CLEA
WATER
QUALITY
EVALUATION
GRAND MESA PROJECT
COLORADO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION
DENVER,COLORADO
DECEMBER 1 971
-------
MATER OUALITY EVALUATION
OF THE
GRAND MESA PROJECT
COLORADO
/in evaluation of the Bureau of Reclamation's nroooscd Grand Mesa
Project indicates that with adequate treatment municipal, indus-
trial and other domestic waste loadinns should not siqnificantly
affect water quality for present and projected water uses in the
Project area. Therefore, no storaqe in Electric Mountain and
Cactus Park Reservoirs is needed to provide flow regulation for
maintaining satisfactory water quality in the Gunnison River.
The use of Project water for irrigation, municipal, and indus-
trial purposes will result in an estimated averane annual increase
of 3.0 no/1 in the total dissolved solids concentration of the
Colorado River at Lake Mead. The economic imnact of this salinity
increase upon water users below Lake Mead is estimated to be
$205,000 annually, based on 1970 economic conditions. Control
measures are recommended for incorporation into the construction
and operation of tne Project to mitinate the adverse effects of
increased salinity.
Environmental Protection Aqcncy
Reqion VIII
Denver, Colorado
December 1971
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
II. PROJECT IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY 3
LOCAL ECONOMY 3
WATER SUPPLY 4
WATER USE 5
POLLUTION SOURCES 6
PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS 7
III. HATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES 11
STORAGE FOR STREAMFLOW REGULATION 11
POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL 12
IV. CONCLUSIONS 14
V. RECOMMENDATIONS 15
VI. REFERENCES CITED 16
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This water quality evaluation has been prepared for the U. S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Reqion 4, Salt
Lake City, Utah, for inclusion in their feasibility report for the
Grand Mesa Project, Colorado. The Primary purposes of this eval-
uation are:
1. To determine the need for and value of separable reservoir
storaoe for streamflow renulation to control water quality;
2. To assess the overall impact of the proposed development on
water quality, both in and outside the Project area; and
3. To recommend, where applicable, water quality control
measures for the Project.
The evaluation was made of the effect of the Project in the Gunnison
River drainaqe area in West Central Colorado and dov/nstrean areas of
the Colorado River Basin.
This report has been prepared under the authority of and in
accordance with provisions of the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 IJ.S.C. 466 et seq.) and Executive Order 11507, dated
February 5, 1970, and at the request of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Section 3 (b) of the Act requires that consideration shall be qiven
to inclusion of storaoe for requlation of streamflow for the purpose
of water quality control, except that any such storaqe shall not be
provided as a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of
controllinq waste at the source. Section 7 of Executive Order 11507
requires the preparation of a reoort describinn the notential impact
of Federal water resource projects on water quality.
Sasic data for this evaluation were supplied by the ^rand Junction
Projects Office, Reoion 4, Bureau of Reclamation. The assistance and
cooperation qiven bv the U. S. Fish and Hildlife Service are also
nratefully acknowledqed.
PROJECT DESCIPTIOIN
The nroposecl Grand Mesa Project is located on the southern base of
Prand '1esa near the communities of Ccdarednc and Hotchkiss in the Gunni-
son River Basin of llest Central Colorado (see pane precedinn back cover).
The project will provide irrigation water for 28,270 acres, develop
5,000 acre-feet of municipal and industrial water, and nrovide reser-
voir-related recreation and fish and wildlife opportunities. Electric
-------
-2-
Mountain and Cactus Park Reservoirs will be the Project's train features.
Electric Mountain Reservoir will be formed by a dan on West Muddy Creek
about 1-1/2 miles above the West Muddy Ranger Station. Surplus flows of
West Muddy Creek supplemented by surplus flows of Cow Creek will be
stored in the reservoir. The Grand Mesa Canal will convey reservoir
releases and direct flows of intervening streams across the southern
slope of Grand Mesa to Cactus Park Reservoir serving Project lands
alono its route. Cactus Park Reservoir will be constructed on a Currant
Creek tributary approximately 4 niles east of Cedaredge. The Surface
Creek Feeder Canal will convey surplus flows of Surface and Younos
Creeks to the reservoir to supplement the Grand Mesa Canal inflows.
Reservoir releases will be made to the Cedaredqe Canal for conveyance
to Project lands and to municipal and domestic water delivery noints.
