Desali-
nation
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
* • Vw
0.00
V I V V
0.00
0 80
V * • V
0 00
* i V V
0.00
V f V V
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
w • VV
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OD
0.00
O.OD
0.00
0.08
0 DO
1:11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
w • wv
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
H • V V
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
-------
UNCOMPAHGRE VALLEY SALINITY CONTROL COST-EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTION
(O
I
s
0
0
Q
4>
0
0
u
0
D
C
C
<
0
4>
0
18 ,
16 .:
ON-FARM IMPROVEMENTS
DESALINATION
CANAL LINING
ON-FARM IMPROVEMENTS
ca
in
in
CM
Q
in
SJ
Salt. Load Reduction, Mgm x 10—3
to
Ul
in
0)
Figure 25. Optimal salinity control program for the Uncompahgre Valley with
no winter livestock water in the canals.
-------
-126-
Uintah Basin
Figure 26 presents the optimal salinity control strategy
for the Uintah Basin including the Ashley Creek and Brush
Creek drainages. The canal lining which is indicated on the
graph and in Table 10 is basically the canal lining to be
done under the Central Utah Project and little more needs to
be done. Most of the remaining canal lining will be in the
Ashley Valley. This analysis did not consider the consoli-
dation of several of the canals in the Ashley Valley near
Vernal, Utah, which is being proposed by the Water and Power
Resources Service. The optimal canal lining program for the
area can be found in Table 4-3 in Appendix 4.
The Uintah Basin is expected to lose a considerable
amount of its water to energy and related development in the
area because of its proximity to oil shale, coal and tar
sands deposits. The effect or the quality of this depletion
cannot be determined at this time.
Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek Drainages
Figure 27 illustrates the optimal cost-effective salin-
ity control program for this area. The crescent-shaped band
of irrigation development is located almost entirely in
Mancos Shales and has operation and irrigation characteris-
tics similar to the Lower Gunnison of Colorado. The canals
in this region are also used for winter livestock water and
elimination of this practice will reduce an estimated
30,000 Mgm of salt per year to the Colorado River. Table 4-4
-------
OPTIMAL UINTAH BASIN COST-EFFECTIVE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
CD
0
0
0
a
a
3
£
a
4>
o
-J
I
Salt. Load Reduction, Mgm x 10-3
Figure 26. Optimal Uintah Basin Salinity Control Program.
-------
-128-
Table 10. Optimal Uintah Basin Salinity Control Program.
% Total
Salt
1.40
2.61
3.67
4.60
5.44
6.28
6.88
7.51
8.08
8.61
9.10
9.56
9.98
10.88
11.80
12.66
13.48
14.25
14.98
15.67
16.33
16.95
17.55
18.12
18.66
19.18
19,68
M
21.07
21.49
21.90
22.30
22.68
23.85
23.41
23.75
24.09
24.41
24.73
25.03
25.33
25.61
26.12
26.82
27.51
28.18
28.83
29.46
30.08
30.68
31.27
31.85
32.41
32.95
33.49
34.01
100.00
Total
Annual
Cost
49495
96658
141791
185135
226888
267213
306247
344187
380893
416691
451576
485616
518869
592882
671704
748925
824639
898931
971879
1043553
1114017
1183330
1251548
318721
384894
450112
514415
1702194
1763187
1823429
1882947
1941768
1999914
2057409
2114273
2178528
2226193
2281285
2335822
2389820
2443296
2538593
2675127
2818412
2944*81
3677i66
3209098
3339706
3469220
3597665
3725069
3851455
3976848
4101271
4224746
20026499
Average
$/mo/l
75808
80457
84301
87841
91190
94394
97479
100461
103350
106158
108890
111554
114153
119685
125061
129945
134453
138666
142640
146417
150028
153496
156841
160078
163218
166273
169249
I??!?}
177775
180500
183174
185888
188388
190918
193417
195877
198382
200693
203051
285379
287677
209946
213955
219S3S
224886
230031
234991
239782
244420
248917
253286
257537
261678
265717
269662
273520
441305
Canal
Lining
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
8.60
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.08
0.00
0. 0
0. 0
0. 6
0.08
Ml
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.80
0.00
0.08
0.88
6.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.80
0.73
2.17
3.56
4.92
6.25
7.54
8.79
10.02
11.21
12.38
13.52
14.63
15.71
16.77
17.81
Percent
Lateral
Lining
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.60
0.60
0.60
0.06
0.00
0.00
3.20
6.68
9.95
13.04
15.95
18.71
21.33
23.81
26.18
28.43
30.59
32.65
34.62
«'J2
.06
41.74
43.35
44.90
46.48
47.85
49.25
50.68
51.90
53.17
54.39
55.58
56.74
57.85
58.94
60.08
61.02
62.82
62.99
63.94
64.86
65.76
66.64
67.49
68.33
69.14
69.94
70.71
71.47
72.22
Attainable Reduction
On -Farm
Improvements
6.49
12.10
17.02
21.37
25.27
28.77
31.95
34.86
37.52
39.97
42.24
44.35
46.32
48.16
49.88
51.50
53.83
54.47
55.84
57.14
58.37
59.54
60.66
61.73
62.75
63.72
64.66
S'SS
67J25
S.05
.82
69.56
78.28
70.97
71.64
72.29
72.91
73.52
74.11
74.68
75.24
75.77
76.30
76.81
77.30
77.78
78.25
78.71
79.15
79.59
86.61
80.43
88.83
81.22
81.61
81.98
82.35
Desalination
0.80
9.00
0.00
0.86
0.08
6.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
8.88
0.00
6.66
6.86
6.68
0.08
9.80
0.00
6.08
6.86
6.66
0.00
0.00
< .06
I .60
.00
8.66
8.80
0.06
9.66
8.08
8.86
8.00
.80
.00
.06
.00
.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
1.00
8.00
0.08
8.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.60
6.68
6.80
0.00
0.00
160.60
-------
OPTIMAL PRICE-SAN RAFAEL-MUDDY CREEK COST-EFFECTIVE
12 - SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
(D
I
(S3
9
0
0
a
o
0
u
C
10..
8..
8..
4..
^ 2..
0
4>
0
ON-FARM
IMPROVEMENTS
LATERAL LININGS
^ 'CANAL LININGS
DESALINATION
DESALINATION
CANAL LININGS
LATERAL LININGS
ON-FARM IMPROVEMENTS
M
NO
I
S
1 «
Salt. Load Reduction. Mgm x 10—3
Figure 27. Optimal salinity control program for the Price River-San Rafael River
and Muddy Creek Drainages without winter livestock water in the canals,
-------
-130-
in Appendix 4 tabulates the total optimal canal lining for
this area.
It is expected that much of the area's agricultural
water rights will be transferred to energy related users.
Some transfers have already taken place to supply cooling
water for fossil fuel thermal-electric generation facilities.
In addition, there is a large coal slurry pipeline proposed
for the Muddy Creek drainage which will require substantial
amounts of water.
Table 11 presents the data which have been plotted in
Figure 27. One hundred percent of laterals in the area
should be lined under existing conditions. The on-farm
program includes the improvement of existing surface irri-
gation systems to their maximum attainable irrigation effi-
ciency. Sprinklers were not included in the optimal array
of on-farm improvements for this area.
McElmo Creek
The very small amount of available data for the McElmo
Creek area in southwestern Colorado introduced substantial
uncertainty into this analysis. Fortunately, the total salt
contribution is relatively small. The completion of the
Dolores Project will cause an increase salt loading from the
area. The Water and Power Resource Service's report on the
Dolores Project did not assume any additional salt loading
from the presently irrigated lands. In addition, there are
only 4.8 Mgm per hectare from the new lands which is a very
low value considering the saline nature of the soils.
-------
-131-
Table 11. Optimal Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek Drainages Salinity Control
Program.
% Total Total
Salt Annual
Cost
1.25
2.31
3.24
4.06
4.79
5.45
6.04
6.58
7.07
7.52
7.94
8.33
8.69
9.02
9.34
9.63
9.91
10.17
10,42
10.66
10.91
12.77
14.54
16,23
17.84
19.38
20.86
22.28
23.64
11'$
2?!42
28.59
29.72
30,81
31.86
32.88
33.86
34.50
34.60
34.70
34.80
34.90
34.99
35.09
35.17
35.26
35.34
35.43
35.51
36.18
36.97
37.75
38.51
39.25
39.97
40.68
41.37
42.04
100.00
21806
42530
62320
81290
99536
117134
134150
150636
166640
182201
197356
212132
226559
240659
254454
267963
281202
294188
306934
319453
333256
439148
543139
645608
746530
845971
943995
1040662
1136025
85$
UCwV^Q
1414796
1505430
1594987
1683505
1771019
1857563
1943169
1999412
2008999
2018487
2027881
2037183
2046396
2055522
2064563
2073523
2082403
2091205
2099931
2174601
2264735
2354133
2442811
2530787
2618076
2704695
2790658
2875981
10254520
Percent Attainable Reduction
?/«./? Cana1 Lateral
$/m)/] Lining Lining
68314 0.00 0
73718
77772
81375 1
84726
87901
90939
93862
96686
99423
102082
104669
107191
109653
112059
114414
116719
118980
121197
123374
125773
141725
154088
164187 1
172757 1
180242
186926
192999
198593
IW$
213332
217745 1
221969 1
226029
229945 1
233735
237412
239795
240210
240633
241064
241501
241944
242392
242846
243304
243767
244233
244702
248722
253464
258058
1.00 o
1.00 0
1.00 0
1.00 0
1.00 0
LOO g
1.00 0
.00 0
.00
.00 0
.00 0
.00 0
.00 0
.00 0
.00 0
.00 0
1.00 0
1.00 0
1.00 0
1.00 0
1.00 8
1.00 15
1.00 22
1.00 29
1.10 36
1.00 42
1.00 48
1.00 54
LOO 70
1.00 75
1.00 79
1.00 84
).00 88
.00 93
.00 97
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.00 100
.01 100
.45 190
.83 iflfl
262516 9.15 180
266850 11.42 100
271069 13.64 100
275181 15.80 100
279195 17.92 100
283118 19.99 100
424881 22.01 100
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.01
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.01
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.11
.00
.00
.13
.01
.52
.68
.53
.08
.35
.36
.14
!l7
.12
.91
.52
.99
.30
.48
.00
.01
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
On- Farm
Improvements
6.70
12.46
17.47
21.88
25.81
29.33
32.51
35.41
38.16
40.49
42.74
44.83
46.77
48.58
50.28
51.87
53.37
54.78
56.12
57.39
58.59
59.74
60.83
61.87
62.86
63.81
64.72
65.60
66.44
8:3
68.76
69.48
71.18
70.85
71.50
72.12
72.73
73.32
73.89
74.44
74.97
75.49
76.00
76.49
76.97
77.43
77.88
78.33
B:B
79.58
79.98
80.37
80.75
81.12
81.48
81.83
82.18
82.52
Desalination
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
fl.Bfl
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1:1)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
-------
-132-
Figure 28 presents the optimal salinity control program
for the presently irrigated lands in the McElmo Creek drain-
age. This analysis assumed a longer seasonal water availa-
bility than has been the past practice because of the
construction of the Dolores Project. Table 12 indicates the
optimal strategy for each individual alternative. There is
basically no canal lining included in this program; however,
the total canal and major lateral lining program is deline-
ated in Table 4-5 in Appendix 4.
Big Sandy River
Based almost entirely on costs furnished by the USDA,
SCS (1980a) and updated to January, 1980 prices, the optimal
strategy for the Big Sandy area in Wyoming was found to
consist of only a small amount of on-farm improvements and
utilizing the Sublette Flats evaporation area. Figure 29
presents the optimal salinity control strategy which in-
cludes only these two alternatives.
Sublette Flats is a large natural depression which
would be used as an evaporation area for saline groundwater
to be collected by a series of barrier wells. The on-farm
improvements consist only of head ditch linings or gated
pipe. Canal and lateral lining were not included in the
analysis since most of these have already been lined by
compacted earth methods.
The Sublette Flats and barrier well alternatives were
assumed to be linear functions with marginal costs of
$11.55/Mgm per year. The "buy-out" alternative which has
-------
OPTIMAL MC ELMO CREEK COST-EFFECTIVE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
0
a
4>
ft
0
O
0
c
0
4>
0
4 „.
(O
I
ca
X 3..
o
L
0
2..
ON FARM IMPROVEMENTS
ON FARM IMPROVEMENTS
1 .,
U)
U)
I
Salt Load Reduction* Mgm x 10-3
Figure 28. Optimal salinity control program for McElmo Creek.
-------
-134-
Table 12. Optimal McElmo Creek Salinity Control Program.
X Total
Salt
3.04
5.54
7.64
18.84
20.46
21.77
22.9?
24.18
25.06
25.95
26.77
27.52
28.21
28.85
29.45
30.06
30.52
31.01
31.47
31.90
32.31
32.76
33.67
33.42
33.75
34.07
34.37
8:8
35.20
35.46
35.71
35.94
36.17
36.39
36.66
36.81
37.00
37.46
38.04
38.66
160.06
Total
Annual
Cost
23430
45370
66073
187694
206445
224407
241670
258312
274395
289971
30SOB5
319777
3340BO
348023
361633
374931
387939
400674
413154
425392
437403
449198
460789
472187
483400
494437
505306
mi
536978
547245
557377
567378
577254
587009
596648
606174
615592
634995
667043
698750
3859549
Percent
Average Canfll Lateral
$/m971 Lining Lining
74169 (
81064 1
86430 1
100999 1
102684 I
104659 1
106799
109030
111311
113612 1
115917
118214 I
120495 i
122756 I
124993 I
127205 1
129390 1
131547 1
133678 1
135780 1
1378S6 I
139904 I
141927 f
143924 i
145896 i
147843
149767
in
157239 i
159054 I
160849 1
162624 1
164381 1
166120 1
167840 1
169544 1
173044 1
i.oo o.oo
'.00 8.00
.00 0.00
.08 100.01
1.00 10 .01
1.00 1 .00
1.00 10 .00
1.00 1 .00
1.00 1 .00
1.00 101,01
1.00 110.00
i.OO 100.00
1.00 100.00
>.06 100.00
>.06 100.00
.08 100.00
i.OO 100.00
.00 100.00
i.OO 100.00
.68 100.00
i.OO 100,00
.00 100.00
i.ee 100.00
1.00 100.00
1.06 100.00
.06 100. 0
.06 100. 0
ill ip I
.00 100. 0
1.00 100.00
1.00 100.00
.06 100.00
.88 100.00
•00 100.00
.00 100.00
.00 100.00
.00 100.00
1.83 iflB.BQ
178723 2.68 100.00
184221 4.47 100.00
394628 6.20 100.00
Attainable Reduction
On- Farm Desalination
Improvements
8.89 6.00
16.18
22.31
27.55
32.10
36.10
39.66
42.84
45.71
48.32
50.70
52.89
54.91
56.78
58.52
60.14
61.66
63.09
64.43
65.69
66.89
68.02
69.10
70.12
71.09
.00
.80
.80
.00
. 0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
72.02 0.00
72.90 0.00
73.75 1.00
II !:!!
76.09 0.00
76.81 0.00
77.50 0.00
78.16 0.00
78.80 0.00
79.42 0.00
80.02 0.06
80.59 0.00
81.15 0.06
81.69 0.00
82.21 0.00
82.72 100.0D
-------
(O
B
B.B..
B.8..
o a. 7
0
•—I
•-• B.B
0
0
. 0.5
4»
0
cSa.4
1"
< 8.2
0
4>
8.1..
B.B
OPTIMAL BIG SANDY SALINITY CONTROL COST-EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTION
•ON-FARM IMPROVEMENTS
BARRIER WELLS AND SUBLETTE FLAT EVAPORATION AREA
BARRIER WELLS AND SUBLETTE FLAT EVAPORATION AREA
ON-FARM IMPROVEMENTS
* $ * * i *
Salt Load Reduction, Mgm x 10—3
CO
en
I
*
Figure 29. Optimal Big Sandy salinity control program.
-------
-136-
been proposed by some local landowners to remove the irri-
gation water from the land (See Appendix 2) was not as feas-
ible as the well field-evaporation pond alternative. This
is particularly evident if the remaining repayment require-
ments for the existing Bureau of Reclamation project are
superimposed on the "buy out" proposal. Therefore, the
"landowner" preferred alternative was not considered.
Point Source Salinity Control Projects
Desalination costs were assumed to be linear with a
system of barrier wells to intercept the saline groundwater
and evaporation ponds for disposal. A marginal cost of
$60.62/Mgm was used for all of the agricultural areas.
Glenwood-Dotsero Springs had a marginal desalting cost with
evaporation ponds of $57.40/Mgm. The Paradox By-pass was
also assumed linear with a marginal cost of $32.71/Mgm.
IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL DESALINATION
Desalination of agricultural return flows presents many
environmental and institutional concerns. Environmentally
there is a problem of brine disposal, and institutionally or
politically this may not be an acceptable alternative.
Reverse osmosis desalting was included as an agricul-
tural salinity control alternative because it permits a much
higher level of control from a relatively small area. For
example/ in the Lower Gunnison, desalination could potentially
reduce the area salt load by an additional 20 mg/1 over a
total agricultural control program consisting of canal and
-------
-137-
lateral linings and cm-farm improvements. The totally
agricultural control program had an estimated total average
annual cost of about $420,000 per mg/1 reduction at Imperial
Dam compared with $375,000 per mg/1 for a total program
which includes desalination.
Figure 30 illustrates the cost differential and the
attainable salinity control levels for agricultural salinity
control programs in the Upper Colorado River Basin. However,
the graph only includes desalination for the Glenwood-
Dotsero Springs Project.
"SAVED" WATER
Historically, in the Upper Colorado River Basin, water
rights claims and potential irrigated acreage exceed the
water supply. However, the irrigation of lands higher in
the drainage tend to stabilize the streamflows by the time
lag induced by subsurface return flows. The returns and
seepage losses are rediverted and applied to other lands.
Hence, water "saved" by improved water management practices
is thereby utilized to augment the application to lower
lands instead of augmenting the river flow below the project
area. If the river diversions are reduced by irrigation
system improvements, under the prior appropriations doctrine
governing the water laws in the states of UCRB the saved
water could be used to satisfy the water rights of more
junior appropriators either upstream or downstream. In this
case, the water cannot be used for new land, but may be
-------
125 ,.
(O
2 100
a
a
^ 75
O
a
a
o
u
o
3
C
a
•P
o
50..
25..
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
COST-EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTIONS
NO AGRICULTURAL
DESALINATION
WITH AGRICULTURAL
DESALINATION
CO
Figure 30,
Salt, Load Reduction, Mgm x 10-3
Effect and cost of desalination for agricultural salinity control,
-------
-139-
applied to existing land for longer periods each year. It
is possible that little salinity reduction would result.
The major effect of "saved" water would be in the
downstream direction. In the Upper Colorado Rivers there
are very few areas which are spatially sequenced to receive
return flows from other upstream areas. Although almost
every individual area has a very well-developed capacity to
internally capture return flows from higher lands. There
are essentially no large salinity contributing areas where
the return flows would affect other irrigated areas in the
Upper Basin. The use of this water in the upstream direction
is unlikely without legal processes. Under the present
water rights system, increased upstream river diversions
would actually be equivalent to a new project. The expected
result is that even though diversion requirements would be
less, the diversion will continue at approximately histori-
cal levels and the "excess" water returned directly to the
stream with very little salinity impact.
Improved practices do improve water quality and affect
the time distribution of the natural stream flows. However,
improved irrigation practices will generally not result in
more water being available in the river for fishery enhance-
ment and recreational uses. In some cases, improved irri-
gation practices and reduced return flows may actually
damage a downstream water right. This would result because
of a change in the temporal distribution of stream flows,
-------
-140-
which could actually cause less water to be available late
in the season when crop water demands are the highest.
AGGREGATE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAMS
To date there have not been analyses made of salinity
control projects in which the most cost-effective strategies
and alternatives for implementation in an areawide or basin-
wide program were identified. The preceding discussion
illustrated the areawide approach, and the following discus-
sion demonstrates the next optimized level of the analysis
which is a basin-wide cost-effective salinity control program.
Table 13 presents the most cost-effective salinity
control program by alternative in each area for the Upper
Colorado River Basin. Figure 31 illustrates the results of
this basin-wide level of optimized salinity control by alter-
native and Figure 32 indicates the individual states which
contain projects that were included in PL 93-320. As can
be seen, on-farm improvements and lateral lining constitute
the largest portion of the program. The state of Colorado
contains the largest and the most designated salinity
projects and would have most of the construction.
Utilizing the values for remaining unused Colorado
River Compact water which are presented in Table 14, it is
estimated that if this remaining water were totally consumed
(no salt loading only concentrating effect), Colorado would
contribute about 97 mg/1 at Imperial Dam while Utah would
contribute about 54 mg/1, New Mexico 26 mg/1, and Wyoming
-------
rable 13. Optimal Upper Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
I Total
Salt
Total
Annual
Cost
Average
S/mg/1
GRAND VALLEY
LOWED GUNNISON
UIHTAH BASIN
« It. 26517479
3.5
4746
48.11
8.J1 isWu
98 41 II79I32U
Canal Lateral On-Farm Ocsalina- Canal
Lining Lining Improve- tion Lining
ments
Lateral On-Farn
Lining Improve-
ments
3311
3671
41 16
43 12
4649
57 17
59 52
61.75
6388
I II
I II
1 14
14 48
2128
II !7
16 ?4
41.21
45 47
4921
5248
5541
58 11
8:8
6456
44.38
6816
6962
71 17
72.41
31!
76 12
7995
8181
81 62
82.41
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
( II
I »»
I II
I II
I II
I II
:;:
in
• n
• ii
• n
i n
• n
:::
in
M iii Ii
74 II
• ii
• n
• ii
HI n
.1 27
II 3"
ISrS
Small
Canal
Lining
Desalina-
tion
Canal
Lining
Lateral On-Farn
Lining Improve-
ments
Desalina-
tion
I II
55!
15. a
2179
11 81
1661
II 51
4574
49.42
5267
55 Si
58 16
21.89
54*85
61.18
S .84
53
71 64
74 31
76.67
7873
8:1
3:11 I:7,}
64.61
86.31
8:8 £:£
69 61 89 51
6961
71.15
77.1?
S.fi
75.94
79.82
8167
81 48
8225
51
91.41
9126
93.52
95.9C
96.5?
97.M
97.51
I II
III
I II
l.ll
III
l.ll
III
Ml
III
l.ll
I II
Ml
Ml
l.ll
Ml
iii
III
::,'
• it
in
iii
• n
• n
• ii
Hill
1 II
l.ll
!«
1578
2419
Sis
41.91
55.78
5814
71 18
72 II
75.92
7975
8859
I II
I II
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
I II
I II
l.ll
!:.!
I.M
i.n
sis
Ml
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
I II
118
8.M
iS
l.ll
III
IN ii
X Total
Salt
Total
Annual
Cost
Average
S/rog/l
PRICE-SAN RAFAEL-HU30Y
Canal Lateral On-Farm
Lining Lining improve-
ments
McELMO CREEK
BIG SANDY
Oesa1'na-
tion
Canal Lateral On-Farn Desalina-
Lining Lining Improve- tion
•rents
On-Farn
Improve-
ments
Sublette
Flats
Paradox
By-Pass
GleiMOOd- Crystal
Dotsero Geyser
Desalting
II
n
u
U
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I)
II
II
H
II
U
II
ii
;;:
n
;:
it
n
::
»
H
ii
ii
M
n
n
n
n
n
«i
n
i!
::
,,i!i !!!
I II I II
I II l.ll
l.ll 5.27
l.ll 16.28
24.83
HIM
HIM
III II
III.II
HI M
HI.II
HI II
HIM
III.II
HIM
HI.II
HIM
HI.II
IIIII
HI II
Hill
.11
.11
I II
,,ii!
• ii
• M
i.n
• n
ni.i
HI.II
III M
HI II
111.11
III II
HI.II
111.11
111.11
III.If
III I
III II
HI II
III II
I N
I N
;s
I'M
I.N
IN
I H
I II
l.ll
I.M
HI N
tll.lt
III M
HI M
III II
HI II
III II
III II
HI II
HI II
III II
III II
l!l II
ii Hi
I.M
I II
III
l.ll
l.ll
il
l.ll
l.ll
ii;
nil!
1 M
I II
l.ll
!:!!
I M
l.ll
l.ll
-------
OPTIMAL UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL
STRATEGY BY ALTERNATIVES
GLBMOOO OOTSERO SPRINGS
FLATS. VYGMD6
LATERAL LININGS
ISJ
I
Salt Load Reduction. Mgm x 10-3
Figure 31. Optimal Upper Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
by alternatives.
-------
OPTIMAL UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL
STRATEGY BY STATES
110 -r-
•tfc
LO
Salt. Load Reduction, Mam x 10-3
Figure 32. Optimal Upper Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program delineated by state.
-------
-144-
Table 14. Recent best-estimate of Upper Basin use of Colorado River water
in thousands of hectare-meter including known proposed energy
development (USDI, BR, 1979a).
State
Colorado
Utah
New Mexico
Wyoming
Total UCRB
Year
1980
1990
2000
1980
1990
2000
1980
1990
2000
1980
1990
2000
1980
1990
2000
State UCRB,
Allocation
367. O1
367.0
367.0
163.0
163.0
163.0
79.8
79.8
79.8
99.3
99.3
99.3
715.1
715.1
715.1
Allocation
Utilized
274.4
339.5
350.8
109.6
141.7
147.2
53.5
91.1
92.0
55.0
73.6
81.8
498.6
652.2
677.9
Remaining UCRB
Allocated
92.6
27.5
16.2
53.4
21.3
15.8
26.3
-11.3
-12.2
44.3
25.7
17.5
216.5
62.9
37.2
Based on a total annual average of 715,100 ha-m (5.8 million acre feet)
being available.
-------
-145-
approximately 44 mg/1. If salt loading were included, these
values would be higher. The maximum amount of potential
salinity control from PL 93-320 projects in each state is
210 mg/1, 70 mg/1, 0, and 9.6 mg/1 at Imperial Dam, respec-
tively. If an agricultural area desalination was not in-
cluded, Colorado could control about 168 mg/1, Utah 48 mg/1
and Wyoming 9.6 mg/1 at Imperial Dam. Obviously, Colorado
and Utah will have to compensate for development in Wyoming
and New Mexico which raises some very important questions.
For example, should the water depletions attributable to
salinity control in Colorado to offset Wyoming development
be charged to Wyoming, to Colorado or to the Lower Basin
states?
If each state was forced to control their own salinity
increases, it is apparent that only Colorado and Utah could
do it in a cost-effective manner. It is doubtful if Wyoming
could reduce the salinity by at most another 25 mg/1 from
the Blacks Fork and other irrigated areas. Therefore,
Wyoming would probably have to resort to large scale desali-
nation of the river and/or the point sources to achieve
their goal. This would be extremely expensive with a down-
stream damage reduction/cost ratio much less than one.
New Mexico is actually expected to overdraw their
Colorado River water allocation by 1985. However, the
agricultural salinity control or a large scale collector-
desalination system would be very costly to implement for
-------
-146-
widely dispersed areas with relatively low salinity
contributions.
Figure 33 indicates the optimal salinity control
program for Colorado and Utah by alternative and by project.
Agricultural desalination is separated as if it were a
separate project because desalting will probably be legis-
lated as individual construction efforts. The relative
location of "policy spaces" under the cost-effectiveness
curves indicate the inverse order of implementation. Util-
izing these graphs, on-farm improvements and lateral linings
should be implemented first. The work should be initiated
in the Grand Valley and Lower Gunnison in Colorado and the
Uintah Basin in Utah.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The optimization modeling procedure and variables have
been subjected to a sensitivity analysis to determine the
parameters which are the most critical. This was done to
determine the effect at each level of the optimization
analysis.
Essentially the only "original" data in this analysis
is introduced at the first level in establishing the cost-
effective equation for each individual canal or on-farm
practice in each area. Thus, the sensitivity analysis must
be initiated at this level and move progressively upward
through the hierarchial structure of the optimization.
-------
-147-
OPTIMAL COLORADO SALINITY CONTROL STRATEGY BY PROJECTS
(AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS INCLUDE DESALINATION)
Salt Load Reduction. Man x 10-3
OPTIMAL COLORADO SALINITY CONTROL STATECY BY ALTERNATIVE
7B
60
i
•UUNATIW
Salt Load Reduction. Mg. x 10-3
Figure 33. Optimal Salinity Control Program for Colorado
delineated by project and by alternatives.
-------
-148-
The individual alternative parameters were tested for
sensitivity on the individual budgets. All of the budgets
reacted to changes in the groundwater concentrations, and
this is probably the single most difficult parameter to
accurately determine, but it is believed that the values
which were used are within 10 percent. However, + 10 percent
variation has less than a 5 percent effect on the total
areawide cost-effectiveness functions.
Canals and laterals were sensitive to seepage rates.
For example, a change in seepage rates from 0.10 m /m /day
3 2
to 0.08 m /m /day in the Price-San Rafael area actually
caused canal lining to go from 20 percent of the canals to
be lined to not being included at all in the areawide cost-
effectiveness salinity control program where desalination
was included.
On-farm estimates of deep percolations influenced the
on-farm salinity and water budgets, but variations of + 25
percent did not change order of the optimal strategy of the
area. The 25 percent variation affected the areawide total
salinity control cost-effectiveness function by less than
4 percent, and the location on the curve where lateral or
canal lining became feasible varied by about 5 percent.
Figure 34 illustrates the net effect of increasing
lateral lining costs and on-farm improvement costs for every
agricultural area by 50 percent over the estimated values.
At the basin-wide (Level 4) level, this very large increase
caused a 5 percent upward shift in the cost-effective
-------
OPTIMAL UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN COST EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTION
125,
SOX COST INCREASE FOR
LATERAL LINING AND ON-F,
'ARM ,
BEST ESTIMATE
*»
\o
I
Salt. Load Reduction, Mgm x 10—3
Figure 34.
Sensitivity of the optimal Upper Colorado River Basin cost-effectiveness
function to a 50 percent increase in lateral and on-farm costs for every
area, holding all other costs constant.
-------
-150-
function. This large cost increase also did not change the
optimal order of the improvements, but less of these improve-
ments were done before desalination became cost-effective.
At the local (Level 2} level/ the 50 percent lateral and on-
farm cost increases resulted in a 12 percent variation in
the areawide cost-effectiveness function for the Lower
Gunnison. If desalination was not included as an alterna-
tive, the variation in costs approaches the 14 percent level
on the basin-wide no-desalt function.
In a sensitivity analysis for the Lower Gunnison area,
a 25 percent increase in the canal and lateral salt loading
contribution, a corresponding decrease in the on-farm
portion, and holding the unit costs the same, resulted in an
8 percent increase in the cost-effectiveness program but did
not change the order of implementation. For the same area,
a + 50 percent increase in lateral lining costs holding the
other costs and the salt loading distribution the same,
resulted in only a 6 percent variation for the area cost-
effectiveness function. Holding all unit costs constant a
+ 25 percent variation in salt loading from laterals in the
Lower Gunnison also resulted in a 6 percent shift in the
cost-effectiveness function. Other similar large relative
scale variations in costs and salt from canals and on-farm
generally produced less than 5 percent variation in the
areawide functions. When optimized up to the basin-wide
level, holding all other areas constant, the variation was
-------
-151-
almost insignificant, particularly where desalination was
included as an agricultural alternative.
The inclusion or exclusion of desalination as an agri-
cultural control measure in an area had a large influence on
the total areawide cost-effectiveness function. In addi-
tion, the maximum achievable level of salt reduction was
less without desalination. For example, in the Uintah
Basin, at a maximum treatment level of 270,000 Mgm without
desalting, the average per mg/1 at Imperial Dam treatment
cost was over $720,000. Whereas, with desalination the
maximum treatment level approached 395,000 Mgm at an average
treatment cost of about $440,000/mg/l.
Variations in the costs of desalination produced marked
results in the final cost-effectiveness function of an area.
A 25 percent increase in the cost of desalination in the
Grand Valley produced a 14 percent increase in the final
costs for the area, a 16 percent increase in the amount of
canal linings and 5 percent increase in on-farm improvements.
The Sublette Flats evaporation area alternative in the
Big Sandy River was examined, and it was found that even if
the costs of this were twice the estimated value, it was
still more cost-effective than much of the canal linings
elsewhere in the basin. On-farm improvements were increased
under this more expensive option.
-------
-152-
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Figure 35 presents the optimal cost-effective basin-
wide salinity control alternatives which have been plotted
under the Water and Power Resources Service forecast curve
of salinity increase at Imperial Dam. As can be seen,
almost all of the salinity control projects except agricul
tural desalination should be implemented by 1985. For-
tunately, the salinity increases have not followed this
curve and are presently at a somewhat lower level than the
879 mg/1 annual average which occurred in 1972. This has
been due partially to delayed construction of projects,
delayed energy resources development, and some relatively
high runoff years. The 1980 average annual value is esti-
mated to be 802 mg/1. However, present indications are that
the rapid increases have been offset at most by about 10
years, and that all of the cost-effective projects should be
on-line at the latest by 19 5. In other words, it is
expected that the salinity concentration at Imperial Dam
will again reach the 1972 levels by 1985.
If the January, 1980, damage cost of $450,000/mg/l at
Imperial Dam is accepted as a true cost, then it is possible
to assess the damage costs of increased concentrations due
to delaying construction of the salinity control program.
For example, using the 1985 salinity levels from Figure 35
(210 mg/1 increase) for comparison, and only one-fourth of
the necessary salinity control is constructed at that time,
then the annual costs of the delay are about $71 million.
-------
1200 -
Q
t—t
a:
LU
a.
MOO -
07 1000-
E
<
a:
UJ
u
o
u
900--
WPRS FORECAST
CURVE A
OESALINATIQN
GLENVOOO DOTSERO SPRINGS
PARADOX BY-PASS
CANAL LININGS
>-SUBLETTE FLATS. WYOMING
LATERAL LININGS
CM-FARM IMPROVEMENTS
Ui
C*J
I
1972
1975
I960
1985
1990
1995
2000
YEAR
Figure 35. Cost-effective implementation strategy for optimal level of salinity
control alternatives in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
-------
-154-
Correspondingly, if only one-third is complete, the delay
cost is about $63.3 million annually. This also assumes
that the 1972 level of 879 mg/1 should be maintained.
Figure 36 presents basically the same information as
Figure 35, but illustrates the necessary capacity by state
and includes agricultural desalination which was also indi-
cated in Figure 31. Colorado has the largest and highest
priority programs.
Marginal Cost Analysis
The use of average treatment costs per mg/1 can be
very misleading in determining the scope of salinity con-
trol programs. For example, Table 13 indicates that the
average cost of full treatment for the Upper Basin could be
accomplished for about $370,000 mg/1 at Imperial Dam.
However, the actual marginal cost of the basin-wide cost-
effectiveness function at the same level of treatment
approaches $600,000/mg/l. The average marginal cost is only
the slope of the starting and end points while the true
marginal cost is the slope of the cost-effectiveness
function at the level of interest. This difference between
average and true marginal cost is illustrated in Figure 37.
The basin-wide salinity control level corresponding to an
approximate marginal cost of $450,000 mg/1 is indicated by
the dashed lines on Figures 31 and 32. This value equals
the annual damage figure which is presently accepted by the
Water and Power Resources Service, and results in a program
-------
I20O-
<
Q
CL
UJ
QL
WPRS FORECAST
CURVE A>
1100
10001
»-
<
UJ
u
z:
o
u
90O
COLORADO
Ul
Ul
I
^__ 879 mg/J
1972
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Figure 36.
YEAR
Cost-effective implementation strategy by state for optimal levels of
salinity control in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
-------
10
AVERAGE MARGINAL COST AND ACTUAL MARGINAL COST COMPARISON
8
(O
x
b 6
o
a
o
LJ
4,
o
j 2
>—i
o
SLOPE OF LINE EQUALS
AVERAGE MARGINAL COST?"
'~
_,'
'
SLOPE OF LINE
EQUALS
ACTUAL MARGINAL
COST
ACTUAL COST EFFECTIVENESS FUNCTION
S
8
CJ
Salt Load Reduction, Mgm x 10-3
Figure 37. Comparison of average and actual marginal costs.
01
a\
-------
-157-
with an annual cost of $30 million and approximately a
145 mg/1 reduction at Imperial Dam.
Evaluation of the 1972 Concentration Level Criterion—
The derivation of the $450,000/mg/l in damages has not
yet been released by the Water and Power Resources Service.
However, when the actual damage function for the range of
concentrations from 800 to 1300 mg/1 becomes available, it
can be easily used in conjunction with the analysis pre-
sented in this report to effectively evaluate the 1972
concentration goals.
If the damage function was linear with a slope of
$450,000/mg/l, and using the basin-wide cost-effective
salinity control function derived in this manuscript, the
concentration levels at Imperial Dam could rise to as high
as 1060 mg/1. This is a maximum level, and it is likely
that the cost-effective level will be about 20 to 30 mg/1
less than this value.