Project lands above the canal will receive water by exchange made
possible through storage regulation in Cactus Park Reservoir and
construction of the Fruitgrowers and Ward Creek Feeder Canals. The
feeder canals will convey Project return flows and surplus flows of
Hard and Surface Creeks to the existing Fruitgrowers Reservoir to
replace the exchange water used upstream. Approximately 5,000 acre-
feet of stabilized storage will be provided in existing reservoirs on
Grand Mesa for fishery and recreation purposes.
-------
-3-
II. PROJECT IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY
To evaluate the impact of a water resources development project
on water quality, it is necessary to examine the various factors that
influence water quality. The economy and water supply in an area
a'fect the amount and type of water use. Data must be developed on
the present and projected economy of the study area to estimate future
municipal and industrial use of Project water and the resultinq waste
loads. The same economic and demoaraphic data may also be useful in
evaluatino any water quality control measures incorporated into the
Project plan. The water use influences waste sources arid the quality
of water downstream from the point of use. Any chanqes in the quality
of water may have an economic impact on downstream water users.
LOCAL ECONOMY
Agriculture is the principal economic activity on Project lands.
Fruit nrowinq accounts for most of the aqricultural income. Dairying
and cattle raisinn occupy lesser roles. A fam manaqetnent survey
completed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1969 analyzed 32 Project
area farms operated by 36 families. The farms surveyed make up 7,800
acres, irriqated and non-irriaated, and are considered representative
of Project lands. The fams consisted of 11 full-time fruit farms,
5 livestock beef farms, 2 "Grade A" dairy fams, 1 sheep farm, 3 nen-
eral farms, and 10 nart-tine farms. The lands supported a total of
1,241 beef cattle, 204 hoas, 244 sheep, and 217 dairy cattle dispersed
over more tnan 4,000 acres. Because the climate in the Grand Mesa area
is favorable to nrowina fruit, it is exnected the trend will be from
livestock farmino and toward fruit orowino when a full water supply is
provided by the Proiect.
Limited employment is provided on Project lands by several small
coal mines, sawmills, and fruit packinq companies. The area is lo-
cated near Grand Mesa, the world's larqest flat-top mountain and
known for its outstandina recreational facilities. Tourism and vaca-
tioners are a major revenue source to the merchants of Cedareciae and
Orchard City durinn the summer months. The mild winters and nleasant
summers attract numerous retired oeople to the area, and it is for
this reason tnat population in the Project area is increasinn faster
than in the remainder of Delta County.
Cednredne and Orchard City ore the only incorporated communities
within the Proiect area. The town of Delta, located about ten miles
southwest of the Project area is the principal tradino center for the
area and is the County Seat for Delta County.
-------
-4-
Present nooulation in the Proiect area is estinated to be about
3,500. The proiect area is nrowinn faster than the surroundinn area
and a noderate annual nrov/th rate of 1.1S 0) is forecast throunh
2010. The nast, nresent, and future area nonulation is tabulated bo-
low.
Proicct Area Population
Conniinity
or Area
Cedarednc
Orchard City
Delta
Delta County
Proiect Area
1960
549
1,021
3,332
15,602
-
1970
581
1,163
3,694
15,286
3,500
1985
750
1,350
4,730
15,100
4,400
2010
940
1,670
5,500
5,450
Annual
Prow tii
Rate
1 i
-------
-5-
o* the Colorado River at Hoover Dan is 10,119,000 acre-feet^3). The
?roiect will deplete t!ie flow o' the Hunnison River bv 26,700 acre-feet
annually rcsultinn in an averane annual 'low of 852,200 acre-feet in the
Sunnison Pivcr nist below tie Proiect area, 1,520,605 acre-*eet in the
Punnison River at <>and Junction, and 10,092,300 acre-feet in the
Colorado River at Hoover Dan.
Tin? Proiect will deplete tic ilorth Fork Ounnison River by 30,000
acre-feet annual 1". Txcent for the lessuninn of strean fishery 'lows
durinn the winter months, tin's will not nffcct tie present or nro-
iected uses o* tie North Fork, since the water diverted into the firand
['lisa Canal fron thn intervcnino stn.-ars would be surplus to downstrean
.K-cds. Other water resource developments alonq the !lortii Fork will
not af'ect the uses of the river except as mentioned previously.
Alti-iOurM tie Paonia Project depletes the 'lorth Fork b" 'J,800 acre-feet
annually, Paonia Reservoir, uv renulatiiin tiie runoff fron f'uduy Creek,
improves the distribution o' flow in tiie 'lortn Fork. The calculated
mirirur» 'low o^ the Ilorth rork iust before its confluence witii tiie
r.iso.i River is 43 cubic feet ner second (1957-1969 period of record).
WATER USE
Irrigation is tne nrinar" water use in tie Proiect area. Approxinatelv
2!),Cin acres aro nresentl1' irrigated. The nrincinnl crons "rovm are
al'alfa, oastures, snail nrains, corn, a-inlcs, ne^cncs, cuerries, nears,
and a -tricots.
'later 'or domestic use in Cedaredno is sunnlicd 'ror snrinns on tnc
south slo'n: n* t'ie Rrand Mcsa. The Town o* Orchard Citv and the hones
below CcdaredT- receive a senarate sunnly of water nined in fron Grand
"esa. This water supnly systen is municinally owned by the Town of
Orc.iard Citv. Tnc nrcnard City systen also supplies water to farns
in the Proioct area. The Unner Surface Creek Hater Users Association,
wln'Cii iias a^proxinately 160 taps servinn about 310 persons, serves the
Cedar ''esa area. './a tor for the Ceclarodne state fish hatcherv is
supnlied nrinarily bv the Town of Cedarednc.
Tne predoninant recreational water use in the nroiect area is
trout fishinn in lakes, streans, and reservoirs on Hrand fl
Above the Prcicct area, the nain uses of fiunnison itiver v/ater are
for irrination and hvdroelectric nower neneration. [iefo/een tie Proiect
area and Lake fload, nunnison and Colorado River water is used nrinarilv
for irrination o* fruit crops in the Grand Valley Irrigation district,
and :r/droelectric poi/er neneration at filen Canyon Dan. 'Jelnw Lake Head,
Colorado River water is diverted for irrination, municipal, industrial,
livestock, and Hydroelectric power neneration uses witn irrination use
beinn nredoninant. Recreation and fishinn nave becone inportant on the
waters oe tie ilorth Fork drainane above tiie nroiect area and on the
Punnison and Colorado Rivers downstrean.
-------
-G-
The Pro.iect will supply annually 52,100 acre-feet of irrinatioii
water for 28,270 acres. Of this total, 7,430 acres will be new lands
and will receive a full supply while tiie renaininn 20,840 acres of
presently irriqated lands will receive a supplei.Hiiitnl sunply. A total
of 1,000 acre-feet v/ill be provided for municipal and industrial uses
and 3,600 acre-feet for use at the Cedaredne fish hatcher/. Tlie Uopcr
Surface Crook Valley '.later Users Association has requested 1800 acre-
feet per year of Pro.iect water from Cactus Park Reservoir *or nuni-
cipal and industrial uses. Since the reservoir is expected to
experience heavy recreational use, the Association will need to provide
complete treatment for the water to insure a safe supply. This would
be in accord with an American '.later '.jorks Association policy wnicn
states, "water withdrawn from multipurpose reservoirs for donestic
water supply purposes shall be niven the sane complete treatment as
those waters derived fron polluted sources." If the reservoir has
heavy motor boat usane, the treatment of the water would be further
complicated due to fuel and oil leakanc.
POLLUTION SOURCES
Increased salinity (total dissolved solids) of the lower Colorado
Piver will be the major water quality problem rosultinn from develop-
ment of the Proiect. Irrination is the activity of nan that contributes
most to tltc increase of salinity concentrations. Two factors associated
with irrination cause this increase. First, water is lost by evaporation
nnd evapotransoiration with no accompanyinn loss of salt, thereby caus-
ino salinity concentrations to increase. Secondly, the pickuo of salts
from irrinated lands in excess of quantities required for maintain!no
a salt balanceV causes an increase in salinity.
Fron neneral analysis of the project area, it is estimated that
new lands will contribute two tons of salt per acre or a total of 14,860
tons annually. It is believed that supplemental service lands have been
leached free of all but minor amounts of soluble salts and will add only
a small undeterminable amount of salt load to the river system. The rate
of salt pickup by irri nation is still larnely an unknown factor and tne
estimates may channe with additional detailed investinations. '.1. \i.
lorns™) estimated that nunicipal water use will add about 100 tons
of salt annually per 1,000 population. Thus, with a projected popu-
lation increase'of 1,950 in the Pro.iect area by 2010, 195 tons of salt
will bo added annually to the river svsten.