Intuitively, the actual damage function would be
slightly convex upward similar to the cost-effectiveness
functions in the expected concentration range. If this is
the case, then the point when marginal costs equal marginal
benefits which is the economic salinity concentration level
for Imperial Dam would probably be about 1040 mg/1.
Although, the exact level cannot be determined with existing
information, it is obvious that the arbitrary target of
879 mg/1 level at Imperial Dam is much too low to be
-------
-158-
cost-effectively maintained, and should be allowed to rise
by 150 to 180 mg/1.
It is realized that the minimum costs presented in this
analysis do not include all of the associated costs such as
the higher level of on-farm technical assistance which will
be required. However, the $450,000/mg/l which is equili-
brated to the benefits of control, also does not include the
benefits of increased crop yields from better water manage-
ment or reduced labor requirements due to the improved
systems. Nevertheless, comparison of the two values does
indicate the relative levels of implementation.
Additional Uses of this Analysis and Methodology
As newer and better information becomes available it
should be possible to easily refine and continually update
the most cost-effective salinity control program for the
basin or an area. Also, if information is available it is
possible to define a "Level 0" optimization. For example,
if the hydraulic characteristics, seepage rates, groundwater
salinity concentrations, and the actual costs of lining
associated with specific sections of a canal can be deter-
mined, it is a relatively simple matter to optimize these
sections to define the Level 1 cost-effectiveness function.
In fact, the Level 0 analysis is a necessary step to deline-
ate the phasing and extent of an actual construction program.
Another beneficial use of this analysis is the evalu-
ation of the salinity control alternatives of a specific new
water resource development project or energy development
-------
-159-
project. The procedure can be used to quantitatively and
qualitatively determine the most cost-effective location or
alternative for compensating salinity reductions. In some
cases, it may be much less expensive and more expeditious to
compensate for salinity increases in an off-site location
such as an agricultural area.
-------
-160-
REFERENCES
American Association of Petroleum Geologists. 1967. Geo-
logical Highway Map - Southern Rocky Mountain Region.
Geological Highway Map Committee, Map No. 2, Second
Printing, Gulf Printing Company, Houston, Texas.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists. 1972. Geo-
logical Highway Map of the Northern Rocky Mountain
Region. Geological Highway Map Committee, Map No. 5,
Gulf Printing Company, Houston, Texas.
Anderson, J. C. and A. P. Kleinman (Eds.). 1978. Salinity
management options for the Colorado River: damage
estimates and control program impacts. Water Resources
Planning Series Report P-78-003. Utah Water Research
Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan. June,
p. 344.
Austin, L. H. and G. V. Skogerboe. 1970. Hydrologic inven-
tory of the Uintah Study Unit. Report No. PR WG 40-5,
Utah Water Research Laboratory, College of Engineering,
Utah State University, Logan. March, p. 200.
Barrett, J. K. and R. H. Pearl. 1978. An appraisal of
Colorado geothermal resources. Bulletin 39, Colorado
Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources,
Denver, Colorado, p. 224.
Bently, R. G. Jr., K. 0. Eggleston, D. Price, E. R. Frandsen
and A. R. Dickerman. 1978. The effects of surface
disturbance (primarily livestock use) on the salinity
of public lands in the Upper Colorado River Basin—1977
Status Report. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Divi-
sion of Standards and Technology, Watershed Staff.
February, p. 208.
Bishop, A. B., M. D. Chambers, W. 0. Mace and D. W. Mills.
1975. Water as a factor in energy resources develop-
ment. Utah Water Research Laboratory Publication,
PRJER 028-1, Utah State University, Logan. June,
p. 104.
Bliesner, R. D., R. S. Hanks, L. G. King and L. S. Willardson.
1977. Effects of irrigation management on the quality
of irrigation return flow in Ashley Valley, Utah.
Journal Soil Science Society of America, Vol. 41,
No. 2. March-April, p. 424-428.
-------
-161-
Boettcher, A. J. 1972. Groundwater occurrence in the
northern and central parts of western Colorado.
Colorado Water Resources Circular No. 15, Colorado
Water Conservation Board and U.S. Geological Survey,
Denver, Colorado, p. 28.
Bouwer, H. 1974. What's new in deep well injection?
Civil Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 44, No. 1, New York, January, p. 58-61.
Carlson, D. and J. Rubingh. 1979. Agricultural land
conversion in Colorado, Volume I: Analysis, Volume II:
Appendices. Resource Analysis Section, Colorado
Department of Agriculture. Denver, Colorado. November,
p. 112 (Vol. I) and p. 187 (Vol. II).
CH2M-Hill. 1977. Clean water report for southwestern
Wyoming. Technical Report for Southwestern Wyoming
Water Quality Planning Association (208 Study)
D 9524.FO, Denver, Colorado. September, p. 312.
Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 1979. Water Quality
Management Plan for District 10. District 10 Regional
Planning Commission, Montrose, Colorado. September,
p. 117.
Colorado River Board of California. 1970. Need for con-
trolling salinity of the Colorado River. Colorado
River Board of California, Los Angeles, California.
August, p. 98.
Colorado Water Conservation Board and U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Water and related land resources, Yarapa
River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming. Denver, Colorado.
April, p. 179.
Colorado Water Conservation Board and U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 1972. Water and related land resources,
Dolores River Basin, Colorado and Utah. Denver,
Colorado. September, p. 223.
Corsentino, J. S. 1976. Projects to expand fuel sources in
western states: a survey of planned or proposed coal,
oil shale, tar sand, uranium, and geothermal supply
expansion projects, and related infrastructure, in
states west of the Mississippi River (as of May, 1976).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines Infor-
mation Circular 8719. Intermountain Field Operations
Center. Denver, Colorado, p. 208.
-------
-162-
Crow, F. R. 1980. Evaporation from brine storage reser-
voirs. Paper No. 80-2024 presented at 1980 Summer
Meeting of American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
San Antonio, Texas. June 15-18, p. 15.
Eisenhauer, D. E. and P. E. Fischbach. 1977. Comparing
costs of conventional and improved irrigation systems.
Irrigation Age. May-June, p. 36-37.
Engineering News Record. 1980. Materials and labor cost
trends in the United States. Vol. 24, No. 12, McGraw-
Hill, Inc. New York. March 20, p. 112-113.
Erlenkotter, D. and C. R. Scherer. 1977. An economic
analyses of optimal investment scheduling for salinity
control in the Colorado River. University of
California,Water Resources Center, Berkeley. December,
p. 267.
Eubanks, L. and R. D. d'Arge. 1976. Water quality damage
functions, a statistical analysis of residences in Los
Angeles. Research Paper No. 157, Department of Eco-
nomics, University of Wyoming, Laramie. February,
p. 71.
Evans, R. G., W. R. Walker, G. V. Skogerboe and C. W.
Binder. 1978a. Implementation of agricultural salin-
ity control technology in Grand Valley. Report EPA-
600/2-78-161. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada,
Oklahoma. July, p. 209.
Evans, R. G., W. R. Walker, G. V. Skogerboe and S. W. Smith.
1978b. Evaluation of irrigation methods for salinity
controls in Grand yalley. Report EPA-600/2-78-160.
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. July,
p. 188.
Evans, R. G., S. W. Smith, W. R. Walker and G. V. Skogerboe.
1976. Irrigation field days report 1976. Agricultural
Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins. August, p. 56.
Felts, R. D. 1966. Water from bedrock in the Colorado
plateau of Utah. Utah State Engineer Technical Publi-
cation No. 15. Utah State Engineer's Office, Salt
Lake City, Utah. p. 82.
Flug, M., W. R. Walker, G. V. Skogerboe and S. W. Smith.
1977. The impact of energy development on water
resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Report
-------
-163-
to U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water
Research and Technology, Washington, D. C. February,
p. 158.
Fox, R. L., J. J. Phelan and W. D. Griddle. 1954. Progress
Report on irrigation for Eden Valley, Wyoming. Recla-
mation Project, USDA Soil Conservation Service and
Agricultural Research Service, Casper, Wyoming. June,
p. 76.
Gardner, B. D., K. S. Lyon and R. 0. Tew. 1976. The effects
on agriculture in Utah of water transfer to oil shale
development. Department of Economics and Utah Water
Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan.
Publication PRJAE-027-1, June, p. 57.
Gardner, D. B. and G. E. Stewart. 1978. Agriculture and
salinity. Iri Values and Choices in the Development of
the Colorado River Basin. Edited by D. F. Peterson and
A. B. Crawford. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
p. 121-143.
Gifford, G. F., R. H. Hawkins and J. S. Williams. 1975.
Hydrologic impacts of livestock grazing on natural
resource lands on the San Luis Valley. Completion
Report to the Bureau of Land Management by Utah State
University Foundation.
Goslin, I. V. 1978. Colorado River development. In_ Values
and Choices in the Development of the Colorado River
Basin. Edited by D. F. Peterson and A. B. Crawford.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p. 18-60.
Hagan, R. H. 1971. Upper Colorado region. Comprehensive
Framework Study, Appendix XV, Water Quality Pollution
Control and Health Factors. Upper Colorado Region
State-Federal Inter-Agency Group. Pacific Southwest
Inter-Agency Committee. Water Resources Council.
June, p. 219.
Hansen, D. C. 1976. Water availability for energy—Upper
Colorado River Basin. Journal of the Water Resources
Planning and Management Division, Americal Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No. WR2. November, p. 341-
348.
Hansen, E. M., F. K. Schwarz and J. T. Riedel. 1977.
Probable maximum precipitation estimates, Colorado
River and Great Basin drainages. NOAA-S/T 77-2774,
Hydrometeorological Report No. 49, National Weather
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring,
Maryland. September, p. 161.
-------
-164-
Hart, W. E. 1975. Irrigation system design. Department of
Agricultural Engineering, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins.
Hawkins, R. H., G. F. Gifford and J. J. Jurinak. 1977.
Effects of land processes on the salinity of the Upper
Colorado River Basin. Department of Forest Science,
Utah State University, Logan. October, p. 196.
Hedland, J. D. 1971. Upper Colorado region. Comprehensive
Framework Study, Appendix V, Water Resources. Upper
Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group,
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Water Re-
sources Council. June, p. 66.
Holburt, M. B. 1977. The 1973 agreement of Colorado River
salinity between the United States and Mexico. In
Proceedings of National Conference on Irrigation Return
Flow Quality Management, Fort Collins, Colorado.
May 16-19, p. 325-333.
Howe, C. W., J. F. Kreider and B. Udis. 1972. An economic
analysis of the pollution problems in the Colorado
River Basin: the upper mainstream basin. COM-74-
11311, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Economic
Research, Washington, D. C. October, p. 257.
Hyatt, M. L., J. P. Riley, M. L. McKee and E. K. Israelsen.
1970. Computer simulation of the hydrologic-salinity
flow system within the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Utah Water Research Laboratory Report PRWG54-1, Utah
State University, Logan. July, p. 255.
lorns, W. V., C. H. Hembree and G. L. Oakland. 1965. Water
resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Technical
Report, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 441.
U.S.G.P.O., Washington, D. C., p. 370.
Johansen and Tuttle Engineering, Inc. 1977. Muddy Creek
watershed canal seepage study. Study for USDA Soil
Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah. November,
p. 20.
Johnson, R. W. 1975. Legal and institutional problems in
the management of salinity. NTIS-PB-244-730,
OWRR A-076-WASH, Office of Water Resource Research,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
August, p. 35.
Keefer, T. N. and R. S. McQuivey. 1979. Water availability
for development of major tar sands areas in Utah.
Report SCR 337-79-010, LETC-0013-1 (NTIS), U. S. Depart-
ment of Energy. May, p. 257.
-------
-165-
Keys III, J. W. and R. I. Strand. 1979. Irrigation in the
Colorado River Basin: solving the salinity problem to
save a giant. Paper presented at ICID Conference,
Phoenix, Arizona. September, p. 8.
King, L. G. and R. J. Hanks. 1975. Management practices
affecting quality and quantity of irrigation return
flow. EPA 66012-75-005, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Ada, Oklahoma.
Kleinman, A. P., G. J. Barney and S. G. Titmus. 1974.
Economic impacts of changes in salinity levels of the
Colorado River. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. February,
p. 41.
Kleinman, A. P. and F. B. Brown. 1977. Analysis of farmer
response to saline irrigation water in the Colorado
River Basin. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics.
June, p. 145-151.
Konikow, L. F. and M. S. Bedinger. 1978. Evaluation of
hydrogeologic aspects of the proposed salinity control
program in Paradox Valley, Colorado. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Geologic Survey. Openfile Report 78-
27, Denver, Colorado. January, p. 23.
Kruse, E. G. 1977. Minutes of the Grand Valley Salinity
Coordinating Committee. Grand Junction, Colorado.
February.
Lacewell, R. D. and W. F. Hughes. 1971. A comparison of
the capital requirements and labor use, alternative
sprinkler irrigation systems, Texas high plains. Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station Information Report
No. 71-3. p. 15.
Larome, J. B. and S. A. Schumm. 1977. Evaluation of the
storage of diffuse sources of salinity in the Upper
Colorado River Basin. Completion Report No. 79,
Environmental Resources Center, Colorado State Uni-
versity, Fort Collins. September, p. 111.
Law, J. P., Jr. and G. V. Skogerboe. 1972. Potential for
controlling quality irrigation return flows. Journal
of Environmental Quality, Vol. 1, No. 2. Madison,
Wisconsin. April-June, p. 140-145.
Lawrence, C. H. 1975. Estimating indirect costs of urban
water use. Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 101,
No. EE4. August, p. 517-533.
-------
-166-
McWhorter, D. B. and G. V. Skogerboe. 1979. Potential of
interflow as a salt transport mechanism, Upper Colorado
River Basin. Report for U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Division of Standards and
Technology, Denver, Colorado. February, p. 74.
Mann, D., G. Weatherford and P. Nichols. 1974. Legal-
political history of water resource development in the
Upper Colorado River Basin. Lake Powell Research
Project Bulletin No. 4, Institute of Geophysics and
Planetary Physics, University of California, Los
Angeles. September, p. 62.
Milliken, J. G., L. C. Lohman, A. S. Trumbly and L. Roll.
1979. Overcoming legal and institutional barriers to
planned reuse of water in the Colorado River Basin.
OWRT/RU-79/3, Office of Water Research and Technology,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
April, p. 211.
Moore, C. V. 1972. On the necessary and sufficient condi-
tions for a long-term irrigated agriculture. Water
Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association,
Vol. 8, No. 4. August, p. 802-812.
Moore, C. V., J. H. Snyder and P. Sun. 1974a. Effects of
Colorado River quality and supply on irrigated agri-
culture. Water Resources Research, Vol. 10, No. 2.
April, p. 137-144.
Moore, C. V. and J. H. Snyder. 1974b. Management of saline
water. Report No. 29, Water Resources Center, Univer-
sity of California, Davis. March, p. 20.
Morris, G. E. 1977. An optimization model of energy related
economic development in the Upper Colorado River Basin
under conditions of water and energy resource scarcity.
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, LA-6732 T, Los Alamos,
New Mexico. March, p. 553.
Narayanan, R., R. Padungchai and A. B. Bishop. 1979. An
economic evaluation of the salinity impacts from energy
development: the case of the Upper Colorado River
Basin. UWRL/P-79/07, Utah Water Research Laboratory,
Utah State University, Logan. December, p. 71.
Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. 1976. Meeker Dome
Project, Hydrogeologic literature review. Report pre-
pared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado
Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. November,
4 volumes.
-------
-167-
Oyarzabal-Tamargo, F. and R. A. Young. 1976. The Colorado
River salinity problem: economic damages in Mexico.
Paper presented at Western Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins. July, p. 9.
Pair, C. H. 1975. Sprinkler irrigation. The Irrigation
Association, 4th Edition, Silver Spring, Maryland.
p. 615.
Pitchford, E. J. and J. C. Wilkinson. 1975. A cost compari-
son of several sprinkler irrigation systems in large
scale agricultural development. Paper presented at
Ninth Congress of the International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage, Vol. 5 Proceedings, Moscow,
USSR. July.
Plotkin, S. E., H. Gold and I. L. White. 1979. Water and
energy in the western coal lands. Water Resources
Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 1, American Water Resources
Association. February, p. 94-107.
Ponce, S. L., III. 1975. Examination of a non-point source
loading function for the Mancos Shale wildlands of the
Price River Basin, Utah. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Utah State University, Logan, p. 177.
Ponce, S. L., R. H. Hawkins, J. J. Jurinah, G. F. Gifford
and J. R. Riley. 1975. Surface runoff and its effect
on diffuse salt production from Mancos Shale members.
Watershed Management: Proceedings of Conference by
American Society of Civil Engineers, Irrigation and
Drainage Division, Logan, Utah. August 11-13, p. 140-
168.
Price, D. and K. M. Waddell. 1973. Selected hydrologic
data in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Hydrologic
Investigations Atlas HA-477. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey.
Radosevich, G. E. and G. V. Skogerboe. 1978. Achieving
irrigation return flow quality control through improved
legal systems. EPA-600/2-78-184, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Rober S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada- Oklahoma. December, p. 312.
Reed, A. D., J. L. Meyer, F. K. Aljibury and A. W. March.
1977. Irrigation costs. Water and Irrigation, Vol. 1,
No. 1. November, p. 12-13, 24-25.
-------
-168-
Riley, J. P. and J. J. Jurinak. 1979. Irrigation manage-
ment for river salinity control. Vol. 105, No. IR4,
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Ameri-
can Society of Civil Engineers. December, p. 419-432.
Robinson, F. E., J. N. Luthin, R. J. Schnagl, W. Padgett,
K. K. Tanji, W. F. Lehman and K. S. Mayberry. 1976.
Adaptation to increasing salinity of the Colorado
River. Contribution No. 160, California Water Re-
sources Center, Davis, California. October, p. 51.
Rollins, Brown and Gunnell, Inc. 1971. Muddy Creek Dam and
Reservoir, Emery County feasibility study. Report
prepared for Utah Division of Water Resources, Salt
Lake City, Utah. August, p. 57.
Scherer, C. R. 1977. Water allocation and pricing for
control of irrigation related salinity in a river
basin. Water Resources Research, Vol. 13, No. 2.
April, p. 225-238.
Shafer, P. S. 1971. Upper Colorado region. Comprehensive
Framework Study, Appendix X, Irrigation and Drainage.
Upper Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group,
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Water Re-
sources Council. June, p. 98.
Sheffield, L. F. 1977. The economics of irrigation.
Irrigation Journal 27(1): 18-22, 33.
Six County Commissions Organization. 1978. Water quality
management plan, Wayne County. Draft, Richfield, Utah.
January, p. 64.
Skogerboe, G. V. 1980. Personal communication.
Skogerboe, G. V. and W. R. Walker. 1972. Evaluation of
canal lining for salinity control in Grand Valley.
Report EPA-R2-72-047, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C., October, p. 212.
Skogerboe, G. V., D. B. McWhorter and J. E. Ayers. 1979a.
Irrigation practices and return flow salinity in Grand
Valley. EPA-600/2-79-148, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. August, p. 218.
Skogerboe, G. V., W. R. Walker and R. G. Evans. 1979b.
Environmental planning manual for salinity management
in irrigated agriculture. Report EPA-600/2-79-062.
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
-------
-169-
Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. March, p. 237.
Stockton, C. W. and G. C. Jacoby, Jr. 1976. Long-term
surface water supply and streamflow trends in the Upper
Colorado River Basin based on tree-ring analyses.
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles. March, p. 77.
Swenson, J. L., D. T. Erickson, K. M. Donaldson and J. J.
Shiozaki. 1970. Soil Survey, Carbon-Emery Area, Utah.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, B.L.M., Utah
Agricultural Experiment Station, U.S.G.P.O., Washington,
D. C. December, p. 120.
Thomas, D. B. 1975. The effects of gully plugs and contour
furrows on erosion and sedimentation in Cisco Basin,
Utah. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Utah State University,
Logan, p. 89.
Thorfinnson, T. S., M. Hunt and A. W. Epp. 1955. Cost of
distribution of irrigation water by different methods.
University of Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin No. 432, Lincoln. August, p. 28.
Thorne, J. P., and L. Wilson, T. B. Hutchings and J. L.
Swenson. 1967. Chemical and physical properties of
soils in the Carbon-Emergy area, Utah. Utah Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, Utah Resources Series 39,
Utah State University, Logan. September, p. 37.
Tihansky, D. P. 1974. Economic damages from residential
use of mineralized water supply. Water Resources
Research, Vol. 10, No. 2. April, p. 145-154.
Tipton and Kalmback, Inc. 1965. Water supplies of the
Colorado River. Report for the Upper Colorado River
Commission, Salt Lake City, Utah. Part I: Text, Part
II: Appendices. July, p. 32 (Part I).
Uintah Basin Association of Goverments. 1979. Uintah Basin
208 Water Quality Management Plan: agricultural non-
point source assessment. Roosevelt, Utah. December,
p. 124.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1976. On-farm salinity control investigation for Lower
Gunnison Basin Unit. Plan of work, Denver, Colorado.
September, p. 17.
-------
-170-
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1979a. Personal communication.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1979b. Letter to Mr. Robert Strand, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (Denver, Colorado) from Mr. John D. Hedlund
(Portland, Oregon), p. 4.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1979c. Land use inventory data (computer tapes), Lower
Gunnison Salinity Study, data collected 1977-78.
Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1979d. USDA plan of study for the Price and San Rafael
Rivers Unit. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Study, State of Utah, Salt Lake City. January, p. 54.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1979e. The uintah Basin Unit. Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Study, State of Utah, Salt Lake City.
January, p. 173.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1979f. Colorado economics handbook. Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
198Oa. Big Sandy River, Colorado River Basin, Salinity
Control Study. Interagency and Public Review Draft,
Casper, Wyoming. March, p. 166.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1980b. Personal communication.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1974. Report on water for
energy in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Water for
Energy Management Team, Denver, Colorado. July, p. 76.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1952. Canal linings and
methods of reducing costs. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C. p. 69.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1963. Linings for irrigation
canals. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C. p. 149.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1964. Price and San Rafael River Basins, Utah Basin
Report, Salt Lake City. December, p. 98.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1967. Eden Project, Wyoming Improvement Program, Salt
Lake City, Utah. February, p. 43.
-------
-171-
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1974. Alternative sources of water for prototype oil
shale development, Colorado and Utah. Draft, Salt Lake
City, Utah. September, p. 116.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1975a. Rehabilitation of the Montezuma Valley, Irri-
gation Company's Canal System—Dolores Project. Open-
file memorandum. March 27, p. 3.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1975b. Critical problems facing the eleven western
states: westwide study. (Chapter V Regional Problems
1, 2, 3 and 4), Denver, Colorado. April, p. 457.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1976a. Glenwood-Dotsero Springs Unit, Colorado.
Preliminary Appraisal Report, Colorado River Water
Quality Improvement Program. Upper Colorado Region,
Salt Lake City, Utah. June, p. 32.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1976b. Personal communication, Grand Junction Projects
Office, Grand Junction, Colorado.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1977. Dolores Project, Colorado. Definite Plan Report.
April, p. 194.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1978a. Paradox Valley Unit—Definite Plan Report,
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project. Salt
Lake City, Utah. September, p. 91.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1978b. Unpublished memorandum on salinity budgets for
the Uncompahgre Project lands. Grand Junction, Colorado,
p. 28.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1979a. Quality of water. Colorado River Basin Progress
Report No. 9. Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City,
Utah. January, p. 206.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1979b. Final Environmental Statement, Paradox Valley
Unit. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project,
Salt Lake City, Utah. March, p. 301.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1979c. Bureau of Reclamation personal communication.
-------
-172-
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1979d. Draft environmental statement, Animas-La Plata
Project, Colorado-New Mexico, Salt Lake City, Utah.
July, p. 305.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and
Office of Saline Water. 1972. Desalting handbook for
planners. Denver, Colorado. May, p. 274.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geolgical Survey. 1976.
Salt-load computations—Colorado River: Cameo, Colorado
to Cisco, Utah, Parts 1 and 2. Openfile report,
Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1979a.
Final environmental statement: development of coal
resources in central Utah, Part 1: regional analysis,
Reston, Virginia, p. 474.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geolgical Survey. 1979b.
Final environmental statement: development of coal
resources in southern Utah, Part 1: regional analysis
Reston, Virginia, p. 483.
U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 1977. Final environmental statement,
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program.
Bureau of Reclamation and Soil Conservation Services,
Denver, Colorado. May, p. 285, 819.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources
Service. 1979. La Verkin Springs Unit, Utah Status
Report, Denver, Colorado. December, p. 24.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources
Service. 1980a. Personal communication. Denver,
Colorado.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources
Service. 1980b. Public meeting report, Meeker Dome
Unit, 4th public meeting, Openfile Report J 710.105.
Grand Junction, Colorado. February 14.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources
Service. 1980c. Environmental scoping meeting for the
Lower Gunnison Basin Unit of the Colorado River Water
Quality Improvement Program, Olathe, Colorado.
April 30.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Mineral quality
problem in Colorado River Basin, Appendix A. Natural
and Man-made conditions affecting mineral quality.
Regions VIII and IX, San Francisco, California, p. 168.
-------
-173-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. The Meeker
Dome and other phenomenon in the vicinity of the Meeker
Dome. Rio Blanco County, Colorado—A summary report on
the feasibility of control of seepage of saline ground-
water. SA/TSB-15r Region VIII, NTIS PB-255-258, Denver,
Colorado. December, p. 61.
U.S. Government General Accounting Office, Comptroller
General of the United States. 1977. More and better
uses could be made of billions of gallons of water by
improving irrigation delivery systems. CED-77-177,
Report to the Congress, Washington, D. C. September,
p. 11.
U.S. Government Accounting Office, Comptroller General of
the United States. 1979. Colorado River basin water
problems: how to reduce their impact. CED-79-11,
Washington, D. C. May, p. 137.
Utah Division of Water Resources, Department of Natural
Resources. 1975. Fremont River study. Salt Lake
City, Utah. April, p. 75.
Utah State University. 1975. Colorado River: regional
assessment study. Report prepared for National Com-
mission on Water Quality (4 parts). Utah State Univer-
sity, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan. October.
vanSchilfgaarde, J. and J. D. Oster. 1977. Irrigation
management conserves water. California Agriculture,
Vol. 31, No. 5, University of California, Division of
Agricultural Sciences, Richland, California. May,
p. 15-16.
Walker, W. R. 1973. Mathematical modeling of urban water
management strategies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Agricultural Engineering Department, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins. August, p. 191.
Walker, W. R. 1978. Integrating desalination and agricul-
tural salinity control alternatives. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-78-074, Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma.
April, p. 193.
Walker, W. R. 1979. Developing cost-effectiveness function
for selected agricultural salinity control alternatives:
a planning level guide (mimeo). Draft of report for
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, New York. September, p. 113.
-------
-174-
Walker, W. R., T. L. Huntzinger and G. V. Skogerboe. 1973.
Coordination of agricultural and urban water quality
management in the Utah Lake drainage area. Technical
Completion Report to the Office of Water Resources
Research, U.S. Department of the Interior. Report
AER72-73WRW-TLH-GVS27. Environmental Resources Center,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins. June, p. 151.
Walker, W. R. and G. V. Skogerboe. 1980. Developing optimal
river basin solutions for alleviating environmental
impacts from irrigated agriculture. In Proceeding of
ASCE Specialty Conference, Boise, IdaEo. July 22-25.
Walker, W. R., G. V. Skogerboe and R. G. Evans. 1977.
Development of best management practices for salinity
control in Grand Valley. Iri Froc. National Conference
on Irrigation Return Flow Quality Management, J. P. Law
and G. V. Skogerboe (Eds.), Department of Agricultural
and Chemical Engineering, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins. May, p. 385-393.
Walker, W. R., G. V. Skogerboe and R. G. Evans. 1978. Best
management practices for salinity control in Grand
Valley. EPA-600/2-78-162, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, p. 125.
Walker, W. R., G. V. Skogerboe and R. G. Evans. 1979.
Reducing salt pickup from irrigated lands. Journal
Irrigation and Drainage Division, Vol. 105, No. IR2,
p. 1-14.
Warner, D. L., L. F. Koederite, A. D. Simon and M. G. Yow.
1979. Radius of pressure influence of injection wells.
EPA-600/2-79-170, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
Oklahoma. August, p. 203.
Watersaver, Inc. 1980. Personal communication with Stuart
Lang. Denver, Colorado. March.
Weatherford, G. D. and G. C. Jacoby. 1975. Impact of
energy development on the law of the Colorado River.
Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1. January,
p. 171-213.
Westesen, G. L. 1975. Salinity control for western Colorado.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Agricultural Engineering
Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
February, p. 251.
White, R. B. 1977. Salt production from micro-channels in
the Price River Basin, Utah. Unpublished M.S. Thesis,
-------
-175-
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah
State University, Logan, p. 130.
Whitmore, J. C. 1976. Some aspects of the salinity of
Mancos Shale and Mancos derived soils. Unpublished
M.S. Thesis, Department of Soil Science and Biometeor-
ology, Utah State University, Logan, p. 76.
Wilde, D. J. and C. S. Beightler. 1967. Foundations of
optimization. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, p. 480.
Willardson, L. S., R. J. Hanks and R. D. Bliesner. 1977.
Field evaluation of sprinkler irrigation for management
of irrigation return flow. Proceedings of National
Conference on Irrigation Return Flow Quality Manage-
ment. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
May 16-19, p. 109-114.
-------
-176-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beardall, K. 1977. Memorandum on agriculture in Carbon and
Emery counties for 208 study. USDA, Soil Conservation
Service, Price, Utah. p. 5 (mimeo).
Bolton, H. E. 1950. Pageant in the wilderness, the story
of the Escalante Expedition to the Interior Basin,
1776. Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City,
Utah. p. 265.
Bos, M. G. and J. Nugteren. 1974. On irrigation efficien-
cies, international Institute for Land Reclamation and
Improvement. Pub. 19, P. 0. Box 45, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Bessler, M. B. and J. T. Maletic. 1975. Salinity control
and the Federal Water Quality Act. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, ASAE. Vol. 101, No. HY5. May,
p. 581-594.
Cater, F. W. 1970. Geology of the salt anticline region in
southwestern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper No. 637, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. p. 80.
Cline, A. J., C. Spears, F. Mehaffey, E. Rubin, R. Franklin
and C. Pachek. 1967. Soil survey: Delta-Montrose
area Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service and Colorado Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, U.S.G.P.O., Washington, D. C. July,
p. 100.
Coffin, D. L., F. A. Welder, R. K. Glanzman and X. W. Dutton.
1968. Geohydrologic data from Piceance Creek Basin
between the White and Colorado Rivers, northwestern
Colorado. Colorado Water Conservation Board, Circular
No. 12, Denver, Colorado, p. 38.
Coffin, D. L., F. A. Welder and R. K. Glanzman. 1971.
Geohydrology of the Piceance Creek Structural Basin
between the White and Colorado Rivers, northwestern
Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrology Investi-
gations Atlas AH-370, Reston, Virginia.
Colorado Department of Health, Colorado Water Quality Con-
trol Commission. 1971. Water quality standards and
stream classification. Adopted April 13, 1971 and
effective September 1, 1971. Denver, Colorado, p. 30.
-------
-177-
Colorado Water Conservation Board and U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 1962. Water and related land resources,
Gunnison River Basin—Colorado. Salt Lake City, Utah.
November, p. 103.
Colorado Water Conservation Board and U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 1966. Water and related land resources,
White River Basin in Colorado. Denver, Colorado.
November, p. 101.
Colorado Water Conservation Board, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 1974. Water and related land resources,
San Juan River Basin in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico
and Utah. Denver, Colorado. June, p. 231.
Conroy, L. S. and F. K. Fields. 1977. Climatological and
hydrologic data, southeastern Uintah Basin, Utah and
Colorado, water years 1975 and 1976. Utah Basic Data
Release No. 29, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geo-
logical Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah. p. 244.
Craig, T. W. 1971. Groundwater of the Uncompahgre Valley,
Montrose County, Colorado. Report No. LR-011, M.S.
Thesis, University of Missouri—Rolla. p. 113.
Gruff, F. W. and J. W. Hood. 1976. Seepage study of the
Rocky Point Canal and Grey Mountain—Pleasant Valley
Canal Systems, Duchesne County, Utah. Technical
Publication No. 50, Utah Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Rights. Salt Lake City,
Utah. p. 59.
Davis, G. H. and L. A. Wood. 1974. Water demands for
expanding energy development. Geolgical Survey
Circular 703, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geo-
logical Survey, Reston, Virginia, p. 18.
Duke, H. R., E. G. Kruse, S. R. Olsen, D. F. Champion and
D. C. Kincaid. 1976. Irrigation return flow quality
as affected by irrigation water management in the Grand
Valley of Colorado. Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado.
October, p. 129.
Elkin, A. D. 1976. Grand Valley salinity study: investi-
gations of sediment and salt yields in diffuse areas,
Mesa County, Colorado. Review draft sub. for State
Conservation Engineer, Soil Conservation Service,
Denver, Colorado.
Erickson, J. R. 1943. Consumptive use of irrigation water
in Lower Uncompahgre Valley investigations of 1938-1941
-------
-178-
with description of Uncompahgre River Basin, western
Colorado. Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver,
Colorado. July, p. 63.
Evans, R. G. 1977. Improved semi-automatic gates for
cutback surface irrigation systems. Trans. ASAE 20(1):
105-112, January.
Ficke, J. F., J. B. Weeks and F. A. Welder. 1974. Hydro-
logic data from the Piceance Basin, Colorado. Colorado
Water Resources Basic Data Release No. 31, Colorado
Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado.
p. 254.
Gold, H. and D. J. Goldstein. 1979. Water related environ-
mental effects in fuel conversion, I: summary volume.
U.S. Department of Energy, FE-2445-1 (Vol. 1), G.P.O.,
Washington, D. C. p. 231.
Hall, T. L. and J. H. Taylor. 1973. Water and land resources
in Eden Valley, Wyoming. Report No. AER72-73-TLH-
JHT21, Environmental Resources Center, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins. February, p. 180.
Hansen, Vaughn and Associates. 1977. Seepage loss studies,
Uintah Basin canal systems. Colorado River Water
Quality Improvement Program Supplemental Report.
Vol. I—Appendices A and B, Vol. II—Appendices C and
D, Contract with U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation. July.
Helweg, 0. J. and D. Alvarez. 1978. Economic impact of
water quality on river basin management contribution.
No. 168, California Water Resources Center, University
of California, Davis. March, p. 61.
Holburt, M. B. 1975. International problems of the Colorado
River. Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1.
January, p. 11-26.
Hood, J. W. 1976. Characteristics of aquifers in the
northern Unitah Basin area, Utah and Colorado. Techni-
cal Publication No. 53, Utah Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Rights, Salt Lake City,
Utah. p. 77.
Hood, J. W., J. C. Mundorff, and D. Price. 1976. Selected
hydrologic data, Unitah Basin area, Utah and Colorado.
Utah Basic Data Release No. 26, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah.
p. 326.
-------
-179-
Hood, J. W. 1977a. Hydrologic evaluation of Ashley Valley
northern Uintah Basin area, Utah. Technical Publica-
tion No. 54, Utah Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Water Rights, Salt Lake City, Utah. p. 29.
Hood, J. W. 1977b. Hydrologic evaluation of the Upper
Duchesne River Valley, northern Uintah Basin area,
Utah. Technical Publication No. 57, Utah Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, Salt Lake
City, Utah. p. 38.
Horrocks and Carollo Engineers. 1976a. Water quality
sampling program data within the Uintah Basin 208
planning area. Interior Output Report No. 2, Uintah
Basin Association of Governments. January, p. 114.
Horrocks and Carollo Engineers. 1976b. Groundwater and
groundwater quality within the Uintah Basin. Interior
Output Report No. 10, Uintah Basin Association of
Governments. October, p. 72.
Howe, C. W. and D. V. Orr. 1974. Effects of acreage reduc-
tion on water availability and salinity in the Upper
Colorado River Basin. Water Resources Research,
Vol. 10, No. 5. October, p. 893-897.
Hunter, W. R. and C. F. Spears. 1975. Soil survey of
Gunnison area, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Soil Conservation Service and the Colorado Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, U.S.G.P.O., Washington,
D. C. August, p. 112.
Hydro-Search, Inc. 1977. Hydrogeologic study, Lower
Gunnison Unit, Colorado. Report prepared for U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt
Lake City, Utah. October 24.
Jensen, M. E. 1975. Scientific irrigation scheduling for
salinity control of irrigation return flows. EPA-
600/2-75-964, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. November.
Johnson, B. B. 1979. Energy price levels and the economics
of irrigation. Paper presented at the 2nd Western
Irrigation Forum, Denver, Colorado. March 7-9.
Khan, I. A. 1977. A hierarchical approach to salinity
management in river basins. Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, p. 209.
-------
-180-
Kingr L. G. 1973. Irrigation management for control of
irrigation return flow. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-R2-73-265, Ada, Oklahoma. June, p. 307.
Knutson, C. F. and C. R. Boardman. 1973. Hydrology of the
Piceance Creek Basin and its impact on oil shale develop-
ment. Paper presented at Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
SPE 4409, Casper, Wyoming. May 15-16, p. 8.
Kruse, E. G. 1980. Lateral sizes for efficient level basin
irrigation. Paper No. 80-2074 presented at 1980 Summer
Meeting of American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
San Antonioi Texas. June 15-18, p. 13.
Larson, D. T., L. D. James, K. R. Kimball, J. Mulder,
A. B. Crawford, C. Johnson, L. Rovig and K. Sizemore.
1979. Levels of analysis in comprehensive river basin
planning. UWRL/P-79/05, Utah Water Research Laboratory,
Utah State University, Logan. May, p. 110.
Law, J. P., Jr. and H. Bernard. 1970. Impact of agricul-
tural pollutants on water uses. Trans. ASAE, Vol. 13,
No. 4. p. 474-478.
Lawrence, D. F. and B. C. Saunders. 1975. Allocation of
Utah's Colorado River water. In Age of Competition for
Resources, Proceeding of Specialty Conference, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Irrigation and Drainage
Division, Logan, Utah. August 13-15, p. 82-94.
Leathers, K. L. and R. A. Young. 1976. Evaluating economic
impacts of programs for control of saline irrigation
return flows: a case study of the Grand Valley,
Colorado. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VIII, Denver, Colorado. June, p. 162.
Longenbaugh, R. L. and I. F. Wymore. 1977. Analyses of
methods for the determination of water availability for
energy development. Federal Energy Administration,
FEA/G-77/059. May, p. 125.
Lusby, G. C., V. H. Reid and 0. D. Knipe. 1971. Effects of
grazing on the hydrology and biology of the Badger Wash
Basin in western Colorado, 1953-1966. Water Supply
Paper 1532-D, U.S. Geolgical Survey, p. 90.
Marchant, L. C. and L. A. Johnson. 1977. U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration tar sand
research update. Department of Energy Research Center,
Laramie, Wyoming, p. 7.
-------
-181-
Meeks, T. 0. 1950. Reconnaissance of groundwater conditions
in the Uncompahgre Valley, Colorado, M-239. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Albuquerque, Mew Mexico. September, p. 27.
Milliken, J. G., L. C. Lohman, S. A. Lyon and 6. W. Sherk,
Jr. 1977. State and local management options to
reduce Colorado River salinity. EPA 908/3-77-002, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver,
Colorado. September, p. 370.
Mundorff, J. C. 1972. Reconnaissance of chemical quality
of surface water and fluvial sediment in the Price
River Basin, Utah. Technical Publication No. 39, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey and Utah
State Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City,
Utah. p. 55.
Mundorff, J. C. 1977. Reconnaissance of water quality in
the Duchesne River Basin and some adjacent drainage
areas, Utah. Technical Publication No. 55, Utah
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
Rights, Salt Lake City, Utah. p. 53.
Peterson, D. F. and A. B. Crawford (Eds.). 1978. Values
and choices in the development of the Colorado River
Basin. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
Arizona, p. 337.
Price, D. and L. L. Miller. 1975. Hydrologic reconnaissance
of the southern Uintah Basin, Utah and Colorado.
Technical Publication No. 49, Utah Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Rights, Salt Lake City,
Utah. p. 72.
Radian Corporation. 1977. An investigation of the potential
for utilizing of saline groundwater in energy-related
processes. DCN-77-200-152-01, FE-2444-1, Energy
Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.
D. C. May, p. 203.
Rector, C. p., E. W. Mustard and J. T. Windell. 1978.
Preliminary report: Lower Gunnison River Basin wetland
inventory and evaluation. Published by U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Denver,
Colorado. February, p. 71.
Shaffer, M. S., R. W. Ribbens and C. W. Huntley. 1977.
Prediction of mineral quality of irrigation return
flow. Volume V. Detailed return flow salinity and
nutrient simulation model. EPA-600/2-77-179e, Robert
-------
-182-
S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. August, p. 228.
Skogerboe, G. V., J. W. H. Barrett, B. J. Treat and D. B.
McWhorter. 1979. Irrigation practices, return flow
salinity, and crop yields. EPA-600/2-79-149, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. August, p. 208.
Skogerboe, G. V., W. R. Walker, R. S. Bennett, J. E. Ayars
and J. H. Taylor. 1974a. Evaluation of drainage for
salinity control in Grand Valley. Report EPA-600/2-74-
052, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. August, p. 108.
Skogerboe, G. V., W. R. Walker, J. H. Taylor and R. S.
Bennett. 1974b. Evaluation of irrigation scheduling
for salinity control in Grand Valley. Report EPA-
600/2-74-084, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
June, p. 93.
Skold, M. D. 1977. Farmer adjustments to higher energy
prices—the case of the pump irrigator. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS-
663. p. 15.
Sloggett, G. 1977. Energy and U.S. agriculture: irrigation
pumping, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 376.
p. 39.
Southeastern Utah Association of Governments. 1977. Non-
point assessment. Waste Water Quality Management 208
Planning for Emery, Carbon and Grand Counties, Price,
Utah. June, p. 136-148.
Swenson, J. L. 1980. Report of drain inventory Duchesne
and Uintah Counties, Colorado River Salinity Study.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Openfile report, Salt Lake City, Utah.
August, p. 34 (mimeo).
Swenson, J. L. 1977a. Report of drain inventory, Carbon
and Emery Counties, Colorado River salinity study.
Openfile report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah. December,
p. 23.
-------
-183-
Swenson, J. L. 1977b. Salt accretion in irrigation water
as influenced by soil depth over Mancos shale. Open-
file report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah. December,
p. 11 (mimeo).
Turner, F. P. 1975. Feasibility study of brine disposal by
deep well injection on Paradox Valley Unit, Colorado.
Openfile report, U.S. Department of the Interior, Water
and Power Resources Service, Denver, Colorado.
November, P. 48.
Uintah Basin Association of Governments. 1977. Uintah
Basin areawide water quality management plan. In
conjunction with Horrocks and Carolio Engineers,
Roosevelt, Utah. October, p. 402.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service. 1975. Alleviation of salt load in irrigation
water return flow of the Upper Colorado River Basin.
FY75 Annual Progress Report for USDI, Bureau of Recla-
mation, Fort Collins, Colorado. July, p. 112.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1969. An appraisal of outdoor recreation potentials,
Delta County, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, Denver, Colorado. June,
p. 75.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
1978. 1977 status report: the effects of surface
disturbance on the salinity of the public lands in the
Upper Colorado River Basin (primarily livestock use}.
Watershed Staff, Division of Standards and Technology,
Colorado River Salinity Team, Denver, Colorado.
February, p. 208.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
1979. Final environmental statement, Proposed domestic
livestock grazing program for the Uncompahgre Basin
Resource area. Montrose, Colorado, p. 515.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
1979. Proposed domestic livestock grazing management
program for the Sandy area, Draft environmental state-
ment. Rock Springs, Wyoming, p. 669.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
1979. Final environmental statement, Emery Power
Plant, Units 3 and 4, Utah Light and Power. Salt Lake
City, Utah. p. 309.
-------
-184-
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1975. Dallas Creek Project, Colorado. Effects on
salinity of the Colorado River. Openfile report,
June 1974, Grand Junction, Colorado. August, p. 22
(revised).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1976b. Final environmental statement, Dallas Creek
project, Colorado. Salt Lake City, Utah. September,
p. 415.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1977b. Final environmental statement, Dolores project,
Colorado. Salt Lake City, Utah. May, p. 445.
Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources. 1975. Hydrologic inventory of the Price
River study unit. State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
June, p. 69.
Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources. 1976. Hydrologic inventory of the San
Rafael River Basin. State of Utah, Salt Lake City,
Utah. January, p. 93.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1978. Canal seepage tests—1977, Lower Gunnison Basin
Unit. Unpublished memorandum on results of 1977 canal
seepage tests, Grand Junction, Colorado, p. 14.
Utah Division of Water Resources. 1979. White River Dam
Project, proposed action plan—revised. Salt Lake
City, Utah. August, p. 70.
Utah State University Foundation. 1976. Final report:
Uintah Basin seepage meter study, Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Study, Utah, June 1 to October 31,
1976. Department of Agricultural and Irrigation
Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, p. 23.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
1961. Emery County definite plan report. Salt Lake
City, Utah.
Valentine, V. E. 1974. Impacts of Colorado River salinity.
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100, No. IR4.
December, p. 495-510.
van Schilfgaarde, J., L. Bernstein, J. D. Rhoades and S. L.
Rawlins. 1974. Irrigation management for salt control.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE 100
(IRS), p. 321-338.
-------
-185-
Waddell, K. M., H. L. Vickers, R. T. Upton and P. K.
Contratto. 1978. Selected hydrologic data, 1931-1977,
Wasatch Plateau—Book Cliffs Coal-Fields area, Utah.
Utah Basic Data Release No. 31, U.S. Geological Survey,
Openfile report 78-121, Salt Lake City, Utah. p. 33.
Walker, W. R. 1970. Hydro-salinity model of the Grand
Valley. M.S. Thesis CET-71WRW8, Civil Engineering
Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
August, p. 94.
Walker, W. R. 1975. A systematic procedure for taxing
agricultural pollution sources. Grant NK-42122, Civil
and Environmental Technical Program, National Science
Foundation, Washington, D. C. October.
Walker, W. R. 1978. Identification and initial evaluation
of irrigation return flow models, EPA-600/2-78-144.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma.
Water Resources Council. 1968. The nation's water resources.
U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington, D. C.
Weeks, J. B., G. H. Leavesley, F. A. Welder and G. J.
Saulnier, Jr. 1974. Simulated effects of oil shale
development on the hydrology of Piceance Basin,
Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
No. 908, Reston, Virginia, p. 91.
Weeks, J. B. and F. A. Welder. 1974. Hydrologic and geo-
physical data from the Piceance Basin, Colorado.
Colorado Water Resources Basic Data Release No. 35,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver,
Colorado, p. 127.
Western States Water Council. 1974. Western states water
requirement for energy development to 1990. Salt Lake
City, Utah. November, p. 44.
Wierenga, P. J. 1977. Influence of trickle and surface
irrigation on return flow quality. EPA-600/2-77-093,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma.
May, p. 176.
Williams, J. S. 1975. The natural salinity of the Colorado
River. Occasional Paper 7, Utah Water Research Labora-
tory, Utah State University, Logan. June, p. 18.
Wymore, I. F. 1974. Water requirements for stabilization
of spent shale. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Earth Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
August, p. 137.
-------
-186-
Young, R. A., G. E. Radosevich, S. L. Gray and K. L.
Leathers. 1975. Economic and institutional analysis
of Colorado water quality management. Completion
Report Series No. 61, Environmental Resources Center,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins. March.
-------
-187-
APPENDIX 1
BASIC HYDROLOGIC AND SALINITY DATA
Table 1-1 presents some of the basic salt loading data
which has been published for the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Table 1-2 presents a compilation of the significant point
sources in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Reservoir
storage capacity and locations are presented in Table 1-3.
-------
Table 1-1.
Compilation of estimates of salinity contributions for the various areas
in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
AREA
COLORADO RIVER UPPER
Above Hot
Sulphur Spgs.
Eagle River
Above Glenwood
Springs
Roaring Fork
Above Plateau Ck.
Above Plateau Ck.
(inclusive)
Plateau Ck.
DATA
SOURCE
MAINSTEM (GRAND
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR, 1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
IRRI-
GATED
HECTARES
DIVISION)
8901
6352
8213
6433
27432
21080
11005
8497
12704
20392
13190
75903
66112
8173
11774
TOTAL
Mgm
AT POINT
17241
18874
16605
184202
162606
553514
579602
580010
537181
276757
329205
272129
1397396
1448210
1431877
1387415
1397396
1448210
1431877
43555
53323
59979
IRR
PICKUP
Mgm/YR
907
4968
6352
27222
58981
102672
111610
31759
66240
85477
27222
9936
126855
146091
183817
330294
2722
24845
34481
Mgm/HA/YR
0.11
2.24-1.01
3.36
1.35
2.24
4.26
3.36
2.92
7.85
6.73
1.35
5.16
9.64
2.02
4.93
2.92
oo
CO
-------
Table 1-1. (continued)
AREA
Grand Valley
GUNNISON RIVER BASIN
Above Gunnison
Above North Fork
Lower Gunnison
Uncompahgre R.
(total irrig.
area Delta-
Montrose area)
Gunnison River
@Gr. Junction
Gunnison River
Basin
Mains tern Colorado
River above
Dolores R.
DATA
SOURCE
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
IRRI-
GATED
HECTARES
32085
35605
31842
30750
20472
4451
20392
13230
17155
38842
63805
68782
71412
97509
108999
213669
218727
TOTAL
Mgm
AT POINT
3812895
3312010
1942562
115240
103997
113298
145184
182496
251441
414682
414001
1494488
1546709
1378341
1494488
1546709
1378341
1317545
3812895
3709451
3320358
3702192
IRR.
PICKUP
Mgm /YR
240461
637562
399800
707772
17241
2985
16333
32666
269498
766753
1018443
812758
783086
1026723
886530
467583
1692301
Mgn/HA/YR
7.49
17.94
12.56
0.90
0.67
1.35
1.79
6.95
10.09
12.11
14.80
11.44-12.11
8.07
9.42-10.54
8.07
2.24
7.85
GO
vo
I
-------
Table 1-1. (continued)
AREA
San Miguel River
Dolores River
(at mouth)
(includes San
Miguel)
Above Green River
(from Dolores R.)
Colorado Ma ins tern
Above Green R.
GREEN RIVER DRAINAGE
New Fork River
Big Sandy Creek
DATA
SOURCE
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
1976 Mod.
CWCB, 1972
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
(GREEN DIVISION)
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
USDA,SCS,1980a
USDI,WPRS (1980a)
IRRI-
GATED
HECTARES
10196
2428
10358
5907
4653
19036
1012
2225
230784
235963
235963
17802
20635
7283
5260
5260
6352
TOTAL
Mgm
AT POINT
198888
180173
99088
453700
549794
417585
433737
433737
4327391
4173133
3815254
4327391
4173133
3815254
71685
70877
24863
78944
275559
58346
163332
135384
143006
IRR
PICKUP
Mgn/YR
19963
15235
38020
9074
64698
907
12976
497527
1807995
9074
11615
32666
66240
44463
113334
107255
Mgm/HA/YR
2.02
6.28
3.59-6.28
1.57
2.69
0.90
5.83
2.24
7.63
0.52
0.56
4.49
12.56
8.52
17.94
16.82
vo
o
I
-------
Table 1-1. (continued)
AREA
Above Green River,
Wyoming
Blacks Fork (inct)
Hams Fork
Hams Fork
Henry ' s Fork
Above Yampa River
(includes Henry's
Fork)
Above Yampa River
Yampa River
(includes Little
Snake)
DATA
SOURCE
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
CH2-M HILL (1977)
EPA (1971)
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
CH2-M HILL (1977)
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
CWCB-USDA (1969)
Aus ti n-Skogerboe
(1970)
IRRI-
GATED
HECTARES
41512
32773
35443
26501
31559
30143
26299
4451
7283
7283
9023
7283
9508
13069
102607
103173
104549
35726
44142
29819
37830
TOTAL
Mgm
AT POINT
448255
857811
457330
575292
177850
293444
94823
—
118905
697791
639218
877547
697791
639263
877547
408330
364321
368223
426478
IRR
PICKUP
Mgn/YR
23592
19872
111519
16333
159303
49000
113425
15426
80486
59888
70142
144277
325902
290822
49907
34118
55351
Mgm/HA/YR
0.67
0.67
3.14
0.67
5.16
1.57
4.49
3.36
10.99
6.28
5.16
1.35
3.14
2.69
1.35
0.67
1.79
I
t->
vo
(-•
I
-------
Table 1-1. (continued)
AREA
Brush-Ashley
Creeks , Utah
Duschesne River
above Duschesne,
Utah (incl. Straw-
berry River)
Duschesne River
(above Randlett)
White River
Green River above
Ouray
Price River
DATA IRRI-
SOURCE GATED
HECTARES
Hyatt et al 9306
EPA (1971) 10155
lorns et al 9670
Austin & Skogerboe —
(1970)
Hyatt et al 6069
EPA (1971)
lorns et al 2630
Hyatt et al 54014
EPA (1971) -67164
lorns et al 54904
USDI,BR,1979a
Austin & Skogerboe —
(1970)
Hyatt et al 11814
EPA (1971) 11329
lorns et al 12300
USDI,BR,1979a
Austin & Skogerboe —
(1970)
Hyatt et al 219131
EPA (1971)
lorns et al 214478
Hyatt et al 6676
EPA (1971) 10115
lorns et al 6878
USDI,BR,1979a
TOTAL
Mgm
AT POINT
69870
302073
56440
95277
136110
106520
66603
364775
659090
417585
361145
417404
311238
380881
299986
268590
326664
1926410
2209111
2184112
225035
293090
204791
217776
IRR
PICKUP
Mgm/YR
10889
76176
44826
—
2722
—
20598
28129
447121
295359
—
—
18148
6624
148814
—
—
251350
889942
857674
13611
225217
86838
—
Mgm/HA/YR
1.12
9.42
4.71
—
0.45
—
7.40
0.45
6.73
5.38
—
1.57
0.67
12.11
—
—
1.12
4.04
4.04
2.02
—
12.56
—
vo
to
-------
Table 1-1. (continued)
AREA
San Rafael
Duschesne River
(above Duschesne,
Utah) (incl.
Strawberry River)
Green River at
Green River, Utah
(does not incl.
San Rafael River)
Dirty Devil
Escalante River
Paria
DATA
SOURCE
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns, et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR, 1979a
IRRI-
GATED
HECTARES
13352
14566
14566
6069
2630
222773
10034
10115
9427
2428
2832
1214
1214
TOTAL
Mgra
AT POINT
220498
297083
155438
172406-
187832
136110
106520
66603
2182297
267320
2406425
2369221
160610
179302
181480
22866
14246
31124
27222
IRRI
PICKUP
Mgm/YR
27222
96048
104714
2722
20598
947326
31795
48546
7350
1906
MgiVHA/YR
2.02
6.50
7.18
0.45
7.40
4.26
3.14
5.16
2.69
1.57
I
M
vo
I
-------
Table 1-1. (continued)
AREA
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN
Above Arboles, CO
Below Navajo Res.
(Archuleta, NM)
Animas River
La Plata
Above Bluff, Utah
McElmo
San Juan (above
Lake Powell)
DATA
SOURCE
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
USDI,BR,1979a
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
IRRI-
GATED
HECTARES
4046
5381
22132
26946
11410
14444
10520
10520
27311
26744
--
84602
83509
TOTAL
Mgm
AT POINT
73499
123860
69870
178758
325575
169684
180573
223220
264961
27222
34753
25498
916474
1357924
90468
887437
108888
916474
1318180
973640
887437
IRR
PICKUP
Mgm/YR
5444
11705
17241
36296
29944
7259
17785
58981
20326
187923
—
131573
261422
Mgm/HA/YR
1.35
2.24
0.9
1.35
2.69
0.67
1.68
2.24
6.95
--
1.57
3.14
-------
Table 1-1. (continued)
AREA
Total Above
Lee ' s Ferry , AZ
DATA
SOURCE
Hyatt et al
EPA (1971)
lorns et al
USDI,BR,1979a
IRRI-
GATED
HECTARES
571659
—
570486
TOTAL
Mgm
AT POINT
7776418
5849100
7481751
7082257
IRR
PICKUP
MgmAR
970737
—
3155484
Mgm/HA/YR
1.79
—
5.61
I
M
VO
I
-------
-196-
Table 1-2. Significant Identified Point Sources in the Upper
Colorado River Basin, Springs and Abandoned
Flowing Wells.
Source
GRAND DIVISION
Hot Sulphur
Springs
Dotsero Springs
-Glenwood
Springs
Arsenic Springs
Ouray Hot
Springs
Ridgeway
Springs
Paradise Hot
Springs
Estimated
Discharge
1/s
<2.8
<5.6
850.
991
56.6
56.6
<28.0
25.5
28.3
2.00
3.12
Approx .
Concen-
tration
ppm
1200
1650
14420
15130
2000
2030
1500
2800
2850
6300
5490
Estimated
Salinity
Contribu-
tion
Mgm/y
136
293026
450335
417312
489570
466754
3629
3629
1270
1497
2268
2313
562
562
Data
Source*
1
2
3
4
2
3
5
6
6
5
1
2
6
5
1
8
2
Donton Hot 2.0 1300
Springs
Castle Creek 7.08 4390 962
Springs
Onion Creek 3.40 9120 998
Springs
GREEN DIVISION
Steamboat Springs 7947
Steamboat Spring 1.13 6170
Heart Spring 8.5 900
Lithia Springs 0.6 5770 100
Steele Hot Springs 5.6 300
Kendall Springs 220 8891
Warren Bridge 85 1000
1
1
5
-------
-197-
Table 1-2. (continued)
Source Estimated
Discharge
1/s
Ragen/Reagan
Spring 2.6
Abandoned Coal
Mine (Oak Ck. , 20
CO) 19
Ashley Valley 0.2
Oil Field
Split Mountain
Spring 556
lies Dome Oil 8.2
Field
Meeker Dome
Oil Well
88
Piceance Creek 0.6
Spring
Yellow Creek
Spring 2.55
Crystal Geyser 42.5
5.66
SAN JUAN DIVISION
Pagosa Springs 17.0
56.6
55.1
Pinkerton Hot 14.16
Springs 3.4
Trimble Hot 14.16
Spring 19.82
lornWash and
Buckhorn Sprs.
(.San Rafael (R.)-
Loa Fish Hatchery -
(Dirty Devil R. -
Approx .
Concen-
tration
ppm
9210
3400
3430
2670
1000
2180
18900
4650
9370
13100
14000
3300
3600
3200
3670
3900
3700
3250
-
-
-
™
*1 = Barrett and Pearl, 1978. 5 =
2 = EPA, 1971.
3 = lorns, et al., 1968.
4 = Hyatt, et al., 1970.
6 =
7 =
Estimated
Salinity
Contribu-
tion
Mgm/y
662
726
1987
2087
2050
5262
16874
17872
5625
24494
49896
65
762
17509
2722
6623
6623
1651
1633
1633
33
163
2631
USER, 1979,
Hagen, 1971,
WPRS, 1980,
Comments .
Data
Source*
6
5
2
6
5
7
1
6
5
5
6
5
1
3
2
6
5
1
2
6
5
2
2
p. 31.
»
Personal
-------
-198-
Table 1-3, Usable active storage capacity of major irrigation
and power reservoirs in Upper Colorado River Basin.
ha-m
Colorado
Shadow Mountain 220
Lake Granby 57,400
Willow Creek 1,120
Williams Fork 890
Troulesome 130
Barber 550
Green Mountain 18,100
Robinson 310
Ivanhoe 170
Missouri Heights 350
Harvey Gap 590
Leon Lake 370
Big Creek No. 1 330
Bonham 150
Atkinson 180
Cottonwood Lake 350
Vega 4,020
Rifle Gap 1,500
Gunnison River
Taylor Park 13,100
Gould 740
Crawford 1,730
Overland 320
Island Lake 140
Deep Ward Lake 170
Baron Lake 120
Eggleston Lake 330
Trickle Park Lake 400
Cedar Mesa 120
Fruitgrowers 550
Paonia 2,250
Blue Mesa 102,300
Morrow Point 14,400
Crystal 3,200
Silver Jack 1,670
Ridgeway 6,780
Green River
New Fork Lake 2,800
Willow Lake 1,860
Fremont Lake 1,330
Boulder Lake 1,580
-------
-199-
Table 1-3.(continued)
ha-m
Silver Lake 150
Sixty Seven 530
Middle Piney 520
Black Joe Lake 140
Big Sandy 4,720
Elkhorn 180
Eden No. 1 880
Pacific No. 2 170
Patterson 'Lake 230
Unita No. 3 250
Piedmont 130
Kemmerer 130
Hoop Lake 480
Beaver Meadows 220
Viva Haughton Stateline 1,480
Fontenelle 18,560
Flaming Gorge 462,000
Meeks Cabin 3,630
Yampa River
Warner 190
Oaks Park 770
East Park 160
Unitah Basin
Strawberry 33,300
Midview (Boreham) 720
Kidney Lake 860
Moon Lake 4,410
Twin Pots 480
Fox Lake 150
Lake Atwood 330
Paradise Park 390
John Starr 290
Montez Creek 160
Upper Stillwater 3,200
Current Creek 1,970
Big Sand Wash 1,330
Starvadon 18,800
Taskeech 7,400
Clements 140
Fanners 190
Pelican Lake 620
Steinaker 4,100
San Juan River
Vallecitos 15,600
Electra Lake 2,590
-------
-200-
Table 1-3. (continued)
ha-m
Juan Lake 620
Captain Tom 210
Jackson Gulch 1,210
Bauer Lake 130
Summit 590
Narraguinnep* 1,150
Wheatfield 120
Many Farms 3,080
Lower Rock Point 120
Marsh Pass 140
Lemon 4,810
Navajo 209,000
Ridges 16,000
Southern Ute 4,930
Price River
Fairfield 230
Scofield 8,110
Desert Lake 900
Olson 430
San Rafael
Huntington North 480
Cleveland 290
Joes Valley 6,730
Millers Flat 690
Ferron 150
Buckhorn 190
Dolores River
Groundhog 2,680
Buckeye 370
Lake Hope 280
Trout Lake 330
Gurley 1,080
Lone Cone 220
Valley City 220
McPhee 28,200
Fremont (Dirty Devil) River
Fish Lake 490
Forsythe 420
Johnson Valley 490
Mill Meadows 640
Bourns 390
-------
-201-
Table 1-3. (continued)
ha-ra
Escalante River
Spectacle Lake 150
Colorado
Lake Powell 3,083,000
*filled from Dolores River
-------
-202-
APPENDIX 2
DESCRIPTION OF PL 93-320 SALINITY CONTROL
PROJECT IN UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
NONPOINT SOURCE SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS
The Grand Valley
The Grand Valley (Figure 2-1) is located in west
central Colorado near the western edge of Mesa County, and
receives an average annual precipitation of only 210 mm.
Grand Junction, the largest city in Colorado west of the
Continental Divide, is the population center of the valley.
The valley was carved in the Mancos shale formation by the
Colorado River and its tributaries. The Colorado River
enters the valley from the east, is joined by the Gunnison
River at Grand Junction and then exists to the west.
Salinity Contribution—
The Grand Valley was identified as an important agri-
cultural source of salinity in the Colorado River Basin
through a water and salt mass balance. lorns et al. (1965)
evaluated stream gaging records for the 1914 to 1957 period,
concluding that the net salt loading (salt pickup) from
irrigation ranged from about 450,000 to 800,000 Mgm annually,
Similar analyses by Hyatt et al. (1970), Skogerboe and
Walker (1972), and the WDI, Geological Survey (1976) sub-
stantiated this range of salt loadings. Most studies indi-
cate an average, long-term salt pickup rate of between
600,000 to 700,000 Mgm/yr. This mass of salts is added
-------
•Stage One Service Area (WPRS)
Boundary of Irrigated Area
Grand Volley
Salinity Control
lemon strati on Project
Q£-—Grand Valley
COLORADO
ro
o
Seal* in Kilomtttrt
Figure 2-1. The Grand Valley Canal System also showing location of the Grand Valley
Salinity Control Demonstration Project and Stage One of the USDI, WPRS.
-------
-204-
primarily by irrigation return flows, thereby necessitating
a delineation of the components and practices.
Probably no other single issue has been considered with
more intensity by the several research and planning groups
associated with the Grand Valley than the total and relative
sources of contributions to the net salt loading from the
valley. This figure is central to any salinity study
because it defines the boundaries within each segment that
the agricultural hydrology must fit. By subtracting the
salt carried in the irrigation water supplies from the
volume of subsurface and drainage return flow, the net
agricultural contribution can be delineated.
At the time of this writing, there are basically two
principal hydro-salinity budget estimates for the Grand
Valley (Table 2-1). In various meetings and conferences,
the differences have been noted and the essential areas of
disagreement identified. It should be noted that the basis
of the Kruse (1977) estimate has been expanded to be con-
gruent with the analyses of Walker et al. (1977).
Salinity Control—
The Grand Valley is presently the site of the only
active salinity control program in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. The programs under way include water systems im-
provement (canal and lateral lining), irrigation management
services (irrigation scheduling), and the Soil Conservation
Service sponsored on-farm improvements. When implemented,
this total program is expected to reduce the salinity by
-------
Table 2-1.Mean annual Grand Valley water and salt budgets (Walker, et al., 1977).
River Inflows
Plateau Creek
Colorado River near Cameo
Colorado River near Grand
Junction
Evaporation and Phreatophyte
Use (net)
Canal Diversions
Lateral Diversions
Seepage
Operational Wastes
Lateral Diversions
Seepage
Field Tailwater
Cropland Consumptive Use
Cropland Precipitation
Deep Percolation
Irrigation Return Flows
(Subsurface)3
Canal Seepage
Lateral Seepage
Deep Percolation
Phreatophyte Withdrawals
(net)
Irrigation Return Flows (surface)
Operational Wastes
Field Tailwater
River Outflows
Colorado River at Colorado-Utah
State Line
Water
walker,
et al.
13,800
297,650
178,000
489,450
3,450
52,900
3,700
12,400
69.000
5,300
24,600
18,600
-3,100
7,500
52,900
3,700
5,300
7,500
-8,100
8,100
12,400
24,600
37,000
462,100
(ha-m)
Kruse
13,800
297,650
178,000
489,450
2,950
54,100
7,620
22,100
83.820
6.100
25.140
19,100
-3,100
6,360
54,100
7.620
6.100
6,860
-8,400
12,180
22,100
25,140
47,240
462,100
Salt
Walker,
et al.
62,600
1,352,600
1,371,700
2,786,900
—
301,100
21,100
70,600
392,80^
30,200
140,000
130,900
301,100
163,200
232,200
416,800
812, 20C
70,600
140,000
210, fOO
3,445,900b
(Mgm)
Kruse
62,600
1,352,600
1,371,700
2,786,900
—
307,900
43,400
125,800
477,100
34,700
143,100
130,100
307,900
268,500
231.700
368,000
868,200
125,800
143,100
268,900
3,518,500°
to
o
en
This segment of the budget includes all salt pickup and mass balance for salts will not be
achieved.
bincludes 30,000 Mgn of naturally contributed salts.
cincludes 72,600 Mgm of naturally contributed salts.
Note: 1 ha-m = 8.108 acre-ft; 1 Megagram = 1.102 English short tons.
-------
-206-
372,000 Mgm/yr or a reduction of approximately 43 mg/1 at
Imperial Dam (USDI, BR, 1979a). Tables 2-2 and 2-3 describe
the canal and lateral characteristics of the Grand Valley
area. Table 2-4 presents the optimization parameters for
the Grand Valley canals.
An initial phase of the water systems improvement
portion of this project, known as Stage One, is to be con-
structed in FY1981 in a study on the western end of the
valley. A portion of the Government Highline Canal would be
lined, and the laterals lined or placed in pipe to reduce
seepage. A wildlife area and watering ponds will be pro-
vided by the WPRS to compensate for wildlife habitat losses
resulting from implementation of the total program.
Stage One is being constructed with an extensive moni-
toring network to quantitatively determine the project
effects on reducing salinity and damages to wildlife. The
results from Stage One will be thoroughly evaluated before
deciding to proceed with the rest of WPRS program. This
initial phase is projected to decrease the salinity concen-
tration at Imperial Dam by 2.5 mg/1 by the reduction of
21,800 Mgm of salt from the river. Approximately 11 kilo-
meters of canal and 49 kilometers of laterals will be lined.
The construction bids for Stage One canal lining were opened
in June, 1980, and the cost will be $7.4 million.
The Grand Valley is the site of a sizeable on-farm
water management improvement program for salinity control.
The SCS is participating on lateral improvements outside of
-------
Table 2-2. Maximum Salt Load Reductions of the Grand Valley Canal Systems.
Government Highline
Grand Valley Canal
Grand Valley
Mainline
Grand Valley
Highline
Kiefer Extension
Mesa County Ditch
Independent Ranchmens
Canal
Price Ditch
Stub Ditch
Orchard Mesa Power
Orchard Mesa Canal 11
Orchard Mesa Canal 12
Red lands Power Canal
Redlands Canals
TOTAL
Area
Served
(ha)
10220
1790
3250
3040
2460
536
990
1750
245
225
1900
1230
80
1160
Length
(m)
73700
19800
21700
37000
24500
4000
17400
9500
11300
3900
24100
26100
2900
10800
Maximum
Inlet
Capacity
(mVs)
16.99
18.41
7.08
8.50
3.96
1.13
1.98
2.83
0.85
24.07
3.12
1.98
24.07
1.70
Inlet
Wetted
Perimeter
(m)
19
16
13
12
7
6
3
7
2
18
6
3
16
3
.19
.67
.86
.62
.25
.67
.17
.27
.94
.20
.46
.58
.88
.95
Days Seepage
of Rate
Operation m^/m^/day
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
365
214
214
365
214
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.091
.045
.061
.061
.061
.061
.061
.061
.061
.076
.076
.076
.065
.137
Maximum
Salt Load
Reduction
(Mgm)
48671
9550
7340
19229
4640
622
1754
1593
830
6358
4517
2816
3752
2207
109980
Annual
Cost
of
Linings
$2080650
780236
427274
918479
392921
39074
232437
129231
104518
182205
332056
310829
135486
119482
6184880
Estimated
mg/1 at
Imperial
Dam
-5.61
-1.12
-0.86
-1.77
-0.55
-0.09
-0.22
-0.21
-0.11
-0.75
-0.54
-0.34
-0.45
-0.27
-12.90
I
to
o
-------
Table 2-3. Maximum salt load reduction from laterals in the Grand Valley Lateral Systems.
Canal
Name
Estimated
Length K1
(m)
V '
Government Highline .54,,, 54282671.2
Grand Valley 3B76I 9467436.2
Grand Valley Mainline ^m 13678442.4
Grand Valley Highline 5535, 12979594.1
Kiefer Extension 3171| 7153691.9
Mesa County ISI7, 3681966.6
Independent Ranchmen's 267(1 5939248.7
Price Ditch yjjn 14532272.2
Stub Ditch mt 1928359. (
Orchard Mesa Power g^, 1641494
Orchard Mesa No.
Orchard Mesa No.
Redlands Power
Redlands 1 and 2
TOTAL
1 wit 8886355
2 3MU 7137516
I 1
42III 7816638
Table 2-4. Optimization
Canal
Name
Government Highline
Grand Valley
Grand Valley Mainline
Grand Valley Highline
Kiefer Extension
Mesa County
Independent Ranchmen's
Price Ditch
Stub Ditch
Orchard Mesa Power
Orchard Mesa No. 1
Orchard Mesa No. 2
Redlands Power
Redlands 1 and 2
.1
.3
.2
.1
.5
.374
.138
.194
.184
.184
.194
.184
.172
.172
.211
.219
.219
.169
.393
parameters
K'
23883837.3
26(13478.1
4594469.9
14736692.1
4112175.6
287117.6
2849748.1
12(3596.9
7S51SI.2
14746561.8
3(55(58.8
26775H.S
1(965392.1
964281.7
A
-3.9164E-I8
-2.2517E-07
-1.5585E-I7
-i.6436E-(7
-3.I243E-I7
-5.7914E-(7
-J.S91BE-J7
-1.4691E-(7
-i.l(72E-(6
-1.3I1ZE-U
-2.4(26E-«7
-3.I337E-I7
(.((HE ((
-2.7326E-«7
B
8.8649E-I2
4.63(7E-I2
6.S30SC-I2
6.7432E-(2
6.7432E-I2
6.53ISE-K
6.7432E-I2
7.K3K-I2
7.N3K-I2
9.1I94E-I2
8.9129E-I2
8.9129E-(2
(.NIK (1
1.7I48E-II
for the Grand Valley
*2
1.278
(.545
(.615
(.561
1.321
1.296
1.141
1.324
(.131
1.716
(.357
(.198
1.362
1.393
A
-2.BI63E-I7
-8.71S4EH8
-1.3S38E-I6
-2.32S5E-I7
-1.2624E-I6
-2.1861E-IS
-1.2442EH6
-5.1I18E-I6
-7.(632E-(6
-1.4SME-47
-2.181SE-I6
-2.2929E-I6
-1.95(SE-(7
-6.83S9E-(6
Maximum Annual
Salt Load Cost
Reduction of
Mam Linings
54695 632264
5(73 112329
1(337 162292
1(186 1549(1
5535 84181
2782 43674
4661 71881
11933 174775
1583 23192
1762 19839
9287 116874
7355 84638
1 |
15711 74472
141889 1764311
Canal Systems.