The domestic wastes in the Project area are presently treated
primarily bv individual septic tank facilities. The septic tanks v/ork
effectively in the Pro.iect area and will not have a significant effect
on the water quality of the river systems.
]7 Salt balance is defined as the removal of a quantity of salt equal
~~ to that applied in the irri nation water.
-------
-7-
Domestic wastes from the U. S. Forest Service recreational areas on
Grand '!csa are ncnerally contained in sealed vaults; however, a few
sentic tanks are in use.
It is expected that the future wastes associated with recreational
activities on the Grand Mesa and the nroposed reservoirs will be ade-
quately treated in systems that will not discliarqe treated effluent to
the lakes or reservoirs.
Range cattle and dairy operations are sources of untreated
ornanic wastes in the Project areas. Althouoh the quantity of waste
reachino the Gunnison River from these operations is not known, these
waste sources are not presently causina any known water quality problems
in the area.
Nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, heat and radioactive substances
dischamed to basin streams are emerm'nq water quality problems in
certain areas of the Colorado River Sasin. However, these water quality
problems are not expected to be siqnificant in the Proiect area durino
the period of study. 1,'ith adequate treatment of wastes at the source,
no water quality nroblens are anticipated from the other industries in
the Proiect area.
PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The na.ior characteristics which detemine the suitability of local
water sunnlics for irrination are the concentrations of total dissolved
solids, boron and the relative concentration of sodium to other cations
(sodium adsorntion ratio). Haters in the Proiect area have been demon-
strated by nast use to be suitable for irrigation of crops presently
nrown.
Upon completion of the Dm,iect the averane annual total dissolved
solids (IDS) concentrations of the i/atcrs at Electric Mountain and
Cactus Park Reservoir will be about 115 nn/1 and 65 mn/1 respectively.
The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of water to be used in trie
Project area is within the tolemnce limit of crons nrown. Soron
concentrations are low and, therefore, have no effect on irrinated crons.
It is assumed that in the future municipal and domestic wastes in
the Project area will be treated by a wastewater treatment plant
located near the Gunnison River. The estimated minimum flow of the
Punnison River oast the Proiect area which would be required to assim-
ilate the nrojected municipal and domestic waste load after treatment is
about 7.0 cfs. It is estimated that this flow will allow a dissolved
oxvoen concentration of 5.0 mq/1 to be maintained to meet the state
water quality standards criteria for this reach of the Runnison River
-------
-8-
as shown in the tabulation below. The assumptions used in calculating
the mininum flow requirements are as follows:
1. The Project area's population in 2010 will be 5,450.
2. Each population equivalent contributes 0.17 pounds of
five-day 20°C biochemical oxynen demand (BOD5J.
3. There will always be waste treatment facilities in the
Project area capable of removing 85 percent of the BODs
contributed by the entire population.
Tne lowest flow recorded at the U. S. Geological Survey naqinq stations
nearest the Project area has been 115 cfs, which is more than adequate
to meet the minimum flow required for waste assimilation.
Hater Quality Standards for Gunnison River
Desianated Uater Use
for Gunnison River Standards of Quality \J
from Confluence with Dissolved
Morth Fork to Confluence Oxycien Temp.
with Colorado River (mg/1) °F pH
'Jarm Hater Fishery >5 < 90 6.5-8.5
Industrial Water Supply
Salinity is the water quality parameter of major importance out-
side the Project area. The averaoe annual nresent modified total
dissolved solids concentrations of the Gunnison River at Grand Junction
and of the Colorado River at Lake Mead are about C46 and 760 nn/lt
respectively. (3) Trie total dissolved solids concentrations in tne
Gunnison Piver at Grand Junction and in the Colorado River at Lees
Ferry and all noints downstream nresently exceed U. S. Public Health
Service recommended limits for drinkino water. Project development
will cause an increase in these salinity concentrations. The averane
annual salinity increase is expected to be 18 mo/1 in the Gunnison
River at Orand Junction and 3 nn/1 in the Colorado River at Lake Mead.