B
3.7IS1E-I2
1.3I72E-I2
2.7116E-f2
2.I123EH2
1.7667E-I2
2.9497E-I2
9.729SE-I3
2.1737E-I2
1.3BI3E-(2
3.S814E-I2
2.J4S7E-I2
i.SS19E-(2
2.8427E-I2
3.356IE-I2
Estimated
mg/1 @
Imperial
Dam
-6.31
-1.60
-1.21
-1.19
-1.65
-1.34
-I.SS
-1.39
-1.21
-(.22
-1.19
-(.86
I.It
-1.82
-16.43
O
CO
-------
-209-
the Stage One and on-farm improvements throughout the valley.
The SCS is estimating total costs of automated surface irri-
gation systems ranging from $30-$50/m for a pipeline-gated
pipe system and $30-$40/m for an automated concrete ditch
system. The only sprinkler systems which are presently
eligible for cost sharing are the very expensive buried
solid-set systems.
At the present time, the Agricultural Conservation and
Stabilization Service is cost sharing on a 90-10 percent
ratio for automated systems, making even these high costs
less than total farmer financing costs for conventional
systems. However, if the ASCS reverts back to the more
common 75-25 percent cost sharing ratio, the automation
program will not be as acceptable because the 25 percent
costs are the comparable or greater than the full cost of
conventional concrete ditch linings and siphon tube systems
which the farmers in that area generally prefer.
Skogerboe (1980) indicates that most of the automation
installed in the Grand Valley is not being used as automated,
but as traditional systems. Thus, the anticipated benefits
of increased efficiencies due to automation have not materi-
alized. And, until water supplies become limiting in the
area, it is doubtful that automation would be generally
accepted. This lack of acceptance of automation is also
partially due to little technical assistance and follow
through by the SCS and other agencies.
-------
-210-
Lower Gunnison Salinity Control Unit
The Lower Gunnison area encompasses about 74,800
hectares of irrigated land (Figure 2-2). In an average
year, approximately 3,250 hectares are idle (USDA, SCS,
1976, 1979c). Five federal reclamation projects provide
full or supplemental service to about 44,300 hectares: (1)
the Uncompahgre Project — 30,900 ha; (2) Fruitgrowers Dam
Project ~ 1,090 ha; (3) Paonia Project — 6,200 ha; (4) the
Smith Fork Project — 3,840 ha; and (5) the Bostwick Park
Project supplies water to an additional 2,270 ha in the
dinarron Creek Drainage about 15 km east of Montrose. The
irrigated areas which contribute the most salinity to the
Lower Gunnison River are in the Smith Fork-Crystal, North
Fork and Uncompahgre Subbasins.
Salinity Contribution—
The approved 208 plan for the area (Colorado Department
of Local Affairs, 1979) stated that agriculturally induced
salinity is the most significant water quality problem in
the area. However, that report erred in reporting that salt
levels do not cause problems within the region. This is
refuted by observing the large amounts of waterlogged,
salinized soils as a result of overirrigation and restricted
drainage.
lorns et al. (1965) estimated that 71,480 hectares of
irrigated land along the Lower Gunnison-Uncompahgre Rivers
produced an average of 11.4 Mgm/ha for a total of 812,800
Mgm. The USDI, BR (1979a) estimates the total annual salt
-------
-211-
PtONIt
HCSCKVOI*'
IRRIGATED AREA
S 10 19 Seal* miltt
S 0-
10
20
30 Scalt km
Figure 2-2. Irrigation areas in the Lower Gunnison Salinity
Control Project area.
-------
-212-
load from the Lower Gunnison at 1.0 x 10 Mgm for a total
average salt load of about 13.5 Mgm/ha. The EPA (1971)
computed the salt load from the areas above the Curecanti
Project to vary from 0.67 Mgm/ha to about 2.25 Mg/ha, and
that the irrigation of 66,420 hectares in the Lower Gunnison
Valley annually contributed about 15 Mgm/ha. Primarily as a
result of agricultural activities/ the average flow weighted
concentration of the Uncompahgre River rises from about
200 mg/1 at Ouray to over 1,100 mg/1 near Delta.
A memorandum of the USDI, BR (1978) calculated the two
year average (1976-77) of irrigation-related salinity con-
tribution for the area. The Mancos shale soils on the east
side of the Uncompahgre River contributed a total of approxi-
mately 253,000 Mgm or average of 15 Mgm/ha of salt to the
river, while the terrace deposits on the west side annually
contributed about 100,000 Mgm or an average of about 4.5
Mgm/ha. This difference is due to low amounts of salt
inherent in the soils of the terraces, and relatively short
travel times for the groundwater to be in contact with the
underlying Mancos shales. Figure 2-3 illustrates the
extent of the Mancos shale and terrace deposits in the area.
The numbers and letters on Figure 2-3 correspond to the same
designations on Table 2-5.
The WPRS is presently only investigating lands under
the Uncompahgre Project which is about one-half of the total
irrigated area and accounts for about one-third of the
salinity. The majority of the remaining irrigated lands are
-------
-213-
AREAS DIRECTLY CR INDIRECTLY UNDERLAIN
BY MANCOS SHALE
TERRACE DEPOSITS
ZOKKJMCTERS
Figure 2-3.
Areal extent of Mancos shale and terrace
deposits in the Lower Gunnison. Numbers and
letters refer to the same designations on
Table 2-5.
-------
Table 2.5. Maximum salt load reduction for canals and ditches in the Lower Gunnison System.
Canal Canal
Number Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
13
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
A
B
C
C
D
E
F
F
G
H
Large Canals
Stell
Cedar Canon
Dyer Fork
Fruitland
Ourkee
Transfer
Park
Bonaffde
Hartland
Relief
North Delta
Overl and
Highline
Currant Creek
Stull
Cow Creek
Leroux Creek
Hidkoff 8 Arnold
Allen Mesa
Fire Mountain
Stewart
North Fork Fanners
Short
Crawford Clipper
Pilot Rock
Daisy
Needle Rock
Grandview
Saddle Mountain
Smith Fork Feeder
South
West
HSD Canal (Mancos)
MSD Canal (nonMancos)
Loutzenhizer
Sellg
Ironstone (Mancos)
Ironstone (nonMancos)
East
Garnet
Area
Served
(ha)
731
1141
Ml
zizi
261
1
in
1661
tin
151
391
1591
SSI
291
211
211
16M
n
411
3111
1S7I
491
?71
1411
HI
291
731
Ilil
191
1
2841
mi
IB3I
1
2511
Mil
9111
1
Jill
Ml
Length Estimated Estimated
(m) Maximum Inlet
Inlet Wetted
Capacity Perimeter
m3/s " (m)
911
U7II
4111
44911
llllt
nil
3611
13411
9811
16111
Zttll
54911
7711
an
5411
Nil
411
Mil
KM
S6III
2S6II
19611
18911
9411
4711
3511
6811
2BMI
157U
5211
12311
33UI
3211
47311
IBM
317H
4MI
25511
I69II
1011
2.11
1.78
1.51
11.63
1 71
1.78
1.53
1.78
1.49
1.76
1.16
3.54
1.78
1.43
1.78
1.56
4.95
1.53
1.64
6.55
2.H
1.21
1,71
3,16
1.53
3,36
1 59
4.78
1.7B
3.36
21.11
3.11
2.11
11.23
2.21
4.11
1.85
7.11
2,51
2.11
7.M
4.73
J.lt
14.75
3 49
4.7J
3.15
4.73
4.46
4.73
1.99
9.31
4.73
2.94
4.71
3.22
11.72
3.15
3.3*
I2.K
7.78
4. IS
1.49
9.12
3.15
9.1!
4.56
11.56
4.73
9.12
19.21
8.81
7.34
15.19
7.64
9.81
4.81
12.48
B.I6
7.34
Days Estimated Maximum Annual
of Seepage Salt Cost
Operation Rate Load
1 _,3/m2/j,u Reduction
m /m /day of L1n|ng
181
181
SI
91
181
181
181
IBt
181
181
181
181
181
181
IH
181
in
181
51
168
1«
181
161
in
in
198
181
181
111
in
IN
181
in
IBI
in
in
in
in
in
tei
.121
.121
.121
.121
.m
.128
.HI
.121
.128
.121
.121
.121
.121
.121
.121
.121
.121
.121
.128
128
ia
m
121
121
121
m
121
121
188
121
181
121
8H
8H
in
121
881
m
84
2698
121
11296
2S7I
1312
145
1432
2497
19H
2691
S996
794
295
393
167
117
JB
117
14711
3271
511
2Z31
1611
5K
1189
1KB
S673
1419
7562
7121
3131
812
72B
25H
SIM
719
1212
3228
3176
11224
199695
33562
1111SI1
91768
45441
29833
15S4S1
111332
191325
291IIS
848586
usm
45636
64S72
Z5MS
•771
5K5I
74114
1323612
335796
215731
1698S3
142419
38949
S382B
78254
499211
I8773B
96434
4947W
472793
47114
1111351
228151
481516
65869
491123
21I6S
193436
Estimated
mg/1 §
Imperial
Dam l
-1.13
-1.72
-8.13
-1.48
-1.44
-t.21
-1.14
-1.23
-8.38
-8.31
-1.44
-1.31
-4.22
H.I9
-1.17
-1.14
-4J.I4
-1.16
-8.14
-1.92
-1.44
-1.18
-1.31
-8.47
-1.15
-I.2S
-8.29
-1.61
-1.21
-8.42
-1.12
-8.81
-1.21
-1.88
-1.74
-I.S2
H.22
-1.85
-4.93
-1.47
-21.13
I
to
-------
Table 2.5. (continued)
Canal
Name
Small Canals 2
Circle
Whiting
P-U
Alum Gulch
Nyman Comstock
Dry Creek
Gallant
Norton
Newburt
Oak Park
Fuller No. 2
K-M
Perkins
Forked Tongue
Oasis
Shindledecker
Duke
Lone Rock
Virginia
Gove
Hotchkiss No. 1
Ross
J.B. Drake
Ht. View Mesa
Dldway
P»S
B&S
Combined Ditches3
Alfalfa Run
Dry Creek
Forked Tongue Creek
Leroux Creek
Smith Fork River
TOTAL
Area
Served
(ha)
41
71
24
ill
M
171
M
71
SS
111
41
95
75
141
ta
111
M
121
in
45
a
16
B
16!
1
a
s
142
SSI
SS
134
863
Length Estimated
(m) Maximum
Inlet
Capaci ty
an
3711
27N
2711
3111
2611
2611
6411
UN
SMI
«l
ISII
till
SMI
B9N
mi
3511
3711
1411
4111
881
llll
2m
5511
1211
1211
1511
Sill
fNI
3111
49N
21511
.21
.17
.14
.25
.14
.21
.17
.14
.11
.23
.11
.11
.n
.17
.23
.17
.23
.17
.21
.14
.11
.11
.n
.11
.11
.n
.17
.13
.14
.11
.15
.11
Estimated
Inlet
Wetted
Perimeter
(m)
2.39
2.16
1.5)
2.46
2.U
2.28
2.16
2.11
1.87
2.39
1.87
1.87
1.48
2.16
2.39
2.16
2.39
2.16
2.39
2.13
1.19
1.19
1.71
1.89
1.89
l.lf
2.16
I.IS
1.29
1.89
1.43
I.IS
Days
of
Operation
1
ia
in
in
in
ITS
in
IM
IK
in
HI
ITS
IK
171
IK
IIS
75
IK
in
in
in
IK
1SS
IB
35
171
71
in
115
III
141
IN
125
Estimated Maximum
Seepage Salt
Rate Load
"V/day MS
mm
1.121
1.121
1.121
i.m
i.m
1.121
1.121
1.121
i.m
1.121
1.121
1.121
1.128
i.m
i.m
i.ia
1.121
i.m
i.m
i.m
1.121
1.121
i.m
i.m
1.121
1.121
i.m
i.m
I.UI
1.121
1.128
i.m
47
1S2
a
156
217
S4I
6IS
I4SB
111
841
1117
SS
3S
111
329
71
221
225
22
245
27
28
141
61
247
M
94
69
891
41
186
511
190.0004
Annual Estimated
Cost mg/1 9
($) Imperial
Dam 1
1562
S2S4
2415
4224
4988
1441
3492
8264
1299
9S7I
5647
1725
till
4731
I46K
4261
5775
S2S4
2174
SSS4
SIS
644
2S88
6M9
1435
773
am
1174
4978
1441
390
1B79
10.577.247
•3.1)
-I.M
-t.D
-I.M
-1.14
-1.89
-1.16
-1.19
-I.U
-8.12
-1.13
-I.U
-1.12
-1.83
-I.U
-1.13
-I.M
-1.16
-1.82
-1.17
-1.12
•41.82
-I.M
-1.83
-8.85
-I.U
-1.8)
-I.U
-I.U
-M2
-I.U
-8.88
-22.78
I
10
M
I/I
No winter water In canals.
Diversions less than 0.4 m3/s
Several very snail diversions on these drainages
combined together and treated as one.
Included 75.000 Itgm due to elimination of winter
diversions.
-------
-216-
located on Mancos shale derived soils, and, if the 15 Mgm/ha
loading were attributed to the rest of these lands, the
total salt load would approach the commonly estimated 1.0 x
10 Mgm/yr contribution. PL 93-320 authorized the "Lower
Gunnison" as irrigation salinity source control planning
unit, and did not specify any measures or only the Uncompahgre
River portion of the Lower Gunnison in the language of the
Act. Tables 2-5 and 2-6 describe the canal and lateral
systems in the Lower Gunnison. Table 2-7 presents the canal
optimization parameters for the Lower Gunnison canals.
Salinity Control—
The Regional 208 Water Quality Plan (Colorado Depart-
ment of Local Affairs, 1979) urges that the total region be
evaluated in a salinity control program and that dollars
should be spent where the greatest effects can be obtained.
Improved water conveyance, distribution, application and
removal systems will be required for any agricultural salin-
ity control program. This would also include irrigation
scheduling services in conjunction with the other on-farm
improvements.
Two major salinity efforts presently being conducted in
the Lower Gunnison area are being done by the USDA, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Water and Power Resources Services (WPRS). The
WPRS has established an extensive surface and subsurface
monitoring program in the Uncompahgre Valley and a surface
water quality program in the rest of the Lower Gunnison.
-------
Table 2.6. Maximum salt load reduction of the Lower Gunnison Lateral Systems.
E
Stell
Cedar Canon
Fruitland
Durkee
Bonafide
Hartland
Relief
North Delta
Overland
Highline
Stull
Cow Creek
Leroux Creek
Midkiff-Arnold
Allen Mesa
Fire Mountain
Stewart _
North Fork Fanners
Short
Crawford
Daisy
Needle Rock
Grandview
Saddle Mountain
South Canal
West
M&D Canal (Mancos)
M&D Canal (nonMancos)
Loutzenhizer Canal
Selig Canal
Ironstone (Mancos)
Ironstone (nonMancos)
East
Garnet
TOTAL
is ti ma ted
Length
(m)
16588
25310
43511
6111
36288
2S3II
27781
9111
31811
izsei
4711
son
36288
2118
9288
64688
34318
15688
21788
31888
6788
28888
39388
19988
94S88
27288
3788
164388
36788
75188
23388
136588
81188
15368
K1
5235377.7
14875248.7
15676532.8
917186.8
7948675.9
11462263.8
6882274.1
1993772.8
91643S5.8
2845198.2
1247897.9
564842.5
8819397.2
258742.4
1578916.6
63892694.5
1882B78I.S
5287888.8
5217686.9
18127131.8
725182.4
3838678.9
8313367.5
5589442.8
16359653.4
7458447.5
2826968.8
45883989.7
5445798.5
41973818.1
4833658.8
24926129.4
13866753.9
1875508.3
V A
.175 -4.8638E-87
.448 -1.424SE-87
.873 -1.3S59EH7
.263 -2.3317E-86
.278 -3.1I13E-I7
.398 -1.8S1SE-I7
.312 -4.8S3IE-87
.186 -1.I7I8E-I6
.859 -2.3248E-I7
.881 -7.4965E-I7
.173 -1.7872E-M
.846 <-3.7929E-86
.879 -2.6682E-87
.851 -8.5325E-86
.837-1.3S35E-86
.265 -3.3585E-88
.186-1.1258E-87
.833 -4.8843E-87
.151 -4.8941E-87
.127 -2.1884E-87
.181 -2.9497E-86
.139 -5.5M4C-87
.898 -2.5678E-87
.897 -3.8899E-I7
.173 -1.5891E-87
.875 -3.1426E-87
.289 -1.84S8E-86
.898 -5.2825E-88
.181 -S.8398E-87
.281 -S.8497E-88
.189 -6.44S2E-87
.875 -1.8426E-87
.245 -1.8748E-87
.136 -2.4378E-86
B
.9553E-82
.47S5E-82
.6918E-82
.3B59E-81
.3153E-82
7.4819E-82
4.8583E-82
3.8932E-I2
1.8492E-82
2.869ZE-82
2.2671E-82
3.1341E-82
2.8958E-82
3.1848E-82
1.787IE-82
2.3273E-82
2.8887E-82
8.175IE-83
5.16S6E-I2
3.2368E-I2
7.147SE-82
6.8782E-82
3.7656E-82
2.B495E-B2
2.8388E-82
1.1637E-82
3.239BE-82
1.3964E-82
2.9982E-82
4.2688E-I2
3.8969E-82
1.1698E-82
4.8268E-82
5.2968E-82
Salt
1169
18769
3812
1524
8885
9556
7573
984
1953
949
326
218
2783
97
328
16252
6875
485
3116
3737
644
2747
3655
1829
13883
1835
735
13382
5495
28857
3734
8698
16688
1772
i74614
Annual
Cost
Linings
61263
178333
182421
11287
217838
132256
166682
23881
188263
33985
14735
7158
95731
3143
19287
715874
215997
68792
61854
118346
9258
46425
99547
65881
531233
165927
23254
1882278
282499
481266
138735
806586
449435
36438
6469733
Estimated
mg/l@
Imperial Dam
-8.15
-1.26
-8.36
- .19
- .83
- .12
- .89
- .12
-8.24
-8.13
-8.86
-8.84
-8.33
-8.83
-8.86
-1.89
-8.72
-8.87
-8.38
-8.45
-8.89
-8.33
-8.44
-8.23
-1.61
-8.23
-8.18
-1.55
-1.65
-2.32
-8.45
-1.82
-1.94
-8.22
-28.78
to
-------
Table 2-7. Optimization parameters for the Lower Gunnison canal systems.
Canal
Name
Large Canals
Stell
Cedar Canon
Dyer Fork
Fruitland
Durkee
Transfer
Park
Bonafide
Hartland
Relief
North Delta
Overland
Highline
Curr?nt Creek
Stull
COM Creek
Leroux Creek
Hidkoff and Arnold
Allen Mesa
Fire Mountain
Stewart
North Fork Fanners
Short
Crawford Clipper
Pilot Rock
Daisy
Needle Rock
Grandview
Saddle Mountain
Smith Fork Feeder
South
West
M&D Canal (Mancos)
M&D Canal (nonMancos)
Loutzenhizer
Selig
Ironstone (Mancos)
Ironstone (nonMancos)
East
Garnet
K1
115615.8
1B33I6I.9
221368.9
13424561.8
664952.3
417113.9
197756.7
1426934.4
974342.3
1756226.9
238BI96.I
8866494.1
1164712.6
285914.1
592726.6
173121.2
623791.1
338476.6
525821.4
34153476.7
3248756.2
1727854.4
1244316.6
1475598.8
261793.4
549425.1
711161.7
5463874.2
1723297.7
6531317.8
13975271.1
4476564.6
1512191.3
12285516.5
1959714.1
4618371.9
2296683.1
5134262.1
1892383.1
1745176.7
v<
*2
1.155
1.269
1.149
1.419
1.424
1.576
1.167
1.184
1.425
1.216
1.155
1.182
1.137
1.185
1.121
1.193
0.319
1.191
1.127
1.319
1.213
1.143
1.197
1.286
1.179
1.519
1.259
1.331
t.151
1.519
1.681
1.169
1.278
1.291
1.259
1.322
1.169
1.241
1.364
1.351
A
-4.B772E-I5
-2.78B8E-I6
-1.9878E-I5
-3.7817E-07
-6.999IE-M
-1.2256E-I5
-2.221SE-IS
-3.5826E-I6
-S.1787E-I6
-2.91I9E-I6
-2.I477E-I6
-5.6691E-I7
-4.8U4E-I6
-1.494IE-I5
-B.6248E-I6
-2.594SE-I5
-3.3921E-I6
-1.3111E-I5
-B.TtTTEH*
-7.6882E-18
-1.S979E-I6
-2.86S4E-I6
-3.74I2E-I6
-3.4I13E-I6
-1.7I16E-I5
-9.1349E-I6
-7.2J29E-I6
-9.26I6E-I7
-2.9665E-U
-J.2I52E-I7
-1.8823E-I7
-1.37S7E-I6
-1.5I48EH6
-S.427IE-I7
-3.3S82E-I6
-I.45I1E-I6
-9.5944E-17
-I.3I61E-I6
-3.4967E-I6
-3.1961E-I6
B
1.155SEH2
2.1I32E-I2
5.9B4IE-I3
1.4435E-I2
4.6321EH2
4.4967E-I2
8.I963E-I3
1.4337E-I2
3.5S62E-K
1.6115E-I2
1.469IE-U
1.I466E-K
1.I664E-I2
1.I857E-I2
9.4793E-I3
1.I956E-I2
1.37B5E-I2
I.I93BE-C
3.I493E-I3
1.2236E-I2
1.4967E-42
3.8692E-W
2.1482E-K
1.67B4E-I2
2.1S72E-I2
3.I486E-K
2.1I77E-I2
1.6616EH2
1.1684E-t2
2.7387E-I2
1.573IE-I2
1. 1922-12
1.8259E-K
1.I397EH2
1.9817E-I2
1.89I6E-I2
1.1442E-42
1.I751E-I2
2.6329EH2
2.6569E-I2
Canal
Name
Small Canals
Circle
Whiting
P-W
Alum Gulch
Nyman Corns to ck
Dry Creek
Gallant
Morton
Newburt
Oak Park
Fuller No. 2
K-M
Perkins
Forked Tongue
Oasis
Shindledecker
Duke
Lone Rock
Virginia
Gove
Hotchkiss No. 1
Ross
J.B. Drake
Mt. View Mesa
Didway
P&S
B&S
Combined Ditches
Alfalfa Run
Dry Creek
Forked Tongue Creek
Leroux Creek
Smith Fork River
K1
286684.4
213226.1
173678.1
77242.7
382516.8
65644.3
149834.S
33I82S.4
99355.1
395897.5
433549,1
47742.1
83126.6
119867.6
617477.8
172886.1
238713.6
213226.1
191122.9
222273.3
33783.7
42229.7
187631.3
126179.3
111132.8
51675.6
172886.1
2IS3S6.7
473S57.4
81969.3
281399.3
865844.1
VI
K2
1.134
1.146
1.132
1.177
1.162
1.277
1.263
1.253
1.125
1.162
1.221
1.141
1.134
1.126
1.141
1.126
1.171
1.168
1.116
1.163
1.135
1.129
1.162
1.114
1.217
1.156
1.168
1.114
1.196
MIS
1.123
1.125
A
-7.4617E-I6
-1.1I79E-K
-1.2217E-K
-4.2746C-IS
-5.S911E-I6
-S.I3S3E-I5
-1.S79C-K
-7.1S17E-I6
-2.1SHC-I5
-5.975K-I6
-4.92BIE-I6
-3.4894E-K
-2.5633E-K
-2.7S91E-IS
-3.8943E-I6
-1.36B8E-IS
-9.9K7E-I6
-1.1I79E-I5
-1.1193E-I5
-1.I644E-IS
-6.14I6EHS
-4.9125E-K
-1.1364E-I5
-2.3325E-I5
-1.942K-I5
-4.I937E-I5
-1.237SE-I5
-I.IMIEHS
-4.4223E-I6
-2.41841-15
-7.SM7I-I6
-2. 38651-16
B
1.938SE-I2
3.I6S9E-I2
3.543SEH2
4.IS69E-I2
4.S379E-I2
1.7578EH1
1. 76291-11
1.8684E-I1
1.I348E-I1
9.3147E-I2
1.8273EH1
3.3694E-I2
3.2272E-K
1.777IE-I2
2.3716E-I2
1.742K-I2
4.H67E-I2
4.S3V6M2
9.4597E-W
4.6B12M2
S.3S37E-I2
4.485SE-I2
5.762BE-I2
1.1799E-K
1.76B1E-I1
8.S417E-I2
4.5266EH2
2.2427E-I2
I.314K-41
3.II32E-I2
2.7476C-I2
3.953ZE-I2
NJ
M
CO
I
-------
-219-
The SCS program varies from the WPRS in that it in-
cludes the entire Lower Gunnison drainage (Smith Fork, North
Fork and Uncompahgre). SCS studies in 1980 indicate several
areas including North Delta, Tongue Creek, certain areas
near Hotchkiss, Paonia and Crawfords also contribute high
salt loads (USDA, SCS, 1979a).
The approved Colorado State 208 Plan for the area has
also specifically identified the Tongue Creek below Cedaredge
area for improvement. Tongue Creek flows into the Gunnison
River from the northwest just above Delta. These lands
include about 1,960 hectares in the North Fork subbasin.
Much of this irrigated area is also underlain by Mancos
shales. There are about 66 km of canals and 134 km of farm
ditches serving the area. Nearly all the irrigation in
Tongue Creek is by gravity surface methods (Kepler, 1979).
Annual diversions from the major Tongue Creek has averaged
about 1,585 ha-m for an average of 0.97 ha-m/ha which is
below the average for the rest of the Lower Gunnison.
Due to the steep topographic conditions and the crops
grown, much of the irrigated area in the North Fork and
Smith Fork subbasins is almost ideally suited for gravity,
pressurized sprinkle irrigation systems. Properly designed
and operated sideroll-wheel move sprinklers would work well
on the small grain and forage crops. Considering recent
advances in low pressure-low application rate sprinkle
equipment technology, undertree sprinklers would be well
suited for the orchards. The sprinklers would also offer
-------
-220-
some energy efficient frost control benefits which would not
be available under trickle irrigation. The sprinklers would
have to be designed for the low intake capacity of the
Mancos shale soils, but could greatly increase the irriga-
tion application efficiency, which is presently estimated by
the SCS around 20-35 percent for these areas. In addition,
a central pressurized pipeline system would eliminate the
seepage losses from the many small and often parallel canals
and laterals which often flow relatively long distances to
irrigate a few hectares.
Uncompahgre Valley—
The WPRS (USDI, WPRS, 19BOc) has developed a preliminary
lining program for 540 km of the total 830 km of canals and
laterals in the Uncompahgre River area, which covers the
area from the towns of Montrose to Delta. Approximately
160 km of the linings are located on the "adobe" or Mancos
areas on west side of the Uncompahgre River. WPRS Project
personnel are estimating that with the selected program the
salinity at Imperial Dam would be reduced by about 20 mg/1
or 220,000 Mgm which is 63 percent of the total agricultural
salinity contribution from the Uncompahgre Project area.
Although this is only an appraisal study, these estimates of
salt reduction due to canal and lateral linings even with
winter diversions, appear to be much higher than results
from other Mancos shale salinity control areas might indi-
cate. This is the result of the incorrect "incremental
cost-effectiveness" methodology used, and which is strongly
-------
-221-
biased in favor of canal linings. In addition, WPRS esti-
mates of on-farm deep percolation are much lower than should
be expected. Some of the canal linings included in the WPRS
proposal were not on Mancos soil; however, it was believed
by WPRS that their low lining costs due to low-gradients and
few structures were still less than the expected salinity
control benefits.
Re-evaluation and careful analysis of the existing WPRS
data on the Uncompahgre Salinity Control Project revealed a
total maximum combined salinity contribution from all the
canals and laterals to be 203,500 Mgm/yr out of the estimated
352,000 Mgm total agricultural contributions. The west side
canal salinity contribution is high because of their long
length and of the seepage in the winter months. The on-farm
component is about 148,500 Mgm/yr. Approximately 66,850 Mgm
are contributed by 106.4 km of large canals and 328 km of
laterals on nonMancos areas. About 116,000 Mgm are contri-
buted by the canals and laterals on the Mancos Shales on
both sides of the Uncompahgre River. The actual on-farm
contribution, including head ditch and tailwater ditch
seepage plus deep percolation from the Mancos soils is
estimated at about 9.5 Mgm/ha and 1.50 Mgm/ha from the
nonMancos area. At the 0.02 m /m /day effectiveness, a
lining program of all canal and lateral sections in only the
"adobe" or Mancos soils without reducing winter diversions
would reduce the salt load by about 91,000 Mgm. This is
roughly translated to a salinity reduction at Imperial Dam
-------
-222-
of 10.7 mg/1. Stopping the winter livestock in the canals
would add another 4.5 mg/1 reduction to this figure. A
maximum 100 percent effective program lining all of the
canals and laterals in the Uncompahgre Valley would reduce
the salt load by approximately 23.7 mg/1 compared to the
WPRS value of 30 mg/1 at Imperial Dam, however, much of
these linings would not be cost-effective. It is believed
that these numbers (Table 2-5) are more realistic values
than the initial analysis presented by the WPRS.
A significant problem which must be addressed in a
canal and, to a lesser extent, lateral lining program, is
the diversion of water in the canals in the winter for
livestock use. This practice and the resultant freezing and
thawing action would be very destructive to concrete linings
and negate their effectiveness in a short time. Also, this
practice now adds to the salinity contribution from the area
due to the increased seepage volume from the canals.
The local farmers are quite concerned about the avail-
ability of "free" water for livestock, and to a certain
extent, their cooperation could be dependent on a satis-
factory solution to this problem. The low cost of this
winter water may, in fact, be an erroneous belief because
the practice unquestionably adds substantially to the present
operation and maintenance costs as evidenced by the present
extensive structure replacement program.
The WPRS is pursuing alternative methods to supply the
livestock water, and one of the most probable solutions is
-------
-223-
to utilize the existing rural potable water districts which
cover most of the irrigated areas in the Lower Gunnison.
The groundwater is too saline. A problem exists in that the
present water district distribution system capacity is
presently over-taxed in many areas and may require financial
assistance. The subsidies may be outright grants to the
water districts or to the farmers or the installation of a
new, larger distribution system. In addition, it may be
wise to provide for emergency water service in the event of
a water supply breakdown due to the heavy water demands of
large livestock operations.
If this winter water were stopped as anticipated, it
alone would substantially reduce the salinity contribution
from the area. On the westside, implementation of only the
curtailment of winter diversions may be the most cost-
effective salinity control alternative on the nonMancos
portions. For the whole canal system, stoppage of winter
water with no linings would reduce the annual salt load by
an estimated 30,000 to 39,000 Mgm/yr. Damages of $450,000
mg/1 at Imperial Dam translates to almost $2.0 million per
year damage cost reductions, which theoretically would be
available for alternative supplemental winter livestock
water supplies in just the Uncompaghre Valley. It is esti-
mated that a total canal lining program and no winter water
would reduce the estimated canal salt contribution from
94,650 to 36,500 Mgm/yr.
-------
-224-
Uintah Basin
The Uintah (also spelled Uinta) Basin is located in the
northeast portion of Utah and is politically composed of
Daggett, Duchesne and Uintah counties (Figure 2-4). The
major population centers are Duchesne, Roosevelt and Vernal.
The 1975 population was about 30,390 people. The projected
1995 population is 60,050 people.
The area is bounded by the Uinta Mountains along the
northern flank. The Uinta Mountains have been subjected to
repeated glaciation and, as a result, have a spectacular
sculptured topography. A portion of this beautiful moun-
tainous region has been designated the High Uintas Primitive
Area. The western boundary is the Wasatch Mountains of the
Great Basin and on the east and south by the Green River and
the Roan Plateau. Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir are
located along the northeastern edge of the Basin.
As the high quality Uinta Mountain streams enter the
lower elevations they traverse several relatively soft
geologic formations of heavily weathered rocks, alluvial
deposits and residual soils, many of which are high in
easily soluble salts. The Duchesne, Myton and Roosevelt
areas are primarly underlaid by the Uinta and Duchesne
Shales and sandstones which are the most common formations.
The Ashley Valley is underlaid by Mancos shale.
The Uintah Basin has several unique physical and socio-
economic features which are unique to the Upper Colorado
River Basin. For instance, from 1861 to 1905, the majority
-------
HIGH UINTAS
PRIMITIVE AREA
UINTA MOUNTAINS
DINOSAUR
NATIONAL
MONUMENT
I
NJ
NJ
01
50 IO 20 30 4O k,lom«l«r
Figure 2-4. Irrigated lands in Uintah Basin, Utah.
-------
-226-
of the Basin was allocated to the Ouray and Uintah Indian
Reservations. In 1905, the Reservation was opened to non-
Indian homesteading and the old reservation became a checker-
board of diffuse ownership. To add to the confusion, the
water rights for Indian and nonlndian lands are different
and range from 0.9 to 1.2 ha-m/ha. Some canals carry both
Indian and nonlndian water, each with different water right
quantities and priorities. In other cases, duplicate
canals, structures and facilities have been constructed in
an effort to administer the two types of water and lands.
An ever present source of dissention and controversy in
the region is the priority of Ute Indian versus nonlndian
water rights as some of the water rights in the basin have
never been adjudicated. The Indian, nonlndian differences
are also evident in many other areas of the local society.
The socio-economic, institutional, and the complex physical
constraints will undoubtedly make the implementation of any
effective salinity control program in the Uintah Basin a
very complicated, and often frustrating experience.
The canal system in the Uintah Basin is a very complex
system as can be seen in Figure 2-5. The first conveyance
systems in the area were small projects constructed by
horsedrawn and hand equipment. These and other canal systems
were expanded as the need arose, and the lack of overall
coordination of planning is evident in many ways in the
system today. It is estimated that there are at least
1,200 km of often intertwining, overlapping and duplicating
-------
KJ
NJ
Figure 2-5. Canal system in the Uintah Basin,
-------
-228-
major canals and 1,400 km of laterals in the system.
Examinations of U.S. Geological Survey maps and Utah State
Engineer's water records indicate at least 100 canals and
significant laterals in just the Duchesne-Lake Fork-Uintah-
Dry Gulch drainages. Tables 2-8, 2-9 and 2-10 describe the
canal and laterals and their optimization parameters in the
Uintah Basin.
Many of the paralleling canals and laterals have reaches
where lush phreatophyte growths and/or alkali flats both of
which indicate excessive seepage losses. On the other hand,
some canals such as the Midview actually gain water through-
out their lengths because of seepage from higher lands.
Salinity Contribution of the Uintah Basin—
lorns et al. (1965) included the Uintah Basin as part
of their comprehensive water resources study on the Colorado
River, and reported that the Duchesne River near Randlett
carried a total of about 417,600 Mgm per year of which
295,400 Mgm was attributable to the irrigation of 55,000 ha
of land. The EPA (1971) estimated that irrigation in Ashley
Valley-Brush Creek contributed 76,200 Mgm and that irriga-
tion in Duchesne River-Uintah River area contributed an
average total of 95,300 Mgm and the Uintah Basin a total of
417,400 Mgm per year.
The WPRS (USDI, BR, 1979a) indicates that the Uintah
Basin including Ashley Valley and Brush Creek contributes a
total salt load of 410,000 Mgm per year. Much of the salt
loading is attributed directly to the irrigation of about
-------
Table 2-8. Maximum salt load reduction for canal and major lateral lining in the Uintah Basin.
Canal Area
Name Served
(ha)
High line
Ashley Upper
Ashley Central
Rock Point
Island
Union
Sunshine
Burton
Murray
Burns Bench
Mosby
US Whiterocks
Whiterocks and
Ouray Valley
Ouray Valley
Ouray Park
Deep Creek
Moffat
Henry Jim
US Farm Creek
Uintah River Canal
Uintah No. 1
Indian Bench
Monarch
Martin Lateral
710
3960
2100
650
330
270
530
230
160
780
1270
1090
3040
930
1020
2480
750
410
520
4370
3350
2390
200
440
Estimated
Length
(m)
28901
21208
16000
11900
4000
13800
10500
4000
3800
8900
16000
32700
24800
15400
30700
63201
16100
10300
23000
9700
7000
22100
26600
9700
Estimated
Inlet
Capacity
(m3/s)
3.68
8.50
7.08
2.27
0.85
1.20
1.20
1.00
0.60
1.50
2.70
2.70
6.23
1.13
2.83
3.10
1.70
1.42
2.00
9.06
3.68
7.81
2.00
0.42
Estimated
Wetted
Perimeter
(m)
9.47
13.43
12.45
7.74
3.70
4.15
4.15
3.91
3.29
4.48
8.32
8.32
11.80
4.07
8.49
8.69
4.67
4.39
7.34
13.80
9.47
12.97
7.34
2.92
Estimated
Days
of
Operation
ISO
ISO
ISO
ISO
ISO
130
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
110
100
121
120
ISO
120
120
121
120
120
ISO
Estimated
Seepage
Rate
3 2
m /m /day
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.100
0.100
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.080
Maximum Annual
Salt Cost
Load of
Reduction Linings
5883
6123
4281
2284
269
1479
471
169
135
430
1501
3446
4171
519
2011
6903
683
894
756
1510
748
3815
1278
627
471411
^/lil J
tTIATC
36634
417074
AOrQr ^
127730
KfffJ
^jvrf
UMO
wDBrQ
4 f 7TA&
23IB45
CwV0T9
471788
^» ftrOQ
C4I4TC
T^mjs
186987
407905
10109S1
219926
135757
296638
280735
134898
581587
399218
85098
Estimated
mg/1 @
Imperial
Dam
—A JLO
• •07
-• 79
• i/t
-• C4
• •M
_A 9O
-•.CD
-i K
V . V9
-0.07
-1 11
V . • J
_A A9
• *•/
-1 (9
V. 17
-1 14
• •^1
-1.51
-0.08
-0.25
-0.81
-0.10
-0.12
-0.11
-0.19
-0.10
-0.46
-0.17
-0.09
10
ro
vo
-------
Table 2.8. (continued)
Canal
Name
Sheehan Lat.
Hancock Lat
Farnsworth
F Canal
US Lake Fork
Laks Fork Western
Dry Sulch No. 1
Bluebell Lat.
Class C
Lake Fork
North C Lat.
South C Lat.
US Dry Gulch
Purely
Uteland
Redcap
A Pioneer
B Pioneer
Rocky Point
Gray fountain
Pleasant Valley
My ton Towns ide
Ouches ne F.
Pahcease
Riverdale
Ouray School
TOTAL
Area
Served
(ha)
659
831
4711
2210
4411
971
1511
1518
3591
711
831
1141
1451
ill
241
951
3261
561
1621
1891
3541
1921
1951
361
231
851
Estimated Estimated
Length Inlet
(m) Capacity
(m3/s)
11911 1.57
16711 1.13
95111 8.51
13611 3.01
2IIII 6.11
12791 1.91
21611 3.11
23311 3.11
13111 3.41
3IIII
12411
11911
36SII
4911
3611
17111
27211
11511
29311
22101
25711
24499
22211
8811
8501
.49
.13
.13
.79
.57
.42
.79
.71
.21
.31
.19
.81
.71
.38
.71
.57
10199 2.?7
Estimated
Wetted
Perimeter
(m)
3.24
4.17
13.43
8.69
11.61
4.84
8.69
8.69
.16
.37
.17
.17
.67
3.24
2.92
4.67
3.47
4.15
9.95
13.82
12.24
9.49
11.11
3.49
3.24
7.74
Estimated Estimated
Days Seepage
of Rate
Operation m3/n]2/day
151
159
121
129
129
129
129
129
159
159
ISO
159
159
129
129
121
151
151
151
181
181
159
189
151
.081
.081
.139
.139
.139
.139
.139
.139
.139
.081
.080
.980
.081
.080
.080
.081
.130
.111
.181
.980
.989
.989
.180
.180
150 9. OBI
150 9.181
Maximum
Salt
Load
Reduction
(Mgm)
851
1168
5519
511
1114
317
1124
1213
2617
1114
1539
1468
4651
372
261
1818
3643
1174
5066
11774
11286
3688
6714
882
415
1144
119671
Annual
Cost
of
Linings
($)
113816
181978
2217178
214395
411129
171297
373271
412648
244984
361426
151561
144491
514542
46861
32158
232221
249693
113576
457211
645981
634554
367761
453563
91511
69966
126754
15995182
Estimated
mg/1 @
Imperial
Dam
-9.12
-1.15
-9.65
-9.98
-9.13
-9.15
-9.15
-0.16
-0.32
-0.15
-0.19
-0.19
-1.55
-1.16
-I.9S
-9.23
-0.44
-9.15
-9.61
-1.26
-1.21
-1.44
-9.79
-1.12
-1.17
-9.15
-14.69
to
U)
o
-------
Table 2-9. Maximum salt load reduction of the Uintah Basin Lateral Systems.
Canal Name
Highline
Ashley Upper
Ashley Central
Rock Point
US Whiterocks
Whiterocks & Ouray Valley
Ouray Valley
Ouray Park
Deep Creek
Henry Oim
US Farm Creek
Uintah River Canal
Uintah No. 1
Indian Bench
Farnsworth
US Lake Fork
Lake Fork Western
Dry Gulch No. 1
C Canal
Lake Fork
North C Lateral
South C Lateral
US Dry Gulch
Uteland
Redcap
Gray Mountain
Pleasant Valley
My ton Towns ite
Duchesne Feeder
Pahcease
Riverdale
Ouray School
TOTAL
Estimated
Length
(raj
33911
Mill
25611
19111
17111
43111
27211
117311
mil
9411
12111
39111
171811
76111
48211
28811
5111
lllll
21711
17411
dill
Sill
46411
5211
57211
3IIII
91311
21411
23711
2111
18911
14311
K1
14S8SII7.1
25661285.1
13351513.3
7584571.6
7366911. 1
23334711.3
483M12.4
19878ISB.6
24471355.4
1717811. 1
4612119.6
27443162.5
94112433.9
41566418.4
37IW6IS.9
13741311.4
2332437.1
4961143.3
12471688.1
6791951.7
2328211.8
2163838.5
23358312.7
789161.9
24191238.8
31134411.7
55832551.4
11815713.4
16976346.9
318951.3
3196611.6
6622942.8
K'
1.189
1.112
1.199
1.185
I.M4
1.156
1.122
1.122
1.126
1.136
1.116
1.141
1.135
I.M3
1.124
1.118
1.118
1.118
I.U7
1.152
1.193
1.195
1.198
1.161
1.186
1.218
1.119
1.191
l.lll
I.IS8
1.152
1.176
A
-1.2I9BE-I7
-7.S415E-I8
-1.3B9ZEH7
-2.2754E-I7
-2.4II2E-I7
-6.I2I9EH8
-4.4232E-I7
-1.I749E-I7
-7.S12SE-IB
-1.2436E-I6
-3.7I34E-I7
-7.1676E-I8
-1.9971E-I8
-4.5953E-I8
-5.38S9E-I8
-1.32I7E-I7
-7.7H1E-I7
-3.6946EH7
-1.S34IE-I7
-2.S236E-I7
-7.3476E-I7
-B.3971EH7
-7.874IE-I8
-2.7I97E-I6
-7.2585E-I8
-6.8472M8
-3.4439E-I8
-1.S9I1E-I7
-1.162IEH7
-6.7C8E-I6
-6.9I29E-I7
-2.6S98E-I7
B
9.3675E-I3
9.46S6E-I3
9.46I4EH3
9.3I84E-I3
4.673SE-I3
5.1743E-I3
9.9132E-I3
1.I142E-U
2.SI52E-I3
1.6I55E-I2
1.8366E-I3
3.2227E-I3
3.Z347E-I3
4.I248E-IJ
1.79631-13
1.M32E-I3
1.BI11E-I3
1.BI6JEH3
5.B8B9E-I3
5.7734E-I3
1.I33K-I2
1.I372E-C
9.474IE-I3
3. 17771-12
9.2I96E-I3
1.3S91E-I2
9.3386E-I3
8.2728E-I3
8.6322E-I3
2.9I9K-I2
2.5486E-I2
7.626JE-M
Salt
2855
4281
2418
1531
717
2273
566
2384
1193
325
187
1515
5691
3177
1197
493
85
ITS
1325
859
529
461
4313
3N
4694
6213
9311
1831
2477
111
939
1136
65248
Annual
Cost
Linings
316432
468117
265136
171771
159273
455311
58596
241197
493838
21791
115754
483111
1823319
797644
631444
283894
48694
1II6M
233112
154661
S31B1
46151
471991
9714
529243
471111
1132349
228857
296861
3914
37817
141961
1I632S9S
Estimated
mq/1 @
Imperial Dam
-1.35
-1.51
-1.31
-1.19
-l.il
-1.28
-1.18
-1.29
-1.16
-1.16
-1.14
-1.19
-1.67
-1.37
-1.14
-1.18
-1.13
-1.14
-1.17
-1.12
-1.18
-1.17
-1.51
-I.M
-1.56
-1.73
-1.19
-1.23
-1.31
-1.13
-1.13
-1.14
-8.11
to
Ul
-------
-232-
Table 2-10. Optimization parameters for the Uintah Canal System.
Canal
Name
Highline
Ashley Upper
Ashley Central
Rock Point
Island
Union
Sunshine
Burton
Murray
Burns Bench
Mosby
US Whiterocks
Whiterocks & Ouray Valley
Ouray Valley
Ouray Park
Deep Creek
Mo f fat
Henry Jim
US Farm Creek
Uintah River Canal
Uintah No. 1
Indian Bench
Monarch
Martin Lateral
Sheehan Lateral
Hancock Lateral
Farnsworth
F Canal
US Lake Fork
Lake Fork Western
Dry Gulch No. 1
Bluebell Lateral
Class C
Lake Fork
North C Lateral
South C. Lateral
US Dry Gulch
Purdy
Uteland
Redcap
A Pioneer
B Pioneer
Rocky Point
Gray Mountain
Pleasant Valley
My ton Township
Duchesne F.
Pah cease
Riverdale
Ouray School
K1
S4S348S.2
6393167.1
4355521.1
2398562.3
258399.5
4866202.1
3782545.1
1273589.7
908903.7
3554073.1
2538547.0
5168155.4
8798214.4
10581327.6
3684884.9
14871365.9
5519771.3
7982121. i
3164651.8
21220865.0
9246393.6
22245717.3
24972268.3
1980131.9
2765708.7
1897967.2
28648357.1
2288908.0
4962458.8
2317849.4
12723635.4 1
13725032.6 1
16553851,2
4612989.9 1
8455614.4
8114662.2 1
31285551.7
1138821.2 1
1410333,0 1
5828541.1 1
2026408.7
1057870,0
5201599.9
96497355.9
23939892.1
3592029.0
7254719.1
4625808.6
439081.4
1138974.7
K1
*2
.313
.444
.412
,256
.122
.119
.050
.047
.048
.054
.144
.162
.224
.035
.125
.146
.848
.091
,051
.164
.112
.192
.051
.072
.879
.186
.089
.058
.077
.032
1.858
1.058
1.210
1.049
1.130
1.130
1.134
1.084
1.876
1.122
9.206
9.172
1.266
1.502
1.445
1.275
1.403
1.106
9.087
1.286
A
-7.9913E-07
-6.8991E-07
-1.0118E-06
-1.3681E-B6
-2.16B1E-85
-4.47B1E-87
-5.B750E-07
-1.6777E-86
-2.2057E-86
-6.2328E-87
-1.6975E-86
-8.3059E-87
-3.744BE-87
-1.8634E-07
-1.8836E-06
-2.1706E-87
-4.2702E-87
-2.5084E-07
-1.3752E-06
-1.SB58E-07
-Z.27B5E-07
-1.8682E-87
-8.1B25E-08
-9.9685E-07
-7.1939E-B7
-1.B583E-06
-1.5396E-87
-1.8909E-86
-8.B672E-87
-1.3931E-86
-1.B125E-B7
-1.H02E-07
-1.2649E-07
-6.8481E-67
-2.3143E-87
-2.4115E-07
-6.4644E-88
-1.7471E-06
-1.2166E-06
-4.0441E-07
-1.B868E-B6
-3.8522E-06
-8.3494E-87
-2.1069E-OB
-9.8356E-08
-1.7223E-06
-4.S3BBE-B7
-4.0170E-07
-1.2852E-65
-5,38 9 BE- 06
B
1.7190E-02
1.6599E-02
1.6772E-02
1.6495E-02
1.3191E-02
9.4694E-03
3.9658E-03
3.7773E-03
3.9643E-03
3.9365E-03
9.8492E-03
1.B165E-02
9.2802E-03
2.8715E-03
B.5554E-83
8.327BE-03
3.3976E-03
6.8120E-03
3.5886E-83
5.5319E-03
5.7154E-03
6.9635E-03
3.3059E-03
7.9867E-03
8.0921E-03
8.5880E-03
3.3387E-03
3.4685E-03
3.4011L-03
2.2296E-03
3.2163E-B3
3.2163E-03
1.1B12E-02
3.B518E-03
1.0514E-02
1.B514E-B2
9.337SE-B3
8.5BB9E-03
8.4434E-03
8.S169E-03
2.146BE-82
1.4B54E-02
1.5318E-02
1.6985E-02
1.7222E-02
1.6382E-B2
1.7B45E-02
9.9962E-03
1.8671E-G2
1.5177E-02
-------
-233-
^8,850 ha of land served by diversions from the several
streams which intersect the valleys.
Salinity Control Investigations—
Under provisions and directives of PL 93-320, the Water
and Power Resources Service is presently conducting a
limited evaluation of the feasibility and scope of a salin-
ity control program in the Uintah Basin which includes all
of the Ouchesne River and its tributaries and all of the
Ashley-Brush Creek drainages. In a cooperative effort, the
USDA, SCS has completed preliminary on-farm salinity control
study in the region (USDA, SCS, 1980b). However, the SCS
study encompasses a much larger area than the WPRS study
(Figure 2-6). The WPRS has eliminated certain upland areas
such as the Neola Bench and Altamont section from consider-
ation due to limited water quality sampling and superficial
geologic investigation which indicated low salt loading
rates, and have concentrated on the low lying portions of
the basin. The WPRS is generally concerned with the Lower
Duchesne River, Uintah River, Lower Lake Fork and Ashley
Valley areas. Agreement on the scope and/or the exact areas
in the Duchesne, Lake Fork and Uintah River drainages which
should be treated as part of the Uintah Basin Salinity
Control Program has not yet been reached between the WPRS
and the SCS. Contracts for wildlife, vegetation and archeo-
logical studies have been completed by the USDI, WPRS (USDI,
BR, 1979c). In addition, limited canal sizing and cross-
drainage investigations are continuing.
-------
HIGH UINTAS
PRIMITIVE AREA
UINTA MOUNTAINS
DINOSAUR
NATIONAL
MONUMENT
SCS Study Areas
I. Ashley Valley
2. Brush Creek
3. Whiter ocK River -
Uinta River
4. Pelican Lake
5. Dry Gulch
6. Upper Lake Ford
7. Arcadia
8. Lower Duchesne River
9. Upper Duchesne River
Red Creek
Staryotio
Reservoir
WPRS Study Area
SO 40 kilont«i*r
I
N)
00
S 0
IO
SO
Figure 2-6. USDI and USDA Study Areas in the Uintah Basin (USDA, SCS, 1980b)
-------
-235-
As part of the Central Utah Project (CUP) to provide
storage of high runoff flows and, thus/ the late season
waters in exchange for the transbasin diversions of the
Bonneville Unit, it was necessary to provide increased
reservoir capacity, canal rehabilitation, and high country
lake modification. The canal rehabilitation consists prin-
cipally of lining reaches with the highest losses and new
control structures. These improvements will include lining
of the Pleasant Valley and Duchesne Feeder Canals in the
Bonneville Unit, two of the highest salinity contributors
in the Uintah Basin (USDI, WPRS, 1980a), and lining of
seventeen kilometers of high seepage areas on the Class C
canal already completed in the Upalco Unit. Five to six
kilometers of high seepage were abandoned on the Lake Fork
Irrigation Canal which is under the Class C Canal. These
linings are justified only on water savings and water supply
benefits, and not on salinity control, although there will
be salt load reductions associated with all of the
improvements.
As part of the proposed Uintah Basin Salinity Control
Project, the WPRS is presently considering an improvement
program on 230 km of canals including some of the larger
canals and laterals lined as part of the CUP. This program
would also include a substantial amount of consolidation of
canal systems, particularly in the Ashley Valley area. The
estimated total salinity reduction from this proposed plan
including the canal lining and rehabilitation under the CUP
-------
-236-
would be about 112,000 Mgm per year (USDI, WPRS, 1980a).
In view of the physical and social complexity of the basin,
it is questionable whether more canal linings could be
logically expected to attain a substantial decrease in salt
loading. The feasibility report on the Uintah Basin origi-
nally was due by the end of February, 1982, but it is not
anticipated until sometime in February, 1984.
The Soil Conservation Service (USDA, SCS, 1979e)
estimates that an on-farm salinity control program on
49,500 ha would reduce the salt loading by an additional
69,500 Mgm per year. The question of whether the Soil
Conservation Service or the Water and Power Resources
Service would be conducting the lateral lining program is
evidently still to be decided. Indications, however, are
that the SCS will most likely conduct a lateral lining
program as part of their on-farm program. The possibility
of sprinkle irrigation is being seriously explored and has
been evaluated by Willardson et al. (1977).
Salinity Control Program for the Price-San Rafael Rivers
The Price and San Rafael Rivers originate on the
eastern slope of the Wasatch Mountains in Central Utah, and
flow in a southeasterly direction to the Green River near
Green River, Utah (Figure 2-7). The rivers flow over Mancos
shale and other very saline formations. The two rivers are
generally considered together because irrigation return
flows from each stream can flow into the other stream.
-------
-237-
WELLINGTON
JO€t Vttltf
Rlttrtoir
LEGEND
URBANIZED AREAS
INDUSTRIAL
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
ACTIVE COAL MINES
PROPOSED COAL MINES
Figure 2-7.
Irrigated lands, canal distribution systems and
energy development in the Price-San Rafael-
Muddy Creek drainages. Numbers correspond to
the same designations on Table 2-11.
-------
-238-
The annual precipitation of the area ranges from 180 mm
to 300 mm in the valleys to more than 900 mm in the higher
mountains. The principal rainfall season is from July to
October with the largest amounts occurring in August in
thunderstorms. Most of the mountain precipitation is in
the form of snow. The winter climate for the valleys is
typically dry and cold.
Soils in the Price-San Rafael have been formed
primarily from water deposited sediment bedrock materials,
but vary considerably in response to changes in geology,
topography, climatic conditions and vegetation. Thorne
et al. (1967) and Swenson et al. (1970) present brief
descriptions of the landforms, climate, chemical and
physical properties, and the use of the various soils.
Almost all of the irrigated lands are derived from Mancos
shale formations. These soils are generally poorly drained,
saline and clayey textured. Engineering uses are limited
because of the high shrink-swell potential.
Salinity Contribution—
lorns et al. (1965) estimated that 6,880 ha in the
Price River contributed 86,840 Mgm out of the total 204,800
Mgm/yr of salt to the Colorado River. The EPA (1971) esti-
mated that out of the total of 293,000 Mgm/yr, irrigation
contributed 225,200 Mgm from 10,100 ha. However, the EPA
report indicated the presence of a large amount of ungaged
groundwater inflows to the area which was included in the
irrigation values. The WPRS (USDI, BR, 1979a) indicates
-------
-239-
that the Price River contributes a total 218,000 Mgm on the
long-term average.
The San Rafael River is estimated to contribute about
187,800 Mgm/yr to the Colorado River (USDI, BR, 1979a).
lorns estimated a total of 155,450 Mgm and the EPA a cor-
responding total of 297,100 Mgm per year from the San
Rafael. Respectively, irrigation was estimated to contrib-
ute 104,700 Mgm and 96,000 Mgm from 14,570 ha of irrigated
land.
The Southeastern Utah Association of Governments (SUAG)
utilized much of the data from studies by Vaughn Hansen and
Associates for Utah Light and Power to ascertain the salinity
impacts of the Huntington and Emery fossil fired power
generating complexes. From analysis of these data, it
appears that at least 9 Mgm/ha is a reasonable value of
total salt loading from all the irrigated acres. Essen-
tially, no ungaged inflows occur within the irrigated areas,
contrary to statements by EPA (1971).
The 208 Report (SUAG, 1977) indicates that forest lands
contribute about 0.7 Mgm/ha per year, and grazing land con-
tributions were too small to be measured. The Price salin-
ity contribution from the Mancos rangelands in the drainage
area has also received considerable attention from the USDI,
BLM (1976) who sponsored studies by Ponce (1975), White
(1977), Whitmore (1976) and summarized by Hawkins et al.
(1977).
-------
-240-
Salinity Control—
The agricultural salinity contribution problems of the
Price and San Rafael Basins have received little attention
from state or federal agencies. Many governmental admini-
strators believe that the agriculture of the area will be
almost nonexistent in twenty years because of energy develop-
ment. The large water requirements for energy will have to
come from agricultural uses because there is no surplus
water in the area. Consequently, there will be no need for
an agricultural salinity control program and future problems
are still unidentified. However, the USDA, SCS is presently
involved in a very limited water and salt budget program to
attempt to quantify the estimated needs of a salinity con-
trol program if it should be needed.
The practice of diverting water through the canals to
furnish livestock water for at least 10 months a year has
persisted since the canals were first constructed. This is
a common practice in many areas in the UCRB, and it has
large effects on waterlogging and salinization of lands
below the canals. The USDA-SCS (1979) estimates that stop-
ping these wintertime diversions is going to require a
piping system for livestock water and would reduce the salt
load by about 9,100 Mgm per year. Also, the freezing action
in the winter will damage concrete linings of canals and
laterals. The SCS also estimates that a combined distri-
bution and on-farm irrigation improvement program would
reduce the salt loading by another 55,000 Mgm. This appears
-------
-241-
to be a somewhat optimistic estimate. Tables 2-11, 2-12,
and 2-13 describe the canal and lateral system of this area.
Cost-effectiveness analysis assumed no winter waters.
An annual reduction of only 63,500 Mgm of salt from the
Colorado River appears to be minimally feasible. Landowners
are not likely to be receptive to much more sophisticated
irrigation systems and water management to reduce deep
percolation losses unless substantial labor savings and
operational costs are demonstrated. Automation of these
systems is an alternative. In addition, there is less than
sufficient motivation to improve irrigation practices due to
the cause and effect relationship between marginal crops and
insufficient storage to adequately irrigate the crops through
the season. The benefits of increased water availability,
if adequate storage were available, which may result from
the more efficient use of water are difficult to accomplish
and demonstrate without a very strong long-term water manage-
ment program.
Dirty Devil River Basin
The Fremont River and Muddy Creek meet at Hanksville,
Utah, and form the Dirty Devil River which then flows in a
southeasterly direction into Lake Powell. The Dirty Devil
River and its tributaries are located in south central Utah
and flow through a remote and sparsely populated area. The
2
total drainage area is about 10,900 km . Due to the same
basic physical characteristics and the closer proximity, the
-------
Table 2-11.. Maximum salt load reduction of canals in the Price-San Kafael-Muddy Lreek urainages.
Canal Canal Area
Number Name Served
(ha)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Carbon
Price Wellington
Spring Glen
Cleveland
Huntington
North Huntington
Cottonwood-Hunti ngton
Mammoth
Clipper Western
Blue Cut
North
Molen
South
King
Emery
Independent
4200
2lOO
300
5700
2081
1288
0
1200
1400
900
2880
500
1050
480
2181
1101
Length
(m)
43300
19500
9800
51200
14800
28000
27100
17700
17100
14680
19288
6498
11180
4680
20700
16580
Estimated
Inlet
Capacity
m3/s
4.70
2.8C
1.13
5.78
2. If
1.40
2.50
1.40
3.00
1.30
3.41
0.60
1.48
(.68
3.48
2.30
Estimated
Wetted
Perimeter
•n
IS
.49
8.45
4
11
7
4
8
4
8
4
9
3
4
3
9
7
.03
.37
.49
.37
.06
.37
.69
.27
.16
.29
.37
.29
.16
.78
Estimated
Days
of
Operation
120
120
120
120
121
121
12S
120
120
129
120
128
120
128
120
120
Estimated
Seepage
Rates
3 2
m /m /day
0.110
8.100
8.101
8.108
8.118
a. ill
0.100
8. 100
8.108
0.100
0.100
0.100
8.108
0.109
0.100
0.100
Maximum Annual Estimated
Salt Load Cost mg/1 @
Reduction of Imperial
(Mqm) Linings Dam
18679
4818
825
15181
2553
2555
4556
1615
46S3
1388
3679
448
922
316
5606
3125
846234
294648
1000B6
1872821
189512
308950
366598
195381
B
.48
.11
.76
.31
.31
.54
.70
295SDS -O.SS
157238 -0.17
292169 -0.44
54902 -(
.07
111443 -1.12
39461 -I
367746 -1
231116 -(
.06
.38
10
£*•
N>
TOTAL
62886
4923721
-7.42
-------
Table 2-12. Maximum salt load reduction from laterals in the Price-San Rafael-Muaoy CreeK urainages.
Canal Name
Carbon
Price-Wellington
Spring Glen
Cleveland
Huntington
North Huntington
Mammoth
Clipper Western
Blue Cut
North
Molen
South
King
Emery
Independent
Estimated
Length K1
(m)
86008
47008
9000
iieooo
45000
28100
28008
32DOO
22006
60900
13088
25000
11800
47888
26880
22867834.5
8915549.4
972600.0
34376336.0
7859263.5
2486415.0
3792257.0
6459S38.2
1166587.5
14410204.3
1196S36.1
3530191.4
915668.7
9912332.5
4110032.9
K '
K2
0.103
0.084
0.860
0.114
0.080
i.854
0.059
8.074
0.834
8.063
0.836
0.046
0.034
8.867
0.857
-9
-2
-2
-6
-2
-8
-5
-3
-1
-1
-1
-6
-2
-2
-5
A
.3154E-88
.39S4E-B7
.1994E-06
.1897E-OB
.7188E-07
.59121-07
.6410E-07
.3048E-87
.8B45E-B6
.479SE-B7
.78S9E-B6
.0590E-87
.3389E-06
.1S30E-07
.2018L-07
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
B
.2060E-02
.5897E-82
.2671E-02
.B225E-02
.6B80E-02
.4993E-82
.3953E-62
.9890E-02
.2889E-82
.1549E-B2
.8974E-82
.5636E-92
.9738E-B2
.5989E-82
.8557E-62
Maximum
Salt Load
Reduction
Mgm
8429
3'/65
515
11871
3432
1426
1559
2262
788
3597
448
1092
358
3888
1481
Annual
Cost
of
Linings
278826
1B7597
12488
402550
95467
32583
47152
77602
16821
171148
15598
43709
12119
118718
50351
Estimated
mg/1
-------
-244-
Table 2-13. Optimization parameters for the canals in the
Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek canal system.
Canal
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Canal
Name
Carbon
Price-Wellington
Spring Glen
Cleveland
Huntington
North Huntington
Cottonwood-Hunti ngton
Mammoth
Clipper Western
Blue Cut
North
Molen
South
King
Emery
Independent
K1
9240685,6
3*83760.7
622840,3
17281818.2
2251226,3
2690910.8
3603b06,l
1701040.0
10072878.0
1346079,5
3032766.6
382696,3
970650.0
275063.0
8719204.1
2791899.9
K'
K2
0.36S
0.294
0.140
0.39S
0.261
0.152
D.2BO
D.152
0.302
0.148
0.319
0.115
0.152
0.115
0.319
0.271
A
-5.4742E-D7
-1.0204L-06
-5.9647E-06
-1.9035E-07
•1.6454E-06
-1.865BE-06
-1.4464E-06
-2.9S15E-06
-2.2894E-07
-3.70SyE-J6
-1.6555E-06
-1.185JE-05
-5.172SL-06
-1.6490E-D5
-2.9565E-07
-1.3436E-06
B
1.B466E-02
1.7701E-02
1.3163E-02
1.7041E-D2
1.7672E-02
1.3036E-02
l.9017t-02
1.3036E-02
1.6812t-02
1.3081E-02
1.8638E-02
1.322BE-02
1.3036E-02
1.3228E-02
1.6900E-02
1.7691E-02
-------
-245-
Muddy Creek drainage has been considered as part of the
Price-San Rafael salinity control program.
There are basically three small irrigated areas in the
basin. The Emery area is the upper portion of Muddy Creek,
and the very small irrigated areas near Hanksville and
Cainville are located on about 3,700 ha of Mancos Shale
derived soils. The largest irrigated area is from Torey to
the Loa-Fremont area on the upper portions of the Fremont
River. This area is almost totally oriented toward the
production of forage, pasture and small grains to support
the livestock industry. Much of the upper Fremont River is
irrigated by the sideroll wheel move or aluminum hand move
sprinkler systems. The Upper Fremont or "Rabbit Valley"
area is generally considered to have a low salinity contri-
bution. There is also a very small irrigated area in the
Capital Reef National Park at Fruita. lorns et al. (1965)
and others estimated the total irrigated land in the basin
at about 10,000 ha.
The geologic boundary of the Dirty Devil drainage to
the north is the San Rafael Swell, which is a dome structure
trending northeast for about 110 km. The southern boundary
is composed of part of the Henry Mountains, Awapa and
Aquarius Plateaus, and Boulder Mountain. The western part
of the basin is composed of the Parker Mountains of the
Wasatch Plateau.
There are numerous petroglyphs and pictographs carved
on cliff walls in the Capital Reef area. It is hypothesized
-------
-246-
that these are the work of prehistoric basketmakers and
Pueblo peoples who are thought to be the ancestors of the
Hopi Indians. The first white man to enter the area was
probably a man named Dennis Julian. Julian's name and the
date 1836 have been found scratched in numerous rocks in the
area (Six County Commissioners Organization, 1978). The
second recorded intrusion of nonlndians into the Dirty Devil
Basin was an exploration party headed by John C. Fremont in
1853, for whom the river and town of Fremont were named.
The basin was more systematically explored by Mormon parties
sent by Brigham Young in 1873. The first settlements
occurred in the Rabbit Valley and the Upper Muddy areas.
The town of Emery was founded in 1883 (Utah Division of
Water Resources, 1977).
The Dirty Devil River was purportedly named in 1869 by
a member of John Wesley Powell's famous boat expedition down
the Colorado River. Upon sighting the mouth of the river,
he aptly exclaimed, "She's a dirty devil!" (Utah Division of
Water Resources, 1977).
Utah Division of Water Resources (1975) estimates that
phreatophytes consume about 3,000 ha-m meters in the Fremont
River drainage. Agricultural consumptive use is calculated
at 2,250 ha-m for Rabbit Valley and 1,100 ha-m for the
Fruita-Cainville-Hanksville area. The annual outflow of the
Dirty Devil River into Lake Powell averages about 9,740 ha-m.
Approximately 1,470 ha-m of outflow is contributed by the
Muddy Creek drainage.
-------
-247-
The EPA (1971) calculated the total salt load from the
Dirty Devil Drainage at 160,600 Mgm per year. lorns et al.
(1965) reported 179,300 Mgm, and USDI, BR (1979a) uses a
value of 181,500 Mgm per year. The EPA (1971) estimated the
salt contribution of irrigated lands in the Rabbit Valley
area of 0.9 Mgm/ha, and the irrigated areas on Muddy Creek
and Hanksville areas contributed about 7 Mgm/ha. Also,
about 2,650 Mgm/yr was contributed by the Loa fish hatchery.
lorns et al. (1965) reported an average salinity contribu-
tion from irrigation for the whole basin of 52,000 Mgm or
5.2 Mgm/ha. Current estimates by the Water and Power
Resource Service (USDI, BR, 1979a) indicate that potentially
about 72,600 Mgm of salt could be removed by an agricultural
salinity control program in the basin. However, the WPRS
has done little investigation other than limited stream
gaging and water quality sampling to qualify this rather
optimistic forecast of an 8 mg/1 reduction at Imperial Dam.
Approximately 80 percent of the total salt load from
the basin is from natural, diffuse sources, and it is doubt-
ful that this load could be reduced. The rainfall in the
basin is very low and livestock use on the lower, salt
producing areas is severely limited by the scant vegetation.
Thus, grazing control programs which have been proposed for
other areas will have minimal effects. The Regional 208
plans have delegated all nonpoint source pollution activi-
ties to the Soil Conservation Districts and the WPRS.
-------
-248-
If there is an agricultural salinity program for the
Dirty Devil River, it will likely be centered in the Emery
area. A seepage study by Johansen and Tuttie, Inc./ for the
Soil Conservation Service in 1975 reported fairly high seep-
age losses. The 19 km Emery Canal had an estimated total
conveyance loss of 25 percent, and the 14.5 km Independent
Canal had average losses of 22 percent of the diversions.
The fields in the Emery area are irregularly shaped
with variable slopes. Field boundaries are generally deter-
mined by the natural drainage. Crops are very marginal with
many wetland areas with obvious local soil salination
problems. There are a few gated pipe systems and some hand
move and a few sideroll wheel move sprinklers.
Due to coal and uranium deposits, it is quite probable
that the Emery area will be an area to subject to extensive
water transfers to industrial uses. The new Consol mine
(Emery Coal Company, No. 1) southeast of town has just
opened, and there is serious consideration of a large coal
gasification plant in the area. Energy Reserves Group has
a coal mine in the Rock Creek area. In addition, Boeing is
proposing a coal slurry pipeline further downstream on Muddy
Creek to convey coal to Ventura, California, for exploration
(USDI, GS, 1979a). There are two environmental statements
on coal development which cover portions of the Dirty Devil
drainage. Muddy Creek development is discussed by the USDI,
GS (1979a), and the Hanksville area is covered to the USDI,
GS (1979b). In addition, the large Tar Sands Triangle is in
-------
-249-
the Dirty Devil, although these deposits lie along the
Colorado River and would likely use that water.
The required 208 plan for the Fremont River (Six County
Commissioner's Organization, 1978) discusses a proposed
3,000 MW coal fired power project which may be located near
Cainville at Salt Wash. There is also a proposed Aldrich
Dam which would also be located in this area with a total
capacity of about 11,600 ha-m.
McElmo Creek
McElmo Creek drains about 900 square kilometers includ-
ing about 15,180 ha of irrigated land in the Montezuma
Valley near the "Four Corners" area in southwestern Colorado
(Figure 2-8). McElmo Creek flows into the San Juan River a
few miles below the Colorado-Utah state line. The Montezuma
Valley lands are irrigated with water diverted from the
Dolores River via the Dolores Tunnel, which has a capacity
of 8.92 m3/s with a salt load of 13,600 to 18,150 Mgm/yr.
Salinity Contribution—
Approximately 25 percent of the irrigated area, which
is also generally the lowest lying in elevation, is under-
lain by Mancos shale. The remaining 75 percent of the
irrigated lands are on benches and terrace remnants or the
"red" sandy soil, primarily derived from the Dakota and
Morrison formations. The USDI, WPRS (1980a) estimates that
the Mancos area contributes as much as 22.7 Mgm/ha which is
high compared to other "Mancos" areas in the UCRB. On the
other hand, the red soil contributes 2.5 to 5 Mgm/ha per
-------
-250-
Figure 2-8. Location map of McElmo Creek Salinity Control
Project and the Dolores Project. (USDI, BR,
1977).
-------
-251-
year. The hydro-salinity budgets have not yet been estab-
lished for the area with any degree of confidence.
Water quality measurements indicate that the McElmo
drainage annually contributes an average of 108,900 Mgm/yr
in a flow of about 3,950 ha-m with surface water concentra-
tions up to 4,000 mg/1 and a low of about 2,100 mg/1. The
Dolores River water contributions are about 18,000 Mgm/yr
leaving about 90,900 Mgm as the contribution from all
sources in the McElmo drainage.
As mentioned previously, the surface and subsurface
hydrology of the McElmo Creek area has not yet been clearly
defined. For example, how much groundwater inflows are
being introduced to the Mancos shale areas from the higher
sandy mesas and benches is not known. If there are signifi-
cant subsurface inflows, just treating the high salt produc-
ing Mancos soil would not be a successful program. The
USDI, WPRS (1980a) estimates that about 10,440 ha of the
presently irrigated land are the "red" soils over sandstones,
about 1,620 ha are red soils over Mancos shales, 200 hectares
are Mancos soil over sandstones, 2,800 ha are Mancos soil
over Mancos shales. Based on results elsewhere in the Upper
Colorado River Basin, the Mancos soils overlying the shales
are the largest contributors.
The WPRS has established a public participation group
to evaluate the proposed alternatives for salinity abatement
in the McElmo area. The feasibility reports on the project
are scheduled for 1983.
-------
-252-
The agriculture is almost totally aimed at the produc-
tion of livestock and forage. Higher value cash crops which
could be grown such as vegetables are not produced because
of marketing problems. The area has traditionally been
short of water in the later parts of the summer which un-
doubtedly reduces the total annual average salt flows from
the valley. However, with the advent of the Dolores Project
and a guaranteed late water supply, the salt load will quite
probably increase significantly and also result in a cor-
responding increase in waterlogging problems. This observa-
tion is substantiated by examining the water quality records
for the years with high water availability such as 1973 and
1979. In 1973, the annual total salt flows passing the
state line station were 177,000 Mgm. In 1979, the corre-
sponding salt load was almost 152,090 Mgm, compared to the
average of 109,000 Mgm. The average salt contribution would
be 10.44 Mgm/ha and 8.8 Mgm/ha, for 1973 and 1979, respec-
tively. Tables 2-14 and 2-15 describe the McElmo Creek canal
and lateral system and their respective cost-effectiveness
functions.