The mineral quality of water discharged from Hoover Dam does not
fluctuate nreatly fron month to month because of the large amount of
water stored in Lake Powell and Lake Mead. However, the mineral
quality of the Gunnison River at Grand Junction does fluctuate widely
durinn the vear. One of the effects of the Proiect on water ouality,
T7 Adapted fron State of Colorado -Jater Quality Standards documents;
refer to state standards for specific lannuane and additional
criteria.
-------
-9-
in addition to those effects caused by water use, will be the seasonal
ciianno in the quantity of water discharned to the Gunnison River.
After the Proiect is built, v/ater that nreviously had flowed into the •
Gunnison River during the winter nontus and to a certain extent
durir.g the snrinn runoff neriocJ will be stored for irrination. With
the storane facilities, water will be available for release for irri-
gation nnd otner uses durino the full irrination season. Decreased
flows during the winter ronths present a potential for freezinq and
may result iii dananc to the fishery nnd habitat.
Gimnison River water is used to irrigate approximately 250 acres
of orcnard crops, 250 acres of corn, and iiOO acres of alfalfa in the
Red!and Mesa area o* Grand Junction. As a result of the Grand ftesa
Project, the average total dissolved solids concentration of the
Gunnison River durinn the irrigation season will be improved by
lowering the concentration from 714 ng/1 to C95 mg/1. This seasonal
improvement in water quality will result in an averare annual benefit
to tne Proiect of aoproximatcly $200.
The nost sionificant impacts fron the Project will be due to the
increased salinity concentrations in tne lower Colorado River where
salinity concentrations have already reached critical levels. Present
uses of lower Colorado Piver v/ater include irrinated anriculture in
Arizona and Southern California and nunicipal and industrial uses in
Arizona, California and llevada. The lower Colorado Piver is a major
source of supply for municipal and industrial users in the Metropolitan
Los Anaeles area and upon completion of the Central Arizona Project the
river will provide a water supply for metropolitan Phoenix. Studies (5)
by the Colorado River Basin '.later Quality Control Project of the Environ-
nental Protection Ancncy indicate that a 3.0 no/1 annual salinity increase
at Lake Mead will result in an average annual equivalent penalty cost]/
to v/ater users of about $205,000 based on 11J70 economic conditions.
The equivalent penalty cost include a direct cost of *!il42,000 and an
indirect cost of $63,000. Detriments to v/ater users in Mexico and to
recreation and fishery users in the Sal ton Sea are not included in the
estimates. Direct penalty costs are yield reductions for irrigated
anriculture, treatment costs for industrial users, and the acceptance
of undesirable effects or water softeninn expenditures for municipal
users. Indirect costs are spinoff effects on the secondary or supoortina
industries.
The impact of present and oroiected uses of Basin water on the
mineral quality of tlie Colorado Piver becomes oreater proceedinn down-
strean from Lake Mead. A pronressive increase in salinity concentrations
occurs in the downstream direction resulting principally from the salt
concentrating effects of consumptive users.
T/ A penalty cost is defined as the difference between the detriments
associated with the use of two different levels of water quality;
thus, it is based on similar economic conditions which permit the
cost effects of water quality to be isolated. Detriments are user
cost incurred when a specific quality of water is used.
-------
-10-
The quality of the Colorado River water delivered to Mexico is a
natter of considerable national and renional concern. Water supply
nenotiations with Mexico are presently beinn conducted by the
International Hater and Boundary Commission.
-------
-11-
III. WATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES
The Colorado River Basin states have established water quality
standards, which have been adopted by the Administrator of the
tnvironmental Protection Anency. However, due to the complexity of
the salinity problem in the Colorado River Basin, the establishment
of numerical mineral quality criteria for the Basin's interstate
waters has been delayed until sufficient information is available to
assure that such standards will be equitable, workable, and enforce-
able. (6) Nevertheless, accordinn to the former Assistant Secretary
of the Interior for VJater Pollution Control, (7) "it is the intention
of the Secretary that the Department of the Interior and the States
pursue active programs to lay tne foundation for settino numerical
criteria at somo future tine. These programs should focus on devis-
inn and demonstrating salinity control neasures and finding ways to
revise the lenal and institutional constraints that could impede the
implementation and enforcement of salinity standards."
In the interim before mineral quality standards are established
and while salinity control measures are being investigated, certain
neneral nuidelines (°) nave been formulated for use in evaluatinn
water resource projects such as Grand Mesa. These guidelines are
surnarized in the following statements:
1. Each proposed project must be examined for adverse effects
on water quality.