If almost all of the salt leaving the McElmo drainage
were a direct result of irrigation activities, the average
salinity contribution would be 6 Mgm/ha. Assuming that the
4,420 hectares of irrigated soils overlying the Mancos shale
contributed a conservative average of 13.45 Mgm/ha per year,
the salt load would be 92,600 Mgm/yr. With the Dolores
-------
Table 2-14. Maximum salt load reduction for canal and major lateral lining In McElmo Creek, Colorado.
Canal
Name
U Lateral
Good land Lateral
Lone Pine Lateral
Corkscrew Lateral
Moonlight Lateral
Ute Mtn. Lateral
Upper Hermana
Lower Hermana
May Lateral
Garret Ridge
East Lateral
West Lateral
Hartman Draw
Main Canal No. 1
Main Canal No. 2
Lower Arickaree
Rocky Ford 1
Rocky Ford 2
High line Ditch
TOTAL
Length
(m)
17400
6400
37000
4800
7700
8050
15000
8500
5600
6100
5500
1000D
4500
2700
9500
4000
28000
2400
48900
Inlet
Capacity
m3/s
1.90
0.42
3.40
0.42
0.34
0.28
5.50
4.00
1.05
0.57
2.00
1.98
4.70
11.33
11.15
0.29
0.70
2.83
2.30
Estimated
Wetted
Perimeter
(m)
4.84
2.92
9.16
2.92
2.72
2.55
11.20
9.80
3.97
3.24
7.34
4.91
10.49
15.15
15.15
2.59
3.47
8.49
7.78
Estimated
Days
of
Operation
ISO
150
ISO
ISO
ISO
ISO
150
150
150
150
150
ISO
150
150
ISO
150
ISO
150
ISO
Estimated
Seepage
Rate
3 2
m /m /day
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.080
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
0 i?B
0.120
0.080
0.120
0.120
0 1211
0.080
0.080
0.080
Maximum
Salt
Load
Reduction
(Mgm)
742
180
2851
118
176
374
1480
734
196
174
582
708
1483
622
1210
91
1767
640
6922
21052
Annual
Cost
of
Lining
C)
205141
50216
526659
36199
11375
HiSi
265372
132111
54540
50211
8080S
146348
96458
86933
223886
5656
243098
41413
616581
2884153
Estimated
mg/1 P
Imperial
Dam
-0.10
-1.04
-0.35
-0.03
-0.04
-1.06
-0.19
-0.10
-0.04
-0.04
-0.09
-0.10
-0.19
-I.W
-0.16
-0.03
-0.22
-0.19
-0.81
-2.78
Below Totten Reservoir
Above Totten Reservoir
I
to
U1
to
I
-------
Table 2-15. Optimization parameters for the major McElmo Creek canals and
laterals.
Canal Name
U Lateral
Good land Lateral
Lone Pine Lateral
Corkscrew Lateral
Moonlight Lateral
ute Mtn. Lateral
Upper Hermana
Lower Hermana
May Lateral
Garret Ridge
East Lateral
West Lateral
Hartman Draw
Main Canal No. 1
Main Canal No. 2
Lower Arickaree
Rocky Ford^
Rocky Ford2
Highline Ditch
K1
1763633.4
313407.3
4921595.0
197941.5
137724.9
136326.1
2757093.0
1307162.5
407203.1
315048.1
2581719.5
4667690.7
6816899.2
6694714.7
2479523.9
69350.4,
1622445.0
2736599.2
5516117.3
K2
0.078
0.047
0.147
0.047
0.044
0.084
0.179
0.157
0.064
0.052
0.118
0.079
0.347
0.243
0.243
0.041
0.115
0.281
0.257
A
-3.4171E-06
-1.3598E-05
-1.3569E-06
-2.9616E-05
-4.7295E-05
-4.2308E-05
-2.2553E-06
-4.7401E-06
-1.4097E-05
-1.6793E-05
-8.7549E-07
-4.8395E-07
-3.1004E-07
-3.1927E-07
-2.6885E-06
-8.3101E-05
-3.3647E-06
-7.5980E-07
-1.1038E-06
B
6.1564E-03
6.0288E-03
9.2815E-03
6.7577E-03
2.3860E-02
4.9360E-02
8.9164E-03
9.0391E-03
6.3564E-03
6.3898E-03
7.7126E-03
5.1799E-03
1.5834E-02
7.3585E-03
8.6595E-03
2.3723E-02
1.3213E-02
1.5937E-02
1.8866E-02
Below Totten Reservoir
Above Totten Reservoir
fO
(Jl
-------
-255-
Project, the Mancos shale lands could contribute as high as
20 Mgm/ha because of the increased time of water availability,
Previously, the Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company had
stated that the only involvement they wanted with the Dolores
Project was the purchase of water (USDI, BR, 1975a).
However, an irrigation redevelopment alternative which has
considerable recent local support is to utilize an enlarge-
ment of the pressurized pipeline to Towaoc (Ute Mountain
Indian Reservation), which is part of the Dolores Project,
to also furnish pressurized water to a sprinkle irrigation
program in the Montezuma Valley. This would probably be
very feasible for the Mancos shale irrigated areas, which
also offer the highest potential for gravity pressurization
for sprinkle systems. This would also require a strong
complimentary irrigation scheduling water management program
from government agencies. Another alternative would be to
explore the possibilities of collecting all the saline flows
from McElmo Creek and offer the water for use in as yet
unidentified coal slurry pipeline or cooling water for
thermal power generation plants.
Mancos River—
A nearby area which could also be considered under the
McElmo project is the higher and relatively small area with
a maximum of 4,230 ha near the town of Mancos, Colorado.
These lands are also located on Mancos shale derived soils.
Sprinkle irrigation could be achieved by a potential of
-------
-256-
120 m of elevation for gravity pressurization. Irrigation
scheduling services should also be included.
An idea which has support from many of the 144 Mancos
area landowners and is locally termed "superduct", is a
system of lined ditches and/or pipelines which would convey
water to the Chicken Creek and the Mancos River irrigated
areas. The area is located very near the Mesa Verde National
Park and the visible impact of the project will be a major
consideration. The salt loading from agriculture in the
area is not known, but is probably in the typical range for
Mancos shale soils of 13.5 - 18 Mgm/ha/yr. The total Mancos
River drainage averages about 35/140 Mgm per year of total
dissolved solids (lorns et al., 1965).
As recently as 1978, the WPRS has prepared proposals
for upgrading Jackson Gulch Reservoir and the canal delivery
system which feeds the Mancos Valley. In 1978, about
3,498 ha were irrigated by farm deliveries of 1,338 ha-m.
The Bureau of Reclamation originally built Jackson Gulch
Reservoir as part of the Mancos Project for supplemental
irrigated water.
The Animas-La Plata Project will also have return flows
entering the Mancos River. The USDI, BR (1979d) estimates
that this would add about 10,900 Mgm/yr to the Mancos River
at the State Line. This corresponds to an increase of about
60 mg/1 in the average annual dissolved solids concentration
(averaged over 45 years) of the river.
-------
-257-
Big Sandy River
The Big Sandy River, which also is called Big Sandy
Creek, is located in the Green River Subbasin of the Colorado
River Basin, in southwestern Wyoming (Figure 2-9). The
irrigated area is located in the Eden Valley area about
65 km north of Rock Springs, Wyoming. The two community
centers are Parson and Eden with a 1970 combined population
just over 300 persons. The present estimated combined
population is 575 persons.
Big Sandy Creek and its tributary Little Sandy Creek
rise in the Wind River Mountains. Big Sandy Creek flows in
a generally southeast direction for about 105 km to the town
of Parson where it is joined by Little Sandy Creek. The
stream then flows in a southwesterly direction to the Green
River below Fontanell Reservoir. Dry Sandy Creek and
Pacific Creek are tributary to Little Sandy Creek. There
are numerous swampy wetland areas in the irrigated section
of the drainage which are a primary result of the irrigation
activity. These areas undoubtedly contribute substantially
to the volume of subsurface return flows but do offer excel-
lent wildlife habitat. Thus, almost all of the alternatives
must offer some wildlife habitat migration, if any is removed
or damaged.
The irrigated area is about 217 m above sea level, and
the average growing season for frost tolerant crops is about
124 days. Climatic records indicate that freezing
-------
-258-
I uw \
/BRIOOER V.
Nolionol V NATIONAL \V
8UBLETTE/COUNTY
SWEETWATERi' COUNTY
— Hydrologto Boundary
- Intermittent Stream
Ftorannial Stream
Natural Depression (Approx 1,3m)
Irrigated Area
SCALE I: 200,000
0
IOMLDMTIIM
Figure 2-9. Big Sandy Salinity Control Project area
(USDA, SCS, 1980a).
-------
-259-
temperatures have occurred in every month of the year.
Annual precipitation is about 220 mm.
The geology of the area has a profound influence on the
occurrence, behavior, and chemical quality of the water
resources just as in all the other significant salinity
contributors in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Eden
Valley does not receive sufficient natural precipitation to
significantly impact the groundwater storage (Fox et al.,
1954), and most of the water bearing aquifers result from
high precipitation areas in the nearby mountains. The
Tipton tongue member of the Green River formation appears to
be the principle artesian aquifer in the valley and is
saline with high sodium content at depths of 150 to 550 m.
The shallow groundwater in the area is primarily the
result of irrigation although it appears that there are some
connections between the very saline artesian flows and the
shallow water (USDI, BR, 1980). Several wells and seeps in
the southern portions of Eden Valley experience high concen-
trations of trona or "soda ash" (sodium carbonate) which is
locally referred to as "black water."
Salinity Contribution—
Water and salt budgets by the USDA, SCS (1980a) show
that for the Big Sandy River over the past few years, the
salinity contributions were higher than the 1960-1977 annual
average of 135,400 Mgm. This increase is partially due to
the decrease in water management due to the increase in
part-time farming by the operators who hold other employment,
-------
-260-
The USDI, BR (1967, 1979a) estimates that the total Big
Sandy Basin contributes about 163,340 Mgm/yr with concentra-
tions at its confluence with the Green River ranging from
300 to 3,900 mg/1. The EPA (1971) estimated 275,600 Mgm/yr.
The WPRS (USDI, WPRS, 1980a) indicates that about 998,000
Mgm/yr are contributed in the 24 km reach below the irri-
gated area by numerous saline seeps and springs is believed
to be where most of the subsurface irrigation return flows
from Eden Valley return to the river.
The USDI, WPRS (1980a) has drilled 75 exploratory holes
and conducted aquifer tests to determine the aquifer proper-
ties, and has drilled 25 holes in the vicinity of Big Sandy
Reservoir to investigate seepage losses from the reservoir.
The results of the reservoir seepage investigation indicate
that about 740 ha-m were lost from Big Sandy Reservoir, but
that 70 percent had returned directly back to the river in
the first 2.4 km below the dam (USDI, WPRS, 1980a). Eden
Reservoir appears to have much lower seepage loss.
The WPRS is still evaluating their information, but it
appears that roughly 25 percent of the salt outflows are
from natural sources while about 75 percent are from irriga-
tion return flows (USDI, WPRS, 1980a). The USDA, SCS (1980)
estimates that the irrigation delivery systems and on-farm
practices contribute about 113,340 Mgm annually while run-
off, erosion and natural seeps contribute about 22,050 Mgm
per year. This amounts to 84 percent and 16 percent of the
total average annual contribution of 135,390 Mgm,
-------
-261-
respectively. The evaporation from the reservoirs is about
the same as the volume of seepage. However, the concen-
trating effects of this are fairly minor because of the
relatively high quality water which enters the reservoirs
(< 150 ppm).
Salinity Control—
The alternative for salinity reduction which has been
recommended by the USDA, SCS (1980a) is primarily a local
landowner proposal. This plan calls for the permanent
retirement from irrigation of about 87 percent of the
project area, and substantial irrigation system improvements
on the remaining 730 ha to increase irrigation efficiencies.
If all the unused water remained in the river, this alter-
native would result in an annual reduction of 103,700 Mgm of
total dissolved solids resulting in a decrease of about
14.5 mg/1 at Imperial Dam (USDA, SCS, 1980a).
Implementation of this plan would cost around $35.9
million. Land retirement costs would be about $28.8 million
($4,950/ha), $5.5 million for irrigation system improvements
on the remaining 730 ha, and $1.6 million for wetland miti-
gations (USDA, SCS, 1980a). Including lost crop revenues at
$115/ha, the total annual costs of this project are about
$3.34 million (1980 dollars). The annual cost-effectiveness
is therefore $32.00/Mgm.
In reality, this partial land retirement project has
little chance to be adopted or be accepted in the state of
Wyoming. Because of the economically marginal agriculture,
-------
-262-
it has some appeal at the local level. The market values of
the land and water rights is about half the $4,950/ha pro-
posal cost. However, the state of Wyoming is obviously
reluctant to lose its rights to that water from its Colorado
River allocation. If this land retirement were adopted, in
all likelihood, any water which may be unused would go
toward energy development such as coal slurry pipelines,
trona plants, municipalities or coal-fired thermal power
plants. The net result would be a reduction in salt pickup
from the agricultural lands, but a greatly increased concen-
trating effect due to the permanent removal of water from
the streams. The exact magnitude of any salinity reduction
would depend on the nature of the composite uses for the
"saved" water. For example, under this alternative about
5,550 ha-m would be unused annually for irrigation. If the
average concentration of this water were 300 mg/1, and it
was totally consumed by energy, the net salinity reduction
from the Big Sandy land retirement would be about 87,100 Mgm
making the annual cost-effectiveness $38.35/Mgm.
Two other alternatives or a combination of the two
merit further considerations as the most likely to be imple-
mented. One alternative is to line all farm head ditches
and automate the border irrigation. The second alternative,
which has a very definite role as a secondary management
component, is to install a series of barrier wells to inter-
cept the saline subsurface return flows above the seep and
spring area and pump into a 3,240 ha natural depression
-------
-263-
called Sublette Flats for evaporation. The Sublette Flat
alternative would more than adequately provide for wildlife
habitat mitigation. The USDA, SCS (1980a) has calculated
the annual costs for the automated border irrigation alter-
native at $1.43 million. The annual costs for the evapor-
ation alternative were calculated at $996,000. The salt
reduction would be 22,300 Mgm and 73,800 Mgm per year,
respectively, for a combined total of 96,100 Mgm. This
combined total annual cost would be $2.42 million for an
annual cost-effectiveness of $25/Mgm. The Wyoming State
Engineer has stated that the water for the evaporation ponds
(max. 1,600 ha-m/yr) would come from the Lower Basin allo-
cation, but that is subject to considerable dispute (USDA,
SCS, 1980b).
POINT SOURCE SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS
Paradox Valley Salinity Control Project
The Paradox Valley is located on the Dolores River in
Montrose and San Miguel Counties of southwestern Colorado
about 7 km above the confluence with the San Miguel River.
The project purpose is to reduce the inflow of surfacing
brine groundwater from a collapsed salt anticline. The 8 km
reach contributed about 186,000 Mgm/yr to the Colorado
River. Approximately 179,799 Mgm/yr are contributed by the
salt dome and about 6,350 Mgm/yr are contributed by runoff
and irrigation return flows on West Paradox Creek.
Konikow and Bedinger (1978) state that most of the
groundwater discharges result from a less than 150 m thick
-------
-264-
three-dimensional flow system, with the dissolution of salts
occurring at or near the gypsum-anhydrite caprock and the
underlying salt deposits. The alluvium and the caprock have
high to moderate permeability. The salt beds are reputed to
contain high pressure gas pockets and are subject to plastic
deformation and have very low permeabilities. The strongest
vertical hydraulic gradients occur near the river and the
upward flow in this area is sufficiently strong to force the
relatively high density brine to surface. Measures which
include reducing the hydraulic gradients and recharge sources
have the highest potential for a successful long-term answer
to the problem.
Salinity Control Program—
The plan presently endorsed by the WPRS is the estab-
lishment of a shallow barrier well field for pumping the
brine groundwater and 68 groundwater monitoring wells (USDI,
BR, 1978a). The brine would be piped from the 18 wells to a
nearby hydrogen-sulfide stripping plant, where the corro-
sive and potentially toxic gas would be converted to sulfur.
The treated brine and the sulfur would be piped for 35 km
through 8 pumping plants with a maximum lift of 620 m to the
proposed Radium Evaporation Pond in the Dry Creek Basin.
The conservative costs presented in the Paradox Valley Unit,
Definite Plan Report (USDI, BR, 1978a) were based on pumping
0.14 m /s which is about twice the maximum expected sustained
pumping amount. The economic recovery of any marketable
minerals from the brine is believed impractical. This plan
-------
-265-
would reduce the salinity at Imperial Dam by an estimated
net value of 18.2 mg/1 (USDI, BR, 1979b).
Approximately 163,000 Mgm/yr are expected to be removed,
and the annual depletion of streamflow to be about 490 ha-m
at the 0.14 m /s level. The present estimate is that 0.02
to 0.06 m /s will be required, or an annual streamflow
depletion of 72 to 180 ha-m. The costs (January, 1977
prices) were estimated to be $50,390,000 with an annual 0 &
M cost of $332,300. At a 5-5/8 percent discount rate, the
total annual costs over 100 years were $4,507,000. The
annual cost-effectiveness for 163,300 Mgm is $21.47 per Mgm.
The power costs were based on 1977 Colorado River Storage
Project power rates of 3.4 mills/kwh and a wheeling rate of
1.5 mills/kwh.
At January, 1980 levels developed by using an Engineer-
ing News Record (1980) multiplier and estimating the evapor-
ation pond costs at $78,150/ha, the total construction cost
for the presently proposed project would be $136,100,000.
Assuming a 7-1/8 percent discount rate and a recovery period
of 100 years yields a total annual cost of about $10,200,000.
The annual cost-effectiveness is $62.47/Mgm or an increase
of almost three times the 1977 estimate.
Other Salinity Control Alternatives—
There are three basic alternatives which are presently
being investigated. The first is replacing the Radium
Evaporation Pond by a pond located in Sinbad Valley, 22.5 km
to the north of Paradox Valley. The second alternative is
-------
-266-
to divert the Dolores River into a lined by-pass channel
across the salt anticline section. And, the third alterna-
tive which is being investigated in detail at the present
time is deep well injection of the brine into geologic
formations below the salt dome. Desalination was not con-
sidered since the brines were already extremely concentrated.
Adjusting the projected costs of Sinbad Valley to
January, 1980 levels at a 7-1/8 percent discount rate results
in an annual cost-effectiveness of $138.32/Mgm which is
still twice the Radium Pond Value. The 1980 by-pass alter-
native annual cost-effectiveness was determined to be
$32.71/Mgm which is considerably less than either of the
evaporation pond alternatives. Costs of deep well injection
are not yet available, and this disposal process does not
appear to be a long-term solution.
The by-pass alternative or a variation of this alterna-
tive which would also reduce the hydraulic gradient of the
brine appears to offer the best long-term solution to the
problem among the proposed WPRS solutions. This alternative
offers significant long-term advantages primarily because of
the relatively large amounts of pumping energy required by
the other alternatives. A possible modification might
include constructing a larger upstream dam for flood control
and thus, a smaller eastern dike. Analysis of the results
by Konikow and Bedinger (1978) indicated that this alterna-
tive will possibly require measures to intercept inflows
from East Paradox Creek and programs to control the source
-------
-267-
of the majority of the recharge and other measures to reduce
the hydraulic gradients. Because of the lower cost-
effectiveness of the by-pass alternative/ it was the only
option included in the optimization analyses. In addition,
due to great economics of scale with a project of this
nature/ the cost-effectiveness function reduces to basically
a single value. Also/ the effect of the Dolores Project on
increasing and stabilizing the low summer streamflows, low-
head hydropower could possibly be included at the drop
structure back to the river.
Glenwood-Dotsero Springs Salinity Control Project
The USDI, BR (1976a) estimates that the 25 kilometer
reach of the Colorado River between Glenwood Springs and the
Dotsero rail siding gains about 3/100 ha-m and about 487/850
Mgm per year. Approximately one-half of the water and salts
come from 18 accessible mineral springs clustered on both
sides of the river. The remainder of the salt and flows
evidently enter the river via springs and seeps located in
the river channel. Very little salt loading is attributed
to surface runoff or causes other than the springs in this
area. The EPA (1971) estimated the total salt load at
450/450 Mgm/yr and interpolation of data presented by lorns
et al. (1965) results in an estimation of about 417,400
Mgm/yr. Hagan (1971) estimated that the total contribution
was about 466/900 Mgm/yr and Hyatt et al. (1970) estimated
the salt load to be 293,200 Mgm/yr. About 90 percent of the
total salt is sodium chloride (lorns et al. 1965).
-------
-268-
Salinity Control Program—
A U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Appraisal Report (USDI,
BR, 1976a) based on limited studies and an analysis of
existing technology/ stated that the most feasible means for
control of salts from the identified springs is a multistage
flash distillation (MSF) desalting process. The proposed
single plant would be located near the town of Newcastle
(about 16 kilometer downstream from the mouth of the Roaring
Fork River) and would include both the Dotsero and Glenwood
sources 0.45 m /s of saline water which would be collected
and piped to the plant. In addition, a total of 754 ha in
three ponds would be required for evaporation of the brines,
and associated piping and construction costs. The report
estimated that the system would collect about 227,000 Mgm/yr
and would lower the salinity at Imperial Dam by about 23 mg/1,
The USDI, BR (1976a) estimated that the development would
deplete the annual flow by about 400 ha-m. However, using
formulas proposed by USDI, BR and Office of Saline Water
(1972) this depletion could be as much as 750 ha-m. And,
from USDI, BR and Office of Saline Water (1972) formulae,
based on flows of 0.45 m /s and an average feedwater concen-
tration of 14,450 mg/1, the salt reduction would be 210,000
Mgm/yr. The water returned to the river would have about 5
to 50 mg/1 total dissolved solids (Walker, 1978). Construc-
tion costs for this alternative were estimated at $69,500,000
(July, 1974 prices) with a 30-year project life.
-------
-269-
Based on the 1974 prices, the USER annual cost per
Megagram removed was $43 for 227,000 Mgm. Updating these
USSR (1976) costs to January, 1980 prices (from the Engi-
neering News Record, 1980) index, the total construction
cost would be about $120,820,000 with annual 0 & M at
$6,200,000. The annual cost per Megagram removed would be
about $70.40 Mgm/yr at a 7-1/8 percent discount rate for 30
years for 227,000 Mgm. The total construction cost of just
the plant and pipelines and other structures, not including
the evaporation ponds, is estimated at $62 million.
Other Salinity Control Alternatives—
The USDI, BR (1976a) also investigated the possibility
of having two smaller MSF desalination plants. One would be
located near Dotsero and the other near Newcastle. However,
due to the economics of scale experience by the larger
plants, this second alternative was more expensive.
It should be added that MSF processes are often used in
conjunction with other distillation-type desalination or
reverse-osmosis techniques to maximize its efficiency and
reduce power requirements. However, at today's high energy
costs, almost any distillation procedures should be care-
fully examined in the context of uncertain future energy
availability.
Another alternative which was investigated as part of
this project was a combined reverse osmosis (RO) desalination
plant combined with a small MSF plant. This would require
some additional dilution water from the river, but offers a
-------
-270-
considerable cost reduction. Under this alternative, the
annual cost-effectiveness was determined to be $57.40/Mgm
for a 214/300 Mgm per year reduction.
Meeker Dome Salinity Project
The Meeker Dome salinity point source project is the
site of the Meeker Well, Marland Well and about six other
abandoned oil wells and is located on a local anticline
uplift in northwestern Colorado. The site is about 5 km
upstream from the town of Meeker in the northern bank of the
White River between confluences of Curtis Creek and Coal
Creek. Nelson, Haley, Peterson and Quirk (1976) identified
a total of 22 oil, gas and/or exploratory drill holes and
146 water wells in the area, not all of which were located
near the Dome. The Meeker Well was drilled in the early
1920's to a depth of about 240 meters and was abandoned but
not plugged until 1968. Prior to 1968, the well was flowing
at a rate of 0.08 m /s and its highly saline flows of
19,200 mg/1 were adding about 52,000 Mgm/yr to the river
(USDI, BR, 1979a). The Marland Well was drilled about the
same time and is now believed to be the primary source of
the salinity. This well is located about 920 m northwest of
the Meeker Well and was drilled to a depth of about 610 m.
This well was never plugged although it has been filled with
various types of debris (USDI, WPRS, 1980a). The elevation
of the outlet of the Marland Well is about 100 m higher than
the casing outlet of the Meeker Well.
-------
-271-
The Meeker Well was plugged in August, 1968, under the
guidance of the Bureau of Reclamation and with funds from
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (EPA, 1972).
In February, 1969, the two abandoned Kritsas Wells about
3.5 km north of the Meeker Well began to flow saline waters.
These wells were plugged by a private group in October,
1969. In March, 1979, new saline seeps along the south side
of the Dome were reported.
EPA (1972) reports in October, 1972, that salinity
increases in that stretch of the White River after plugging
the Meeker were about 29,500 Mgm/yr, or a decrease of around
17,700 Mgm/yr. This has also been observed by the WPRS who
estimate the present flows to be about 0.04 m /s of 19,000
mg/1 water and contribute about 22,700 - 27,200 Mgm of salt
per year.
The Bureau of Reclamation reinitiated investigations in
FY1976 by taking water samples and establishing a weather
station. A contract with a private engineering consulting
firm to identify and study methods of reducing saline flows
was awarded in May, 1979, by the Bureau of Reclamation. In
addition, a multidisciplinary team has been organized to
actively involve the federal, state and local government and
private interests in the project and to recommend the form
to the final project.
The present theory (USDI, WPRS, 1980b) is that prior to
the 1968 plugging of the Meeker Well at a depth of 166 m,
the saline waters from the Weber formation flowed up the
-------
-272-
shaft of the Marland Well and spread laterally through the
saline Entrada formation at a depth of about 244 m and
exited via the Meeker Well because of its lower elevation.
When the Meeker Well was plugged, the saline waters were
then forced to move up and spread laterally through the
Morrison and Dakota formations and is now surfacing in
several seeps along the south side of the Dome.
The WPRS is utilizing the services of the aforementioned
private consulting firm to verify the existing theory by the
installation of a monitoring network, and the redrilling,
cleaning, testing and plugging of the Marland, Scott and
James Wells. This program should be completed in the fall
of 1980. In the event that this program does not result in
an almost total reduction in salt from this source, which is
highly probable, results should still be very beneficial in
determining the recommended plan to be presented to Congress
for authorization. The feasibility report and the draft
Environmental Impact Statement are scheduled for the winter
of 1983. After appropriate public hearings, the Final
Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled to be released
in the fall of 1983.
Crystal Geyser
The Crystal Geyser is located in a natural saline
spring area on the east bank of the Green River, about
5.6 km downstream of the town of Green River, Utah. The
actual "geyser" is a privately owned oil test well which
contributes about 2,720 Mgm/yr to the river. The saline
-------
-273-
water erupts for about 6 minutes at approximately 5-6 hour
intervals due to carbon dioxide accumulations (USDI, BR,
1979d). Water also issues from one small spring east of the
well and another small spring north of the geyser (USDI-
USDA, 1977). The maximum instantaneous flow has been esti-
mated at 0.42 m /s with a total volume of about 0.01 ha-m
per eruption. The total flow amounts to approximately
18.50 ha-m annually with dissolved solids concentrations of
11,000 to 14,000 mg/1. During eruptions, water issues from
all three sources and some activity has been observed in
the river. The salts are primarily sodium chloride.
A 50 cm diameter well which was drilled to a depth of
800 m was completed on the site in July, 1936. The geyser
did not exist prior to the drilling of this well, but since
that time, the well has erupted in spectacular but irregular
periodic eruptions. The well apparently offers a local
relief point for dissolved carbon dioxide and water which
has most likely been trapped in the Navajo formation. The
two natural springs at the site are natural openings along
an existing fault line and they flow because of both
hydraulic and gas pressure (USDI-USDA, 1977). However, the
well probably greatly increased the salinity contribution
from the area.
Woodside Geyser about 45 km north of Crystal Geyser
along Highway 6 and 50 between the towns of Price and Green
River, is used for commercial production of carbon dioxide.
Little information is available about this minor geyser
-------
-274-
since the salinity contribution would be small. Woodside
Geyser and Crystal Geyser were also used for local tourist
attractions.
The Crystal Geyser was authorized for construction by
PL 93-320. The Definite Plan Report, Environmental Assess-
ment and Negative Determination of Environmental Impact have
been compiled and were submitted in June, 1976 (USDI, BR,
1979a).
The proposed treatment plan for Crystal Geyser is to
collect the flows and convey them to an evaporation pond
about 5 km downstream. The reduction in salinity at Imperial
Dam is estimated at 0.3 mg/1. The July, 1975, total con-
struction costs were estimated at $2.69 million. Inflating
these costs to January, 1980 prices the costs are $4.07
million. The 1980 annual construction cost at 7-1/8 percent
would be $300,400 and annual 0 & M costs would be about
$30,000. The annual cost-effectiveness for 2,720 Mgm
removed would be about $121.40/Mgm. The Water and Power
Resources Services has indefinitely postponed construction
of this project.
-------
-275-
APPENDIX 3
COSTS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
In order to present representative estimates of
irrigation system improvement costs, actual designs were
proposed for fields ranging in size from 4 to 90 hectares.
Quantity takeoffs for materials, construction, operation-
maintenance (including labor), and energy were priced and
used to estimate annual costs. Typical values of crop water
demands and growing seasons were used to establish system
capacities and operating hours. For capital cost items, an
interest rate of 7.5 percent and an expected system life of
20 years was used to annualize the cost estimates. No
salvage value was given to any irrigation system component.
The costs presented should not be considered as absolute,
but should be used in the context of relative costs for the
same sized systems. It is believed that the costs are
representative.
All irrigation systems were analyzed under the same
soil conditions (loamy soil with a moderate infiltration
rate) and field slope (0.1 percent cross slope and 0.5
percent average slope in the direction of irrigation).
Leveling costs were considered only for surface irrigation
methods. The surface source is a canal or a small lake or
pond. No annual cost of water was assessed for surface
water. Groundwater supplies were standardized as pumping
electrically from 30 meters of depth, the well cased and
-------
-276-
screened with a column pipe to 46 meters. Total dynamic
head included pumping depth plus pressure requirements.
Pumps over 10HP were all turbines.
Costs are based on January, 1980, prices when available.
Older data were updated using the Engineering News Record
cost indices. All systems, except drip irrigation, were
analyzed for field crops only. Drip irrigation was analyzed
for orchard crops only. Leveling costs were calculated at
$750/ha for furrow irrigation systems. Wide border irriga-
tion leveling costs were estimated at $l,000/ha ($1.00/m ).
The following tables present the other basic data which
was used to estimate the annual costs of irrigation systems.
Table 3-1 presents some cost index comparisons of the various
systems. The sideroll sprinkler system costs were taken as
the base at each acreage and the costs of the other systems
at that acreage were divided by the base cost. As can be
seen, under the labor cost assumptions used, the cutback
systems are very competitive on an annual cost basis.
Sideroll sprinklers had a very low cost in almost every
case, but are limited to low growing crops. The center
pivot is very competitive, even with high energy costs, but
unless crop values or labor costs are high, center pivots
tend to be restricted to areas with low land values.
Table 3-2 presents a summary of annual maintenance cost
estimates as a percentage of the total initial capital costs
of investment. Table 3-3 summarizes labor requirements for
various methods of irrigation which Table 3-4 presents a
-------
-277-
Table 3-1. Cost index comparisons for surface water supply.
COST INDEX1
System
Sideroll
Center Pivot
Handmove Al.
Traveler
Drip
Solid Set Al.
Solid Set PVC
Cutback
Gated Pipe
Siphons
Reuse
40
Annual
2
1.00
1.55
1.80
2.09
2.23
2.77
3.50
0.87
1.07
1.12
1.57
ac
Initial
3
1.00
1.79
1.26
2.26
3.55
3.74
6.32
1.53
1.00
1.11
1.92
80
Annual
2
1.00
1.44
1.80
2.11
2.50
3.06
3.89
1.00
1.22
1.28
1.56
ac
Initial
3
1.00
1.25
1.38
2.17
4.06
4.53
7.34
1.72
1.22
1.31
2.09
160
Annual
2
1.00
1.21
1.69
2.33
3.08
2.97
4.53
1.05
1.40
1.45
1.63
ac
initial
3
1.00
0.97
1.32
2.39
5.32
4.00
7.74
1.77
1.35
1.42
2.16
1 ...
1.00. The other systems are a ratio of their costs of sideroll system
at that acreage.
Total annual cost.
Initial investment costs.
-------
-278-
Table 3-2. Annual maintenance costs as a percent total initial capital
cost of each component.
Irrigation System Pumps
Handmove 3
Towline 3
Sideroll 3
Traveler 3
Traveling Boom 3
Center Pivot 35
Solid Set 3
Permanent Solid Set 3
Drip 3
Gated Pipe
Holding Ponds
Grassed waterways
Concrete Ditch
Earth Ditch
Land Leveling
Drainage Tile Line
Mains2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
27
107
Irrigation System
52 43
7
4 44
5
5
3 25
2
3
4
1.4*
Misc.
1-37
57
27
57
Taxes and insurance are usually estimated at about 2% of the initial
investment. This table does not include depreciation, interest, taxes,
and insurance, or other overhead costs.
2 Pitchford and Wilkinson (1975).
3 Pair, et al. 19
4 Lacewell and Hughes (1971).
5 Sheffield, L.F. (1977).
Eisenhauer and Fischbach (1977).
7 USDA, SCS, 1979f.
-------
Table 3-3. Representative labor requirements in hours per acre per irrigation, (1 acre
Data Source/Method Reed et al.
U977)
Contour Furrow
Level Furrow
Furrow (siphon tubes) 3
Automated Furrow
Handmove Sprinkler 2
Side Roll 1
Traveler
Center Pivot (125 ac)4 0.12
Towline
Center Pivot (corner system- 0.12
153 ac)
Portable Solid Set
Permanent Solid Set 0 . 5
Boom (self-propelled)
Drip 8 hrs/yr/acre
Gated Pipe w/o moving
Gated Pipe w/moving
Automated Level Borders
Border
Contour Ditch
Corrugations
US DA,
(1979
0.5 -
0.1 -
0.4 -
0.5 -
0.5 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
0.05 -
0.2 -
0.2 -
0.05 -
0.2 -
0.05 -
0.05 -
0.2 -
1.0 -
0.4 -
SCS
_)
1.5
0.5
1.2
0.15
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.15
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.15
0.15
1.0
2.0
1.2
Pair, et al.
(1975)
0.7 - 1
0.3 - 0.6
0.2 - 0.4
0.05 - 0.3
0.2 - 0.4
0.05 - 0.1
0.5 - 1.0
0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.4
= 0.4046 ha).
Others
1.272 0.95
0.922 1.25
0.552 -0.433
0.152
0.51
0.542
O.ll2
0.782
0.21 -0.532
-0.715
1.031
1 Eisenhauer and Fischbach (1977)
2 Hart, W.E. (1975)
3 Lacewell and Hughes (1971)
4 Includes large lateral moving machines
5 Thorfinnson, et al. (1955)
I
to
^j
vo
I
-------
Table 3-4. Expected lifetime of irrigation equipment with good maintenance (Pair, et al., 1975)
Equipment
Hours
years
Bisenhauer & US DA, scs.
Fischback, 1977 1979
Hart,
1975
Reed, et al.
1976
Pair, et al. ,
1975
Well (incl. screen, casing, gravel pack)
Pump House
Turbine Pump
Bowls
Columns
Centrifugal Pump
Gearhead
Diesel Power Unit
Natural Gas-Propane Power Unit
Gasoline Power Unit (water cooled)
Fuel Tanks
Electric Motor
PVC Pipeline
Concrete-Asbestos Pipeline
Concrete Pipe
Aluminum Tubing
Aluminum Gated Pipe
Collapsible Plastic Gated Pipe
Pipe Trailer
Sprinkler Systems (in general)
Sprinkler Nozzles
Sprinkler Heads
Plastic
Brass
Aluminum Handmove
Traveling Boom Sprinklers
Center Pivot Sprinklers
Sideroll Sprinklers
Towline
Permanent Solid Set
Aluminum Portable Solid Set
Traveler: "Big Gun"
Hose
Reservoirs (no silting basin)
Tailwater Reuse System Pit (concrete lined)
Electric Control Panels/Switches
Drip System
Emitters
Polyethylene line and fittings
Filtration Equipment
Valves and Regulators
Propeller Meter (with good maintenance)
Land Leveling (with poor annual maintenance)
Land Plane
Concrete Ditch
Holding Ponds
Drainage Tile Line
Concrete Structures
Galvanized Sheet Metal structures (flumes)
16,000
32,000
32,000
30,000
28,000
18,000
50,000
2,000
5,000
20
15
20
2-8
10
10
15
10
10
12-15
15
20
20
10
10
10
10
15
15
7-20
20-25
25
25
15
20-15
20-25
20
8
16
16
12-15
12-15
14
9
15-20-25
40-50
40
20
10-15
10
20
10-15
2-3
12-15
15-20
4-6
00
o
I
20
-------
-281-
completion of published information on the expected lifetime
of various irrigation equipment. Finally, Table 3-5 presents
January, 1980, prices for various pipe sizes and classifi-
cations.