2. State and Federal agencies must be nade aware of the conse-
quences of project development to water quality deterioration
and of opportunities that nay exist for better guality control
on each project. All practicable means must be employed to
prevent deterioration of existing mineral quality conditions.
3. Each project feature nust be analyzed and justified in
accordance with the principles outlined in Senate Document 97.
The information presented in this report has ueen developed to
permit the proper evaluation of the ^rand Mesa Project in accordance
vrith the above nuidelines.
STORAGE FOR STREANFLOW REGULATION
Present and projected municipal, industrial and rural domestic
waste loads within and below the Project area can bo controlled with
adequate treatment at the source. Ttius, no storane in Electric
Mountain and Cactus Park Reservoirs is needed to provide flow regu-
lation to maintain minimum strcamflows *or the purpose of assimilatinn
residual omanic wastes.
-------
-12-
Hineral water quality will be denradcd on an annual basis as a
consenuence of municipal, industrial and irrination uses served by
water from this Project. However, durinq tlie irrination season, the .
avcrane dissolved solids concentrations of tlie Gunnison River will
be improved. This seasonal improvement has no sinnificant economic
innact between the Proiect area and Lake Mead. Therefore, no flow
roqulation for mineral quality control to protect uses above Lake
Mead is necessary.
Below Lake Mead, mineral quality deterioration by the Project
will cause downstream water users to suffer an annual economic loss
estimated at $205,000 which clearly indicates the need to incorporate
all oossible water quality controls in the Project. The larqe volumes
of water stored in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead result in the releases
from Lake Mead beinq fairly uniform in mineral quality renardless of
any seasonal or annual fluctuations in flow and quality of the Colorado
River and its tributaries above the reservoirs. Therefore, any requla-
tion of flow achieved by storane of presently available water in the
Project reservoirs will not chanqe the quality of water discharoed
from Hoover Uam.
In lieu of providinn storaae in Electric Mountain and Cactus Park
Peservoirs for mineral quality control of Project-induced salinity
increases below Hoover Dam, other salinity control measures within trie
Project area should be investinated. Any such measures found feasible
should be included in the Project plan.
POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL
Potential salinity control measures may be divided into two cate-
norics : water-phase and salt-phase. The former comprises possibilities
for imnrovinn water quality by auqmentinq the water supply, while the
latter included prospects for" inprovinn water quality by reducino the
salt input.
Several water-phase control measures described below appear to
have some merit and should be considered for incorporation into the
Project.
(1) Phrcatophvte eradication on Proiect lands and alonn canals
and drains could conserve water. It should be reconnizcd,
however, that Phrentoniivte eradication may result in loss
of wildlife habitat and winter protection for cattle and
shoep. Further study of this control measure would require
consultation with the Federal and State Fish and Pame
/Viencies.
(2) Hotter control of the quantity of water applied throunn con-
servation irrination, the use of irrination and croppinn
-------
-13-
nethods that best fit a particular soil, slope, crop, and
water supply, is another measure which appears to offer
possibilities for mineral quality imnrovenent.
(3) Installinn closed conveyance systems or lining ditches and
canals can result in In'nher delivery efficiencies and, con-
sequently, improved water quality. Proper land preparation
by nradinn and levelinn also conserves water.
Potential salt-phase control measures include the careful selection
of land to bn irrigated and the provision of better land drainaoe.
Those lands naturally hinh in alkaline or sodic salts should be elimi-
nated fron consideration in favor of soils having low natural salt
content. The initial Teaching of irriqated lands can be assisted by
installation of subsurface drainage systems adequately designed for
salinity control. Uith installation of such a drainaae system, the salt
load over a number of years may be reduced by prevent!no percolation to
deeper soils with higher salt content.
In order to minimize water quality proolems associated witi Project
construction activities, the Project contract documents should contain
clauses makinq it the responsibility of the contractor to comply with
all applicable federal, state, county, and local laws concernino
pollution of rivers and streams. This will require the contractor to
m've careful attention to pollution problems such as disposal of
sanitary wastes and production of sediment durinn construction.
It is anticipated that Electric Mountain and Cactus Park Reservoirs
will provide diversified recreational opportunities, such as picnickinq,
canninn, fishino, swimninn, and boating. Recreational uses expected
at the reservoir are potential sources of pollution that, if not prop-
erly controlled, could create local water quality problems both in the
reservoir and in downstream reaches of Uest Muddy and Currant Creeks.