-------
Table 3-5.
Approximate materials cost for large lots of commonly available sizes of
irrigation pipe as of February, 1979, including gaskets and couplings
(S/100 ft).
Nominal
Pipe
Diameter
(Inches)
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
15
18
24
30
36
PLASTIC IRRIGATION PIPE
50 ft 50
head pal
(40'Jta) (40'jta)
71.36 99.00
113.06 164.00
166.58 248.00
243.18 380.00
363. 76A 556.00
80
pal
(20jta)
134.00
232.00
356.00
528.00
816.00
REINFORCED CONCRETE
100 Nonrelnf orced (ASTM C 118) Reinforced
psl
(20Jta)
76.00
160.00
284.00
444.00
636.00
1001.00
A25 A75
116.00
226.50
276.60
357.00
518.25
934.00 1,163.00
1,228.00 1,678.00
1,702.00 2,497.00
2,472.00 3,347.00
•»
CLASS 150 LOW PRESSURE
Aluminum Tubing Aluminum Pipe
(40' Jts, 100 pal) (0.051 ga.)
(w/o gates)
97.00
128.00
173.00
221.00 I
10
290.00 163.00 o>
336.00 220.00 '
376.00 283.00
-------
Table 3-5. (continued-)
Nominal Black
Pipe Iron
Diameter Pipe
(Sch 40)
3/4
1
1-1/4
1-1/2
2
2-1/2
3
4
6
8
10
12
81.00
114.00
150.00
178.00
241.00
486.00
573.00
1,292.00
1,864.00
2,263.00
3,224.00
Class 160
20' length
29.00
37.00
55.00
80.00
119.00
193.00
414.00
698.00
PLASTIC CLASS PIPE Polyethylene
Tubing
Class 200 Schedule 40 Schedule 80 80 psl 100 psi
20' length 20' length 20' length
29.00 43.00 10.00 16.00
23.00 43.00 58.00 15.81 26.00
35.00 56.00 80.00 26.61 44.00
45.00 66.00 97.00 36.13 59.00
68.00 89.00 134.00 63.24 115.00 ,
99.00 141.00 274.00 m
145.00 183.00 400.00 "
235.00 258.00
504.00
856.00
100 feet = 30.48 meters
solvent weld, cost Includes estimated solvent and cement, other pipe categories are gasketed unless
stated.
40* lengths, shorter lengths will cost as much as 50% more since couplings will have to be provided
depending on type and lengths.
'420' Joint
Plain ends, no threads, no couplings, 21' random lengths.
-------
-284-
APPENDIX 4
OPTIMAL CANAL LINING STRATEGIES
The following tables present the optimal canal lining
strategies for each of the five irrigated areas evaluated as
part of this study. The results are tabulated by canal.
The first column is the percentage of the total attainable
salinity reduction attributed to lining all of the canals.
The values listed under each canal are the percentages of
attainable reduction for the individual canals at that level
of control. The actual salt load per canal can be found in
Appendix 2.
-------
Table 4-1. Optimal canal lining program for the Grand Valley, Colorado.
* of
Total
Salt
Reduc-
tion
13.58
20.24
29.73
35.46
40.85
46.03
53.27
59.89
66.17
71.94
76.53
79.52
81.09
85.44
89.49
92.44
93.30
93.89
94.43
94.94
95.53
96.08
96.60
97.09
97.56
98.00
98.18
98.35
98.51
98.67
98.82
98.97
99.11
99.24
99.38
99.50
99.62
99.71
99.76
99.81
99.86
99.91
99.93
99.94
99.95!
99.96
99.97
99.98
99.r«»
100.00
Annual
Cost
Percentage of snlt reduction required from each individual canal
CANAL
($) Government Grand
Highline valley
Canal
429659
669280
1049555
1303830
1565886
1840329
2253480
2659746
3071538
3473821
3011991
4045829
4175672
4552606
4920681
5200478
5285405
5346719
5404720
5462367
5533041
5596519
5661861
572S203
5787069
5847337
5872753
5897798
5922438
5446837
5970860
5994570
6017977
6041094
6063931
6086497
6103803
6124774
6135076
6145267
615S349
6165328
6169283
6171575
6173845
6176093
6178320
6180526
6182712
6184880
17.46
31.91
44.15
54.69
63.89
72.00
79.23
85.73
91.61
96.96
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
loo.uy
100.06
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oq.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.95
41.65
76.75
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.90
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. 00
100.00
100.00
Grand
valley
Main-
line
0.00
0.00
5.82
18.21
29.02
38.57
47.07
54.71
61.62
67.92
73.68
78.99
83.89
88.44
92.67
96.63
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Grand
valley
High-
line
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.33
22.39
48.85
57.56
72.78
86.71
99.53
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. 'JO
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
loo, on
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100 .'00
100.00
100.00
100. DC
100. OO
100.00
100.00
100.00
1UU.UU
100.00
100.00
Kicfer
Exten-
sion
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.86
12.33
20.95
28.84
36.11
47,82
•J9.0S
')4.84
60.26
65.33
70.10
74.59
78.83
82.84
86.64
90.25
93.68
96.95
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
100. oa
100.00
100.00
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. CO
1UO.UU
100.00
100.00
Mesa Independent Price
County Ranchmen's Ditch
Ditch Canal
0.00
2.11
13.39
22.84
31.08
38.36
44.85
50.67
55.95
60.75
65.14
63 19
72.93
76.40
79.62
82.64
85.47
88.12
90.62
92.99
95.22
97.34
99.35
100.00
1OO.OO
100.00
loa.oo
100.00
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.03
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
lUO.O'J
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
o.oc
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.no
0 00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
O.O1
2.O9
10.08
17.65
24.83
•51.67
38.19
44.40
50.35
56.03
61,48
66.70
71.72
76.54
82.18
85.65
89.96
94.12
98.14
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. OQ
100.00
100.00
100.00
aoo.ou
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
10.31
19,07
26.94
34.06
40.54
46.48
51.94
56.99
61.68
66.04
70,11
73.93
77,52
80.90
84.08
87.10
89.96
92.67
95,26
97,72
100.00
100.00
100,00
100,00
100,00.
100.00
100,00
100,00.
100.. 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Stub Orchard Orchard
Ditch ttesa Mesa
Power No. 1
Canal
0.00 100.00
0.00 100.00
0.00 100.00
0.00 100.00
0.00 111.00
0.00 110.00
0.00 100.00
0.00 100. 00
0.00 100.00
0.00 100.00
0.00 100.00
0.97 10i.no
6.90 100.00
12.40 100.no
17.52 100.00
22.30 100.00
26.78 100.00
30.99 100.00
34.96 100.00
33.70 110.00
42.25 10". 00
45.60 100.00
48.79 100.00
51.82 100.00
5-!. 71 100.00
57.47 100.00
60.10 100.00
62.6? 100.00
65.04 100.00
67.36 100.00
69.58 ion. 00
71.72 101.00
73,78 100.00
75,76 100.00
77.67 100,00
79.51 100.00
81.30 100.00
83.02 100.00
84.68 100.00
86.29 100.00
87.85 100.00
89.37 100.00
90.83 100.00
92.26 100.00
93.64 100.00
94.98 100.00
96.29 100.00
97.55 100.09
98.80 100.00
100.00 101.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9-33
18.28
26.25
33.42
39.90
45.81
51.22
56.19
60,79
65.05
61,02
72.73
76.21
79.48
82.55
85.46
88.20
90.80
93,28
95.63
97.87
100.00
100,00
100.00
100,00
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
199.90
100.03
100.00
Orchard
Mesa
No. 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.72
8.43
14.61
20.31
25.60
30.53
35.14
39.45
43.51
47.32
50.93
54,33
57.57
60.63
63.55
66.33
68.99
71.52
73,95
76.27
78,50
80.65
82.70
84.68
86.59
88.43
90.21
91.92
93.58
95.18
96.73
98.24
99.69
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. OO
100.00
100.00
Red lands Redlands
Power Canals
Canal No. 1 & 2
0.00
0.00
100 . 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
190.03
100.00
100.00
3.75
16.21
26.76
35.84
43.76
50.75
56.98
62.58
67.64
72.26
76.48
80.37
83.96
87.29
90.39
93.29
96.01
96.56
100.00
100.00
100.00
100 . OO
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.0.0
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. OO
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
10
00
Ln
Columns indicate the extent of individual canal linings to be completed to achieve the percentage of salt reduction recorded for each canal.
-------
Table 4-2. Optimal large canal lining program for the Lower Gunnison, Colorado.
t of total
canal salt
reduction
IB. 83
43.78
70.51
90.11
94.56
97.13
98.63
98.94
99.13
99.29
99.42
99.52
99.62
99.70
99.75
99.77
99.79
99.81
99.83
99.85
99.86
99.87
99.88
99.89
99.9,0
99.91
99.92
99.93
99.S4
99.95
99.95
99.96
99.97
99.97
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Annual
Cost
<$)
885995
2705783
5597647
8442126
9224099
9777504
10149528
10236459
10296772
10354006
10406014
10451-165
10495140
10534490
10562943
10575895
10588461
10600675
10612564
10623684
10633619
10643326
10652820
10662115
10671222
10680153
10688917
10697524
10705981
10714296
10722477
10730529
10738458
10746270
10753969
10759990
10761694
10763375
10765034
10766673
10768292
10769691
10771471
10773034
10774579
10776107
10777519
10229115
10780596
10782062
Stell
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.80
27.97
42.41
54.24
64.16
72.64
79.99
86.44
92.17
97.30
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Cedar
Canon
42.68
85.10
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Dyer
Fork
0.00
28.80
72.77
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
ioo.oo
100.00
100. od
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Fruit-
land
0.00
0.00
21.50
51.22
75.52
88.74
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100 ..00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Durkec
66.75
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Too. oo
100.00
100.00
100. Op
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Transfer
58.65
97.57
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Park
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.73
19.79
32.54
43.00
51.76
59.25
65.75
71.45
76.51
R1.04
85.13
88.84
92.23
95.34
98.21
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. op
IOO.OO
100.00
10P.OO
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. op
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Bonafide
0.00
0.00
32.94
56.60
73.55
86.46
96.72
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
ioo.oo
100.00
llartland
35.77
78.69
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
10". 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
W>.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
101.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Relief
0.00
7.39
42.16
64.74
80.93
93.26
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.03
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
North
Delta
0.00
3.98
37.68
59.58
75.27
87.22
96.71
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Overland
0.00
2.09
39.99
64.62
82.26
95.70
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Highline
0.00
23.96
56".21
77.16
92.17
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Currant
Creek
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
M
00
Ok
I
-------
Table 4-2. (continued)
% of total
canal salt
reduction
18.83
«.7B
71.51
91.11
9456
9V. 13
98.63
98.94
IN)
99.42
97.52
99 a
99.71
99.75
99 77
99.79
99.81
99.81
99.85
99.86
«9.8»
99.88
9989
99.91
99.91
99.92
99.93
99.94
99 95
97.95
99.94
99 97
99.97
99 93
99.99
99.99
99.79
99 99
99 99
99 79
99.9»
99.99
99.99
III. II
101 II
ill 11
lll.il
110 01
itl II
Annual
Cost
($)
88S99S
27IS7B3
5577647
8442126
MR
1I149S28
11236457
11294772
10354106
13416114
1I4S1465
1I49S14I
HSS4470
HS62943
10S7S89S
19588461
11611675
1.612564
11623684
itM332iS
1965282.
11462115
tKffi
11688917
11697524
IRR
1172247;
H7JI529
1)738498
11744271
11753969
11759991
H7bl694
lt763J75
11765134
11766673
11768292
1(769891
11771471
117/3134
11/7457?
Il77el(7
11777119
1I77911S
11781576
10782(42
Stull
1.01
1.10
1.19
2::;
37.25
55 88
62.15
71.41
75.41
86. 34
92.44
97.85
113.19
111 01
101.11
lll.lt
111.11
111.01
111.11
111.11
191.91
110.11
in. ii
iii.ii
111.99
191.91
191.11
HI (9
191.19
1EI.99
iii;:
193.91
111. 09
100.01
111 II
191.11
111 DO
Hi IS
1(1. Cl
H; i;
1(1 il
19l.il
111.11
111.11
lit. (1
lit.il
ll( (9
Hi gi
Cow Creek
1 19
1.09
9.19
14.17
32.37
46.24
57.26
%£
80.32
85.93
99 86
95.23
99.14
111.00
in. ii
iii.ii
HI t:
HI II
in.ii
191.99
111 Ii
ll(.lt
lll.li
lll.lt
111.11
H9.lt
iig.ii
111.11
111 01
III il
119.11
lit. II
Hi 91
HI. 90
HI 10
ltt.il
liO 03
H0.lt
HI II
lit. 01
110 99
199.91
19] 91
ict.oo
19! 1)
ItO (1
199 1)
iia IE
110 10
Leroux
Creek
9.99
9 09
199.19
109 91
100. (1
111 99
111.11
111.11
lib. 00
lit. CO
1(1 19
131.19
IOC OF
199 Ii
Ht il
199 19
lie os
111 10
III.II
lit (1
ICi 10
Ht ii
lie ii
I91.il
109 99
199.99
111 II
11] 01
101 II
191. JJ
1G9.19
lit. 19
lit. 90
III >9
•.it 1C
1)9 18
lit 99
US i,
ll( t»
199 1)
ICO 99
114 19
:ic t't
113 )9
199 il
191 01
199. (9
i 11.11
IIC 19
.91.19
Midkoff
S Arnold
9 10
9.11
(.00
13.86
32 10
4581
56.79
65 73
73.32
79.77
35 36
99 27
74 62
93 «
111.93
119 II
1K.10
191.99
109 11
HI II
109 19
111 01
1)9 10
HI 9i
1(0 (9
199 90
HO It
110. Ii
HI II
HI Ii
HC.II
HO 91
119 II
H9.lt
U 11
113 01
HI. II
199 39
199 11
Ui 91
KC IF
iH 11
L09.il
199.39
'.Oi It
199 i)
ICt.tl
Hi 10
101.19
lit 99
Allen
Mesa
00
01
.90
5!
ii
.11
ii
.11
.10
.01
.10
.10
.10
.31
12 09
18 U
24 11
29.19
33 71
3B 9(
42 91
45 Tii
49.27
5?. 5V
55.6?
5B.64
61.43
64 (8
66.61
63 97
71. £8
73 46
75 «
7/ 54
Z%
83 07
84 7.
!>6 4i
S/.98
3959
?0.9/
72 37
9. 7t>
^ K
?o 38
•7 62
72.83
111). 3]
F1re
Mountain
i.it
i. n
9. It
«.4l
It
111.91
119. Ct
119.91
119.11
199 91
111.90
119.19
HMD
110.11
119. (t
111.11
HI. (I
111.90
119. (9
Hi 11
119.91
HI It
lll.il
HI 11
111.11
III.II
iii
HI II
199. Cl
191.19
199.19
110.91
111.11
\\l\\
HI.}]
HI Ct
195. JO
109 99
111 V.
lfl.fl
IEI i;
lit (v
13) Ii
it; it
lug 9i
Ht (P
109 99
Stewart
1.69
1 19
1 II
19.88
29 45
43.61
54.84
64.14
71.77
7836
84.19
87.11
93.5/
97 56
lIC. 19
111.19
III.II
110 01
IK. II
111.01
101.11
HO 13
110 II
111.13
HO Ii
HI 10
IK. II
110.11
III.II
HI. 93
HI 19
111.19
1(1.11
111.19
Itl 99
111.91
Hl.lt
1)9 11
lit II
191 39
111 01
1S3.39
1(1 99
193.99
'.21 II
.11 11
ICt.ii
Ui 91
19C 1C
1.3 99
North
Fork
Fanners
.19
.99
99
.99
99
.91
.91
.99
.99
.99
.12
11 25
18.44
25.77
32.3V
33 X
43.88
W.Vl
53.56
.7.96
61 86
65 b?
b?.IH
72.35
7r> 43
78.J3
81 18
83.68
86.15
88.4?
91.72
ftf
96.81
96.69
111.11
HI II
191.11
111 II
lli.il
KC.il
1)1 11
iti.tj
H9.ll
toe ct
Hi.iO
Itl EC
193 19
If! It
131 11
Short
9.99
21.76
51.65
71.97
84.99
95 57
199.11
III.II
111.11
KM.
111.11
111.11
lit. II
119 II
119. It
11). 11
111.19
iie.ii
111.11
111.11
HI It
199.99
HI 10
199 11
HI (1
111.91
1(1 (9
HI 99
HI 91
191.91
119.19
11) 19
199.99
119.11
Iii 99
119 Ii
HI II
119 II
1(9 91
119.91
1(1 .9
!il Ii
,11 11
HI i)
ilt If
r
-------
Table 4-2. (continued)
t of total
canal salt
reduction
i8.&s
43.78
VI. 51
91.11
94.56
97 13
98.63
98.94
99.13
99.29
99.42
99.52
99.62
99.71
99.75
99.77
99.79
99.81
99.83
99.85
99 '87
99 38
99.89
99.99
99.91
99.93
99.93
99 94
99.95
99.9i
79.96
99.97
99 97
79.98
99.99
99 99
99.99
99.9V
99 99
99.99
99 99
99 9?
9999
191.11
199.11
HI Cl
111.11
lll.il
HI li
Annual
Cost
($)
8859J5
2715783
5597647
8442126
9324199
7/77514
11149528
11236459
11296772
II354II6
19496114
1945141,5
11495141
11534491
19562943
19575895
HS8B461
11611675
11612564
11623684
19o3J619
11643326
H652KI
1166211}
1167122?
11631153
11688917
1967/524
H7i5981
H714296
U722477
L 3/31 ic?
I17J84S8
117462-i
1I7S3W
Il7i999l
19761694
11763375
H765I34
11766673
1.768292
11769891
11771471
[1773134
1C774579
11/76117
19777619
t 97791 iS
IS
Saddle
Mountai n
i.ll
1 11
1.19
41 !S/
57 12
6929
a'.n
94 9»
ICI II
Hl.il
Hl.il
HI.U
Hi Cl
111 11
Hi.il
HI II
HI II
HI II
HI li
HI II
IK. II
HI II
HI.CI
Hi.ll
111.11
111.11
111.11
ill. II
IK CC
.91 11
lil.tl
ll) li
1:1 it
ui.i)
HI.CI
IH.lJ
HI II
r.i ii
Hi ij
ill it
lil.CI
,jj jj
iii CC
113 13
lC».bv
l3i i)
ii'ii
Smith
Fork
Feeder
id. II
Hi.ll
llt.il
HI II
III.II
HI It
HI II
111.11
HI.U
HI II
HI 11
HI II
101 1C
HI 19
HI It
Hi.ll
Hi.ll
111.11
lll.li
11). 19
Hl.li
HI )l
UI 19
PI 11
III.II
111.11
ill II
111.11
HC.II
HI.]}
1(1. '.1
111.11
HC ti
111 li
i.e. ii
HI. ID
li(. II
HI. ii
HI CC
.li 99
ill it
1)1. Il
HI. II
in. n
ICC.il
lll.li
in ci
M il
ii! ii
South
Ci.
mill
Hi.ll
191 II
III.II
IK. 11
Hi It
111.11
HI.U
111.11
111.11
199.91
r.t.io
119 91
lil.il
HI 9)
1CI II
lil.lt
lil.CI
HI it
HE.ti
191 94
III 91
111 Cl
lit 11
HI.IC
111 II
lil H
119.11
to; 4.1
llC.lt
.91.11
HI il
ill 11
M »
iii.r.
HC 1C
131 11
HC It
111.11
Hi. 1C
lit «
ICC il
.11 »
West
lS'37
6977
Ui 1!
ICI.liC
HI 9)
HC Ct
il) Ji
199 CC
191 1)
HI.IC
119.11
HI CI
HI 11
HI.IC
119.11
1»C f
-.11 11
iii Cl
HI 19
HI. CO
111 51
HI 11
ill li
1(1 i!
Hl.il
id. II
111.11
1ll.lt
HI.I:
iiC 1C
111. 11
1(1 ((
H) 9k
ri.ti
ni.ii
HI 1C
111 (1
Hl.liC
.11 1)
HC (I
Hi l)
1:1.11
19. ii
lit Li
Ml 11
H/'j
M & D
Canal
(Mancos)
Hi.Ci
HI.U
HI (1
Hi.ll
HI II
199 39
HI li
Ul.ll
1,1. il
111 II
HI.U
ID.It
Hl.it
HI II
HI II
111.11
Hi.ll
111.11
lit II
HI 11
191.91
11) 99
1:1 ti
in n
in. «i
1(1 Ci
111.11
III. IE
HI 11
Hi.il
Hl.li
HI C
ID Ij
nt.c:
lit. 91
HI 1C
H) 11
HC 'I
111 41
HI ii
H.'.li
Hi (1
HI i;
l.l Cl
111 11
HI iii
1.1. j.
Hi 5)
M & D
Canal
(non-
Hancos )
C il
1.66
61.14
11 84
HI.U
lllisi
ISl.j)
III 1C
HI II
HC Cl
111.11
HI Ci
111.11
tli.CI
III.II
HC.Ii
111.11
HI.U
HI.U
111! 19
ill Cl
HI 11
lit Ci
119 il
111.9]
in.ii
Hi.ll
HC il
Hi 1C
Hl.il
141 99
HI.IC
111 11
I!!!!
Hi *.
114 31
1(9.91
199.99
ItC.II
111 13
lit Cl
HI ;j
>. t cc
i.-i 'i
Loutzenhlzer
2855
96. /S
111.11
HI 19
III.II
HI II
Ht.Ct
HI 11
HI.U
III.II
HI II
lit. 99
HI. 11
HI II
lll.il
111.19
19l.il
111.11
HI.U
199.91
lll.li
Hi.ll
lil.CI
111.11
111.11
lll.li
111.11
HI.U
lit II
HI II
ICI.il
111 19
HI.U
111.19
lll.li
Hi.ll
Hi.ll
HI 11
HC.II
199.11
•.Cl.li
Hi.ll
HI II
119.99
HI.U
HI II
HC.II
111.11
Selig
•JMi
1C1.C1
191.11
HI.U
HI II
HI.IC
111.11
HI.U
111.11
HI.CI
111.41
HI.U
HI II
HI. 1C
ill Cl
HI.CI
111.11
HI.IC
lll.li
HI.U
111.39
HI.U
H. it
ltl.ll
111.91
iU il
111 II
Hi. 1C
111.11
lll.il
HI il
HC.II
Hi.ll
Hi II
Hi.ll
HC CC
UJ.«I
lll.it
.19 91
Hi.Ci
HI II
Hi.il
11) II
HI.IC
HI 11
HI (I
Hi III
ict •;
119.41
Ironstone
Canal
(Mancos)
ill.il
HI.U
HI il
Hi.ll
HI.U
111.11
HI.U
HI 11
HI Cl
HI II
111.11
119.11
111.11
HI II
HI.CI
HI 99
HC.II
119.91
1C9.CC
111.19
HI.CI
112 Cl
iil.tl
Hi 19
1C9 II
Hi ii
Hi.ll
ill »
Hi.ll
119 91
lll.li
119.99
HI.U
Hi II
HI.CI
1)9.91
lli.il
HI..4
'.it. IS
Hl.li
HI.U
III.II
HI II
111.49
HI.U
191.11
HI 11
111 11
in:,
Ironstone
Canal
(nonMancos)
,S!I
ti'.a
93.21
HI.U
HI II
HI II
.11.11
III.II
111.11
HI.U
HI.U
HI.U
191.11
ItC.CI
Hi 19
H9.il
Hi.ll
lll.li
HI.U
111.11
HI.U
IiC. II
111.14
lil.CI
<.tt.ll
HI 19
in n
HC.Ii
Hl.li
HI.U
13C.1I
III.II
HI II
HC Cl
111.11
HI.U
ill 11
111 ii
1JJ.M
HI II
111.11
HI 1C
HI II
HI.U
HI.U
HI.CI
191.11
litli
East
74.27
191 91
III.II
ill.il
HI.U
111.11
HI.U
111.11
lll.li
III.II
111.11
HI.U
Hi.ll
lll.li
HI.CI
ill.lt
HI II
111.11
HI il
111.11
HI.U
HI.U
HI.CI
111.11
HI.U
HI.U
III.II
111.11
111.11
HI.U
HI II
ill. II
HI.U
111.11
HI II
111.91
HI.IC
HI.U
HI II
119.11
!!i i1,
HI.U
HI.U
HI.U
Hl.)l
ICI. II
HI 19
!i!:il
Garnet
67 U
HI.U
111.11
111.11
HI II
HI 1C
111 II
HI 99
HI II
HI.U
119.11
HI.U
III.II
lll.li
Hi.ll
HI.U
III.II
HI.U
111.11
III.II
111.11
Hi.ll
III.II
HI.U
111.11
.11.11
111.11
HI.U
111.11
HI 1C
ill. II
III II
-.11.11
lit. K
HI.U
III.II
lll.li
III.II
III.II
HI.U
Ul.ll
HI II
HI.U
lll.il
III.II
ICI Cl
III II
Mil
M
00
00
I
-------
Table 4-3- Optimal salt control lining program for we Uintan Basin, Utaii.
X of total
canal salt
reduction
29.18
40 88
48 83
59.38
66.36
73.99
76.61
79.48
82.15
84.11
85.95
87.29
87.91
88.55
89.23
89.79
89.91
91.16
9liS9
91.98
93.41
94 42
95.39
95.91
96.36
96.81
97 19
97 51
97.78
98.15
98.31
96.58
98,83
99 17
9931
99.53
99.75
99.87
99.91
99.91
99.92
99.93
99.94
99.9S
99.96
99. W
99.93
99.99
191.11
Annual
Cost
(S)
2158586
3179919
3921242
5229599
6259168
7377249
7839271
8382125
891BI73
9385465
9B3I121
19181991
11352914
11541717
1175182]
11935761
11976463
11132431
I1H5597
11241091
11821934
12433391
12894197
13345419
13591834
13323451
1495119}
14265643
14431972
14592248
14751159
14911718
15175482
1523683)
1U96I48
15553219
157C842I
15Bol"22
15949(88
15*71951
15979177
15988211
15997127
16915958
16(14696
16Ii
lit (I ;t£ ;i
iii ci ii. .;
Hi li :..i if
111.11 111 1)
iu is 1:1 1:
19) 9b ill 19
HI H UC iC
i;i ti uc it
HI J) tig. t;
HC Ci 1ft ii
11) 93 HJ.l;
HI it i;c ic
119 99 HI 9)
HI ic ice i:
• o9 i! DJ )j
i:. Cb uc .:
i], ;• i)i it
-.it i. i:t :t
of salt reduction required
Sunshine
!:!!
.10
.11
H
.11
.19
.i:
II
II
II
.11
.91
33.87
71.91
Iff. II
Hi 31
lii. 91
111. 11
HC 1C
Hi il
HI CC
lii i9
ici c:
HI 99
lit 1C
113 li
HI (C
HC 11
HI c:
119 li
:» ii.
HI.H
lll.CI
111.11
HI il
HI 1)
Hi.fJ
119.10
HI 1C
III 11
Hi.CI
111.11
Hi. II
191.19
HC (C
Hi Jl
CANAL
Burton Murray
99 .11
.11 H
.11 .11
.11 .11
.11 .91
.11 .11
H .11
.11 .91
.01 .11
.OC .11
.11 .11
.11 H
.11 II
35.53 31.17
72.75 66.45
HI.H 99.il
HI.H 119.11
HI.H lll.il
110.10 111.19
liC II lii. II
HI II HI.H
HC CC HI.H
1.3 19 119 99
Hi H HI.H
119 H HI. 9)
HI.CC Hi.CI
HI 10 111.19
ICC CI Hi. II
HI.H 111.11
HC.il HI.H
HI 19 119.19
1CI.II lIC. It
199 II HI II
tCi.CC HC.il
HI 11 111.11
HI.H ICI.il
HI.H HI 01
HI.H HI H
Hi.l) HI.H
liC It HI Si
HI.H HI.H
lit. 1C HI II
HI II HI. II
HI.H HI.H
IK 99 111.99
ICC (C HI. 1C
Hl.ii lll.l)
lCb.CC ICC.Ci
119 II 1 i 99
ICC If 1 C.CC
from each Individual canal
Burns Mosby
Bench
i.ii 3.11
l.ll C II
l.ll l.ll
t.H I.H
1 II 1,14
l.ll 19.16
I.H 35.25
I.H 49 31
I.H 61.65
I.H 72.61
I.H 82,43
1 H 91.31
1.19 99.35
29.39 HI.H
68 51 111.11
HI 1C HI 00
111.10 119.39
Hi.Cli lit II
119.13 119.11
HI.H HI.il
HI H 139.99
HI.H i;:.ti
1)1 H 199 91
HI Ct HI.H
191.19 191.11
HI. II HI.H
Hi 91 111.11
HC.II HI, it
111.19 HI.H
ici.c: HI.H
IN. .li II) 11
HC CI HI II
II). 11 III II
HI ii HI II
111.19 HI.H
111.11 HI.H
111.19 119. 91
lll.lt lii. II
HI 1) 1)1 99
HI >C lit. II
111.13 199.91
HI it HI 1C
111.19 119.19
HC CC HI.CI
111.11 111 11
HC CI ICI Ci
111.99 111.11
IJi (C HI CI
Dl.il HI.H
119.GC HI CI
US
Whiterocks
1 H
C.ll
l.ll
l.ll
21.19
38.14
53 31
6657
78.22
8B.5/
9784
IK CI
Hi. 10
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
ill il
HI 01
HI.H
HI H
111.31
HI II
HI.H
HI.H
HI 10
111.11
lllitl
HI 00
111.01
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
110. II
HI II
111.11
119.91
HI II
HI 19
ICC Ci
111.90
Hi.li
Whiterocks
£ Ouray
9.11
Ml
1.12
111 II
lilill
101.11
i::::
HI.H
HI II
111.11
111.11
HI.H
111.11
HI.H
111.11
HI II
111.11
HI.H
111.11
HI.H
HI.H
111!!
HI.H
111.11
mill
HI.H
HC.II
HI. 19
HI.H
111.11
HI.H
HI. 11
111.11
111.11
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
111.11
HC H
111.19
Hi. II
HI.H
HI.H
Ouray
Valley
I.H
||
H
II
.01
.01
.11
.11
.11
II
.11
.11
.11
H
.'.i
.11
.11
.11
.11
13.75
38 51
62.14
84.53
HI.H
HI.H
HI ill
111.11
111.11
111.01
111.11
HI.H
111.11
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
111.11
HI. II
111.01
I!!!!
111,01
I
to
CO
vo
I
-------
Table 4-3. (continued)
Percentage of salt reduction required from
t of total Annual
canal salt Cost Our ay Deep
reduction ($) Park Creek
29.18 2158584 .11 i H
41.88 JI799H .11 l.ll
48.83 3921243 .11 Ml
59.3 5220599 .11 Ml
66.86 6259168 .01 l.ll
73.99 7377249 .11 7.49
76.61 7131271 7.67 3J.B9
79.48 BJ82125 23.11 56.81
82.15 8918173 36.47 76. F>
84.11 9185465 48 H 94. H3
BS.95 9831121 SV.15 lll.lt
87.29 1.181911 68 83 HMI
87.91 11352914 77.61 HMI
88.55 10541717 B5.64 Hl.ll
§9'° 1191576* 99'82 111'!!
89.'9I 11976463 lIl'lO HMI
91. U 11032431 110.01 HI 11
91.25 11115597 11 .01 111. IS
9I.S? 11241191 It .11 HMI
91.98 11821734 HI. 1C lll.lt
93.41 12433H6 HMI Hl.ll
94.42 12894197 HMI HI tl
95.39 IJ34541I lll.ll HI. 91
95,91 13591H4 Hl.ll Hl.lt
96.36 13823451 HMI Hl.ll
96,81 14151193 Hl.ll HI II
97.19 14263443 HMI Hl.ll
97.SI 14431972 lll.ll HI II
97.78 14592248 DI.M H9.ll
98.05 14751159 lll.ll lll.ll
98.31 14911918 IlMI HMI
98,58 15175482 HMI 101. OC
98.83 15236831 Hl.ll lll.ll
B:fi im !!! :!! m SI
99.53 15718421 HI. 01 HMI
99.75 15861722 lll.M lll.ll
99.87 15949188 Hl.ll lll.ll
99.91 1S97II51 lll.ll lll.ll
99.91 15979177 HI. II HMI
99.92 15988211 lll.ll HMI
99.93 1S997127 Hl.ll IlMI
99.94 16IISK8 lll.ll lll.ll
99.95 16114696 HMI lll.ll
99.96 16123346 Hl.ll Hl.ll
99.97 16I31H8 lll.ll IM.II
99.98 16I4I3B6 lll.ll HMI
99.99 16148783 KMC ltl.lt
lll.ll 16057101 llt.l) HMI
Moffat
; ii
9.11
i.ii
i it
t ti
Ml
Ml
Ml
t.CC
Ml
Ml
Ml
l.ll
Ml
l.ll
Ml
Ml
11.41
9-fi
42.17
51.51
61.29
6861
76.4ii
Bi.vS
91 16
V782
HMI
lll.ll
HMI
HMI
HC.lt
l33.lt
lil.lt
HMI
HMI
Hl.ll
lll.ll
HI II
Hi. 1C
HMI
HMI
Hl.ll
HMI
lll.ll
Hl.ll
1)1 II
HI K
ill.lt
Henry
J1m
il
I)
It
.11
.11
91
.10
U.46
IK CC
HI M
HMI
HMI
lll.ll
HMI
HMI
HMI
HMI
HI «
III il
111 13
HI II
111 «
lll.H
ill. 11
HC.CI
IlMI
HMI
111 89
iii.tt
Hl.ll
HMI
HI 1)
HI II
111 II
III. SI
111 fl
HMI
lll.ll
lll.l)
lll.li
III 11
IlMI
Hl.Ct
lit (1
lll.il
.» 11
111 tl
US Farm
Creek
.11
.11
.It
.It
.11
.it
91
• II
. Bt
||
11
II
.il
It
n
6.69
13. «
21.72
•a n
33.13
8:S
47.15
54 2:
53. US
63.2?
67.49
71.52
75.19
n it
K.65
92^
98*52
111 II
HI It
HMI
HMI
Hl.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HMI
HI 01
ni.ti
Ulntah Uintah
River il
Canal
U (.11
.11 9 1)
.11 C.IE
.11 l.ll
II C.I!
11 l.ll
.11 1. CO
.11 i II
(t I ii
.11 1 91
24.43 56.84
b9.76 HMI
91.85 1IC II
lll.ll HMI
HI. CO H0.lt
HI II US II
HI.OC leo.ti
HI H 110.11
lit II HMI
lll.ll HI :»
Ht.ll lit. II
Hl.ll HMI
HI II HMI
HI. ID HI II
HC.lt lil It
lll.ll lll.ll
Hl.ll Hl.tl
Hl.tl Hl.tl
lll.lt Hl.ll
111.19 Hl.ll
H II HI. It
H .11 HI H
HMI HMI
lll.l) 113.11
1CI.II IH.It
lll.lt HI. SI
lll.ll HMI
Ht.ll .Ii tl
Ht.ll HI II
HI II lll.l]
lit. II IK. 11
lll.ll Hl.tl
lll.li III II
111.11 Hl.ll
Ht.tl Itt. 81
Ul.lt 1«1 11
HMI 1(1 II
111 31 Hl.ll
100 It lit.ii
ill il 111.11
CANAL
Indian
Bench
1 01
9.11
i It
1 11
0 II
Ml
MO
18 «
42.2/
63.31
82.15
99.16
ICO 11
lll.lt
HMI
HMI
Hi.lt
111 ti
ill.tl
HMI
HI II
HI 11
III il
HMI
lll.ll
HMI
HI fl
111.91
Hl.ll
11). 11
lll.lt
lll.M
lll.lt
Hl.lt
Hl.ll
1)1.41
Hl.ll
111.40
Hl.tt
III It
III II
Hi. II
III ti
Ht.ll
•It H
ill II
lit.tl
111.11
Monarch
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
*||
Jl
.11
.1C
II
.11
.11
.11
.11
1.51
65.31
lll.ll
lll.ll
HMO
HC.CI
lll.ll
HMI
HMI
Hl.ll
HMI
lll.ll
HMI
lll.li
lll.ll
HMI
lll.ll
HMI
Hl.ll
HI...
lll.ll
Hl.ll
HMI
HI...
Hl.lt
HMI
lll.ll
lll.li
lll.ll
IlMI
each individual canal
Martin
Lateral
Ml
l.ll
Ml
Ml
21.69
88.73
lll.ll
I.I.It
lll.H
1.1. II
lll.ll
lll.ll
Ht.ll
Hl.ll
i::..1!
Ht.ll
lll.ll
110.11
111.11
Hl.ll
HI II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI II
Hl.ll
lll.H
lll.M
111.11
IlMI
lll.ll
i!l:SI
in. n
Hl.ll
i!t:i!
Hl.ll
111.11
111.11
HI. II
lll.ll
HMI
I!!:!!
HMI
Hl.ll
Sheehan
Lateral
l.ll
Ml
l.ll
l.ll
31.89
99.65
lll.ll
KM.
HMI
Hl.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
Hl.ll
lll.l.
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.lt
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.l.
lll.ll
Ht.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
Hl.ll
lll.ll
Ht.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
!::.!!
HMI
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
Hl.ll
HMI
lll.H
HMI
HMI
Hi' 11
HMI
HMO
Hl.ll
HMI
lll.ll
lll.ll
Hancock
Lateral
MO
Ml
Ml
Ml
35.53
HMI
111*11
111 If
HMI
HMI
III II
111.10
101.00
lll.il
Hl.ll
111,01
HMI
111 01
lll.lt
1I1JI
lll.ll
lll.lt
lll.ll
ill.il
HiJi
HMI
Hl.ll
HI II
lll.lt
Hl.ll
Hill
lit.ti
Hl.ll
lll.ll
Hl.lt
111. 1C
HMI
ItC.CI
Hl.ll
lll.ll
111.10
Farnsworth
.11
.10
::
.n
ii
*n
in
.n
,n
.11
,11
,11
,M
.n
.11
.n
511
11.12
•17.56
24.67
31.59
37.76
43.81
49.55
55.02
61.24
65.22
fv'.n
83.12
87.16
91. M
94.78
f8.38
HMI
Ill.tl
110.10
lll.ll
ill II
Hl.ll
HMI
lll.ll
lll.ll
ltl.lt
111.10
F Canal
a. ii
Ml
iv,
Ml
l.ll
|"||
Ml
l.ll
till
l.ll
1:11
Ml
1.72
8.57
15.75
22.51
ftR
41.61
46.11
56* .6
U.n
65.19
ft*
77.47
81.21
84 01
91 .'67
94.91
liilO
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI 11
I.I. II
IM.II
ill!!
Hl.ll
ltl.lt
I
to
VD
o
-------
Table 4-3. (continued)
% of total
canal salt
reduction
27.18
49.88
4G B3
S9.M
Mi Bh
76i6l
79.48
82.15
84.11
85.95
87.29
87.91
88.55
89.21
8977
89.99
91.16
91.25
Rfl
93.41
94.42
95.39
95.99
9616
96.81
97.17
97.»
97.78
98.15
^
98.83
97.17
99 31
99.53
99.75
97.87
Rff
8:!!
79.94
99.95
77.76
77.77
79.98
99.99
HI 91
($) US Lake
Fork
3I777H I'll
3921243 It
5228599 . 31
TOW? it!
7831271 . i 0
8918173 :ii
7385465 .11
7831121 ,11
Si ,'!
11541717 01
H751B23 [1
11935761 .9)
11976461 ||
[1132431 II
11115577 .(|
11241191 .45
11821934 ij iJ
12433116 21 43
12894197 2;.27
13345411 a 75
13571834 JV B8
11823451 45.71
14151193 51.23
14263641 56.49
14431772 61.52
14572248 U.31
147SI1S9 71.91
14911918 75.29
1517548? H SI
15236831 S3.5S
1537M4S 3/. 44
1555321? 91.17
K7I842I 74.77
15861722 78 24
15749188 111. II
1S77IKI lil.i)
15777177 1 I. II
15788211 i I.I)
15777127 lll.tl
16115758 lli.i)
16*14696 HI.H
16123346 HI 11
16131718 HI II
16141386 lll.H
16I487B3 HI.H
141571)1 iii.il
Lake Fork Dry
Western Gulch
!.!! I!
.n .n
H .n
.it .H
.n n
.10 01
.1) II
If (D
.11 II
II .11
li .ID
.It .(I
.11 .11
.11 .CD
)1 .90
II II
.11 .11
.11 .OS
1) .11
.11 11.2!
11 42 99
It H.I?
.91 58.71
.!( 1H.IO
.9) 191.19
(( lli.ll
.91 lll.H
.it HC.H
91 191. 1)
(i llt.Ct
41 lit. 19
11. il ill II
18.31 ill.il
24 88 ill II
31 19 lll.ll
3S.26 lll.H
41 11 lll.ll
4i! n it i. ti
54.2) 111 1)
59.44 Itl El
44. 5S ill til
c.9.47 ltl.lt
74.24 199.99
78.87 HI. IF
81 35 111. II
G/.69 111 00
71.92 111. JO
Bluebell
Lateral
.H
.11
C.H
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.10
.10
H
.11
.10
.11
.(I
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
JOT
n. i»
98.71
lll.lt
HI.H
lli.ll
lll.ll
HI.H
lll.ll
lli.ll
HI II
IK H
tll.ll
lll.ll
HI.H
HI.H
lll.ll
110.11
ill li
HI II
HI.H
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.H
IH.II
lli.ll
lit 1)
iSS:!S
Percentage
Class Lake
C Fork
t.EC C.U
O.H 1 II
C.ll .11
69.65 .10
Hl.lt II
lll.tl 19
lll.ll .1C
HI.H II
HI.H .11
lll.ll .11
111.01 .11
Hl.l) .1)
lit II .11
Ht.ll .71
lll.tl 18 32
lli.ll 39.89
lll.ll 42.51
lll.H £.36
lil.H 63.46
111 II /2.91
lil.H 81.711
lll.ll 71.11
lll.H 98.11
11). 11 lll.ll
llt.K HI.H
lll.tl lll.tl
HI.H HI.H
111 11 HI 19
HI.H Ht.ll
HI.H 119.11
lit (1 :({.(!
119.9} HI 11
1M.K HI.H
lll.il HI.H
HI.H lll.tl
Itl.ll Hi. 19
lll.ll lll.ll
lll.ll lll.tl
lll.tl Ht.ll
lli.ll HI 19
IH.II lll.ll
lll.ll 119.11
lll.H lll.ll
Hl.l) lll.H
ttl.tl lll.ll
lll.ll III.II
lll.H lll.lt
119.10 Hl.d)
of salt
North C
Lateral
l.ll
1 II
14.79
Ht.ll
lll.ll
IH.II
HI.H
lll.tl
Ht.ll
111.11
IH.II
lll.ll
lll.ll
111.11
H0.it
119 II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
Ht.ll
lli.K
111.11
HI.H
lll.ll
HI 1C
111 11
lll.H
lll.H
lulu
Hl.tl
IH.II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
tll.ll
lll.H
mill
IH.II
IH.II
Hl.l)
Hl.lt
ill. II
lll.ll
lll.H
iSI.SS
reduction r
CA
South C
Lateral
l.ll
l.ll
34.7V
HI II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HC.H
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI II
lll.ll
111.11
HI.H
lll.ll
lll.ll
111.91
lll.ll
ill. II
lll.H
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
tll.lt
lll.H
III II
lll.ll
HI II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.lt
lll.ll
iculred from each
WL
US Dry Purdy
Gulch
!::; ::;
l.H I.It
51.85 0 II
HI.H 68i7/
lll.ll ill.lt
lll.ll lll.H
HI.H HI.H
i!!:!! i!!:!!
lll.ll HI II
HI.H lll.ll
lll.H lll.H
lll.ll lll.ll
ill H Lll.ll
lll.ll lll.ll
lll.H lll.H
lll.ll lll.ll
lll.ll lll.ll
HI.H IIJ.II
111.01 lll.ll
HI.H 1)1.11
lll.ll in.li
Ht.ll lll.ll
lll.ll Ht.ll
HI.H HI.H
lll.ll HI.H
lll.ll lll.ll
Hl.il lll.ll
Ht.ll lll.ll
lll.ll lll.ll
lll.ll lll.ll
Ht.ll lll.ll
HI II HI II
lll.ll HI II
lll.ll lll.ll
IH.II lll.ll
lll.ll lll.ll
lll.ll 111 H
llt.tl lll.ll
lll.lt lll.lt
Hi. II lll.ll
tll.ll HI II
lll.ll lll.ll
lll.ll Itl.ll
lll.ll lll.ll
III It III II
111.11 iiiiio
111:11 i,1!:!!
Individual
Uteland
,,,
1 II
1*11
seiu
HI.H
HI.H
IH.II
tll'll
lll.H
Ht.ll
lll.ll
lll.il
lll.ll
IIC .10
lll.tl
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
Hi .19
tll.ll
HI. II
101.11
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.H
}:::!!
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI.H
lll.ll
lli.ll
lll.ll
lll.H
111 II
lll.ll
lll.ll
Ht.ll
lit it
HI.H
111:1!
canal
Redcap
,;.
till
6?i47
111.91
111,11
111,11
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
IH.II
HI.H
lll.ll
HI.H
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
111,11
HI.H
HI.H
lll.ll
lll.ll
lli.ll
HI.H
Itl.ll
Itl.ll
HI.H
HI.H
lll.ll
IH.lt
Ht.ll
110 It
lll.ll
HI.H
|!| !|
mill
||;
iiiiii
A Pioneer
35.6?
61.41
81.18
76.74
HI. 'it
lll.ll
iii.ii
IH.II
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
iii.ii
HI II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI. SI
HI. II
ill. II
lll.ll
Hl.lt
Dl.lt
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
tll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lit ill
mill
HI.H
HI H
HI.H
i!j!
i I!H
IH'H
in ||
HBioi
UNI
B Pioneer
22.S
46.28
M«|
.VI
lll.ll
lll.lt
HI.H
lll.ll
ill II
lllill
lll.ll
lll.lt
lll.tl
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
I!!!!
HI.H
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
IH.II
ti!!
HI.H
HI.H
HI.H
in ••
!••.••
111'. II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lit II
!••.••
lll.ll
lll.H
lll.ll
lll.H
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
III 11
Itl.ll
lll.ll
UI.IS
to
I-1
I
-------
Table 4-3. (continued)
% of total Annual
canal salt Cost
reduction (S)
29. lb
41.63
uite
73.99
8c 13
84 11
6b.9S
Iff c9
87 91
88 55
89 23
E9 79
89 91
93.16
15.8
91.98
93.41
94.42
75.39
95.99
96.36
9o.3l
97.19
r/.si
77 78
98.05
98.31
98.58
98.83
99.17
V7.31
97.51
99.75
99. tl
97.91
99 91
99.72
77.73
99 94
97.9s
99 76
79i99
19). 31
JI58S84
10VW11
4257168
737724?
OH
8718173
9385465
9331121
11181?!!
H3S2914
1)541717
11751823
107A761
1C976463
11132431
S
11821934
12U3396
12894177
13345411
13571834
14263643
14431772
14*92248
14751159
14911918
ISI7V482
la^3ttUft
1519M48
15553217
15718421
1SBU722
15949188
15971151
15779177
lb9BB2ll
15997127
16)IS9b8
16114496
16049186
UI4378J
I6957H9
Percentage of salt reduction required from each Individual canal
Rocky Point
11.28
43.68
68.80
88.66
111.10
111.11
HI. 1C
110.11
US. II
111.99
lll.CC
HI.II
HI 10
111.10
lll.CI
113.10
Hi. It
133 II
III.II
111.11
III.II
111.11
ICC II
111.11
lll.CC
HI 19
lie. n
111.99
ilC.CG
119 99
HI. 1C
11991
lll.CC
199.11
Hi.Ct
III.II
IIC.CC
111 II
ICI.CI
iccioc
111.11
llt.Ct
ill.)]
III.II
113.11
iti.tr
191.91
IIC.CC
13) 3)
Gray Mountain
HI II
III 19
tie cc
110 99
HI II
199 19
HO OC
191 19
iec co
HI 11
HI II
119.99
lll.CI
199.99
110.00
13) 99
lIC. It
111.99
lSS.ll
181. II
tdl.il
loe.tt
ill 91
HI.CI
19J.3I
lll.CC
191 II
I0i.ll
199.19
101.11
lli.19
ICC II
199 19
HI il
HI II
HI.II
HI. 93
111.11
111.19
ICI.II
194.99
lll.CC
HI 1)
1(1. II
111.11
lit II
lOt'lC
191.39
Pleasant Valley
72 4C
111 1)
III. II
HI 11
1CI.CI
III.))
ltt.lt
DI. n
HI.II
110. IS
}I|.CO
199.91
Hl.il
119.91
HI.II
III.II
111.11
lit. 19
1ft. (1
IH.1I
III.II
111.19
HI 1C
111 13
1IC. 1C
119.11
III. 1C
111.19
HI CI
HI tl
lll.lt
1)9.11
111.11
HI 13
IIC.il
1)1 1)
HI. 1C
HI 19
i)i!ii
HI 1C
HI r<
HI.II
111.11
llt.CI
111.11
HI. 1C
111.41
tec tc
111 19
CANAL
Myton Towns Ite
8 14
41 a
£8
118.81
1)1.19
KM!
Ht.IC
199 II
III.II
HI.II
111.11
119 II
ill II
HO.CI
111.11
Ill.t)
111 II
HI. It
ml n
Hi:!!
HI. 1C
111.13
III.II
119.11
lil.il
191 99
HI II
HI. 9)
III CC
199.99
lll.CI
111.11
10l.il
191.91
191. CC
HI.II
lii.CI
HI II
ilC.il
111.11
ICI.II
111.19
HI.II
111.11
HI li
191.11
Ouches ne Feeder Pahcease
lll.CC
iii.n
i:::.,
161 18
mill
IS!!!
HI.CC
101.19
nc.ee
101.91
101.11
HI.II
101.11
19) 93
190.00
111.19
Id. II
111.11
111.11
111.11
iiiji
168 8C
111.11
mill
168 66
119.11
lll.Ot
HI. I)
111.11
111.11
lll.il
111.13
It Ml
111.11
HI.II
101.19
IOC. II
111.99
i!!:!i
lit 166
111.11
111.91
119.09
HI .it
191.9)
C.CI
1 II
C II
91.11
HI.II
111.11
Hi. II
HI II
111.11
191.91
ill. 1C
III.II
HI.II
111.11
111.91
Hi. II
111.11
11) »
mill
119.19
iiii!
mill
IIC.II
HI.II
IIC.CC
HI.II
HI.II
11). II
111.11
HI.II
Hi. 1C
119.19
HI.CI
HI.II
III II
HI.II
lll.Ct
119.11
mill
111.11
HI.CI
111.91
IIC.CC
110.19
River-dale
i 19
1 il
I-!52
44.24
54.27
u.n
n.M
77.44
81.52
8».I2
74.C1
78.57
HI. 1C
111.91
lH.lt
HI 31
!!!::
Ill 81
!,!:SS
ICC.CI
HI 1)
IIC.II
111.19
111.11
111.19
111.11
HI.II
111.11
III 91
HI il
111.11
HI. CO
HI II
111.11
111.11
HI CI
HI.II
HI.CI
111.11
III.II
III.II
ill (1
lll'll
Ouray School
i.u
£6.87
M:i4
88.82
HI.II
I:,:.!
HI II
HI II
Hl.il
111.11
Hi. II
110.11
iOI.il
HI.II
111.11
111.11
lit. II
119.11
HI.II
111.00
}JS;j{
HI ill
119.11
i'Mi
mill
HI II
HI.II
109.11
lll.il
HI.II
161 66
IIC.II
119.11
i.!:,'.
ICI.II
111.11
111.11
HI.II
HI.II
111.11
HI.II
HI.II
ICC. II
HI.II
N)
VO
to
I
-------
Table 4-4. Optimal canal linlnq program for the Price-San Rafael-Muddy Creek Drainages, Utah.
Xof
total
canal
salt
reduc-
tion
1.66
5.41
17.14
29 17
41.18
48.14
54.75
65.77
71.37
75 61
78.37
81 14
B3.55
85 37
86 8?
88.34
89.73
91.16
92.34
94.39
93.99
94.52
94.85
9!>:79
96.18
96.36
96.64
96.91
77.16
97.41
7765
9788
98.11
98.33
98.54
98.75
98.96
99.16
9935
9954
79.72
99 9C
99.74
99.76
99.97
99.9?
HI II
Annual
Cost
56131
189183
628257
1I96S23
1547567
1872410
2193916
2451820
2731563
3114123
3226771
3378272
3527195
3673667
3783311
3877547
397IID4
4061871
4152063
4241017
4316498
4361687
4411121
4426051
4451666
4476981
45121 12
4526742
4551219
4575413
4599362
4623163
4646524
4669752
4692754
4782627
4814591
4826362
4847948
4869IS2
4891578
4911551
4916461
4918312
4921129
4721932
4923721
Percentage of salt reduction required from each individual canal
Carbon
4.28
12.53
21.16
27.24
£fl
45.77
51.21
56.31
61.13
65.71
71.13
74.15
7B.I6
81.79
85.35
111
98.11
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
ill. II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
111.01
101.11
lll.ll
ill. II
lll.ll
111.00
101.00
lll.ll
ICI.II
111 II
lll.jl
HI. IB
HI. CO
lll.ll
lll.ll
iii:!o
Price-
Wellington
l.ll
28^5
38.08
46.70
54.77
62.37
B2i66
88.72
94.47
79.94
100.00
100.00
100.11
100.00
100.11
100.10
100.01
101.11
111.00
100.01
lll.ll
ill. II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
111.00
100,01
100.11
tl
100.01
101,00
100.00
111,10
101,10
111,11
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.il
Spring
Glen
ill
I!H
iii
2.12
7.15
11.99
16 57
21.91
28^6
32.71
36.27
39 69
42.95
46.18
49.18
51.96
54.74
57 41
59 97
62 15
64.84
67.15
69.38
73.H
75.65
77.62
7? 52
81.37
03.16
84.70
86.60
88.2S
89.85
91.41
92.73
97-27
98.64
99.99
lll.ll
HI II
}!»:!!
Cleve-
land
l.ll
i.ie
X.Jk
3:8
64.78
75.32
H5.26
94.64
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI. CO
lll.ll
HI II
lll.ll
tie ii
HI.II
iii.n
HI.II
llO.lt
HO.II
lll.ll
110.11
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
110.11
HO.II
lll.ll
HI.II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
110.01
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI II
HO.II
111.19
lll.ll
lll.ll
100.11
101.19
HI.II
111.13
HI 91
iiiJi
Hunt-
ing ton
1 10
7.71
18.11
27.73
36.71
tl'ji
aril
86.11
91 60
96.92
191.30
HI. El
ill. II
111.10
111.10
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI II
ill II
HE. 10
110.11
111.00
HO.II
HI II
HI II
lll.ll
111.10
HI. El
HI II
119.11
lll.ll
lll.ll
Hi II
HI.II
HI 91
llt.il
lll.ll
HI. El
HI. 19
HI II
111 19
HI El
HI IB
lll.ll
HI. it
111. CO
North
Hunt-
ing ton
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
!:!!
1.75
15^9
21.16
24.39
28.43
32.27
35.94
37.44
42.81
46.11
49.19
52.15
54.91
57.64
61.28
»2.83
65 28
67.65
69.95
/2.16
74.31
76.3?
78.41
M.36
.26
84.11
85.89
Vl'tf
92.51;
74.14
9b 66
77.15
98.61
HI II
HE. IE
109.90
HI. El
ill!:!!
CANAL
Cottonwood
Hunting ton
8.17
28i74
II
51.31
54.91
59.25
63.37
67.26
71.77
74.49
77.35
81.05
34.11
87.04
89.85
92.55
95.13
97,62
111.01
111.00
111.01
HI. El
lll.ll
111.10
110 00
100.00
110 II
HI. El
lll.ll
111.01
111,11
HI. 01
HI.II
HI. IE
100 II
lll.ll
HI II
lll.lt
HI.II
110.00
HI.II
lll.lt
HI 10
HE. II
!!!!!
Manmoth
ii!
1:8
1.75
6.11
11.9?
15.69
20.16
24.39
22.43
32.27
35.94
39.44
42.80
46.01
49.09
52.05
54.90
5764
1,1.29
62.H3
65.28
67.65
69.9S
72.16
74.31
76.J9
78.41
81.36
82.26
84.11
8S.89
9L97
92.S8
94.14
95.66
V7.1S
98.61
HI. 13
HI.II
HI.II
HE.II
101. U
lll.ll
Clipper
Western
J3
66.83
111.10
I!!!!
110.11
100.00
lll.ll
HI.II
HI.II
HI.II
110.11
111.00
110.00
100.01
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI.II
lll.ll
lll.ll
mill
HI.II
HI.II
lll.ll
HI.II
lll.ll
lll.ll
IH.ll
lll.ll
HI.II
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI. If
lll.ll
HI II
HI.II
HI.II
iis;:
Blue North
Cut
Mi .iff
l.ll 21.91
l.ll 27.74
l.ll 34.12
!:!! U
1.21 51 91
6.43 55 85
11.3ft 60.51
16.13 64.93
21.45 69.11
24.65 73.1?
28.65 76.87
32.46 81.47
36.11 83.92
37.57 87 21
42.91 9I.3S
46.18 93.36
49.14 96.26
52.08 99.04
54.71 lll.ll
S7.62 lll.ll
61.23 lll.ll
62.76 lll.ll
65.19 lll.ll
6754 lll.ll
69.82 lll.ll
72.12 HI.II
74.14 lll.ll
76.21 lll.ll
78.21 lll.ll
31.14 HI.II
82.02 lll.ll
83.85 111.19
85.63 111.10
9i:» HMI
92.26 HI.II
93.81 lll.ll
95.31 lll.ll
96.79 lll.ll
98.22 lll.ll
99.62 lll.ll
HI.II 111.01
HI.II tll.ll
lll.ll lll.ll
lll.ll HI.II
HI.II lll.ll
Holen
I.OI
till
l.ll
2*53
7.38
11.96
16.31
21.41
24.31
34^4
38.17
41.25
44.21
47.15
49.78
52.41
54.92
57.36
49.71
61.96
64.14
66.26
68.31
71.27
72.19
74.15
75.85
77.SV
79.29
81.94
82.54
84.11
85.62
89.'?4
91.11
72.64
93.94
ft*
77.66
South
l.ll
III
l.ll
l.ll
I!TS
6.11
11.99
1S.69
21.16
24.39
28.43
32.27
3594
39.44
KB
49.09
52.15
54.90
67.64
60.28
62.83
72.'l6
ft)
78.41
80.36
82.26
84.11
85.89
87.63
95:66
97.1S
98.61
100.01
mill
King
l.ll
!.H
I.H
i.n
51!
2.53
7.38
11.96
16.31
H
34.94
38.17
ftfi
47.15
49.78
52 41
S4'.92
57.36
59.71
61.96
64.14
66.26
68.31
71.27
/2.19
74.15
7S.85
77,59
79.29
81.94
82.54
84.11
H562
57.19
88.53
IMS
92.64
Y3.94
95.21
76.45
97.66
98.84
lll.ll
Emery
l.ll
l.ll
21.84
4S./3
67.98
88.78
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI.II
HI.II
lll.ll
111.00
101.11
HI II
HIJI
lll.ll
Hi: II
111.10
lll.ll
111.00
111.10
10E.OO
100.00
Hi. II
101.11
100.11
101.11
HI.II
lll.ll
10i:il
110.01
101.11
lll.ll
HI.II
ill!!
HI.II
lll.ll
HI. El
lll.ll
Inde-
pendent
18^
28.1?
37.25
45.71
53.64
61 1?
£8
Ii
HI.II
HMI
HLOl
HMI
HI II
HI.II
ill. II
119.11
lll.ll
I!!!!
111.00
HI.II
HI.II
HI.II
lll.ll
HI.II
HO.II
HI.II
HI.II
lll.ll
111.01
101.10
111.01
110.01
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI II
HI.II
lll.ll
lll.ll
VO
to
I
-------
Table 4-5. Optimal canals and major lateral lining program for the KcElmo Creek Drainage. Colorado.
% of total
canal salt
loading
1.17
1.91
5.3<
P:I!
35.26
39.93
46.37
53. 45
64.17
67.23
75-52
82.34
86.97
88.67
91.66
9J.4I
93.86
95.22
76.41
77 '76
98.11
78.21
78.41
78.58
78.76
78.72
79.17
77.22
79.36
77.51
7761
77.76
79.84
79.88
97.71
8.8
99.95
79.76
99.77
99.97
79 98
77 98
79.7?
79.77
111. II
Annual
Cost
<$)
6329
12263
51543
2876S1
373111
511288
598623
752439
737817
1245752
14I65S4
1515242
1A28821
1716735
2172884
2174678
2272311
2383318
2463178
2541215
2612228
2657111
2678472
2715346
2727437
2743275
7754874
2783419
2776348
281711)
2821664
2834147
2846258
28S33M
287B73
2372737
2874777
2877133
28/8516
2877239
2tf77764
2389689
2881189
2032191
JI8JJ27U5
2B83472
28841S3
U- Lateral
a 09
.il
Dl
.11
.01
.11
.11
.11
II
.11
.11
.97
12.26
17.74
26.54
32.75
33.46
43.72
48.61
53.14
57.37
61.13
65.15
68.54
71.84
74.76
77.71
81.71
85171
88.33
91.64
92. U5
74.77
V7.ll
98.75
ili.lt
lll.il
111.19
111.11
til. 11
lli.tl
HO. II
Hi. 1C
HI II
lll.CI
111.11
lli.il
1)1 19
ltl.it
Good! and
Lateral
91
.11
.11
Cl
.19
.11
.19
99
.11
.Cl
.11
.48
.99
17.67
24.65
31. S2
36 E8
42.23
4A27
51.74
56 28
61.35
64.16
67.7b
71 14
74.34
77.37
6C.24
85*58
88.96
°9.43
72.79
74.87
96.76
78.76
191.lt
191.11
lll.H
HI II
111.11
itO.il
lll.li
Hl.Ci
too ii
Hi. II
119.1)
HI Ii
11). 19
itl.il
Lone Pine
Lateral
.It
II
.11
II
.11
.11
.11
11.32
22.32
31.87
41.26
47.72
S4.4I
61.42
65 71
71 7G
75.59
79.74
81.66
87.32
78.72
7J.91
94.95
7? 72
121 11
Iff 1C
lli.tl
IIS II
111.11
111.11
ltl.lt
Hi II
111.11
11 .1C
11 .11
lIC II
lil.ll
lll.H
11) K
1CI.II
tll.H
lil.ll
III.II
III.II
111.11
ii!' it
101 .it
111 »
111) II
Percentage
Corks :rew
Lateral
ot
.il
.11
.H
.11
II
H
.91
78
it 82
18.12
23.81
28 78
33.71
38 14
42.14
45.75
47.21
52.41
55.43
W.25
61.71
63.42
65 79
68.11
71.16
72 17
74.12
/5.76
77.71
V7.17
81. Cl
82.54
84 92
85 45
8i 82
38 13
St> It
V163
91 81
Oi.fi
94. (6
75 11
»!*
73.14
79.18
lit tl
of salt reduction required from each
Moonlight
Lateral
i.n
7.56
41.19
61.82
81.21
75.16
HI tl
111.11
111.11
lii.H
111.11
III.II
111.11
111.11
111.11
111.10
III.II
HI. IB
lll.H
101.01
11) II
1(1.11
HI 11
Hi H
HI. II
ICi II
1)1.11
Ki.il
HI. II
lit. II
HI 31
ltl.lt
III. 11
ill. 01
111.09
iil.il
111.11
lll.li
131 «
lit. (6
H) 09
Hi tl
1)1.11
ill It
10) It
lli.tl
111 9)
HI U
11). 1)
iil.tt
CANAL
individual
Ute Upper Lower May
Mountain Hermana Henna na Lateral
Lateral
65 87 .11 II
HI II .11 Cl
HI 11 .11 .11
lll.H .11 .11
H9.il II 1)
III II .11 II
111.11 .11 II
111. 19 .44 3.75
HI II 19.93 21 12
lit. II 11.78 31 47
llt.ai ll.£ 41 71
lll.H 48.78 48 88
ill. 19 56.37 7629
HI II 63.21 62 81
111.11 »7.4J 18.82
101.11 75.11 74.31
tll.H 81.33 77.14
lit. 19 85.14 &S.«7
HI 11 H7.69 68 j)
HI 19 9.1.75 92.31
111.1) 97.62 76.14
:H.IC III. 1C «7.54
ia: 11 ni.ia HI. ii
lll.tl Hi. II III.II
111.10 111.11 111,11
1:1 ii :;i te 111,11
HI.II IH.II iii.ii
111 II HI ii lll.H
1)1 II III.II lil.ll
111 tl Hi Cl lll.H
111 tl lil.ll 1)1.11
lll.li Id II lll.lt
III 1) HI.II 111.11
HI It lll.CI 1(1.11
119.1) III 19 111,11
'.II. Ii III. 1C 111.11
111 Ii :ll.ll 111.11
lll.lt lil.ll lll.il
lll.CI HJ.tl IH.II
Hl.Ci lll.tl ICI II
ni H HI m HI.II
:!!.!! HI. 1C 1(1. (1
111.11 Hi i) III.II
HI.II iiC.it 111.11
131.19 1)0 II 111 H
HI.II Hi t HI It
ID). II 119. 1 ill II
ItC.C. ICI.il lil.ll
Hi.il lll.tl III 11
tll.H lit. II tlt.lt
.11
.11
.H
,11
.11
.11
H
.11
.10
it
1.30
735
15.17
V. 17
28 41
44,21
3953
44.45
49 11
53.23
i7.18
61.87
64.34
67.61
/1.48
74.57
76.35
78.76
81.45
83.81
86.17
80.23
VI 29
72 26
94 16
TS.7V
97.72
99.41
llt.ll
HI 11
llt.ll
Hl.il
HI.II
lll.H
HI.II
itC.lt
HI.II
lll.CI
lll.H
lll.H
canal
Garret
Ridge
.11
ill
'i!
'ii
in
in
.99
.11
7.S4
14.87
21.47
27.51
12.77
J8.I4
4267
47.11
51.12
54.76
5U.26
61.55
64.64
67.55
71.31
«.72
75.41
17.7k
81.11
82.14
64.18
86.13
8.11
.81
91.52
91.18
94.7;
96.31
97.78
77.21
HI.II
191.11
llt.ll
111.11
mill
HI.II
HI H
East
Lateral
l.ll
l'll
ill
'll
ii
7i61
73.71
111.11
HI.II
HI.II
111.91
lll.H
IH.II
HI.II
Hl.il
HI.II
HI.II
Hl.lt
111.11
HI.II
lil.ll
lll.H
HI.II
HI.II
lll.H
111.11
III.II
lll.H
lll.H
lll.H
III.II
HI.II
lll.H
111.01
111.01
111.11
111.11
lil.ll
lll.H
lll.H
Hl.Cf
HI H
\\\M
191.91
131 II
lll.lt
West
Lateral
.11
'll
ill
.11
.91
II
.11
.11
.11
II
4li94
86.14
111.11
HI II
111.11
HI.II
HI II
111.11
111.11
111.11
HI.II
lll.il
lll.H
HI.II
HI H
HI.II
111.11
lll.H
HI.II
lll.H
HI.II
HI.II
HI.II
HI.II
lll.H
til II
HI.II
Hlilt
lll.H
lll.li
111.11
IH.II
lll.H
lll.H
Hartman
Draw
l.ll
I'M
mill
110.11
HI. ii
HI.II
Hi. II
III II
HI.II
111.11
tll.H
lil.ll
HI.II
III.II
HI.II
111.11
HI.II
111.11
HI.II
lll.lt
ill.lt
111.11
111.11
HI.II
mill
lll.H
III.II
HI.II
HI.II
tll.H
iliill
111.11
HI.II
HI.II
lll.H
HI H
III.II
lll.H
111.11
111.11
lll.H
HI.II
III.II
HI.II
HI II
lll.H
Main
Canal
1 it
l.ll
l.ll
l.il
1 II
l.ll
1 II
l.ll
1 H
76 58
111.11
HI II
HI.II
111.11
IH.II
HI.II
III.II
111.11
lll.U
111 II
HI. It
111.11
111.11
111.11
111.11
111.11
111 II
111.11
ill II
!,!!,
lll.H
111.11
111.11
111.11
111.11
111.11
111.11
lll.H
111.11
111.11
j|j:jj
111'. 91
111.11
IH.II
HI II
111 II
lll.H
I
N)
VO
-------
Table 4-5. (continued)
% of total
canal salt
loading
1.17
1.91
5.32
22.96
29.45
35.26
3V 93
46.39
S3 45
64.17
67.23
72 42
75.51
78.32
82.34
86.09
8869
90.66
92.40
93.86
9S.22
96.41
9V. 16
97.76
98.01
98.21
98.40
9B.b8
98.76
98.92
99 17
99.22
77.36
99.51
99,63
99.'6
99 84
99.88
99 9i
99.92
99.94
99.9S
99.96
99.97
99.97
99.98
99.98
99.97
99.99
lll.ll
Annual •
Cost •
($)
6329
12263
S1S43
289681
511288
5V8623
752439
937817
124S752
1406SV4
1515242
1628821
173H584
1916735
2072884
2194678
2292311
2383318
2463178
2541215
2612228
265VII1
2698472
271SJ46
i/27437
2743275
2756874
2771245
2783411
2796348
28I9HI
2834147
2846258
28*314
2B6tS76
2H70Z73
2872V3/
2874997
2B7/CU
2B78SI6
2B792I9
2879964
2881681
2881389
2882091
7832785
2883472
2884153
Percentage of
from each
Main
Canal #1
l.ll
I II
l.ll
.11
.11
ti
.11
61
16.24
47.20
36.84
45.11
5317
49.99
66.28
72 13
77 30
82.17
81.68
91.88
94.79
78.45
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
111.10
lll.ll
ill. 11
111.00
lll.ll
iit.oe
iti.it
iii.ii
191.11
HI II
HO 1C
Hill
110 0!
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI. II
101.01
100.01
lll.ll
1(1.11
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
Hi II
lll.ll
Lower
Arlckaree
i.tt
959
44 18
69.12
83.19
111.01
110 ii
1)1 1)
idt.CC
111 11
HI II
1)1 11
1II.IC
lll.ll
HI 11
111.1!
Ili.CC
111.11
HI II
111.01
lll.ll
HI II
110.11
111 11
101.11
111 31
100.il
lll.ll
101.11
lll.ll
10I.IC
111.11
101 01
lll.ll
lll.ll
111.31
HI 1C
111.31
lit. II
lll.ll
HO.OI
101.10
til II
lll.ll
HI 01
111 1!
iOI.il
til. II
!C( II
111 II
salt reduction required
individual canal
CANAL
6ft!/
1 II
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
8.43
22.91
34.78
44.7«
£3,3!
61 72
67.24
73.02
TV 21
8289
87 14
71 12
945?
V7.88
111.01
111.11
HO 01
131 J)
lliiii
lll.ll
HI II
Hl'd
101.01
HO 10
101 11
HI II
lll.ll
HI. II
HI II
Hi II
131.11
HI II
191.11
HI II
lil II
1IC. It
lll.ll
ICC. II
lll.ll
ICC II
111 01
HI II
•II.II
Fo'rd?/
C.ll
l.ll
l.ll
HI II
lll.ll
HI 01
lil.il
III II
HI II
lll.ll
Hi. II
lll.ll
lll.ll
lil. II
lil l(
HI 11
HI It
193.19
Hi. 19
191.11
HI II
llt!ll
HI It
1)1.11
HI (1
ni.ai
111.19
Hl.il
til (1
III 1)
Ht.il
til. II
tCI.lt
til. 11
191.01
lll.ll
lll.ll
lll.ll
tli.II
lll.ll
lit. II
199.11
190 Cl
190.0)
lie. II
1)9 )g
HI tt
1)1. Jl
Hiqh-
line
i II
JS
4a!i2
61.57
7262
81.70
87.84
96.74
lll.ll
lll.ll
HI. 11
III 10
HI. CO
HO 01
190.11
111.11
100.11
100.11
HI 01
:!::!
ICliil
1)1.11
110.11
111.01
110. Cl
HO 0)
III 1C
ill i;
100 GC
HI 1)
HI 1C
111,11
III II
HI II
lll.ll
lil. II
HI II
HI II
HI II
111.10
iio.ei
lll.ll
Ili.CC
III.II
HI II
til. 11
I
10
vo
Below Totten Reservoir
Above Totten Reservoir
------- |