Sanitary waste disposal systems with no surface effluent discharnes will
be required at all recreational areas, includino the Grand Mesa
recreation area. In the recreation mananement of Electric Mountain and
Cactus Park Reservoirs, boats with waste-holdinq tanks or containers
should be prohibited; or the tanks and containers sealed, unless fac-
ilities to receive and treat the contents are provided at aopropriate
locations. Provisions should also be made to require that fuel-dis-
pcnsinn equipment on docks be provided with safety features that will
prevent the accidental discharne of petroleum products to the reservoir.
The essential ^eatures of waste disposal facilities for recreational
areas should be submitted to the Environmental Protection Aqency for
review in the early stacios nf planning.
-------
-14-
IV. CONCLUSIONS
1. ilo storane in Electric Mountain and Cactus Park Reservoirs is
needed to nrovide flow renulation for maintainino satisfactory
water quality.
2. Municipal, industrial and irrination uses supplied by the Pro.iect-
doveloned water will increase the salinity (total dissolved solids)
concentration in the Colorado River at Lake Mead by 3.0 no/1.
This increase in salinity will result in an estimated avorane
annual equivalent penalty cost of $205,000 to users of lower
Colorado River water.
3. Penulation of flow achieved by storaoe of presently available
water in Electric Mountain and Cactus Park Reservoirs will not
channe the mineral quality of water discharged from Hoover Dan.
4. Project construction activities and wastes nenerated by recrea-
tional activities may cause water quality denradation in the
Electric Mountain and Cactus Park Reservoirs and '/Jest Muddy and
Currant Creeks unless adequate water pollution control neasures
are provided.
-------
-15-
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
To nitiqate the potential losses to water users result!no fron the
nronosed project, it is reconnended that:
1. The proposed pro.iect be operated in coordination with all
other federally-funded water resource proiects in the
Colorado River Basin to neet State/Federal water quality
standards.
2. Salinity control features he included as a part of the
proposed project to mitiqate the expected adverse effects
of tiie project on water quality and water uses. Sucn
nitination features should be included in the nroiect
authorization leqislation and provide for installation and
operation of salinity control measures in the nroiect area
nr any other area in the Colorado River Dasln where they
are found to be effective and efficient. Potential measures
include sealinn of saline wells and sprinas, interception
and tr?nsport of In'nhly saline waters to innervious evapor-
ation ponds, venetation nanaoenent, improvements in water
conveyance and irrination techniques, and demineralization.
3. Provisions be included in construction specifications to
assure that apnronriate steps are taken by the contractor
durinn construction to protect the quality of '.lest Muddy
Currant Creeks; and other streams affected by the Project.
4. The future wastes associated with recreational activities
on the Grand Vesa ?nd at the proposed Electric Mountain
and Cactus Park Reservoirs be adequately treated in systems
that will not discharne effluent to the lakes and reservoirs.
-------
-1C-
VI. REFERENCES CITED
1. Unpublished data -from the U. S. bureau of Reclanation, Grand
.1 unction Project Office.
2. U. S. Geological Survey Hater Supply Papers, "Surface ',-Jater
Supply of the U. S., Colorado River Basin."
3. U. S. Department of the Interior, "Huality of Hater, Colorado
P.iver Basin," Pronress Report No. 5, January, 1971.
4. '.•!. V. lorns, C. II. Hembree, and G. L. Oakland, "'.-later Resources
of the Upper Colorado River Basins - Technical Report, "Geo-
lom'cal Survey Professional Paper 441, 19G5.
5. U. S. Environmental Protection Anency, Renion IX, San Francisco,
California, "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River
3asin", to be published.
G. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, statement before
the Subcommittee on Irrination and Reclamation, Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives of
Colorado River Basin Pro.iect Legislation, January 30, 1963.
7. Frank C. DiLuzio, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Mater
Pollution Control, letter to the chairman, Technical '.Jater
Quality Standards Committee for the Colorado River Basin States,
February 12, 1968.
8. Frank C. DiLuzio, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Uater
Pollution Control, remarks before the Pacific Southwest Renion
Interaoency Committee, Las Veqas, Nevada, December 6, 1967.
-------
Fiqure 1. Location Map
Grand ftesa Project, Colorado
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |