PROCEEDINGS
eventh Session
February 15-17,1972
sj/egas, Nevada
1
CONFERENCE
In the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of
the Colorado River and its Tributaries - Colorado, New
Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
3725
SEVENTH SESSION
OP THE
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OP
POLLUTION OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS
OF THE COLORADO RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES -
COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA,
NEVADA, WYOMING AND UTAH
held at
Las Vegas, Nevada
February 15-17, 1972
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein 5
I. L. Dlckstein I1*
P. B, Smith 15
A. E. Williamson 28
J. Malaro 33
P. W. Jacoe —— 36
R. D. Westergard 56
R. O'Connell 62
R. Freeman 63
W. C, Blackman 717
W, C. Blackman • 922
J. D. Russell 731
J. Vincent 7^6
E. L. Armstrong 763
R. Freeman (Recommendations) 880
L. Thatcher 911
S. G. Boone 923
Letter from Col. J. C. Donovan 9 34
M. B. Holburt 937
D. Kennedy 950
L. Weeks 966
R. Carter 973
-------
B
£ONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
W. MacRostie '-- 980
Letter from K. Mulligan 983
Letter from W. Ruckelshaus •» 986
R. C. Fischer • • 988
R. G. Beverly 1006
L. Summervllle 1011
F. Rozich 1016
L. D. Morrlll 1022
M. Kozlowski 1023
C. F, Wilkinson 1044
D. L. Paff 1060
S. E. Reynolds 1064
L, M. Thatcher 1069
A, E. Williamson 1077
M. Slagle 1083
G. V. Skogerboe 1091
Letter from National Council of
Public Land Users————— —.———-——-1109
Dr. H. K. Qashu 1111
R. Esquerra- ——————— — -1116
L. G. Everett 1119
-------
The Seventh Session of the Conference In the Matter
of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and
its Tributaries - Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, California,
Nevada, Wyoming and Utah, convened at 9:30 o'clock on February
15» 1972, in the Las Vegas Convention Center, 3150 South Para-
dise Road, Las Vegas, Nevada.
PRESIDING:
Murray Stein
Chief Enforcement Officer Water
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES:
Richard O'Connell
Director, Enforcement Division, Region IX
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, California
Irwin L. Dickstein
Director, Enforcement Division, Region VIII
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado
C. C. Tabor
Arizona Water Quality Control Council
We11ton, Arizona
E. P. Dibble
Vice Chairman
California Water Resources Control Board
Sacramento, California
Frank Rozlch
Director, Water Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
-------
2-A
CONFEREES (Continued):
Roland D. Westergard
State Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Carson City, Nevada
John R. Wright
Secretary, New Mexico Water Quality
Control Commission
Santa Pe, New Mexico
Lynn M. Thatcher
Deputy Director of Health
Utah State Division of Health
Salt Lake City, Utah
Arthur E. Williamson
Director of Sanitary Engineering Services
Department of Health & Social Service
Cheyenne, Wyoming
ALTERNATE FOR MR. WRIGHT:
Carl Slingerland
State of New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico
PARTICIPANTS:
Ellis L. Armstrong, Commissioner
Bureau of Reclamation
U. S, Department of the Interior
Las Vegas, Nevada
Robert G. Beverly
Water Quality Subcommittee of
the Environmental Quality Committee
of the Colorado Association cf
Commerce and Industry
Grand Junction, Colorado
William C. Blackman
NFIC - Denver
U* S, Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado
-------
2-B
PARTICIPANTS (Continued)
Sheldon G. Boone
Soil Conservation Service
U, S. Department of Agriculture
Denver, Colorado
Robert Carter, General Manager
Imperial Irrigation District
Imperial, California
Col. J. C. Donovan, District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento District
Saaramento, California
Ralph Esquerra, Chairman
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
Hawthorne, California
Lome G. Everett
Department of Hydrology
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Roland C. Fischer, Secretary-Engineer
Colorado River Water Conservation District
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
L. Russell Freeman, Director
Pacific Office
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Honolulu, Hawaii
Myron B. Holburt, Chief Engineer
Colorado River Board of California
Los Angeles, California
P. W. Jacoe, Director
Division of Occupational
and Radiological Health
Colorado Department of Public Health
Denver, Colorado
-------
2-C
PARTICIPANTS (Continued):
David Kennedy, Engineer
Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
Mary Kozlowski
Nevada Open Spaces Council
Las Vegas, Nevada
Wayne MacRostle, Chief
Interstate Planning Branch
California Department of Water Resources
Sacramento, California
James Malaro, Assistant Chief
Materials Branch
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
Washington, D, C.
L. D. Morrlll, Deputy Director
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Denver, Colorado
Kerry Mulligan, Chairman
State Water Resources Control Board
Sacramento, California
National Council of
Public Land Users
Grand Junction, Colorado
Donald L. Paff, Administrator
Colorado River Commission of Nevada
Las Vegas, Nevada
Hasan K. Qashu, Ph.D.
Hydrology and Water Resources
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
S, E, Reynolds, Secretary
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
Santa Pe, New Mexico
-------
2-D
PARTICIPANTS (Continued):
William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
James D. Russell
Region IX
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Prahclsco, California
Gaylord V. Skogerboe
Associate Professor
Agricultural Engineering Department
Colorado State University
Port Collins, Colorado
Marianne Slagle
Sierra Club
Las Vegas, Nevada
Paul B. Smith
Region VIII
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado
Lloyd Summerville, President
Colorado Farm Bureau
Fruita, Colorado
James Vincent
NPIC - Denver
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado
Lowell Weeks
General Manager and Chief Engineer
Coachella Valley County Water District
Coachella, California
Charles F. Wilkinson
Native American Rights Fund
Boulder, Colorado
-------
Federal Government
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Wn.D.C.
J.M.Davenport, OTA,EPA
Lloyd Gebhardt, OIA, EPA
Arthur L. Jenke, Office of Wtr.Programs, EPA
H.R.Reinhardt, Enf.EPA
John G. Ryan, Jr. Congressional Liaison, EPA
Murray Stein, Director, Division of Enforcement Proceedings, EPA
Dr. R. J. Augustine, Rockville, Md. Office of Radiation Programs, EPA
Carl Eardley, Deputy Asst.Administrator for Water Enforcement, EPA
Denver, Region VIII, Regional Office
Irwin L. Dickstein, Enf.Dir.
Jim Bowyer,
Patrick J. Godsil
John A. Green, RA
Linda K. Hudspeth
Dean Norris
Jim V. Rouse (DFIC)
William C. Blackman (DFIC)
John Vincent
Paul B. Smith, EPA
Dallas, Texas, Region VI, Rgcrjoivil Office
Richard A. Vanderhoof
San Francisco, Region IX
Melvin Koizumi
J.D.Russell
R.L.O'Connell
Guy 'rf. Harris
L.Jefferson
Honolulu
J.R.Freeman
WERL, Nevada
Geneva S. Douglas
David L. Duncan
Donald T. Wruble
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Dr.Donald M. Ross, Washington,D.C.
Lynn A. Fitz-Randolph, Arizona Atomic Energy Commission
James C. Malero, Bethesda, Md. AEG
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
D.P.Shoup, representing the Secretary of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Gene C. Herrin, Phoenix, AZ
John H. Trimmer, Reno NV
-------
Federal Government 3- A
USDI, continued
National Park Service
David J. McLean, Boulder City, NV. Lake Mead Nat'l Rec . Area
David C. Ochsner, Grand Canyon, AZ. Grand Canyon National Park
Bureau of Indian Affairs
John Saunders, Parker, AZ
Geological Survey
G.L.Bodhaine, Menlo Park, CA
L.R.Kister, Tucson, AZ
Bureau of Reclamation
Ottis Peterson, WN.D.C.
John T. Maletic, Denver, Colo
Roy D. Gear, Boulder City, NV
Ellis L. Armstrong, Commissioner
U . S . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
C. A. Bower, US Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, CA
Lloyd Rowland, Las Vegas Soil Conservation Service
Rex Naanes, Ogden, Utah US Forest Service
R.Eugene Rockey, Arveda, Colorado US Forest Service
Sheldon G. Boone, SOS, Sedalia, Colorado
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Edgar L.Hesoes, Denver* Colorado
FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
Mark V. Hughes, Jr. Wn.D.C.
U.S. SENATE
Daniel A. Dreyfus, Wn.D.C. (Interior Committee) Observer
Charles F. Cook, Wn.D.C. (Interior Committee) Observer
J.F.Friedkin, El Paso, Texas, U.S. Section International Boundary & Water Comm.
State Government
Arizona
Alban R. Essbach, Phoenix, AZ Arizona Game & Fish Dept.
Joseph E. Obr, Phoenix, AZ State Health Dept.
Wesley E. Steiner, Phoenix, AZ Arizona Water Commission
Grant Smith, Phoenix, AZ
C. C. Tabor, Arizona Water Quality Control Council
California
Wayne MacRostie, Sacto,CA Dept. of Water Resources
Myron B. Eolburt, LA. Colorado River Board of California
E. P. Dibble, Sacramento, CA California Water Resources Control Board
-------
3-B
3
State Government - Continued
Colorado
Prank J. Rozich, Colorado-VPC
P. V. Jaco, Colorado Health Department
Robert Fischer, Denver, Colo. Denver Water Department
Lee P. Grossman, Denver, Colo. Colorado Health Department
L. D. Merrill, Colorado Water Conservation Board
Nevada
James Wren-Jarvi*-, Las Vegas, NV Clark County District Health Dept.
Don Arnell, Las Vegas, NV. Clark County District Health Department
Larry (J. Bettis, Carson City, NV Attorney General's Office
Elmo J. DeRicco, Carson City State of Nevada (Governor's Office)
Wendell D. McCurry, arson City, NV Nevada Environmental Protection Commission
John Ohrenschall, Las Vegas, NV Las Vegas Valley Water District
L. William Paul, Carson City, NV Attorney General's Office
Ernest C. Gregory, Carson City, NV Environmental Protection Commission
Roland D. Westergard, State of Nevada
Donald L. Paff , Colorado River Commission of Nevada
New Mexico
S. E. Reynolds, Sante Pe, NM New Mexico State Engineer
John R. Wright, Sante Pe, NM State of New Mexico
Carl Slingerland, State of New Mexico
Utah
Ival V. G-oslin, Upper Colorado River Commission
Wyoming
Tom Barker, State of Wyoming
A. E. Williamson, State Health Dept. of Wyoming
Other
Mary KozlowslcL, Nevada Open Spaces Council
Thomas E. Cahill, Salt Lake City, Utah Western States Water Council
Daisy J. Talvitie, Las Vegas, NV League of Women Voters of Nevada
Leonard H. Johnson, Salt Lake City, UT American Farm Bureau Federation
Warren Jamison, Las Vegas, NV Las Vegas Jaycees
Roy Evans, Las Vegas, NV Sierra Club
Marrianne Slagle, Sierra Club NV
Lowell 0. Weeks, Coachella, CA Coachella Valley Co. Water District
R. P. Carter, Imperial, CA Imperial Irrigation District fi
-------
U 3-C
Districts - continued
Thadd Baker, Yuma, AZ Yuma Mesa Irrigation District
Kenneth Balcomb, Glenwood Springs, CO. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
Tom Cheules, Yuma, AZ Well ton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District
Ted R. Mayer, Yuma, AZ Yuma-Mesa Irrigation & Drainage District
John R. Scarbough, Yuma, AZ Yuma-Mesa Irrigation District
Roland C. Fischer, Colorado River Water Conservation District
David Kennedy, Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles, CA
Industries
Rex R. Lloyd, Las Vegas, NV. Basic Management, INC.
Paul V. Bethurum, Atlas Minerals
R. G. Beverly, Grand Junction, Colo. Union Carbide Corporation
C. B. Armstrong, Henderson, NV Kerr-McGee
James F. Orr, Henderson, NV Stauffer Chemical Company
Glen C. Taylor, Henderson, NV
William Badger, Atlas Minerals
Universities
Jay M. Bagley, Logan, Utah Utah State University
Alan E. Peckham, Las Vegas, NV Desert Research Institute
Nate Cooper, Desert Research Institute, Nevada
Lome G. Everett, University of Arizona
Gaylord V. Skogerboe, Colorado State University
Dr. H. K. Qashu, University of Arizona
Newspapers
Anthony Ripiy, Denver, Colorado New York Times
George Jones, Las Vegas Review Journal
George Smith, Arizona Republic
Myram Borders, UPI Wire Service, Las Vegas
TV Stations
KLAS-TV Richard Larson, CBS for Southern Nevada
KSHO-TV Gregg Cooper, Las Vegas
KORK-TV John Hanver (?)
Consultants
James E. Arden, Reno, NV Water Resources Consulting Engineers
Daniel C. McLean, Las Vegas, NV Goerge W. DQyer Associates
Robert W. Millard, Reno, NV Millard Spink Associates
Richard S. Leland, Las Vegas, NV Montgomery Engineers of Nevada
Citizens
T. L. Steele
E. S. Krous, Boulder City, NV
Jerry Schaack, Bismarck, N.Do
-------
3-D
Indian Tribal Councils
Fritz E. Brown, Yuma, Az Qjiechan Tribe
George Bryant, Vinterhaven, CA Quechan Tribal Council
Ralph Esquerra, Hawthorne, CA Chemehuevi Tribe
-------
Attendees at the Seventh Session of the Conference in the Matter of
the Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River, Las Vegas
Nevada, February 15 - 17, 1972
Arden, James E. 100 Washington St. Reno, NV Water Res. Cons. Engr.
Armstrong, C.B. P.O.Box 55, Henderson, NV Kerr-McGee Company
Armstrong, Ellis L. BuRec, Wn.D.C.
Arnell, Don
Commissioner
625 Shadow Lane, Las Vegas Clark Co. Dist. Health Dept.
Augustine, Dr.R.J. Rockville, MD
EPA, Radiation Programs
B
Badger, William
Bagley, Jay M.
Baker, Thadd
Balcomb , Kenneth
Barker, Tom
B ethurum, P aul V.
Bettis, Larry G.
Beverly, R.G.
Blackman, Wm. C.
Bodhaine,P.L.
Boone, Sheldon G.
Bower, C.A,
Bowyer, Jim
Brown, Fritz E.
B ryant, Geo rge
409 Park Drive,Moab, UT Atlas Minerals Division
Utah State Univ. Logan,UT Water Research Lab.
2450- 4th Ave.Yuma, AZ Yuma Mesa Irrig.Dist.
P.O. Drawer 790 , Glnwd. Spr.
Colo. Colo.Riv.Wtr. Cons.Dist.
Rte.l,Box 65 ? Wyoming
672 MiVida, Moab, UT
1819 N. Division, Cars on City,
NV
Box 1049, Gr. Junction, Colo
DFIC, Denver, Colo
345 MiddlefieldRd.Menlo Pk.CA USGA
P.O.Box 147, Sedalia, Colo USDA, SCS
Riverside, CA US Salinity Lab. US DA
1860 Lincoln St. Denver, Colo EPA
P.O.Box 1169, Yuma,AZ Quechan Tribe
Ft. Yuxna Ind. Res. Winterhaven,
GA. Quechan Tribal Council
Atlas Minerals
Atty.General's Office
Union Carbide Corp.
EPA
Cahill, Thomas E.
Carter, R.F.
Choules, Tom
Cook, Charles F.
Cooper, Nate
1725 Univ. Club Bldg.SLCity,UT Western Sts. Wtr.Caunci)
308 K. Street, Imperial, C A Imperial I r rig. District
P.O.Box 551, Yuma,AZ Wellton-Mohawk Irrig.Dist
3202 New Senate Office Bldg. Interior Committee ( Observ,
Wn.D.C.
4582 Maryland Pkwy. LasVegas Desert Research Inst.
D
Davenport, J.M.
DeRicoo, Elmo J.
Dickstein,Irwin L.
Dibble, E.F.
Waterside Mall, Wn.D.C. EPA, OTA
#5E , Sunset Way, Carson C ity
NV State of Nevada
1860 Lincoln St.Denver,Colo EPA, Region VIII
1416-9th St. Sacramento,CA Calif .Wtr.Res. Control Bd.1
-------
D , continued
D ouglas, Geneva S .
Dreyfus s, Daniel A.
Duncan, David L.
P.O.Box 15027,LasVegasNV WERL, EPA
Washington, D . C. Senate Interior Committee
P.O.Box 15027, LasVegasNV WERL, EPA
E
Esquerra, Ralph
Essbach, Alb an R.
Evans, Roy-
Everett, Lome G.
Eardley, Carl
P
Fischer, Robert W.
Fischer, Roland C.
3825 W. 119th St.Hawthorne,
CA Chemehuevi Tribe
15231 No.25th PI.Phoenix, AZ Ariz.Game & Fish Dept.
Apt.36,3161 Karen, LasVegas Sierra Club
Univ.of Ariz.Tucson,AZ Dept. of Hydrology
EPA, Wn.D.C.
Dep. As st. Admin, Wtr. E nf.
144 W. Coif ax, Denver, Colo Denver Water Dept.
Box 218,Ginwd. Springs, Colo Colo.Riv.Wtr.Cons .Dist.
Fitz-Randolph,Lynn A 1601 W.Jefferson,Phoenix,AZ Ariz.AEC
Freeman, L.Russell 1481 So. King St.Honolulu,HI EPA Comm.
Friedkin,J.I. ElPaso, Texas US Section, Int. Bdry&Wtr
G
Gear, Roy D.
G ebhard, Lloyd
GodsU, Patrick J.
Goslin, Ival V.
G reen, John A.
Gregory, Ernest G.
Grossman, Lee A.
Boulder City, NV BuRec
Washington, D ,C . E PA, OI A
1860 Lincoln St.Denver,Colo EPA, Region VIII
355 So.4th East St.SLCity Upper Colo. Riv. Commissioi
1860 Lincoln St.Denver,Colo EPA, Region VIII
201 So. Fall St.Carson City,NV Env.Protection Com
4210 N.I 1th,Denver,Colo Colo. Health Department
H
Herrin, Gene C.
Hessek, Edgar L.
Holburt, Myron B.
H o wland, Lloyd
Hxidspeth, Linda
Harris, Guy W.Jr.
Hughes,Mark V. Jr.
3022 Federal Bldg.Phoenix,AZ Bureau Land Mgmt.US
8993 W.Asbury Ave,Denver,Colo US GAO
217 W. 1st St. Los Angeles, CA C olo. Riv. Bd. of California
P.O.Box 16019 LasVegas NV USDA, SCS
1860 Lincoln. Denver,Colo EPA, Region VIII
100 California St.SFrancisco EPA, Region IX
2120 L St.NW Washington,DC Federal Wtr.Res.Council
J
Jaco, P.W.
Jamison, Warren
4211 E llth Denver Colo Colo.Dept. Public Health
3939 Middlebury Ave,LasVegas Las Vegas Jaycees
-------
H-B
Jf continued
Jenke, Arthur L .
Johnson, Leonard H,
Jones, George
Jefferson, L.
K
Kennedy, David
Kister, L. R.
K oizumi, Melvin
K o zlo ws ki, Mary
Krous, E.S.
Washington, D .C . Off .Wtr. Programs ,EPA
2085 Atkin Ave.SLCity, UT American Farm Bureau
1111 W. Bonanza, LasVegas Review-Journal
EPA, Region IX pl°
1111'Sunset Blvd. LA Metropolitan Water Dist.
P.O.Box 4070, Tucson,AZ USGS
1018 Granada Dr. Pacifica, CA EPA, Region IX
709 Mallard, Las Vegas,NV Nev.Open Spaces Council
207 Wyoming, Boulder City,NV
L eland, Richard S.
Lloyd,Rex R.
1100 E.Sahara Ave.LasVegas Montgomery Engr.ofNev.
1917 Ottawa Dr. Las Vegas Basic Management, Inc.
M
MacRostie, Wayne
Malaro, James C .
Maletic, John T.
Mayer, Ted.R.
McCurry, Wendell D,
McLean, Daniel C.
McLean,David J.
Mfflard Robert W.
Morrill, L.D.
3840 SanYsidro Way.Sacto Dept. Wtr. Resources, C A
4700 Broad Brook Dr.Bethesda,
Md. US AEC
Engr.&Research Center, BuRec
Denver, Colo BuRec Dist
Rte 1 Box 574P,Yuma,AZ Yuma Mesa Irrig & Dr.
201 So. Fall St. Carson City,NV Nev.Env. Prot. Comm.
726 East Sahara Ave LasVegas Geo.W.Dwyer, Assoc.
601 Nevada Hvy. Boulder City NV Nat'l Park Svc-Lake
Mead Nat'l Rec. Area
130 Vassar Street, Reno, NV MUJard-S pink Assoc.
1845 Sherman St. Denver, Colo Colo.. Wtr. Cons. Board
N
Naanes, Rex
N orris, Dean
324 25th St.Ogden,Utah U.S. Forest Service
1860 Lincoln St. Denver, Colo EPA, Region VIII
Obr, Joseph E.
Ochsner,David C.
Ohrenschall, John
Orr, James F.
O»Connell,R.L.
4019 No.33rd Ave. Phoenix, AZ Ariz. State Health Dept.
Gr. Canyon Nat'l Pk. Grand Canyon, AZ GCNP
Kas Vegas,NV Las Vegas Valley Wtr.Dist.
P.O.Box 86, Henderson,NV Stauffer Chem.Corp.
100 California Street, SF EPA, Region IX
Paff, Donald L.
Paul, L. William
P.O.Box 1748, LasVegas NV Colo.Riv. Comm. of Nevada
6 Topaz Dr.Carson City,NV Atty.General's Office
-------
4-C
P continued
Peckham, Alan E.
Peterson, Ottis
4582 Maryland Hwy, Las Vegas Desert Research Inst,
Washington, D . C . US BuRec
\j
Qashu, Dr. H.K. Univ. of Ariz. Tucson, AZ Hydrology & Water Res.
R
Reixxhardt, H.R.
Reynolds, S .E .
R ipley, Anthony
R o ckey, R. E ugene
Ross, Dr.Donald M
Rouse, "Jim V.
Rozich, Prank J.
Russell, James D.
Ryan, John G.Jr.
Washington, D.C. EPA
Capitol, Santa Fe,N.M. N.M. State Engineer
430 16th St.Denver,Colo N.Y. Times
5628 Garrison St.Arvada,Colo US Forest Svc
Washington, D.C. US AEC
Bldg 22, DFC,Denver, Colo DFIC, EPA
4210 E.ll Ave, Denver, Colo Colorado WPC
100 California St. SFrancisco EPA, Region IX
Washington, D.C. EPA,Congressional &
legislative affairs
S aunders, John
Scarbrough, John P.
S chaack,Jerry
Shoup, D.P.
Skogerboe,Gaylord V.
S lagle, Marianne
S lin ge rland, C arl
Smith, Grant
Smith, Paul B.
Steele, T.L.
Steiner, Wesley E.
Stein, Murray
Rt.l,Box 7, Parker, AZ BIA
2800 PaloVerde Ln.Yuma,AZ Yuma-Mesa Irr.Dist.
Bismarck, N.D.
Denver Fed. Center, Denver, Colo Sect'y of Interior
Colo. St. University, Fort Collins Agri.Engr.Dept.
1572 Longacres #120, Las Vegas Sierra Club
State Capitol, Santa Fe,NM State of New Mexico
120 E.Van Buren, Phoenix, A Z Ariz . Republic
100 Kearney St. Denver, Colo EPA
34 W.Monroe, Phoenix, AZ
EPA, Wn.D.C.
Ariz. Water Commission
Dir.Div.Enf. Proceedings
Tabor, C.C.
Talvitie,Daisy J.
Taylor, Glen C.
Trimmer, John H,
Rte. 1, Box 19, Wellton, AZ Wtr. Quality Control Counc
3906 Acapulco Av.LasVegas League of Women Voters
of Nevada
P.O.Box 2065,Henderson,NV Basic Mgmt. Inc.
300 Booth St. Reno,NV Bureau of Land Mgmt.
U
V EPA
Vanderhoof, Richard A. 1600 Patterson,Dallas, Tex Administrator,RegionVI
Vincent, James* R. Denver Fed.Center,Denver,Colo DFIC, EPA
-------
W
Weeks, LoweU O.
Westergard, Roland D,
Wilkinson,Charles F.
WUliamson,A.E.
Wren-Jarvis, James
Wright, John R.
Wruble, Donald T.
P.O.Box 1058,Coachella,CA Coachella Vlly Co.Wtr.
Dist
201 So. Pall St.CarsonCity,NV State of Nevada
1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colo Native Amer.RightsFunc
State Health Dept. Cheyenne, Wyo State of Wyoming
625 Shadow Lane, Las Vegas Clark Co. Dist.HealthD.
P.O.Box 2348, Santa Pe,NM New Mexico
P.O.Box 15027, LasVegas WERL, EPA
Virginia Rankin, 6005 E.93rd Street, Kansas City, Mo 64138
Court Reporter
-------
MORNING SESSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1972
9:30 o'clock
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. MURRAY STEIN
MR. STEIN: Will the conferees take their places,
please.
The conference is open,
This seventh session of the Conference In the Matter
of pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River in
the States of California, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, New
Mexico, and Wyoming is being held under the provisions of
Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended. Under the provisions of the Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to initiate a
conference of this type when on the basis of reports, surveys,
or studies he has reason to believe that pollution subject to
abatement under the Federal Act is occurring.
The first session of the Colorado River enforcement
conference was held in January I960, and was initiated on
written requests from the State water pollution control agencies
of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, California, Nevada, and Utah,
with Wyoming concurring. Six previous sessions have been held
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
beginning in I960, and several aspects of pollution in the
Colorado River Basin have been considered and remedial programs
established.
As specified in Section 10 of the Act, the official
State and interstate water pollution control agencies have been
notified of this conference by Administrator Ruckelshaus. These
agencies are the California Water Resources Control Board; the
Colorado Department of Public Health; the Nevada Commission of
Environ .mental Protection; the New Mexico Environmental Improve-
ment Agency; the Utah Department of Social Services; the Wyoming
Division of Health and Medical Services; and the Arizona Depart-
ment of Health.
Both the State and Federal Governments have responsi-
bilities in dealing with water pollution control problems. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares that the States
have primary rights and responsibilities for taking action to
abate and control water pollution. Consistent with this, we are
charged by law to encourage the States In these activities.
At the same time, the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency is charged by law with specific respon-
sibilities in the field of water pollution control in connection
with pollution of interstate and navigable waters. The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act provides that pollution of interstate
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
or navigable waters which endangers the health or welfare of any
persons shall be subject to abatement. This applies whether the
matter causing or contributing to the pollution is discharged
directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge
into a tributary.
The purpose of this conference is to discuss, among
other things, the pollution problems associated with the salinitjr
content of the Colorado River and the control and disposition of
uranium mill tailings pfl-les.
Several of you may have forgotten, as I think I have
reminded you, that at the beginning we were Invited in here by
the overwhelming majority of the States in this basin. The
reason for this invitation was because of the crucial problem we
were facing in water pollution in this river at the time, and
that was the problem of radioactive pollutants getting into the
river.
I think given the nature of the problem, the number of
States involved, seven States, and the record, this is certainly
a case where we can point with pride to the control cf radio-
active wastes in the river. An effective program had boon set
up and after repeated meetings and conferences we did secure the
cooperation of the uranium milling industry, the AEC, and
launched upon a cleanup program. At the last reports, at least
-------
8
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
when I looked at this, the radium content was about one-third
that of Public Health Service drinking water standards and
really approaching background levels. We still may have the
problem in the disposition of the tailings.
We also had when we started this program and recog-
nized it a very, very difficult problem of salinity. In
addition to the question of the usual municipal and industrial
waste discharges into rivers, there was a very special prob-
lem in the Colorado River. We have extensively studied this.
This has proved to be one of the most difficult problems of
pollution control that we have had in the country. I think
possibly you can apply a rule to this business that when you
can come down to a point source, or even In an industry get
down to a specialized stream, you can control something much
better than you can when the source is spread over a tremendous
area and is ubiquitous.
Art Williamson called something to my attention
this morning. I hope it won't be, but it seems that the
pollution problem may be longer enduring than the conferees,
since Art Williamson, myself, and Lynn Thatcher from Utah,
who I hope will be here soon, are the only three who were
here at the beginning. The others are all new—not new but
they have changed. But the problem is still with us.
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
.So the problem is still with us, and the recognition
that we have and must have in dealing with a problem like this ii
unless we deal with all parties concerned, we probably are not
going to make too much progress in meeting the problem. I think
the problem has been analyzed. But I think also that the solu-
tion of the problem is going to take all the help we can get, and
I am not sure that any problem like this can be solved by
disputes over State, Federal rights, international rights, etc,
We have a very tough physical pollution problem and water qualit;
problem to be dealt with, and we Just have to put our minds to
training to do that.
I would like the conferees to introduce themselves, and
I wonder if we could start on the left.
Art.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Art Williamson, State of Wyoming.
MR. SLINGERLAND: Carl Sllngerland, State of New
Mexico.
MR.. O'CONNELL: Richard O'Connell with the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, San Francisco.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Irwin Diekstein, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region VIII, Denver.
MR. WESTERGARD: Roland Westergard, State of Nevada.
MR. ROZICH: Frank Rozich, State of Colorado.
-------
10
I __ __ . -
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
MR. DIBBLE: E. P. Dibble, State of California.
MR. TABOR: C. C. Tabor, State of Arizona.
MR. STEIN: My name Is Murray Stein and I am from EPA
in Washington and the representative of Administrator William
Ruckelshaus.
Now a word about the conference.
The parties to the conference are the official State
water pollution control agencies whom you have just heard and
the Utah agency and the Environmental Protection Agency. Par-
ticipation in the conference will be open to representatives and
invitees of these agencies and such persons as inform me that
they wish to make statements. However, only the representatives
of the official agencies constitute the conferees.
Now a word about the procedures governing the conduct
of the conference. The conferees will be called upon to make
statements and in addition the conferees may call upon partici-
pants whom they have invited to make a statement. We shall
call on other individuals who wish to make statements after that
who have indicated that they would like to make a statement.
At the conclusion of each statement, the conferees
will be given an opportunity to comment or ask questions, and I
may ask a question or two. This procedure has proven effective
in the past in reaching equitable solutions.
-------
11
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
.i
Although we cannot entertain questions or comments ;
from the floor, you *a&> be assured that everyone will have an
opportunity to be heard fully. Please save your comments and i
questions and you will be given an opportunity to make these ;
points when your turn comes to speak.
At the end of all the statements, we will have a
discussion among the conferees and try to arrive at a basis of
agreement on the facts of the situation. Then we will attempt j
to summarize the conference, giving the conferees, of course, ;
the right to amend or modify the summary.
I should Indicate that at the end of the conference, i
i
the Environmental Protection Administrator is required to make ,
recommendations for remedial action if such recommendations are j
indicated. i
A verbatim transcript and record of the conference is
made by Virginia Rankin for the purpose of aiding us in prepar-
ing a summary and also providing a complete record of what is
said here. It usually takes about 3 or 4 months for tHe
transcript to come out in printed form. If you wish a record or
part of it beforehand, you can check with the reporter, who is
under contract, and make your own arrangements with Mrs. Rankin.
I would also indicate that we do not print in color,
so take that into account with any charts or visual aids you may
-------
12
Opening Statement - Mr, Stein
present. They will be in black and white. Try not to refer to
color if you use graphic aids in your presentation as they will j
be meaningless in the reading of the transcript or Baking of the
transcript.
We will make copies of the transcript available to
1 the official State water pollution control agencies^ along with
the summary* If you wish, at the conclusion of the conference,
'i
you can ask them for copies of the transcript and the summary j
of the conference.
Roughly we will take up in the order of procedure the
tailings question and then the salinity question. But before we
do so, I would like to Just introduce John E. Ryan—would you
stand up—of the EPA Office of Congressional and Liaison
Affairs, Mr. Ryan is here. I know there has been considerable
congressional interest in this. If there are any congressional
representatives who have a question or want to follow through en
anything, the initial point of contact should be Mr, Ryan,
We also have Joe Prledkin, United States Commissioner
of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
Mr. Priedkin.
MR, PRIEDKIN: Thank you, Mr. Stein.
MR, STEIN: Nice to see you,
And Charles Cook of the Minority Council oft the
-------
23
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
Senate Interior Committee is also here, Mr. Cook.
Thank you.
Now, again, you have to recognize we have had many,
many sessions of the conference before, and for the people in
the audience, it may seem in dealing with some of these problems
we are getting into them somewhere in the middle. We surely-are
I hope we have made progress on them. But I think if you will
Just wait and listen to the presentations, the problems will
unfold.
I would suggest, at least for the Federal people in
opening this, for the sake of perspective maybe they can take
a minute or two as we enter each problem to indicate what the
problem is and what we are doing, not Just for purposes of the
record, but so the people here will be able to follow this
better.
First on the tailings we would like to call on Mr.
Dickstein.
Mr. Dickstein.
-------
. 14
I. L. Dlckstein
IRWIN L. DICKSTEIN, DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, REGION VIII
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the Chairman mentioned earlier, the water radio-
logical problems are in essence solved. The radioactivity of
the Colorado River is not a major problem at the present time.
However, there is a problem with the stabilization of mine
tailings and this is what we are addressing ourselves to at
this particular conference.
In the sixth session of the conference one of the
recommendations was that the EPA and the AEC, actually the
FWQA at that time, establish or draft a model tailings pile
regulation which eould be adopted by the various States that do
have this particular problem, and we are addressing ourselves to
this model regulation.
First of all I would like to introduce Mr. Paul Smith
of Region VIII, who was the Chairman of the Tailings Pile Regu-
lation Committee.
Paul.
MR. STEIN: I should indicate, everyone ether than t
panel member should come to the lectern in making his
-------
P. B. Smith
and please identify yourself by full name and title for
purposes of the record.
PAUL B. SMITH
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII, DENVER, COLORADO
MR. SMITH: My name is Paul B. Smith and I am with the
Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII office in Denver.
And my statement follows.
As a result of the sixth session conference concerning
pollution of the interstate waters of the Colorado River and
its tributaries, an agreement was reached whereby the staffs ef
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the Public
Health Service, and the Atomic Energy Commission would assist
States by providing advice and assistance regarding the develop-
ment of uranium mill tailings pile stabilization and containment
objectives and measures for achieving them. In this regard, I
an submitting for consideration by the conferees of this seventh
conference a model regulation proposal requiring stabilization
of mineral mill tailings piles containing radioactive materials.
This draft regulation has been developed by the EPA's Region
VIII office for eventual adoption by all involved States in the
country. In the development process, however, the fact that
-------
16.
P. B. Smith
four of Region VIII«s States have within their boundaries 10
of the Nation's 15 active uranium mills and 14 of the Nation's
20 inactive mill sites was a major consideration. Also sig-
nificant is the fact that out of a total of 10 newly planned
uranium mills which are expected to become operational over the
next decade,,six are to be located in Region VIII States.
The problems caused by unregulated tailings piles in
Colorado and Wyoming demonstrate the need for having each
uranium milling State adopt regulations requiring stabilization
and control of inactive uranium mill tailings piles. Before
Colorado adopted regulations on January 26, 1967* the American
Metal Climax Mill In Grand Junction allowed approximately a quar
ter of a million tons of their tailings te be hauled away by
local building contractors for various uses, which Included
construction fill under or around habitable buildings*
Another example of a different aspect of the uranium
mill tailings control problem is the Susquehanna Western Com-
pany's abandoned mill site near Ri vert on, Wyoming. Here we have
a monumental environmental insult to the community of Riverton
and its surrounding countryside. Susquehanna's tailings pile
was abandoned and left uncovered and poorly fenced and poorly
marked with cautionary signs. Wind'.and rain have taken their
toll as evidenced by widespread erosion of tailings to private
-------
II
P. B. Smith
lands around the old mill site. Pictorial evidence collected
only recently even Indicates that dump truck quantities of
tailings have been removed from the Susquehanna pile by unknown
persons for unknown purposes.
Within the Colorado River Basin, only the State of
Colorado has regulations in foree which govern the stabilisa-
tion and control of radioactive mill tailings. Later during
this conference, Mr. P. W. Jacoe of the Colorado delegation
attending this conference, will briefly describe the usefulness
of his State's regulations in managing radioactive mill tailings
in Colorado. Among the conferee States in this conference, the
need for Nevada and California to adopt regulations on the
radioactive tailings control problem is remote since the ore
milling industry in these States until now has not processed
radioactive ore.
The need for adoption of a form of the proposed regu-
lation is most critical in the States of New Mexico, Arizona,
Utah, and Wyoming, since these States can anticipate having to
administrate the long-range control programs dealing with radio-
active mill tailings piles. In addition, the possibility of
revitalizing the uranium mining and milling industry to answer
this country*s future energy needs must be considered a viable
alternative, given the current rate in depletion of our national
-------
18
P. B. Smith
energy resources.
In order to visualize the magnitude of the tailings
piles generated by uranium producers, consider that only about
5 pounds of uranium and 100 pounds of vanadium are removed from
each ton of ore processed. The balance of 1,895 pounds of
residue sands is heaped on a tailings pile as waste. At the
end of 1971, this total accumulation of tailings in the United
! States amounts to well over 100 million tons.
Various studies have indicated that these wastes
contain between 100 and 900 plcocuries of radium-226 per gram of
dry tailings. Using a very conservative average, concentration
of 250 picocuries of radium per gram, a hundred million tons
would contain about 22,000 curies of radium-226. 1 am sure
everyone here will agree that this represents a significant
potential source of unnecessary radiation exposure for a
multitude of generations to come considering the fact that
radium-226 has a half life of 1,620 years.
With this thought in mind, I would now like to present
to the conferees the Environmental Protection Agency's model
regulations requiring stabilization of mineral mill tailings
piles containing radioactive materials with the recommendation
that the model tailings pile regulation be adopted and Imple-
mented by the Colorado River Basin States no later than July 1,
-------
19
i
P. B. Smith i
1973.
In closing, I would like to note that we recognize
Colorado's pioneering effort in regulating the stabilization
of tailings piles. The proposed model regulations are based ;
on those adopted by Colorado in 1967. We hope that these model
regulations have benefited from Colorado's enforcement exper-
iences over the last 5 years and provide the basis for improved !
control of radioactive tailings in all concerned States.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Without objection, I am going to have the proposed
regulation entered in the record at this point as if read.
(The above-mentioned regulation follows:)
-------
20
NOTICE
Publication of Regulation Adopted by
(Appropriate State Regulatory Agency)
In compliance with the provisions of Section , State Statutes
, publication is hereby made of the attached Regulation adopted
by the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) at its regular meeting
of , after due notice of the hearing
thereon was published as provided by law. Said Regulation was adopted
pursuant to authority contained in Section , Chapter ,
State Session Laws of 19 , and Sections and , State
Statutes , and is captioned as follows;
"RADIATION REGULATION NO. REQUIRING
STABILIZATION OF MINERAL MILL TAILINGS
PILES CONTAINING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS."
The -effective date of the said Regulation shall be
Draft Regulation Prepared by EPA, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado
1-19-71, 1-27-71, 3-30-71, 1-7-72, 1-13-72
-------
21
DEFINITIONS
Tailings Pile. In the context of this Regulation, reference to any man-
made surficial deposit of soil or rock which is or has been deposited as
a result of milling for minerals and which contains radioactive material
in concentrations exceeding that specified by the (Appropriate State
Regulatory Agency), either as a specific radioactive isotope and/or as
total radioactivity. (Note: Stabilization of tailings piles or material
containing no concentrations of radioactive material above background
levels at the site is governed by "Solid Waste Regulation No. _"
approved by the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency).)
Stabilization. Encompasses all measures necessary to insure immediate
and future protection of the environment and to eliminate hazards to
health or welfare with a minimum of future maintenance. In no case
shall the stabilized pile exceed or cause to be exceeded applicable
health or other environmental standards.
Riprap. Broken rock, concrete, special forms of durable material, or
other objects which are of sufficient size, density, hardness, and of
the 'appropriate configuration to resist erosion, provide a surface in
keeping with approved land-use patterns, and, when placed on tailings
piles, retain the tailings material in place.
Erosion. All physical and chemical processes whereby the tailings
material is loosened, or dissolved, and removed from any part of the
tailings pile. Includes processes of weathering, solution, corrosion,
and transportation. Mechanical wear and transportation are affected
by running water, waves, moving ice, or winds.
Ground Water. In the context of this Regulation, reference to water
beneath the land surface, in both the saturated zone and that zone where
voids are filled with air and water, or the unsaturated zone, as separate
from "Surface Water".
Active Tailings Pile. A Pile either (1) currently receiving material, or
(2) currently within the boundaries of an active or operating mill.
An "Active Tailings Pile" will remain in an "active" classifica-
tion until the owner or assignees request in writing reclassifi-
cation as an inactive pile from the Atomic Energy Commission or
the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency).
Inactive Tailings Pile. A Pile to which material is not added and which
no longer resides within the site boundaries of an active mineral mill.
-------
22
DEFINITIONS (continued)
Site Boundaries. The boundary between the unrestricted and restricted
portions of the mill area, as defined by the appropriate State or
Federal Regulation governing the possession, handling, production, or
use of radioactive materials at the mill! normally the contiguous
perimeter of the mill and tailings where ingress by the general public
is excluded. If not elsewhere defined, the site boundaries will be inter-
preted as at least, but not limited to, the limits of the tailings area.
Owner. The organization, corporation, partnership, natural person, or
group of persons possessing title to the property on which the tailings
material is being or has been deposited, or the organization, corpora-
tion, partnership, natural person, or group of persons enjoying pos-
session or custody of the tailings material.
Appropriate State Regulatory Agency. For the purposes of this Regula-
tion, this means the agency, board, department, commission, or other
State entity that has the authority and responsibility for tailings
pile control.
-------
23
INTENT
This Regulation is intended to apply only to tailings piles
defined as "Inactive" by this Regulation.
Further, it is the intent of the (Appropriate State Regulatory
Agency) that, while all inactive tailings piles containing radio-
active materials in (state) are subject to this Regulation on the
date promulgated, this Regulation in no way relieves the Atomic
Energy Commission or other affected Federal Agencies of their respon-
sibilities and jurisdiction incurred in the establishment and con-
trol of said tailings piles prior to the adoption of this Regulation.
-------
REGULATION
1. The Owner or assignees (as defined supra) of each tailings pile is
responsible for stabilization of the pile.
2. In the case of tailings piles which are in an inactive status on the
effective date of this Regulation, the (Appropriate State Regulatory
Agency) will determine, within a six-month period after the effective
date of'this Regulation, whether the inactive piles require additional
stabilization; if they do require stabilization, the (Appropriate
State Regulatory Agency) will determine who or what legal entity
possesses the responsibility for such stabilization. The owner or
assignees will then be directed by the (Appropriate State Regulatory
Agency) to undertake those measures necessary to satisfy this Regu-
lation, and the owner or assignees shall follow a time-schedule
approved by the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency).
3. Whenever an active pile is officially reclassified as inactive after
the effective date of this Regulation, the owners or assignees will
notify the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) in writing of the
change in status within 30 days of reclassification. The written
notice will specify plans for disposal or stabilization subject to
the approval of the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency).
ihe (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) will periodically inspect,
or cause to be inspected, all inactive tailings piles to determine
the effectiveness of stabilization procedures. The results of the
inspection will be submitted to the (Appropriate State Regulatory
Agency) and to the owner or assignees of the pile. In the event
the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) determines that remedial
measures or changes in methods are required to further protect the
environment, they will make a determination as to whether or not new
or revised plans for stabilization are required. If new or revised
plans are required, the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency} will
require same from the owners or assignees following a time-schedule
fitting the seriousness of. the deficiencies. (Appropriate State
Regulatory Agency) approval will then be modified to reflect the im-
proved stabilization requirements.
-------
25
REGULATION (continued)
5. All stabilization procedures shall provide for the following?
a. Taking into consideration the types of natural materials at
each site, piles shall be graded so that there is a smooth
and gradual slope which insures, by virtue of its slope,
that there shall be no harmful erosions and no depressions
on the slope of the pile, where water will collect, seep
into the pile, and thereby leach contaminants into the
ground water. In the event that seepage and subsequent
pollution of ground water is deemed possible, the
"(Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) will require the
submission of possible control measures for their evalua-
tioni Any water collected as a result of approved control
measures shall be disposed of in a manner approved of by
the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency).
b. The surface of inactive piles shall be covered with materials
that prevent wind and water erosion. If the pile is adjacent
to any watercourse that may reasonably be expected to erode
the pile during periods of high water, the exposed surfaces
shall be stabilized by riprap, dikes, reduction of grades,
soil cover and vegetation, or any other combination of
methods that will prevent erosion of the pile. The pile
may be stabilized with materials such as concrete products,
cement, chemicals, petroleum products, or other extraneous
materials provided that these materials do not cause pollu-
tion and that the final configuration and appearance are
determined to be compatible with the projected land-use as
defined by the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) .
c. Access to the stabilized pile area shall be controlled by the
owner or assignees and the area shall be properly posted in
accordance with the appropriate regulations covering the
handling, production, or possession of radioactive materials,
All inactive tailings piles shall be fenced and posted to
prevent public ingress.
-------
26
REGULATION (continued)
d. Drainage ditches of sufficient size and durability shall be
provided around the pile edges to prevent surface runoff from
neighboring land from reaching and eroding the stabilized
pile.
e. The owner or assignees should keep tailings piles out of
natural drainage courses so as to reduce the need for long-
term maintenance of diversion structures.
f. If irrigation is required on a stabilized tailings pile in'
order to maintain vegetation, it shall first be established
to the satisfaction of the (Appropriate State Regulatory
Agency) that no pollution of the ground water shall occur
as a result of irrigation. The (Appropriate State Regula-
tory Agency) may specify that an observation well(s) be
maintained down-gradient of any irrigated pile or of any
large pile located in an area of relatively high precipi-
tation where significant leaching of contaminants may be
expected.
g. When an active tailings pond becomes inactive, the
water remaining in the pond shall be disposed of in a manner
consistent with regulations and approved by the (Appropriate
State Regulatory Agency). After draining, the pond shall
be graded and/or covered with acceptable materials
that (1) prevent wind and water erosion and (2) eliminate
depressions that would allow water to collect and seep
through the stabilized area.
6« Prior written approval of the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency)
must be obtained before any tailings material is removed from any
inactive tailings pile, and the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency)
shall maintain an inventory of all removed tailings, including dis-
position.
7. The owner or assignees of any tailings pile sate shall give the
(Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) written notice at least 30
days before any contemplated transfer of right, title, or interest
in the site or material thereon by deed, lease, or other conveyance.
The written notice shall include, but is not limited to, the name
and address of the proposed owner or transferee, a description of
the proposed land use and the quality and character of the tailings
material involved. Prior to the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency)
-------
27
REGULATION (continued)
approval of the proposed action, it must be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency' that the
proposed action will not result in radioactive exposure(s) that
exceed those specified by the applicable State and Federal regula-
tions. Prior to assignment, the assignee shall be informed of all
duties and responsibilities by the owner.
8. All stabilization plans and methods shall consider long-term main-
tenance requirements to insure protection of the environment which
will be specified in the written plans required to comply with this
Regulation. Such maintenance may include, but is not limited to,
irrigation, clean-out and repair of ditches, repair of fences, re-
seeding, or replanting. The (Appropriate Statse Regulatory Agency)
through periodic inspection of each pile, will evaluate the need
for such remedial measures and will advise the owner or assignees
if action is required.
9. The effective date of this Regulation shall fae forty-five (45) days
after the date of adoption.
10. Prior to consideration and adoption of this Regulation, the
(Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) will conduct public hearings
in order that any interested or affected persons may bring comments
regarding this proposed Regulation to the attention of the
(Appropriate State Regulatory Agency).
-------
A. E. Williamson
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
If not, Mr. Dickstein.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We will have a chance to comment on
the status?
MR. STEIN: Yes,
MR. WILLIAMSON: You want by the States?
MR. STEIN: By the States, yes. Did * you want to comment
now?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I Just wanted to ask as to status
where are we today. Do you want to consider that?
MR. STEIN: Yes, certainly. Go ahead.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I can update you on where we are in
Wyoming on this. I think we have solved the problem possibly in
a little different aspect.
Grant you, the one at Ri vert on still creates some
problems because nobody owns it. Until somebody gets tied down
to ownership, why, then something can be done. This is a matter
of the company Just not paying taxes on the land so the county
is going to inherit it sooner or later and then you have some-
body to work with.
But as far as all the rest of the mills that are still
operating and under our land reclamation law for open pit mining
which these all are, the engineer in charge of land reclamation
-------
29
A. E. Williamson
is going to every company and these are all of the lagoon type,
if you wish to call it, not piling, not tailings stacked up in
the air, they are in impoundments, and it is part of their
reclamation program, and has been signed by all of them now, j
that they must cover these tailing lagoons when they stop work-
ing. In other words, they will be covered over with sufficient
|
soil and reseeded. So we think that this will take probably the
i
i
place of a model regulation unless we run into somebody who wants
i
I
to stack it on top of *;he ground again.
That is about where we are at this time.
MR. DICKSTEIN: I now would like to call on Mr.—
i
i
j
MR. STEIN: Let's see if there are any other comments.!
|
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Stein, just one question. Is the
State of Colorado going to explain what differences there are
in their regulation as against this proposed model regulation?
MR. STEIN: We are going to have someone from Colorado
scheduled later.
I also have a question for Mr. Williamson. I know
this is a problem that we have with abandoned mines back East,
but the notion of not having someone to work with often presents
a most vexing and long-range pollution problem.
Now, I don't want to make any Judgment of the situatio^i
at Riverton, but if this is really a problem and it presents an
-------
20
A. E. Williamson
environmental problem, I just raise the question Is It satisfac-
tory just to wait to let nature take Its course until the land
goes back to the county or a public body. Because maybe they may
not be too anxious to pick that up, recognizing the kind of
problem they are going to have when they take it over. And the
experience we have had with situations of that kind Indicates
that the problems tend to drag on and on.
Now, one of the questions that I would present to the
conferees Is either we pursue this or, if the problem rests the
way It Is and we haven't get a responsible party to move
against, there may have to be a public project to take thla.
And I am not indicating that there should be, and I recognize
if you come to that conclusion that someone is going to have
to pay for it. The question Is where the money is going to
come from.
I just have this suggestion. It might be worthwhile
If we could come to a judgment on how much it would cost and
what we would have to do to handle the Rlverton problem to see
where we could look for the resources to do this job. I am
just raising this, Art. I don't know.
Does anyone have any idea what it would take to clean
up Rlverton?
MR. SMITH: I would say at least on the order of
-------
• 31
A. E. Williamson
about $1 million,
MR. STEIN: Pardon?
MR. SMITH: I say at least on the order of about $1
million.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, there is a possibility here
you might investigate concerning this water pollution. We
usually have construction funds that are begging and we give you
back a million or so each year. We might take a look at those
and utilize them somewhere along the line. You give us 70
percent under the new proposed legislation; maybe this will go
a long ways towards it.
MR. STEIN: Well, again, A*t, we are faced with the
problem here, and I am not precluding that, although there may
be some legal difficulties, but the difficulty is that without
a responsible party in the State, even though it is 10 or 5
percent, one, you are going to need a »pon«or for the project,
and secondly, they are going to have to get up some kind of
money. Now, whatever Federal funds are available, if you are
thinking in terms of a matching program, you are going to have
to come forward with some money in the State.
By the way, this may be a Wyoming prob-
lem, but the radiation problem, as Mr. Smith points
out, is not one State's problem, because once this gets In the
-------
A. E. Williamson
water you all have it. It just lasts, I think one of the things
we should do is try to cone up with possibly a more definitive
recommendation on handling the Riverton problem. And one of the
things we might do is le* the Region work together with Wyoming
and come up with a recommendation, possibly, that we can put
into effect or explore and see if we can put into effect on
this.
I suggest that there are two things you will have to
indicate: one, how much it is going to cost; and, two, what you ;
!
are going to do with the money, what kind of resources we will j
/
need and what we are going to come out with. And I would hope
that the Region and Wyoming would work up that and come up with
recommendations.
Fir. Dickstein.
MR. DICKSTEIN: I would now like to call on Mr. James
Malaro of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Mr. Malaro.
-------
33
J. Malaro
JAMES MALARO
ASSISTANT CHIEF, MATERIALS BRANCH
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C.
MR. MALARO: Thank you, Mr. Dickstein.
My name Is James Malaro, Assistant Chief of the
Materials Branch, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington,
D. C.
My brief statement is as follows:
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the
seventh session of the conference on the Colorado River Basin.
Under recently enacted Atomic Energy Commission regu*
lations, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appen-
dix D, implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, the AEC now has responsibility for evaluating the total
environmental impact from AEC licensed new uranium mill opera-
tions regardless of whether the particular impact results from
materials licensable under our regulations. Since it appears
that stabilization and long-term care of tailings will sig-
nificantly reduce the environmental impact from milling opera-
tions, we are requiring that new applicants for uranium mill
licenses discuss their plans for stabilization and long-term
/care of these tailings as part of their environmental report.
-------
•_ 3*
J, Malaro
I It has been and still is the AEC's position that
itailings piles resulting from uranium mill operations should
| be stabilized so as to minimize water and wind erosion. We
; are particularly gratified to see that a major item for con-
I
! sideration at this session is a model State regulation dealing
I with stabilization and long-term maintenance and control of
i
i
| uranium mill tailings. We endorse the adoption of such a regu-
I
! lation by all of the States.
i
j Among some of the approaches that are being considered
!
j by the AEC to deal with tailings from new mills is one which
! would require all uranium mill applicants, in addition to
j
describing procedures for stabilization and long-term control
of tailings, to enter into binding agreements which would assure!
j
such stabilization and long-term control. The model State regu-j
lation being considered here could provide a practical regula-
tory framework for implementing this approach. Such a model
regulation might, for example, include a requirement that the
mill operator post a bond or deposit sufficient funds in an
escrow account to cover expected cost of stabilization and long-
term care of tailings. It might also Include a provision
requiring that ownership of the land on which the tailings are
deposited revert to the State at the termination of the milling
operations.
-------
3!
J• Malaro
We look forward to working with interested Federal
and State agencies in developing practical methods for control-
ling uranium mill tailings and will continue to provide any
assistance we can in developing effective methods for dealing
with this problem.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
If not» thank you very much.
MR. DICKSTEIN: We would now like to proceed to the
various States for any State presentation in the area of the
tailings regulation.
First the State of Arizona.
MR. TABOR: None.
MR. DICKSTEIN: State of California?
MR, DIBBLE: We have no comments either.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you.
State of Colorado.
MR. ROZICH: Mr. Jacoe has a statement.
-------
P. W. Jacoe
P. W. JACOB, DIRECTOR
DIVISION OP OCCUPATIONAL
AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC HEALTH
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. JACOE: I am Mr. P. W, Jacoe. Director, Division
of Occupational and Radiological Health, for the Colorado Depart
ment of Public Health, and I am going to attempt to give you
some of the experiences that we have had in Implementing the
regulations which were adopted on December 12, 1966—
MR. STEIN: Mr. Jacoe, I wonder if you would put
your microphone down a little. I think they are having trouble
hearing you.
MR. JACOE: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. JACOE: —and became effective the following
January in 1967.
Actually, the impetus for getting into the stabiliza-
tion of mill tailings was partly our own and partly because of
the worry that Industry had and mainly because of the great
number of complaints that both the State and industry were
getting because of blowing dust* As Mr. Stein mentioned, the
water problems were very satisfactorily handled and settled by
-------
37
P. W» Jacoe
the time that we got Into it, and the method that we used to
stabilize tailings was merely to maintain the tailings in a
position so that they wouldn't again pollute the water.
As I said before, we had a number of complaints and
the telephone was very busy ringing there for a period of about
a yearf and every time the dust blew we had almost a direct line
between western Colorado and Denver,
Prior to that time a number of studies were done,
particularly on the blowing dust problem. Some were done by
the AEC and there were some taken care of by the Colorado
Department of Health.
I was going to read a short statement from Uranium ,
Wastes In the Colorado Environment, but I will forget about
that for now, but I do want to mention to this group here that
we have done a complete edition of Uranium Wastes in Colo-
rado's Environment in which the tailings problem is discussed,
and it also Includes the uranium mining problems that we got
into clear back in 19*8 and 19*9. And if any of the conferees
here wish a copy of that, Just please let me know and I will
see that they get one.
Along with the then Public Health Service—now, please
excuse me if I get the names of some of the agencies a little
mixed up because of so many changes there have been in the
-------
38
P. W. Jacoe
health department, but this was the Public Health Service—we
did a three-phase study and that is to determine the amount of
radioactivity that is in the air and whether the amounts would
exceed any standards that we might apply.
In Phase One we found nothing of consequence.
In Phase Two we found something of interest, but
probably of no consequence, and that was of the high gross
alpha to the radium which was found. We have not pursued this
any further, but it is at least ef academic interest.
And then Phase Three was the determination of radon
gas. And this particular study that I am referring te, I can
call this one Phase Three, was dene by the Atomic Energy Com-
mission and a new method had to be developed for getting an
integrated sample of radon gas and this whole method had been
devised prior to this particular time. So that we did look for
radon gas in one particular city in which a mill tailings pile
existed and again we found that the radon gas didn't really
exceed -any standards.
So actually in relating to the levels that people are
exposed to, you can see that what we have found so far has not
posed a significant health hazard, but I particularly am not
satisfied with the methods that were previously used because
this was the first time that any of this work was done and
-------
39
P. W. Jacoe
perhaps the methods were crude.
Now, In preparing the regulations that we have, we had
only the Monticello experience in which the AEC stabilized that
mill tailings pile in 1961 and there were a number of other
piles that have been stabilized in Africa, We got the reports
from the African stabilisation and found that they wouldn't very
well apply to Colorado because of the different climatology.
And this is very, very important, the climatology in Colorado,
because actually what some people would call an afternoon
thundershower is a cloudburst in western Colorado, So the area
is very dry and the natural growth that you find there takes a
long time to grow and you won't get very good natural cover.
The regulations were developed with the assistance
of industry, I will say almost with the pressure of industry,
because they realised very well that we did have a problem, and
this is one thing that 1 would like to stress to those States
who are considering adopting mill tailings regulations, is to
work very closely with industry because these people have to
foot the bill and they have got good engineering staffs and they
can help you a great deal. In fact, I am sure that industry
is the same in all States, but our Colorado group gave us a
great deal of assistance and actually the regulation* that they
wrote and that were eventually adopted by the Board ©f Health
-------
. 40
P. W. Jacoe
were a little stronger than I had anticipated that they might be
The implementation of the regulations took time. The
plans had to be submitted before the Board of Health, and the
Board of Health, of course, as many of you know, are mostly non-
technical people, so that an explanation had to be given to
these groups as to actually what was intended and what was
planned and then getting the Job done took additional time. So
as Mr. Smith mentioned, we have been in business only about 4
or 5 years.
In the meantime, we had a discussion with a number of
agronomists from Colorado State University and Mesa College at
Durango concerning the growth of materials on tailings piles
and just how much fertilization and water it would take, and
they advised us that probably 6 to 10 inches of soil and gen-
erally grains would be the best, but they were doing a number
of experiments. And actually we have one tailings pile which
is being experimented on at this particular time and that is
actually growing plants directly on the tailings. Of course a
number of the active piles are doing the same thing. I have
seen growth of grains that are. waist high growing directly out
of the tailings. I think they are fertilized and watered very
frequently, but this is what it requires.
Now, what we try to do with regulations would be to
-------
P. W. Jacoe
make them as simple as possible so that they could be applied
very easily and to leave them fairly wide open, because we
didn't want to limit industry to any one particular method of
stabilisation. So that if anyone came up with something new,
it could be applied, and this could be by adoption of the Board
of Health or by permission of the Board of Health. We are very
anxious to hear from others who might have some different Ideas
on how this could be done rather than Just putting soil on and
planting, because this is a very expensive process and particu-
larly when not a great deal of soil is available.
This was done, by the way, I forgot to mention
previously, in Colorado, but it was a very much simpler opera-
tion. It was a very large mill that had done custom milling
for quite a number of years, and it was situated in an area
where all they had to do was push some dirt from the surround-
ing hills onto the tailings pile and they imported some grass
from Australia and planted it around there and it worked very
well. This was about, oh, 4 or 5 miles west of Colorado
Springs. They had a great deal of trouble with the blowing dust
from this particular operation, and when they moved to Cripple
Creek they stabilized that particular pile. So actually we did
have one pile stabilized before the regulations took effect.
Actually the stabilization process has to be reported
-------
J2
P. W. Jacoe
to the Board of Health very frequently. They want to know what
the piles look like, If the stabilization is working, and this
sort of thing, so that we do have people who are going out into
the field to take a. look at the piles to see if the growth is
good and to determine if there is any washing or any places
where it is unstabilized. You see, what we had in the back of
our minds in stabilizing the tailings piles, really, was to
I
| prevent the washing, as I mentioned before, and to prevent the
blowing dust.
And I think that there is one third thing that we
should all remember --that a large tailings pile such as that is
a nice pile of sand, and it can be used for a number of other
purposes. And stabilization, of course, with dirt will prevent
the use for those purposes. I am not going to mention some of the
particular problems that we have, but most of you know that we
do have quite a problem from the use of piles, as Mr. Smith
mentioned, in one particular city.
We feel that the program is very effective^ and in the
time allotted us .in 5 years it has done the job. We have not
had a great number of telephone calls--well, we haven't had any-{-
where the piles have been stabilised from blowing dust, and we
are doing some sampling in the rivers* Of course we have to*
We are an agreement State and we have to analyze the effluents
-------
P. W. Jacoe
from the active mills and also do some other work in the rivers,
and we have found essentially the same thing that EPA has found,
that the radium content has dropped. About the only thing that
I can see that we have discovered is something that we knew
right along— that the radium varies from time to time in the
river, but this essentially, I think, is due to natural causes
I
through smaller streams and to the amount of radium that the
water picks up from the rocks and soils.
Now, I don't believe it would be advisable for anybody
to feel that they are going to adopt tailings regulations for
the control of uranium mill tailings piles and wave a magic
wand and feel that the job is done, because I think there are
certain responsibilities that a person has to accept. In
adopting these regulations you have got to make periodic
inspections, you have got to do a number of analyses, and there
are a number of other things that you have to do. And hope-
fully, by the time that other States adopt such regulations, we
may have some of the work done and give you some information
that may be of value to you, and I will mention some of that
just a little later in the presentation.
We do not consider this stabilization program that we
have as a permanent method of stabilization. I think it would
be foolish to do so. We don't know how long stabilization will
-------
P. W. Jacoe
last* The question has been raised about the owners of
property, which I want to divert Just a little bit from the—
1 don't have a script here because I speak from notes, But I
want to divert just a little bit from that-that we do have
one particular tailings pile that did change hands between the
time that the radium operation took place and the time it was
stabilized. So we had no particular problem because we had in
our regulations about the same thing that you see in most regu-
lations- and you should have this in them-and that is that
they must Inform you ahead of time that there is a possibility
that there will be a change of property so that the people will
know beforehand that they will have this as part of their
responsibility to stabilize the tailings that they are about to
buy. Now, this occurred in one particular place, and I have a
few slides from that one that I would like to show you in Just
a few minutes.
If I. an taking too much time, would you please let me
know?
MR. STEIN: No* go ahead. I wonder sometlBMfelf you
could bear in mind Mr. Dibble's question on how the Federal
proposal differs from Colorado's regulation. That would be
helpful.
MR. JACOE: Yes, sir.
-------
P. W. Jacoe
MR. STEIN: If you could cover that before you are
through.
Proceed In your own way.
MR. JACOE: Yea, sir.
We have found that occasionally you get washed out
when we have floods and, of course, this is something that you
have to be very careful with, because if it is allowed to con-
tinue you will have a very large area washed out and the cost of
repairing that, and replanting it, etc,, hauling in more dirt,
would be quite high. So this is something that Is all part of
the responsibility.
As I mentioned before, I would like to go a little bit
to the monitoring that we have done, and I mentioned the Colo-
rado River, and Just give you a few numbers* I have the computer
readouts with me. If anyone is Interested In looking at those
later, they can.
Actually, we found 0.3 of plcocurle per liter above
the mill at Rifle and 0.3 above the mill at Climax and 0.2
below the Bill at Climax. These are just average figures. You
will have high ones and you will have low ones. S© you see,
there is no contribution to the river, so that this seemed to
be very effectively cleared up by the program that had been in
operation prior to 1966 or 1967.
-------
P. W, Jacoe
The Dolores River gives us a little more problem
because I think we have some radium getting in from some of
the side streams in there. We found 0.2 above—well, 0.2
average, 0.2 picocurle above the Slick Rock mill tailings pile,
0.3 below, and then you find one as high as 0,82 below, and
there is really no reason for it, this is the type of thing
that you may throw out as a laboratory accident or you might
include in as something that was washed in.
In the San Miguel River we found above Naturita, the
Nat ur it a mill, 0,3 of a picoeurie per milliliter and one sample
ran as high as 12,0, and there was absolutely no reason for this
at all because there isn't a uranium mill in that area at all.
There are some little mining mills up at Telluride and Placer-
vllle and that area up in through there.
So I could go through these figures and they wouldn't
tell you very much because there are such fluctuations, and they
cannot be directly related to tailings piles or to discharges
from uranium mill tailing* property. So the program in effect
is certainly satisfactory,
I would like to mention something else that we have
been doing. And this might be of advantage to you because a
number of people want to use a tailings pile, particularly after
the wonderful job that Bob Beverly did on what we call his golf
-------
P. W. Jacoe
course at Rifle, and it is really a good job. I am very sorry
that I didn't bring the slides for Rifle, but I thought Bob
would want to show you those and he didn't take them along
either. So I don't have those with me.
But this is what we have done, and I will have this
here for people to look at. I don't want to give you too many
of the numbers because we have a commitment to write this up
and publish it. But we are doing external gamma radiation
measurements on a particular mill tailings pile where we
measured the external gamma before: the pile was covered, and
after it was covered we went back and measured the external
gamma. As you can see, we divided the pile off into grids--
MR. STEIN: Mr. Jacoe, you can read the paper. No
one is going to steal your stuff and beat you to publication.
(Laughter.)
Qe ahead.
MR, JACOE: And we have the readings that were taken
at the ground level and at waist level, about *8 foot 'above the
ground level. Then after the dirt was put en we went back and
did this in exactly the same spots and a few. anomalies shewed
up. Sometimes we didn't get much reduction in gamma radiation,
but actually the gamma levels were off by about one order of
magnitude, which 1» pretty good. It reduced th« external gi
-------
48
P, W. Jacoe
Because on a tailings pile you would be well within the limits
for film badging a person according to the radiation regulations
And getting back to the original question about the
proposed regulations, I don't want to actually compare them
point for point because I don't believe I am able to at this
time. I read them over once because they have been changed,
but they are very similar to the Colorado regulations and they
do apply to all mill tailings piles. I might add that I think
that they are very good. I think that all States should adopt
them if they can all adopt them in exactly the same manner and
apply them in the same manner.
I am not prepared, Mr. Stein, to go into a direct
comparison unless I have both of them before me, but I will say
this, that they are very close to the regulations we have and
we feel that ours are quite successful.
MR. ROZICH: Mr. Jacoe, I would like to point out, I
don't know whether he has a copy of the latest draft, which I
notice is the 13th, which was Sunday, and I believe comments
were made on the draft of 1-7-72 that—
MR. DICKSTEIN: These comments were incorporated In
the one »f the 13th.
MR. ROZICH: I see,
MR. DICKSTEIN: Mr. Jaeee was very instrumental in
-------
P. W. Jacoe
these changes,
MR. ROZICH: All right.
MR. JACOE: I would like to bring out the usual
projector. Perhaps it would show you just a little bit of what
was being done if we show you—
MR, STEIN: Here is the point. I think sometime
before the end of this perhaps you or Mr. Smith might get
together with the conferees. As I understand, both you and Mr.
Smith endorsed the Federal recommendation. I think you should
give the conferees some kind of indication of what the dif-
ferences are, and I think Mr, Smith indicated that there were
improvements on the basis of your experience and your comments
were incorporated.
But I think that would help us before we go into our
discussion in executive session if we could have that.
MR, JACOE: I will be very glad to do that.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
....Slides...
MR. JACOE: That is what it looked like before.
These aren't my pictures, because I take very poor pictures.
But part of the mill was being torn down. That was taken with
a telephoto lens, but you can see the tailings pile there and
water that has collected in some of the low spots.
-------
10
P. W. Jacoe
This is looking across the Colorado River., and the
| ponds to the left have been dried up, and the little stream
that you see in the middle is a discharge, I think, from the
Grand Junction sewage disposal pond, and off to the right there
we have an area that is being kept open for replacing any mill
tailings that we might find laying around. Sometimes they seem
to have found their way along the bases of foundations for
homes, etc., as you might have heard or read in your newspapers.
We have an area reserved for that and this will be another area
that the tailings pile will be moved to, will be covered and
will be planted.
Now, that shows the edge of the tailings pile going
down to that pond,and then off to the left there is where we
plan on having a new tailings pile which will be stabilized.
I might mention, too, that this particular company,
regarding a question that was asked before, did set something
aside on per ton of uranium produced for tailings control, 80
that when they shut down the plant they had a certain amount of
money left over for contraband they immediately went in to
control their tailings pile. This was an excellent suggestion
that was made here a few minutes ago.
And that is a telephoto lens copy of the whole thing.
You can see how the pile is being leveled off there, and this is
-------
51,
P. W. Jacoe
the Colorado River directly at the bottom of this llght> and
back there is an intake canal which was used for milling opera-
tions*
And again I think that is in back, I don't know for
sure, but it shows about the same thing and you can see the
extent of the pile*
Now there it is all covered over and smoothed off. And
this was taken with a telephoto lens, but at the edge there you
can see the riprap that was put in, and these are large chunks
of concrete and the concrete is put along dirt. Now, the
extreme edge that you see there is a dirt road, automobile road,
so that the actual tailings extend back about, oh, perhaps 25
or 30 feet.
Now you can see that a little closer, and you can
see the area that they have leveled off. Finding dirt was a
little difficult for this operation, but the chunks of concrete
are there and you can see the road a little closer.
This shows the ponds after they were dried up and that
again is in backwards. I think that you can begin to see some
of the growth off to the right there that has been put on there.
I think most of that is volunteer! It is weeds.
And again there Is some of the growth on the tailings
pile taking place and it's beginning to, well, look like my
-------
: 52-
P. W. Jaeoe
backyard does in August with all of the weeds on it, But you
can see that it does actually work and there is growth and that
most of it is volunteer growth. Some of that is planted, of
course.
Now, that is a tailings pile taken in the wintertime.
You can see the snow. That is the one at Naturlta, and it Just
gives you a general idea of what it looked like before it was
stabilized.
And you can see again the riprapping material that was
put along the side of the river., And I think there are some pretty
good figures on flood stages and then, of course, before you get
to the tailings pile there is a lot of dirt piled for a roadway
going around the pile*
MR. STEIN: Mr. Jacoe, do the tailings go up to the
riprap or is there a barrier between the tailings and that
riprap?
MR. JACOE: No, there is a barrier between the tailingi
and the riprap. The barrier en this facility will be an auto-
mobile road for them to get around to the other side and so that
they can fill in washes, because we did have one area that
washed pretty badly on this particular pile.
Decs that answer your question, sir?
MR. STEIN: Yes. In other words, there is no radtoestivc
-------
: 53
P. W. Jacoe
material right up against the riprap? As a matter of fact, that
road Is not tailings material, Is that right?
MR. JACOE: That Is correct, sir, yes,
MR, STEIN: Thank you.
MR. JACOE: Now you can begin to see how It looks with
some dirt on It. And I had forgotten to mention that we always
ask for a ditch to be put along the top when a tailings pile Is
being stabilized and It slopes down towards the river, and we
put a ditch along the top to divert water that might happen to
run down off of the surrounding hills and create a wash, so that
all of them do have this ditch there to prevent that.
And this Is the same pile and the dirt begins to look
pretty good. Actually, they planted grains on this one, and we
had rye that was about, oh, I would say 3 feet high there at
one time. It does demand a little irrigation because it doesn't
rain very much here.
Then here It Is with the growth on it. That looks to
me like the Rifle mill. Bob Beverly, could you help me with
that?
MR. BEVERLY: Old BlfX*«.
MR, JACOE: That is the old Rifle mill. That is Bob
Beverly «s golf course I was telling you about,, and It is a very
beautiful piece of work there. You drive along there and you
-------
P. W, Jacoe
see the sea of green there in the summertime, you would never
know that there was a tailings pile there. This, by the way,
was the first one that was stabilized.
Now, this is the one that I was mentioning a few
minutes ago that belonged to a different company, and it looked
like this alongside the road. The tailings had blown from the
west and had increased almost down to the fence. This seemed
to be one of the easier ones to stabilise because it was In
flat country, and the pile was put up about, oh, maybe 20 feet
off the surface of the ground and was fairly level. It didn't
require much work to get it level enough to plant something on.
And I think practically all of the growth on this is volunteer
growth. They did plant a few of the grasses and weeds.
And that is the same pile taken in the wintertime. It
doesn't show very much.
Now here is what I wanted to show you. This is the
riprapping there at Slick Rock, If I am not mistaken. You can
see that now where the pile had been removed, it was almost
down to the river at one time and had been pushed back and rip-
rapped in that particular manner to prevent the tailings from
being washed down.
And here it Is with—you can see part of the rlprapplnjg
down there and there it is with the growth on it, which looks
-------
55
P. W. Jacoe
pretty good. It does prevent erosion pretty well and prevents
water from being washed into the river.
Now this is an experiment of ours and it is not—it
hasn't been approved by the Board of Health, but a number of
universities and colleges and the U. S. Bureau of Mines are
experimenting on this. You can see that is a very steep pile
and they are trying to grow directly on the tailings. It
requires a great deal of water, some fertilization, but you can
see that it can be done. The area off to the left there just
above the locomotive was very steep, and they are using these
mats that they have seeds in to plant in that area. Mats are
about the only thing that will grow in something that steep.
That pile, of courseT-I feel when the Board of Health approves
the eventual stabilization of that»-will have to be leveled off
and stabilized in the other manner, but they wanted to leave
this open for some experimentation to see what will grow best
and how it will grow directly on the pile itself. We have
information from the universities that it takes 20 to Mo years
of continuous growth on a tailings pile with no dirt for enough
dirt and mulch to be built up to maintain a growth of natural
vegetation and we just don't feel we can wait that long, but it
i« an experiment•
And I guess that is it for the slides.
-------
_____ 56
R. D. Westergard
MR, STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
Just one question, Mr. Jacoe. Whatever happened to
the method that they were considering years ago of putting some
petroleum derivative on those piles? I guess that didn't pan
out too well?
MR. JACOB; No, that didn't pan out too well. We
talked to the highway department. It only lasts for about a
year and once you get a wash it Just washes off. It is very
expensive also.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Jacoe. We will move on
with the States.
Nevada.
ROLAND D. WESTERGARD
STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
CARSON CITY, NEVADA
MR. WESTERGARD: Mr. Chairman, under date of yesterda
the interested Nevada agencies have submitted a letter to yeu o
this subject, and rather than read it in detail I will Just
-------
, 57
H. D. Westergard
submit it for the record and Just read the outline of what it
says. Essentially it goes to the terminology and I think can be
summarized by saying that we suggest a little more positive
rather than permissive terminology in the regulation.
We also have some concern about the section that has
been discussed here by the AEG representatives and others
requiring long-term maintenance requirements and Just how this
can be made effective.
That generally is the text of our letter.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that letter will appear
in the record at this point as if read.
(The above-mentioned letter follows:)
-------
MIKE O'CALLAGHAN
Governor
STATE OF NEVADA
COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ROOM 131. NYE BUILDING • TELEPHONE 882-787O
CARSON CITY. NEVADA 897O1
February 14, 1972
58
COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN
ELMO 3. DERICCO
Director
Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
VICE CHAIRMAN
ROLAND WESTERGARD
State Engineer
Division of Water Resources
SECRETARY—CONTROL OFFICER
ERNEST GREGORY
Chief
Bureau of Environmental Health
FRANK W. GROVES
Director
Department of Fish and Game
WILLIAM HANCOCK
Secretary-Manager
State Planning Board
LEE BURGE
Director
Department of Agriculture
GRANT BASTIAN
State Highway Engineer
Department of Highways
GEORGE ZAPPETTINl
State Forester
Division of Forestry
THOMAS WILSON
Coordinator
State Comprehensive
Health Planner
Murray Stein, Chairman
Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of the Colorado River
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Administrator
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Regulations for the Stabilization
of Radioactive Tailings Piles
Dear Mr. Stein:
Interested Nevada state agencies have reviewed the
model regulation for the stabilization of radioactive tailings
piles and offer the following comments:
1. Under the section titled DEFINITIONS, the definition
"Stabilization - Encompasses all measures necessary to insure
immediate and future protection of the environment and to eliminate
hazards to health and welfare with a minimum of future maintenance.
In no case shall the stabilized pile exceed or cause to be exceeded
applicable health or other environmental standards", is nebulous
and does not speak to the process of stabilizing.
It is suggested the definition be reworded to state:
"Stabilization - The confinement or containment of tailings
piles be vegetative, mechanical, physical or other measures to
prevent erosion. In no case shall the stabilized pile exceed
or cause to be exceeded applicable health or other environmental
standards."
2. Page 5, paragraph 4, lines 8 and 10. The words
"should" be replaced by "shall" to make plan submission and
approval mandatory. "...No surface disposal [should] shall be
allowed until the '(Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) has
approved the stabilization plans. The plans [should] shall be
submitted to the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) at least
90 days prior to the scheduled start-up of a mill."
3. Page 5, paragraph 5, line 3 reads "..iThe results
of the inspection will be submitted to the (Appropriate State
Regulatory Agency) and to the owner or assigness of the pile..."
The phrase "to the (Appropriate State Regulatory Agency) and..."
could be deleted. Unless there is more than one state regulatory
agency involved it would seem reasonable the enforcing agency
would retain a copy of its own report.
-------
59
Murray Stein
February 14, 1972
-2-
4. Page 6, paragraph 6b, first line, reads "The surface
of inactive piles shall be covered with materials that prevent
wind and water erosion..." It is suggested this line be amended
to read "The surface of inactive piles shall be planted with
suitable vegetation or covered with materials [that] _to prevent
wind and water erosion..." to provide an option.
5. Page 7, paragraph 6e, reads "The owner or assignees
should keep tailings piles out of natural drainage courses so
as to reduce the need for long-term maintenance of diversion
structures." Because long-term maintenance of diversion structures
is next to impossible to practice or enforce, this section should
not be optional but mandatory. It is suggested this section be
amended to read "The owner or assignees [should] shall keep
tailings out of natural drainage channels."
6. Paragraph 6, tailings placed on unstable soil
formations can produce slides or subsidences which in turn produce
adverse changes in nautral drainage channels. It is suggested
an additional subsection h. be included to read "No tailings piles
shall be placed on unstable soil formations that will result in
a displacement of these formations."
7. Page 8, paragraph 9, this section requires long-
term maintenance requirements but does not establish the respon-
sible entity. Often mining companies, through the mining claim
procedures, hold no more than a possessory interest in the public
lands from which they mine and on which they place their tailings.
At the end of operations they may abandon the land and terminate
partnerships, dissolve corporations, etc. There are no assignees,
the government simply gets the land back. In these cases who is
responsible for the maintenance? In addition, who is responsible
in the event of a relocation by another entity?
Sincerely,
JolandWestergard
Conferee
RW/gm
cc: E. G. Gregory
Elmo J. DeRicco
Don Paff
-------
s _60
General Discussion
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you, sir.
New Mexico?
MR. SLINQERLAND: No statement.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you.
Wyoming?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't believe I have too much
to add to what I previously mentioned of our procedure. It
may be necessary for some type of additional regulation to
handle underground mining. Our present land reclamation will
tie down all surface operations, but if somebody starts a
deep shaft mine then we have got another problem.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you, Art.
That concludes the tailings. Are there any further
questions?
I turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: If Utah appears before we come back
from our recess, which we are going to take very shortly,
we will let them talk about this. But frequently people
ask what does a conference accomplish. I think that possibly
the conversations or the discussions we first had with the
uranium milling industry on this radioactivity problem con-
trasted with what we have heard today will be like, I think,
day and night. But you can read the record for yourself.
-------
61
General Discussion
Maybe It is the times or maybe it is the push that we have
had.
Again, I feel that we have generally had, with
the cooperation of the States, the industry and AEC, a
very successful program in abating water pollution from
any of the uranium milling operations. The radiation levels
are way, way, way down and under control. However, to keep
this in perspective, I think we have to recognize that we
are dealing with a residual problem as far as the water
pollution people are concerned, that being the control of
these tailings piles. I think the comments here have indi-
cated that there has been a considerable amount of experience,
a considerable amount of experimentation and successful
operation, and that we probably have the tools at hand to
be able to handle this. I hope the conferees will be able
to come up with something relatively positive on this issue.
We will stand recessed for 10 minutes.
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Before we go on, we would like to hear from Mr. Tabor
of Arizona.
Mr. Tabor.
MR. TABOR: Mr. Chairman, I Just wanted to make a
-------
General Discussion
statement that Arizona has passed a law relating to radio-
logical wastes and tailings and has regulations concerning
same. They were, quite frankly, plagiarised from Colorado.
(Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or questions?
I would like to reserve one other thing. I think Mr.
Thatcher of Utah is on his way and probably might be having
airplane trouble, but if he comes we will call on him, too, for
his contribution on the tailings problem.
We would like to move on now to the salinity problem,
and with that I would like to call on Mr. O'Connell.
RICHARD 0'CORNELL, DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, REGION IX
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you mentioned, the other principal topic of this
session of the conference is the mineral qmality or salinity of
the waters of the Colorado River Basin. This subject has been
the subject of extensive investigation by the Environmental
Protection Agency and ita predecessor agencies over the past
few years. This work was carried out at the direction of and
-------
_63
R, O'Connell
with the guidance of this conference.
These studies have been completed and the Environmenta
Protection Agency technical staff Is prepared at this time to
report to the conferees on their findings.
I would like, therefore, to call on Mr. Russell Free-
man of the Environmental Protection Agency Region IX office, who
with the assistance of others that he will Introduce will presen
these findings at this time,
Mr* Freeman.
L. RUSSELL FREEMAN
DIRECTOR, PACIFIC OFFICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HONOLULU, HAWAII
MR. FREEMAN: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. 0* Cornell,
My name is Russell Freeman. I am presently the
Director ef the Environmental Protection Agency * s Pacific
Office In Honolulu* However, during the course of the work
which we will be reporting to you in the next few moments, I
served first of all as Chief of the project's salinity unit
located at Denver, Colorado, and later as Deputy Director for
the Colorado River. Basin Project of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration.
-------
64
R. Freeman
Our presentation this morning is contained in a
report entitled Report on the Mineral Quality Problem in the
Colorado River Basin. This consists of a summary report and
four appendices. I will present an introduction and I will
also present at a later time the conclusions and recommenda-
tions from this report. Other parts of the report will be
presented by Mr. William e. Blackman of our Denver Office, by
Mr. James Vincent, also of our Denver Office, and by Mr. Jim
Russell from our San Francisco Office. In the interest of time,
we will present only a very brief summary of the material con-
tained in this report, and for those of you who wish more
detailed information the report is available in the foyer.
However, Mr. Chairman, we would like to have the
entire report in the conference transcript.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, the report in its
entirety will be Included in the record as if read.
(The above-mentioned report and appendices fellow:)
-------
THE MINERAL QUALITY PROBLEM
IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
SUMMARY REPORT
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONS VIII AND IX
1971
-------
66
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency was established
by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 and became
operative on December 2, 1970. The EPA consolidates
in one agency Federal control programs involving air
and water pollution, solid waste management, pesticides,
radiation and noise. This report was prepared over a
period of eight years by water program components of
EPA and their predecessor agencies—the Federal Water
Quality Administration, U.S. Department of Interior,
April 1970 to December 1970; the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U.S. Department of Interior,
October 1965 to April 1970; the Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, U.S. Public Health
Service, prior to October 1965. Throughout the report
one or more of these agencies will be mentioned and
should be considered as part of a single agency—in
evolution.
-------
67
PREFACE
The Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project was
established as a result of recommendations made at the first
session of a joint Federal-State "Conference in the Matter
of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River
and Its Tributaries," held in January of 1960 under the
authority of Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.). This conference was called at
the request of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah to consider all types of water
pollution in the Colorado River Basin. The Project serves
as the technical arm of the conference and provides the
conferees with detailed information on water uses, the
nature and extent of pollution problems and their effects
on water users, and recommended measures for control of
pollution in the Colorado River Basin.
The Project has carried out extensive field investigations
along with detailed engineering and economic studies to
accomplish the following objectives:
(1) Determine the location, magnitude, and causes of
interstate pollution of the Colorado River and its
tributaries.
(2) Determine and evaluate the nature and magnitude of
the damages to water users caused by various types
of pollution.
(3) Develop, evaluate, and recommend measures and
programs for controlling or minimizing interstate
water pollution problems.
In 1963, based upon recommendations of the conferees, the
Project began detailed studies of the mineral quality
problem in the Colorado River Basin. Mineral quality,
commonly known as salinity, is a complex Basinwide problem
that is becoming increasingly important to users of Colorado
River water. Due to the nature, extent, and impact of the
salinity problem, the Project extended certain of its
activities over the entire Colorado River Basin and the
Southern California water service area.
The more significant findings and data from the Project's
salinity studies and related pertinent information are
summarized in the report entitled, "The Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River Basin." Detailed information
pertaining to the methodology and findings of the Project's
salinity studies are presented in three appendices to that
report—Appendix A, "Natural and Man-Made Conditions Affecting
Mineral Quality," Appendix B. "Physical and Economic Impacts,"
and Appendix C, "Salinity Control and Management Aspects."
ii
-------
68
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ........................................ ij-
LIST OF TABLES ................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................ vii
Chapter
I . INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
STUDY OBJECTIVES
SCOPE ................................. 2
AUTHORITY ............................. 3
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................... 5
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 8
III . DESCRIPTION OF AREA ..................... 9
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION .............. ----- 9
CLIMATE .......................... ..... 9
POPULATION AND ECONOMY ................ H
WATER RESOURCES ....................... 12
WATER COMPACTS ........................ l2
WATER USE ............................. 13
IV. MINERAL QUALITY EVALUATION .............. 14
CAUSES OF SALINITY INCREASES .......... 1*
SOURCES OF SALT LOADS . . ............... 17
PRESENT AND FUTURE SALINITY
CONCENTRATIONS ........................ 18
iii
-------
69
Page
PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
SALINITY 24
Effects of Salinity on Beneficial
Uses of Water 24
Direct Economic Effects Upon Water
Users 26
Indirect Economic Effects 28
Total Penalty Costs 28
Total Salinity Detriments 30
V. TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR SALINITY
CONTROL. . 33
VI. SALINITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES 35
TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS 35
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION
ACTIVITIES 36
SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS . . 38
VII. ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
OF SALINITY. . 40
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE BASINWIDE
SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAMS 40
SALINITY MANAGEMENT COSTS 43
TOTAL SALINITY COSTS 46
ECONOMIC AND WATER QUALITY EFFECTS.... 46
COST DISTRIBUTIONS AND EQUITY
CONSIDERATIONS 50
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS... 53
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 56
VIII. ACTION PLAN FOR SALINITY CONTROL AND
MANAGEMENT 57
BASIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE 57
SALINITY STANDARDS 57
SALINITY CONTROL AGENCY. , 59
-------
70
Page
BASINWIDE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM 60
Legislative Authorization 61
Planning Phase ^1
System Analyses 62
Research and Demonstration
Activities ^
Reconnaissance Investigations 64
Feasibility Studies 64
Legal and Institutional
Evaluations 6^
Implementation Phase 65
-------
71
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Effect of Various Factors on Salt
Concentrations of Colorado River at
Hoover Dam (I960 Conditions) 15
2 Summary of Salt Load Distributions 18
3 Comparison of Salinity Projections 21
4 Effect of Various Factors on Future Salt
Concentrations of Colorado River at
Hoover Dam (2010 Conditions) 22
5 Summary of Penalty Costs 29
6 Technical Possibilities for Salinity
Control 33
7 Comparison of Alternative Salinity
Control Programs 42
8 Salinity Management Project Data 44
9 Comparison of Salinity Cost
Distributions 54
-------
72
LIST OF FIGURES
Paqe
Figure
1 Colorado River Basin and Southern
California Water Service Area ............ 10
2 Flow, Loads, and Salinity Concentrations
in Streams in the Colorado River Basin... 20
3 Location of Salinity Impact Study Area*.. 25
4 Salinity Detriments ........ . ............. 31
5 Location of Potential Salt Load
Reduction Projects ....................... 4:>
6 Salinity Management Costs .......... . ..... 47
7 Total Salinity Costs ..................... 48
8 Salinity Costs vs Time. . . ............... « 51
9 Salinity Concentrations vs Time .......... 52
vii
-------
73
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The Colorado River system carries a large salt burden
(dissolved solids) contributed by a variety of natural and
man-made sources. Depletion of streamflow by natural
evapotranspiration and by comsumptive use of water for
municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses reduces the
volume of water available for dilution of this salt burden.
As a result, salinity concentrations in the lower river
system exceed desirable levels and are approaching critical
levels for some water uses. Future water resource and
economic developments will increase streamflow depletions
and add salt which in turn will result in higher salinity
concentrations.
As salinity concentrations increase, adverse physical
effects are produced on some water uses. These effects
result in direct economic losses to water users and indirect
economic losses to the regional economy. Unless salinity
controls are implemented, future increases in salinity
concentrations will seriously affect water use patterns and
will result in large economic losses.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the salinity investigations summarized
in this report were to provide answers to the following
questions:
What are the nature and magnitude of the major causes
of the salinity build-up in the Colorado River and its
tributaries?
What future changes in salinity concentrations may be
expected if no controls are implemented?
What are the present physical and economic impacts of
salinity on water uses, and how will these change in
the future?
What measures may be feasible for control and management
of salinity in the Colorado River system?
What are the economic costs and benefits associated
with various levels of salinity control?
What is the most practical approach to basinwide control
and management of salinity?
-------
What action must be taken to implement a basinwide
salinity control and management program?
SCOPE
The Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project
(hereinafter referred to as the Project) was established
in 1960 by the Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control, U. S. Public Health Service (predecessor to the
Federal Water Quality Administration). The Project was
charged with the responsibility for identifying and
evaluating the most critical water pollution problems in
the Basin. Initial emphasis was placed upon evaluation and
control of pollution resulting from uranium mill operations.
As a result of early Project investigations, salinity was
identified as a pressing water quality problem which
warranted detailed study. In 1963, the Project initiated
salinity investigations directed toward answering the
questions outlined above. This report summarizes the results
of those investigations.
Salt sources contributing to the salinity problem are
located throughout the Colorado River Basin. A large
volume of water is exported from the Lower Colorado River
to areas of Southern California. For these reasons, the
geographical area covered by the Project included the
entire Colorado River Basin and the Southern California
water service area. Colorado River water is also utilized
by Mexico. However, investigation of the effects of salinity
on Mexican water uses was not within the scope of this
study.
A broad range of studies was carried out which involved an
array of scientific disciplines including hydrology, chemistry,
mathematics, computer science, soil science, geology, civil,
sanitary and agricultural engineering, and economics. The
Project studies included intensive, short-term water quality
field investigations, long-term water quality monitoring,
mathematical simulation of water quality relationships,
reconnaissance level evaluation of specific salinity control
measures, and detailed economic studies. In addition to the
Project's efforts in these areas, much input was provided
by other Federal and State agencies and institutions, some
of which were financially supported by the Federal Water
Quality Administration (FWQA).
The data and recommendations contained herein are specifically
related to the Colorado River Basin. However, the basic
approach and methodology developed for evaluation of the
physical and economic effects of salinity are considered
applicable to many other areas of the West. Salinity
-------
75
control measures developed for the Basin may also be
applicable to other areas with similar conditions.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that if this report
has erred in regard to estimated projections of salinity
increases with the associated economic losses therefore,
the errors have been in the direction of minimizing
adverse effects. The actual effects are likely to be
more severe than these figures indicate.
AUTHORITY
The Federal Water Quality Administration, U. S. Department
of the Interior, formerly the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, has primary responsibility for
implementing national policy for enhancement of the quality
of the Nation's water resources through the control of
pollution. This policy has been spelled out over the past
14 years in a series of legislative acts which are described
as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.). Section 10(d) of this Act
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, ... "whenever
requested by any State water pollution control agency..."
if such request refers to pollution of waters which is
endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State
other than in which (the source of pollution) originates,
..."to call a conference..." of the State or States which
may be adversely affected by such pollution." Section 10
authorizes the Secretary to recommend "necessary remedial
action" and also provides various legal steps that may be
taken to abate pollution if remedial action is not taken
in a reasonable period of time.
Under the provision of Section 10 of the Act, the initial
session of the "Conference in the Matter of Pollution of
the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and Its
Tributaries" was held on January 13, 1960. The conference
was requested by six of the seven Basin States. Five
additional formal sessions of the conference and three
technical sessions were held from 1960 to 1967. These
sessions provided assignments to the Project for developing
recommendations of remedial action to abate pollution.
Added impetus was given to the Project's salinity invest-
igations on October 2, 1965 by passage of the Water Quality
Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-234). This Act amended Section 10 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide that
the States establish water quality standards for all
interstate waters. Subsequent difficulties, encountered
-------
76
in establishing suitable salinity criteria as a part of
these standards, pointed out the need to complete various
aspects of the Project's investigations in order to provide
the basis for establishing such standards.
-------
77
CHAPTER II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. Salinity (total dissolved solids) is the most serious
water quality problem in the Colorado River Basin.
Average annual salinity concentrations in the Colorado
River presently range from less than 50 mg/1 in the
high mountain headwaters to about 865 rag/1 at Imperial
Dam, the last point of major water diversion in the
United States. Salinity adversely affects the water
supply for a population exceeding 10 million people
and for 800,000 irrigated acres located in the Lower
Colorado River Basin and the Southern California water
service area. Salinity also adversely affects water
uses in Mexico and in limited areas of the Upper
Colorado River Basin.
2. Salinity concentrations in the Colorado River system are
affected by two basic processes: (1) salt loading, the
addition of mineral salts from various natural and man-
made sources, and (2) salt concentrating, the loss of
water from the system through evaporation, transpiration,
and out-of-basin export.
3. Salinity and stream flow data for the 1942-1961 period
of hydrologic record were used as the basis for estimating
average salinity concentrations under various conditions
of water development and use. Assuming repetition of
this hydrologic record, salinity concentrations at
Hoover Dam would average about 700 mg/1 and 760 mg/1
under 1960 and 1970 conditions. If development and
utilization of the Basin's water resources proceed as
proposed and if no salinity controls are implemented,
average annual salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam
would increase to about 880 mg/1 in 1980 and 990 mg/1 in
2010. Comparable figures at Imperial Dam are 760 mg/1
and 870 mg/1 under 1960 and 1970 conditions, and 1060
mg/1 and 1220 mg/1 under 1980 and 2010 conditions. If
future water resource development in the Basin were to
be limited to completion of projects currently under
construction, it is estimated that average annual salinity
concentrations for 1980 and subsequent years would
increase to only about 800 mg/1 at Hoover Dam and 920
mg/1 at Imperial Dam.
4. It is estimated that if the 1942-1961 period of hydrologic
record were repeated under conditions comparable to
when the Colorado River was in its natural state,
salinity concentrations at the site of Hoover Dam would
average about 330 mg/1. Because of man's influence,
average concentrations at this point more than doubled
-------
78
(697 mg/1) under 1960 conditions and will triple by
2010 (990 mg/1) , if presently planned development and
utilization of water resources occurs. Reservoir
evaporation and irrigation will account for almost three-
fourths of the salinity increase between 1960 and 2010.
5. Under 1960 conditions, natural sources accounted for
47% of the salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam. The
remainder was accounted for by irrigation (37%) , reservoir
evaporation (12%), out-of-basin exports (3%) , and
municipal-industrial uses (1%).
6. As salinity concentrations rise about 500 to 700 mg/1,
the net economic return from irrigated agriculture
begins to decrease because of increased operating costs
and reduced crop yields. At levels above 1,000 mg/1,
the types of irrigated crops grown may be limited, and
more intensive management of irrigation practices is
necessary to maintain crop yields. At levels exceeding
2,000 mg/1, only certain crops can be produced by adopting
highly specialized and costly irrigation management
practices. Municipal and industrial water users incur
increasing costs as salinity levels increase above 500
mg/1, the maximum level recommended in the U. S. Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
7. The present annual economic detriments of salinity are
estimated to total $16 million. If water resources
development proceeds as proposed and no salinity controls
are implemented, it is estimated that average annual
economic detriments (1970 dollars) would increase to
$28 million in 1980 and $51 million in 2010. If future
water resources development is limited to those projects
now under construction, estimated annual economic
detriments would increase to $21 million in 1980 and
$29 million in 2010. Detriments to water users in
Mexico and to recreation and fishery users in the Salton
Sea are not included in the estimates.
8. More than 80 percent of the total future economic
detriments caused by salinity will be incurred by
irrigated agriculture located in the Lower Basin and the
Southern California water service area and by the
associated regional economy. About two-thirds of these
detriments will be incurred directly by irrigation water
users and the remainder will be incurred indirectly by
other industries associated with agriculture.
9. Alternatives for salinity control in the Colorado River
Basin include:
a. Augmentation of Basin water supply. This could be
-------
79
achieved by importation of demineralized sea water,
importation of fresh water from other basins, or
utilization of weather modification techniques to
increase precipitation and runoff. This alternative
should be considered as a possible long-term solution
to the salinity problem.
b. Reduction of salt loads. This could be achieved by
impoundment and evaporation of saline water from
point sources, diversion of runoff and streams
around areas of high salt pickup, improvement of
irrigation and drainage practices, improvement of
irrigation conveyance facilities, desalination of
saline discharges from natural and man-made sources,
and desalination of water supplies at points of use
with appropriate disposal of the waste brine. A
basinwide salt load reduction program has been
developed which would reduce the salt load contributed
by five large natural sources and twelve irrigated
areas totaling 600,000 acres. If fully implemented,
it is estimated that this program would reduce
average salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam by
about 250 mg/1 in 1980 and about 275 mg/1 in 2010.
c. Limitation of further depletion of Basin water supply.
This could be achieved by curtailment of future water
resources development. Such action would minimize
both future increases in salinity levels and the
adverse economic impact of such increases.
10. A basinwide salt load reduction program appears to be the
most feasible of the three salinity control alternatives.
The scope of such a program will depend upon the desired
salinity objectives. Partial implementation of the other
two alternatives would increase the effectiveness of the
salt load reduction program.
11. A basinwide salt load reduction program designed to
minimize total salinity costs (detriments plus control
costs) would have an estimated average annual cost
of $7 million in 1980 and $13 million in 2010 (1970
dollars). Implementation of this program could limit
salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam to approximately
1970 levels while allowing planned water resource
development to proceed. The direct salinity control
benefits (avoidance or mitigation of expected future
salinity detriments) of such a program are estimated
to total $11 million in 1980 and $22 million in 2010
(1970 dollars).
-------
80
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:
1. A salinity policy be adopted for the Colorado
River system that would have as its objective the
maintenance of salinity concentrations at or
below levels presently found in the lower main-
stem.
2. Specific water quality standards criteria be
adopted at key points throughout the basin by
the appropriate States, in accordance with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Such criteria
should be consistent with the salinity policy and
should assure the objective of keeping the
maximum mean monthly salinity concentrations at
Imperial Dam below 1000 mg/1. These criteria
should be adopted by January 1, 1973.
3. Implementation of the recommended policy and
criteria be accomplished by carrying out a basin-
wide salinity control program concurrently with
planned future development of the basin's water
resources.
-------
81
CHAPTER III. DESCRIPTION OF AREA
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The Colorado River is situated in the southwestern United
States and extends 1,400 miles from the Continental Divide
in the Rocky Mountains of north central Colorado to the
Gulf of California (Figure 1). Its river basin covers
an area of 244,000 square miles, approximately one-twelfth
of the continental United States. The Colorado River Basin
includes parts of seven states; Arizona, California,
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. About one
percent of the Basin drains lands in Mexico.
The Colorado River rises on the east slope of Mount
Richthofen, a peak on the Continental Divide having an
altitude of 13,000 feet, and flows generally southwestward,
leaving the United States at an elevation of about 100 feet
above sea level. The Colorado River Basin is composed of
a complex of rugged mountains, high plateaus, deep canyons,
deserts and plains. Principal physical characteristics of
the region are its variety of land forms, topography and
geology.
The Colorado River Compact of 1922 established a division
point on the Colorado River at Lee Ferry, Arizona, to
separate the Colorado River Basin into an "Upper Basin"
and a "Lower Basin" for legal, political, institutional and
hydrologic purposes. Lee Ferry is located about one mile
below the confluence of the Paria River and approximately 17
miles downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. The Upper Basin
encompasses about 45 percent of the drainage area of the
Colorado River Basin.
In addition to the Colorado River Basin, the Project's
investigations covered the area of southern California
receiving Colorado River water. This area of about 15,400
square miles includes the Imperial and Coachella Valleys
which surround the Salton Sea as well as the metropolitan
areas of Los Angeles and San Diego.
CLIMATE
Climatic extremes in the Basin range from hot and arid in
the desert areas to cold and humid in the mountain ranges.
Precipitation is largely controlled by elevation and the
orographic effects of mountain ranges. At low elevations
or in the rain shadow of coastal mountain ranges, desert
areas may receive as little as 6 inches of precipitation
annually, while high mountain areas may receive more than
60 inches.
-------
82
LEGEND
Colorado River Basin Boundary
Southern CaSforma Water Service Area Boundary
Figure 1 Colorado River Basin and Southern California Water Service Area
-------
83
Basin temper at vires range from temperate, affording only a
90-day growing season in the mountain meadows of Colorado
and Wyoming, to semi-tropical with year-round cropping in
the Yuma-Phoenix area. On a given day, both the high and
low temperature extremes for the continental United States
frequently occur within the Basin.
In the southern California water service area, the climate
of the area surrounding the Salton Sea is hot and arid, while
the climate of the coastal metropolitan areas is moderated
by proximity to the Pacific Ocean.
POPULATION AND ECONOMY
The Colorado River Basin is sparsely populated. In 1965 the
estimated population was nearly 2.25 million. The average
density was about nine persons per square mile compared with
a national average of 64. Eighty-five percent of the
population lived in the Lower Basin. About 70 percent of the
Lower Basin population resided in the metropolitan areas
of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. The
population of the Colorado River Basin is estimated to
triple by 2010.
The southern California water service area contained an
estimated eleven million people in 1965. Most of the
population was concentrated in the highly urbanized
Los Angeles-San Diego metropolitan area.
The economy of the Basin is based on manufacturing, irrigated
agriculture, mining, forestry, oil and gas production,
livestock and tourism.
The present economy of the Upper Basin is largely resource
oriented. This orientation is not restricted entirely to
agriculture, forestry and mining, but includes the region's
recreational endowment and the associated contribution to
basic income. The mineral industry overshadows activities
of the agricultural and forestry sectors. The major effects
of outdoor recreation and tourism are reflected in the
tertiary or non-commodity producing industries which as a
group contribute the greatest share to total Upper Basin
economic activity.
In the last two decades, the economy of the Lower Basin has
experienced a significant transition from an agricultural-
mining base to a manufacturing-service base. Growth in the
manufacturing sectors has been one of the major factors in
the overall economic growth of the Lower Basin. Important
manufacturing categories are electrical equipment, aircraft
and parts, primary metals industries, food and kindred
products, printing and publishing, and chemicals.
ri
-------
Agriculture continues to play an important role in the
southern California economy amidst the fast-growing industrial
and commercial activity. Manufacturing is the most important
industrial activity and principally includes production of
transportation equipment (largely aircraft and parts),
machinery, food and kindred products, and apparel. Agri-
culture accounts for about three percent of the total
employment, manufacturing for an estimated 30 percent, and
trades and services for approximately 42 percent.
WATER RESOURCES
An average of about 200 million acre-feet of water a year
is provided by precipitation in the Colorado River Basin.
All but about 18 million acre-feet of this is returned to
the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. Most of the streamflows
originate in the high forest areas where heavy snowpacks
accumulate and evapotranspiration is low. A small amount of
runoff originates at the lower altitudes, primarily from
infrequent storms. Approximately two-thirds of the runoff
is produced from about six percent of the Basin area.
Streamflows fluctuate widely from year to year and season to
season because of variations in precipitation, and numerous
reservoirs have been constructed to make water available
for local needs, exports and downstream obligations. The
usable capacity of the Basin reservoirs is about 62 million
acre-feet.
WATER COMPACTS
In addition to State laws which provide for intrastate control
of water, use of water in the Colorado River system is
governed principally by four documents—the Colorado River
Compact signed in 1922, the Mexican Water Treaty signed in
1944, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact signed in 1948
and by the Supreme Court Decree of 1964 in Arizona vs.
California.
Among other provisions, the Colorado River Compact apportions
to each the Upper and Lower Basin in perpetuity the
exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet
of water of the Colorado River system per annum. It
further establishes the obligation of Colorado, New Mexico,
Utah, and Wyoming, designated States of the Upper Division,
not to cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be
depleted below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet for
any period of 10 consecutive years.
The Mexican Water Treaty defines the rights of Mexico to
the use of water from the Colorado River system. It
guarantees the delivery of 1,500,000 acre-feet of Colorado
12
-------
85
River water annually from the United States to Mexico.
In accordance with the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact,
Arizona is granted the consumptive use of 50,000 acre-feet
of water a year and the other Upper Basin States are each
apportioned a percentage of the remaining consumptive use
as follows: Colorado 51.75 percent, New Mexico 11.25
percent, Utah 23 percent, and Wyoming 14 percent. Of the
first 7,500,000 acre-feet annually of Colorado River water
entering the Lower Basin, the States of Arizona and Nevada
are apportioned 2,800,000 acre-feet and 300,000 acre-feet
respectively. The Lower Division apportionment was divided
among the Lower Basin States—Arizona, California, and
Nevada—by the decree of the United States Supreme Court
in 1964 which states that apportionment was accomplished
by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1929. If Colorado
River mainstem water is available in sufficient quantity
to satisfy 7,500,000 acre-feet of annual consumptive use
in the three Lower Basin states, Arizona, Nevada, and
California are apportioned 2,800,000, 300,000 and
4,400,000 acre-feet, respectively.
WATER USE
There is essentially no outflow from the Basin beyond that
required to meet the Mexican Treaty obligation. In 1965,
one-half million acre-feet of water was exported out of the
Upper Basin for use in other parts of the Upper Basin States.
Gross diversions from the Lower Colorado River for use in the
southern California service area and the Lower Colorado area
in California totaled 5.35 million acre-feet in 1965.
The major use of water within the Basin is for agricultural,
municipal, and industrial purposes. At present, over 90
percent of the total Basin withdrawal from ground-water and
surface-water sources serves irrigated agriculture within
the basin. The remaining portion is used principally for
municipal and industrial uses. Approximately three-fourths
or 7.0 million acre feet of the water consumptively used in
the Basin each year is depleted by agricultural uses. Minor
quantities of water are consumed by hydroelectric and thermal
power production, recreation, fish and wildlife, rural-
domestic needs, and livestock uses. In the urban areas of
the Basin, municipal and industrial uses are increasing
significantly due to the rapid rate of population growth.
One of the largest causes of streamflow depletions in the
Basin is surface evaportation from storage reservoirs. Over
2.0 million acre-feet are estimated to evaporate annually
from the lakes and reservoirs of the Basin. Most of this
evaporates from major storage reservoirs on the main stem
of the Colorado River.
13
-------
86
CHAPTER IV. MINERAL QUALITY EVALUATIONS
At the outset of the Project only limited information was
available on the causes and sources of salinity in the
Colorado River Basin. Little was known about the economic
impact of salinity on water uses. No comprehensive
evaluation of projected future mineral quality had been
made. A major Project effort, therefore, was directed toward
improving knowledge in these specific areas. Results or
these investigations are summarized in the following sections.
CAUSES OF SALINITY INCREASES
Salinity concentrations progressively increase from the
headwaters to the mouth of the Colorado River. This increase
results from two basic processes - salt loading and sa±t
concentrating. Salt loading, the addition of mineral salts
from various natural and man-made sources, increases salinity
by increasing the total salt burden carried by the river. In
contrast, salt concentrating effects are produced by
streamflow depletions and increase salinity by concentrating
the salt burden in a lesser volume of water.
Salt loads are contributed to the river system by natural
and man-made sources. Natural sources include diffuse
sources such as surface runoff and diffuse ground water
discharges, and discrete sources such as mineral springs,
seeps, and other identifiable point discharges of saline
waters. Man-made sources include municipal and industrial
waste discharges and return flows from irrigated lands.
Streamflow depletions contribute significantly to salinity
increases. Consumptive use of water for irrigation is
responsible for the largest depletions. Consumptive use of
water for municipal and industrial purposes accounts for
a much smaller depletion. Evaporation from rcse^" ?"* M
stream surfaces also produces large depletions. Phreatophytes,
too, cause significant water losses by evapotranspiration,
especially in the Lower Basin below Hoover Dam.
Out-of-basin diversions from the Upper Basin contribute
significantly to streamflow depletions and produce a salt
concentrating effect similar to consumptive use. The water
diverted is high in quality and low in salt content. Thus,
while these diversions remove substantial quantities or
water from the Basin, they remove only a small portion or
the salt load.
The relative effects of the various salt loading and salt
concentrating factors on salinity concentrations of the
Colorado River at Hoover Dam are summarized in Table 1. mis
evaluation indicates that about 74 percent of average
14
-------
Table 1. Effect of Various Factors on Salt Concentration of Colorado River at Hoover Dam
(1942-61 period of
Flow
(1,000
Factor AF/Yr)
Natural Diffuse
Sources 14,471
Natural Point
Sources 229
Irrigation (Salt
Contribution) 0
Irrigation (Con-
sumptive
Use) -1,883
Municipal &
Industrial
Sources -42
Exports Out of
Basin -465-
Cumulative
Flow
(1,000
AF/Yr)
14,471
14,700
14,700
12,817
12,775
12,310
Salt
Load
record adjusted
Cumulative
Salt Load
(1,000 (1,000
Tons/Yr) Tons/Yr
5,408
1,283
3,536
0
146
-37
5,408
6,691
10,227
10 227
10,373
10,336
to 1960 conditions) a./
Cumulative
Concentration
Tons/AF mg/1
0.374 275
0.455 334
0.696 512
0.798 587
0.812 597
0.840 617
Change^/ in
Concentration % of Total
mg/1 Concentration
275 39
59 8
178 26
75 11
10 1
20 3
Evaporation &
Phreato-
hytes -1,409
10,901
0 10,336
0.948 697
80
12 03
-------
Storage Release
from Hoover 412 11,313 391 10,727 0.948 697 0 0_
Total 11,313 10,727 697 100
a/ Based on data from:
(1) USGS, Prof. Paper 441, "Water Resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin, Technical
Report," 1965.
(2) USDI, Progress Report No. 3, "Quality of Water, Colorado River Basin," January 1967.
(3) FWQA unpublished Records.
b/ Concentrations in this column will vary depending upon the order in which they are
calculated.
-------
89
salinity concentrations for the 20-year period 1942-1961
were attributable to salt loading factors. The remaining
26 percent were attributable to salt concentrating factors.
The relative effects of natural and man-made factors are also
summarized in Table 1. Only about 47 percent of average
salinity concentrations for the 20-year period were attributed
to natural factors. This evaluation indicates that salinity
concentrations would have averaged only 334 mg/1 at the
Hoover Dam location under natural conditions for the 1942-1961
period.
A more detailed discussion of the various factors affecting
salt concentrations is contained in Appendix A.
SOURCES OF SALT LOADS
Natural sources, including both diffuse and discrete sources,
are the most important sources of salt loads in the Colorado
River Basin. They contribute about two-thirds of the average
annual salt load passing Hoover Dam. Natural diffuse
pickup of mineral salts by surface runoff and groundwater
inflow takes place throughout the Colorado River Basin;
however, the areas responsible for the greatest salt loads
are located in the Upper Basin. Several relatively small
areas, such as Paradox Valley, have very high rates of
pickup and contribute large salt loads. Diffuse sources
contribute about half of the Basin salt burden.
Discrete or point salinity sources also occur throughout
the Basin. In the Lower Basin, mineral springs add more
salt to the Colorado River than any other type of salinity
source. Blue Springs, located near the mouth of the
Little Colorado River, contributes a salt load of about
547,000 tons per year, or approximately five percent of the
annual salt burden at Hoover Dam. Blue Springs is the
largest point source of salinity in the entire Colorado
River Basin. In the Upper Basin, some 30 significant
mineral springs have been identified. Dotsero and Glenwood
Springs, two major point sources of salinity, contribute
a salt load of about 518,000 tons per year.
Man's use of water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial
purposes contributes to salt loading effects. Irrigation
is the major man-made source of salinity throughout the
Basin. The annual salt pickup from all irrigation above
Hoover Dam averages about two tons per acre. For some
areas, especially those underlain by shales and saline
lake-bed formations, salt pickup is much higher, with
average annual loads ranging between four and eight tons
per acre. Below Hoover Dam, the average annual salt pickup
from irrigation is about 0.5 ton per acre after the initial
leaching period.
17
-------
90
Municipal and industrial salinity sources located within
the drainage area of Lake Mead contribute only about one
percent of the average annual salt load at Hoover Dam.
Below Hoover Dam, these sources are responsible for less
than one percent of the average annual salt load.
The sources and amounts of salt loads for the Upper Basin,
the Lower Basin, and the drainage area of Lake Mead above
Hoover Dam are summarized in Table 2. Data presented in
Table is based on salinity conditions existing in the
period 1963-1966 and should not be confused with data in
Table 1 which is based on period 1942-61. The Upper Basin
sources contribute approximately 77 percent of the salt
load at Hoover Dam, about three-fourths of total Basin salt
load.
A detailed discussion of the nature, location, and magnitude
of salt sources in the Basin is contained in Appendix A.
Table 2. Summary of Salt Load Distributions
Salt Load (1,000) T/Yr. Percent of Total Load
Upper Lower Above Upper Lower Above
Source Basin Basin Hoover Dam Basin Basin Hoover Dam
Natural Diffuse
Sources 4,400 1,400 5,760 52.2 52.1 53.7
Natural Point
Sources 510 770 1,280 6.1 28.6 11.9
Irrigation 3,460 420 3,540 41.1 15.6 33.0
Municipal and
Industrial 50 100
Total 8,420 2,690
PRESENT AND FUTURE SALINITY CONCENTRATIONS
Lpng-term average salinity levels have progressively increased
in the Colorado River system as the Basin's water resources
have been developed and consumptive use of water for yarious
purposes has increased. This trend is expected to continue
with future water resource development and to bring about
serious water quality implications. As the economic impact
of salinity is closely related to the rate at which salinity
levels rise in the future, an evaluation was made of present
and future salinity concentrations in the Basin to provide
the basis for the economic evaluation discussed in the
following section. Historical salinity and stream flow data
for the 1942-1961 period of hydrologic record were used as the
basis for estimating average salinity concentrations under
18
-------
91
various conditions of water development and use. This
historical data was modified to reflect the effects that
water uses existing in 1960 would havev had on average
salinity levels if these uses had existed during the full
20-year period. Average salinity concentrations obtained
from this modified data were designated as 1960 base
conditions. These concentrations are shown at key Basin
locations in Figure 2.
Predicted future conditions of water use, based on Federal,
State and local development plans available in 1967, were
utilized to develop detailed projections of 1980 and 2010
salinity levels. These projections based on the assumptions
that water resource development would proceed as planned in
1967 and that the 1942-1961 hydrologic record would be
repeated, are shown at key Basin locations in Figure 2.
These projections are for long-term average salinity
concentrations ? actual concentrations can be expected to
fluctuate about these averages as a result of seasonal
changes in streamflow and other hydrological factors.
Sensitivity of future salinity projections to the period
of record utilized and the assumptions concerning the rate
of water resaurce development are discussed in Appendix C.
To provide the degree of refinement necessary to allow
evaluation of the small incremental changes in salinity
levels produced by a given water resource development,
salinity concentrations were computed to the nearest mg/1
in making the projections shown in Figure 2. It was not
intended that a high degree of accuracy by implied as
salinity projections are dependent upon a number of factors
which are not known with certainty.
The detailed salinity projections presented in Figure 2
were made on the basis that no limits would be placed on
future water resource developments other than those limits
imposed by availability of a water supply under applicable
water laws. In evaluating potential means of managing
salinity on a basinwide basis as discussed in Chapter VII,
it became apparent that one possible approach to management
of future salinity levels would be to limit further water
resource development in the Basin. A second set of salinity
projections was made to evaluate the results of limiting
such development. 'A /comparison of future salinity levels
at four key locations on the Lower Colorado River for
unlimited and limited development conditions is shown in
Table 3.
19
-------
92
GREEN RIVER. WYO
LHEII
Flow Soil Load Canctn-
II.OCX} (I.OOO (ration
arget YenrAc-Ft/n Tom/Yr) (mo/l)
1960
1980
2010
j 9348J 9659
'541717781
i 5229, 8701
759
1056
1223
9»T|
6i7i
6103
9272
72 74
8180
684
act
985
KITE Viliis skill in Use* n 1142 - 1111 ptriil il rtcirl ••< ful t* llll cnlitiiis
nrr 2. Flew. Leads, A Saliiily ("oorf alratioBs in Slreams in ihr < olorad* River Basil
-------
93
Table 3. Comparison of Salinity Projections
Unlimited Development
Conditions
Limited Development
Conditions
Location
Hoover Dam
Parker Dam
Palo Verde Dam
Imperial Dam
1980
876
866
940
1056
2010
990
985
1082
1223
1970 1980 & 2010
760 800
760 800
800 850
865 920
Salinity projections for 1970 conditions of limited develop-
ment were made on the basis that water resource developments
currently in operation and present water use patterns would
hold for a repetition of the 1942-1961 hydrological record.
The 1970 projections reflect the effects of evaporation
losses from Lake Powell operated at normal levels. Since
Lake Powell has not yet reached normal storage levels,
evaporation losses are less than expected average losses and
present average salinity levels at downstream points are
correspondingly lower than projected.
For 1980 conditions of limited development, it was assumed
that no new water resource developments would be placed in
operation but that those projects currently under construction
would be completed as planned. It was assumed that all such
construction could be completed by 1980 and that 2010 con-
ditions of water use would remain the same as for 1980.
In the past, salt loading was the dominant factor affecting
salinity concentrations, contributing about three-fourths
of average salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam under 1960
conditions. In contrast, future increases in salinity
levels will result primarily from flow depletions caused by
out-of-basin exports, reservoir evaporation and consumptive
use of water for municipal, industrial and agricultural
purposes. The relative effects of these factors on future
salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam are summarized in
Table 4.
Projections for Hoover Dam indicate a relatively constant,
average salt load over the next 40 years, but a substantial
drop in water flow. Over 80 percent of the future increase
in salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam will be the result
of increases in flow depletions. Over three-fourths of the
projected salinity increase between 1960 and 2010 will be
the result of increases in reservoir evaporation brought
about by the filling of major storage reservoirs completed
since 1960 and of increases in consumptive use brought about
by the expansion of irrigated agriculture.
21
-------
10
Table 4 Effect of Various Factors on Future Salt Concentration of Colorado River at Hoover Dam
(1942-61 period of record adjusted to 2010 conditions)a/"
Factor
Flow
(1,000
AF/Yr)
Natural
Diffuse
Sources 14,471
Natural
Point
Sources
229
Irrigation
(Salt
Contribution) —
Irrigation
(Consumptive
Use) -2,905
Municipal &
Industrial
Sources -427
Exports Out
of Basin -1,174
Cumulative Salt Cumulative .
Flow Load Salt Load Cumulative Change—/ in
(1,000 (1,000 (1,000 Concentration Concentration % of Total
AF/Yr) Tons/Yr) Tons/Yr Tons/AF mg/1 mg/1 Concentration
14,471 5,408 5,408
14,700 1,283 6,691
14,700 4,225 10,916
11,795 — 10,916
11,368 165 11,081
10,194 -140 10,941
0.374 275
0.455 334
0.743 546
0.925 680
0.975 717
1.073 789
275
59
212
134
37
72
28
21
14
-------
Reservoir
Evaporat-
ion -2,041 8,153 0 10,941 1.342 986 197 20
Model
Adjust-
ments -75 8,078 -61 10,880 1.347 990 4 —
Total 8,078 10,880 990 100
a/Based on data from:
(1) USGS, Prof. Paper 441, "Water Resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin, Technical
Report," 1965
(2) USDI, Progress Report No. 3, "Quality of Water, Colorado River Basin," January 1967.
(3) FWPCA unpublished records.
b/ Concentrations in this column will vary depending upon the order in which they are
calculated.
vo
VJI
-------
96
PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SALINITY
Water uses exhibit an increasing sensitivity to rising
salinity concentrations. As concentrations of salinity
rise water use is progressively impaired, and at some
critical level, defined as a threshold level, utilization
of the supply is no longer possible. In the Colorado River
Basin, future salinity concentrations will be below threshold
levels for in stream uses such as recreation, hydroelectric
power generation, and propagation of aquatic life. Only
marginal impairment of these uses is anticipated.
In the Lower Colorado River present salinity concentrations
are above threshold limits for municipal, industrial and
agricultural uses. Some impairment of these uses is now
occurring and future increases in salinity will increase this
adverse impact. The Projects investigated this progressive
impairment of water uses and developed methods to quantify
the resulting economic impact on both water users and the
regional economy. It should be emphasized that the
methodology employed by the Project staff was intentionally
conservative; all costs developed by this report to describe
the impact of salinity must be considered minimal values.
Initial investigations conducted on the potential impact of
future salinity levels revealed that only small effects on
water uses could be anticipated in the Upper Basin.
Subsequent investigations, therefore, were limited to three
main study areas: the Lower Main Stem and Gila areas in
the Lower Basin, and the Southern California area encompass-
ing the southern California water service area. The
boundaries of these study areas follow political rather
than hydrological boundaries and are shown in Figure 3.
Although significant economic effects are known to occur in
Mexico, lack of data precluded their inclusion,
Effects of Salinity on Beneficial Uses of Water
Initial evaluations of possible salinity effects on Basin
water uses indicated that adverse physical effects would
essentially be limited to municipal, industrial, and
agricultural uses. Major effects on these uses are discussed
briefly in this section.
Domestic uses comprise the major utilization of municipal
water supplies. Total hardness, a parameter closely
related to salinity, is of primary interest in assessing
water quality effects on these uses. Increases in the
concentration of hardness lead to added soap and detergent
24
-------
97
mm
UHT Ilil MIHII1
mil IIIIIIP
sun MIIIIP
CIIITT 'lllMIIT
Figure 3. Loralion of Salinity Impact Study Areas
-------
98
consumption, corrosion and scaling of metal water pipes and
water heaters, accelerated fabric wear, added water softening
costs, and in extreme cases, abandonment of a supply. By
most hardness measures, raw water supplies derived from the
Colorado River at or below Lake Mead would be classified as
very hard.
Boiler feed and cooling water comprise a major portion of
water used by industry in the Basin. Mineral quality of
boiler feed water is an important factor in the rate of
scale formation on heating surfaces, degree of corrosion in
the system, and quality of produced steam. In cooling water
systems, resistance to slime formation and corrosion are
effected by mineral quality. The required mineral quality
levels are maintained in boiler and cooling systems by
periodically adding an amount of relatively good quality
water (make-up water) and discharging from the system an
equal volume of the poorer quality water (blowdown).
Salinity effects on agricultural uses are manifested
primarily by limitations on the types of crops that may be
irrigated with a given water supply and by reductions of
crop yields as salinity levels increase. Other conditions
being equal, as salinity levels increase in applied irrigation
water, salinity levels in the root zone of the soil also
increase.
Because different crops have different tolerances to salts
in the root zone, limits are placed on the types of crops
that may be grown. When salinity levels in the soil
increase above the threshold levels of a crop, progressive
impairment of the crop yield results. Irrigation water
which has a high percentage of sodium ions may also affect
soil structure and cause adverse effects on crop production.
The primary means of combating detrimental salinity'
concentrations in the soil are to switch to salt tolerant
crops or to apply more irrigation water and leach out excess
salts from the soil.
Direct Economic Effects Upon Water Users
The previously described physical impacts of salinity upon
consumptive uses of water were translated into economic
values by evaluating how each user might alleviate the
effects of salinity increases. Municipalities could (1)
do nothing and the residents would consume more soap and
detergents or purchase home softening units; (2) build
central water softening plants; or (3) develop new, less
mineralized water supplies. Industrial users could combine
more extensive treatment of their water supply with the
purchase of additional make-up water based upon the
26
-------
99
economics of prevailing conditions. The alternatives
available to irrigation water users are governed by the
availability of additional water. (1) If the irrigator
does nothing, he will suffer economic loss from decreased
crop yields. (2) If additional water is available, root
zone salinity may be reduced by increasing leaching water
applications. The irrigator would incur increased costs
for purchase of water, for additional labor for water
application, and for increased application of fertilizer
to replace the fertilizer leached out. (3) If no additional
water is available, the irrigator oan increase the leaching
of salts from the soil by applying the same amount of water
to lesser acreage. This, of course, results in an economic
loss since fewer crops can be grown. (4) The last alter-
native is to plant salt tolerant crops. An economic loss
would usually occur since salt tolerant crops primarily
produce a lower economic return.
The cost of applying each of the alternative remedial
actions was determined, and the least costly alternative
selected for subsequent analyses. The yield-decrement
method, which measures reductions in crop yield resulting
from salinity increases, was selected to evaluate the
economic impact on irrigated agriculture. For industrial
use, an estimate of required make-up water associated with
salinity increases was selected to calculate the penalty
cost. Municipal damages were estimated by calculating the
required additional soap and detergents needed. Details
of the methodology employed and a discussion of the
assumptions required to complete the analysis are presented
in Chapter IV of Appendix B.
The direct economic costs of mineral quality degradation may
be summarized in two basic forms, total direct costs and
penalty costs. Total direct costs incurred for a given
salinity level result from increases in salinity concent-
rations above the threshold levels of water uses. Penalty
costs are the differences between total direct costs for
a given salinity level and for a specified base level. They
represent the marginal costs of increases in salinity
concentrations above base conditions.
Detailed economic studies were aimed at evaluating penalty
costs in order to provide a basis for assessing the
economic impact of predicted future increases in salinity.
Water quality, water use patterns, and economic conditions
existing in 1960 were selected as base conditions. Water
use and economic conditions projected for the target years
1980 and 2010 and predictions of future salinity concent-
rations were utilized to estimate total direct costs in the
future. Direct penalty costs were then computed from
27
-------
100
differences in total direct costs. These direct penalty
costs are summarized by type of water use and by study area
in Table 5. The indirect and total penalty costs, also
presented in the table, are discussed below.
Indirect Economic Effects
Because of the interdependence of numerous economic
activities, there are indirect effects on the regional
economy stemming from the direct economic impact of salinity
upon water users. These effects, termed indirect penalty
costs, can be determined if the interdependency of economic
activities are known.
The Project's economic base study investigated the inter-
dependence of various categories of economic activity or
sectors. These interdependent relationships, in the form
of transactions tables, were quantified for 1960 conditions,
and were projected for the target years 1980 and 2010. A
digital computer program known as an "input-output model"
was developed to follow changes affecting any given industry
through a chain of transactions in order to identify secondary
or indirect effects on the economy stemming from the direct
economic costs of salinity. Application of the model to
evaluate indirect penalty costs is discussed in Appendix B,
Chapter V. The indirect penalty costs predicted by the
model are summarized in Table 5.
Total Penalty Costs
Total penalty costs represent the total marginal costs of
increases in salinity concentrations above base conditions.
They are the sum of direct penalty costs incurred by water
users and indirect penalty costs suffered by the regional
economy. Total penalty costs are also summarized in
Table 5.
Several conclusions can be drawn from Table 5.
1. The majority of the penalty costs (an average of 82
percent) will result from water use for irrigated
agriculture. This fact may be attributed to the heavy
utilization of Colorado River water for irrigation
along the Lower Colorado River and in the southern
California area.
2. Over three-fourths of the penalty costs will be incurred
in the southern California water service area. These
costs will result primarily from agricultural use in
the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and municipal and
industrial uses in the coastal metropolitan areas.
28
-------
Table 5 Summary of Penalty Costs
2010
to
VD
Location and Water Use
Lower Main Stem Study Area
Irrigation Agriculture
Industrial
num. i_.j.pdj.
Sub-Total
Southern California Study
Irrigated Agriculture
Industrial
rJUnJ. L. J.JJCIX
Sub-Total
Gila Study Area
Irrigated Agriculture
Industrial
Municipal
CiiH— Tni-al
Total
Direct
Penalty
Cost
Indirect
Penalty
Cost
Total
Penalty
Cost
Direct
Penalty
Cost
($1,000 Annually)*
1,096
107
275
1,478
Area
4,617
56
lf 347
6,020
«.<_..
• M
-------
102
3. Penalty costs in the Gila study area will be minor and
will not occur until after 1980 when water deliveries
to the Central Arizona Project begin. (It was assumed
that all Central Arizona Project water would be utilized
for agricultural purposes.)
It should be noted that the penalty costs summarized in
Table 3 do not represent the total economic impact of salinity,
but only the incremental increases in salinity detriments
resulting from rising salinity levels. There are economic
costs known as salinity detriments that were being incurred
by water users in 1960 as a result of salinity levels
exceeding threshold levels for certain water uses. These
costs would continue in the future if salinity levels remained
at the 1960 base conditions. Total salinity detriments are
discussed below.
Total Salinity Detriments
The detailed economic analysis outlined in previous sections
and discussed in detail in Appendix B forms a basis for
evaluating the distribution of the total economic impact of
future salinity increases. Penalty costs are not practical,
however, for evaluation of the economic impact of basinwide
salinity control, especially when reductions in salinity
concentrations below 1960 base levels were considered. For
this reason, estimates of total salinity detriments were
prepared utilizing the basic information developed for
peanlty cost evaluations. These estimates, in the form of
empirical relationships between salinity levels at Hoover
Dam and salinity detriments, are shown graphically for
various target years in Figure 4.
Hoover Dam is a key point on the Colorado River system. Water
quality at most points of use in the Lower Basin and Southern
California water service area may be directly related to
salinity levels at Hoover Dam. Modifications of salt loads
contributed by sources located upstream from Hoover Dam also
directly affect salinity levels at this location. Salinity
concentrations at Hoover Dam were, therefore, utilized as a
water quality index to which all economic evaluations were
keyed.
Total salinity detriments are the sum of direct costs to
water users (including direct penalty costs) and indirect
penalty costs. A discussion of the methodology used to
develop the detriment relationships is contained in Appendix
C. It should be noted that the salinity detriments are
expressed in terms of 1970 dollars. It was necessary to
modify the basic data utilized in evaluating penalty costs
(expressed in terms of 1960 dollars) in order to make the
30
-------
103
600 700 800 900 1000 1100
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION MG/L AT HOOVER DAM
Figure 4. Salinity Detriments
-------
104
salinity detriments compatible with current estimates of
salinity management costs discussed in Chapter VII.
Using the projected salinity levels for Hoover Dam shown
in Table 3 and the salinity detriment functions of Figure
4, it is possible to compare the total economic detriments
of salinity under various conditions of water use and resource
development. Under 1960 conditions, the annual economic
impact of salinity was estimated to total $9.5 million. It
is estimated that present salinity detriments have increased
to an annual total of $15.5 million. If water resources
development proceeds as proposed and no salinity controls are
implemented, it is estimated that average annual economic
detriments (1970 dollars) would increase to $27.7 million
in 1980 and $50.5 million in 2010. If future water resources
development is limited to those projects now under construction,
estimated annual economic detriments would increase to
$21 million in 1980 and $29 million in 2010.
32
-------
105
CHAPTER V. TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR
SALINITY CONTROL
Technical possibilities for minimizing and controlling
salinity in the Colorado River Basin may be divided into
two categories: water-phase and salt-phase control measures.
Water-phase measures seek to reduce salinity concentrations
by augmenting the water supply, while salt-phase measures
seek to reduce salt input into the river system. Specific
control measures are listed in Table 6 and are discussed at
length in Appendix C, Chapter III.
Various factors, such as economic feasibility, lack of
research and legal and institutional constraints limit the
present application of some water-phase and salt-phase control
measures. The most practical means of augmenting the Basin
water supply include importing water from other basins,
importing demineralized sea water, and utilizing weather
modification techniques to increase precipitation and runoff
within the Basin. Practical means of reducing salt loads
include: impoundment and evaporation of point source
discharges, diversion of runoff and streams around areas of
salt pickup, improvement of irrigation and drainage practices,
improvement of irrigation conveyance facilities, desalination
of saline discharges from natural and man-made sources, and
desalination of water supplies at points of use. These
measures could be implemented in a variety of locations and
in several different combinations.
Table 6. Technical Possibilities for Salinity Control
I. Measures for Increasing Water Supply
A. Water Conservation Measures
1. Increased Watershed Runoff
2. Suppression of Evaporation
3. Phreatophyte Control
4. Optimized Water Utilization for Irrigation
a. Reduced Consumptive Use
b. Improved Irrigation Efficiency
5. Water Reuse
B. Water Augmentation Measures
1. Weather Modification
2. Water Importation
a. Fresh Water Sources
b. Demineralized Sea Water
33
-------
106
Table 6. Technical Possiblities for Salinity Control (con't)
II. Measures for Reducing Salt Loading
A. Control of Natural Sources
1. Natural Discrete Sources
a. Evaporation of Discharge
b. Injection into Deep Geological Formations
c. Desalination
d. Suppression of Discharge
e. Reduction of Recharge
2. Natural Diffuse Sources
a. Surface Diversions
b. Reduced Groundwater Recharge
c. Reduced Sediment Production
B. Control of Man-Made Sources
1. Municipal and Industrial Sources
a. Evaporation
b. Injection into Deep Geological Formations
c. Desalination
2. Irrigation Return Flows
a. Proper Land Selection
b. Canal Lining
c. Improved Irrigation Efficiency
d. Proper Drainage
e. Treatment or Disposal of Return Flows
34
-------
107
CHAPTER VI. SALINITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES
Activities related to the control and management of salinity
have been carried out over the years by a variety of agencies
and institutions and have contributed to the overall know-
ledge of salinity control technology. In the past four
years, several activities have been specifically directed
toward the application of salinity control technology to the
Colorado River Basin. The current status of these activities
is discussed in the following sections.
TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Limited investigations of several potential salinity control
projects and control measures were made by the Project.
These investigations evaluated a number of technical
possibilities for salinity control discussed in Chapter V.
Salinity control research needs were also identified; these
provided the basis for support by the FWQA of several research
efforts discussed below.
Early in FY 1968, the FWQA and the Bureau of Reclamation
initiated a cooperative salinity control reconnaissance study
in the Upper Basin. Study objectives were to identify
controllable sources of salinity and to determine technically
feasible control measures and estimate their costs. A
shortage of funds resulted in discontinuance of the study
during FY 1970. A report entitled "Cooperative Salinity
Control Reconnaissance Study, Upper Colorado River Basin,"
presenting the results of the study to date, is scheduled
for release during 1970.
During the course of the study, preliminary plans were
developed for two salinity control projects, and cost
estimates were prepared for a number of control measures.
(1) A project was formulated to eliminate the heavy pickup
of salt by the Dolores River as it crosses a salt anticline
in the Paradox Valley of western Colorado. Control of this
salt source could be achieved by constructing both a flood-
water retarding dam and a lined channel to convey the river
across the valley and prevent recharge of an aquifer in
contact with salt formations. (2) A project was also
formulated to control the salt load from Crystal Geyser, an
abandoned oil test well which periodically discharges highly
mineralized water. Control could be achieved by collecting
the discharge and pumping it to a lined impoundment for
evaporation. If suitable land area for an evaporation pond
could be found and evaporation rates were high enough, a
project of this type could be potentially applicable for
control of some of the more concentrated mineral springs.
35
-------
108
Cost estimates were prepared for several types of salinity
control measures, but preliminary plans were not developed
for specific sites. For control of irrigation return flows,
the costs of impounding and evaporating the flows at two
topographically different sites were estimated. The costs
of deep well injection of relatively small quantities of
the more concentrated return flows were also evaluated.
The cost of lining canals and distribution systems in
several existing irrigation projects was investigated.
Following discontinuance of the cooperative study, the
project conducted a preliminary study of a project to
control the salt load from several large mineral spring areas
in the vicinity of Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
A similar preliminary study of control measures for LaVerkin
Springs, a large thermal spring discharging significant
quantities of radium-226 and mineral salts into the Virgin
River of southern Utah, is currently underway.
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES
A number of research and demonstration projects presently
underway are expected to contribute significantly to the
development and/or evaluation of" various salinity control
measures.
(1) Under an FWQA research grant, a project entitled
"Quality of Irrigation Return Flow" was initiated during
FY 1969 by Utah State University at Logan, Utah. This
project is directed toward the dual objectives of increasing
the store of knowledge of basic processes controlling the
movement of salts in soils, and applying this knowledge to
development of salinity control measures. Research to date
has primarily been conducted on a small scale in the
laboratory and in greenhouse lysimeters. A digital simulation
model is being developed to accurately predict the movement
of salts and the changes in quality of applied irrigation
water within the soil and root zone. This model will be
utilized to design on-farm irrigation practices, such as the
rate and timing of irrigation applications, which will
minimize the salt load contributed by irrigation activities.
The University has established a 40-acre test farm in Ashley
Valley near Vernal, Utah, and will conduct full scale field
testing of theoretical results during 1970 and 1971.
Establishment of a test farm at this location will provide
a demonstration of salinity control measures under conditions
similar to those found in many irrigated areas of the Upper
Basin.
36
-------
109
(2) In response to a request from the FWQA, a large scale
research project entitled "Prediction of Mineral Quality of
Return Flow Water from Irrigated Land" was initiated by the
Bureau of Reclamation in late FY 1969, with financial
support provided by the FWQA. The primary objective of this
project is to develop a digital simulation model that will
accurately predict the quantity and quality of irrigation
return flows from an entire irrigation project with known
soil, groundwater, and geologic and hydrologic characteristics.
Such a model would have several applications. The water
quality impact of a proposed irrigation development could be
more accurately assessed. More importantly, the model could
be utilized to evaluate the water quality effects of
alternative project designs and, therefore, allow selection
of the optimal design of features in order to minimize any
adverse effects on water quality. Another application would
be to evaluate improvements of irrigation facilities and
practices in established irrigated areas aimed at reducing
presently high salt contributions.
Field studies will be conducted in several locations with
various soil and geologic conditions in order to verify
prediction techniques under a wide range of conditions.
Ashley Valley, surrounding Vernal, Utah, was selected as -the
initial study area. Characterization studies of this area
are currently underway. Using present data, initial runs
of an elementary simulation model will be made during 1970.
The model will be refined; additional data will be collected
during the next three years; and field studies at other
locations will be initiated.
(3) The "Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration
Project" at Grand Junction, Colorado, was initiated in FY 1969
under a FWQA demonstration grant. Its objective is to
by an aquifer containing highly saline groundwater Seepage
from canals and laterals contributes to recharge of this
aquifer and displaces the saline 9roundw^r1^° Deduction
orsuct^e^^
ll therefore? expected to reduce the salt load discharged to
the river.
A manor portion of the canals and some of the laterals serving
a study Sea of about 4,600 acres have been lined and additional
liSSS will be completed during the 1970-1971 winter season
A simulation model is being developed which will evaluate the
effects of changes in irrigation efficiency on salt load
contributions, as well as changes in seepage ^f^™
the conveyance system. Upon completion this model will not
37
-------
110
only allow the results of the demonstration project to be
projected valley-wide, but also form the basis for future
salinity control activities in Grand Valley. Completion of
the demonstration project, including all post-construction
studies, is scheduled for mid-1972.
(4) Only limited research efforts are presently directed
toward defining processes to control salt loading from
natural sources. The FWQA provided financial support to
Utah State University for one such effort, "The Electric
Analog Simulation of the Salinity Flow System within the
Upper Colorado River Basin." Results from this research
provided new information concerning the distribution of
salt sources in the Upper Basin and will serve as a potential
analytical tool for evaluating the water quality effects
of various salinity control measures. The final research
report is scheduled for publication during 1970.
(5) In late 1969 a research project entitled "Effect of
Water Management on Quality of Groundwater and Surface
Recharge in Las Vegas Valley," was initiated by Desert
Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada, under a FWQA research
grant. Among other things this project will evaluate the
movement of salts in the groundwater system and the exchange
of salts between the groundwater and surface waters of
Las Vegas Wash. Research results will help define the
optimum approach for control of this salt source. Completion
of the research effort is scheduled for mid-1973.
(6) A cooperative regional research effort, "Project W-107,
Management of Salt Load in Irrigation Agriculture," was
initiated in 1969 by seven western universities and the
U. S. Salinity Laboratory of the Agricultural Research
Service. Work currently underway or planned, covers a wide
range of salinity management aspects and should provide a
number of results which can be applied to Basin salinity
problems. The FWQA is participating in the coordination
of this research effort.
SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS
During the latter part of FY 1968, the FWQA made funds
available and requested the Bureau of Reclamation to select
a pilot project to test and demonstrate control methods for
reducing salinity concentrations and salt loads in the
Colorado River system. The plugging of two flowing wells,
the Meeker and Piceance Creek wells near Meeker, Colorado,
was selected as the pilot demonstration project. Completion
of the well plugging in August, 1968 reduced the salinity
load of the White River and the Colorado River system by
about 62,500 tons annually. This is approximately 19 percent
38
-------
Ill
of the average annual salinity load in the White River near
Watson, Utah. Plugging the Meeker and Piceance Creek wells
initially decreased the annual flow of the White River by
about 2,380 acre-feet. In the opinion of the Bureau's
regional geologist, however, this flow will reappear through
natural springs nearer the recharge area at an improved
quality, and plugging the wells will not decrease the
annual flow of the White River. Costs for plugging the two
wells totaled about $40,000.
Another flowing well near Rock Springs, Wyoming, which
contributed approximately 5,000 tons of salt annually, was
plugged in November 1968, under the direction of the Wyoming
State Engineer. The effects of eliminating this salt source
have not been evaluated.
In late 1969, the Utah Oil and Gas Commission plugged seven
abandoned oil test wells near Moab, Utah, including two
flowing wells which formerly contributed a salt load of
approximately 33,000 tons per year to the Colorado River.
Costs of plugging the wells totaled about $35,000.
It is estimated that plugging the five flowing wells in
Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah will reduce the average annual
salt load passing Hoover Dam by 100,000 tons or 0.93 percent.
Under present conditions this salt load reduction would
reduce average salinity concentrations by about 6 mg/1.
Although this change in salinity concentrations is small
when compared to present salinity levels, the resulting
economic benefits are significant. These benefits are
estimated to range annually from $0.4 million in 1970 to
$1.0 million in 2010 and have a present worth of more than
$10 million.
39
-------
112
CHAPTER VII. ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF SALINTIS
Three basic approaches, or a combination of these approaches
might be used to achieve a solution to the salinity problem:
do nothing, limit development or implement salinity controls.
The first approach would achieve no management of salinity.
Water resource development would be allowed to proceed with
no constraints applied because of water quality degradation
and with no implementation of salinity control works. This
approach, in effect, ignores the problem and allows
unrestrained economic development at the expense of an
increased adverse economic impact resulting from rising
salinity concentrations. The increases in future salinity
levels and economic impact associated with this approach
have been discussed in Chapter IV.
The second approach would limit economic or water resource
development that is expected to produce an increase in salt
loads or streamflow depletions. Such an approach would
minimize future increases in the economic impact of salinity
and possibly eliminate the need for salinity control facilities.
However, it has the obvious disadvantage of possibly
stagnating growth of the regional economy. Projections of
future salinity levels and associated salinity detriments
for this approach have been discussed in Chapter IV.
The third approach, calling for the construction of salinity
control works, would allow water resource development to
proceed. At least three possible management objectives could
be considered: (1) salinity controls could be implemented
to maintain specific salinity levels; (2) salinity could be
maintained at a level which would, minimize its total economic
impact; and (3) salinity could be maintained at some low
level for which the total economic impact of salinity would
be equal to the impact that would be produced if no action
were taken at all.
The following sections discuss an evaluation of the costs
and benefits of various levels of salinity control and a
comparison of the relative economics of the three basic
salinity management approaches discussed above. This
comparison forms the basis for the determination that the
implementation of a basinwide salt load reduction program is
the most feasible approach to achieving basinwide management
of salinity.
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE BASINWIDE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAMS
The potential measures for managing and controlling salinity
concentrations presented in Chapter V were evaluated, and
those which appeared most practical were selected for
further investigation. Eight potential alternative salinity
40
-------
113
control programs incorporating a variety of control measures
were formulated as a means of evaluating the magnitude, scope,
and economic feasibility of a potential basinwide control
program. These alternatives include three salt-load
reduction programs, four flow augmentation programs, and one
program to demineralize water supplies at the point of use.
The three salt load reduction programs utilized control
measures such as desalination or impoundment and evaporation
of mineral spring discharges, irrigation return flows and
saline tributary flows, diversion of streams, and improvement
of irrigation practices and facilities. These programs
would acheive estimated salt load reductions of up to three
million tons annually and would reduce average annual salinity
concentrations at Hoover Dam by about 200 to 300 mg/1.
The four flow augmentation programs evaluated were based on
three potential sources of water: increased precipitation
through weather modification, interbasin transfer of water,
and importation of demineralized sea water. The volume of
flow augmentation provided by these programs would range from
1.7 to 5.9 million acre-feet annually. Resulting reductions
in annual salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam would range
from 100 to 300 mg/1.
The last alternative program evaluated would utilize
desalination of the water supplies diverted to southern
California as a means to minimize the adverse impact of
salinity on the southern California water service area.
Average annual costs including amortized construction costs,
operation costs, and maintenance costs, were estimated for
each alternative program and ranged from $3 million to $177
million annually. The present worth of total program costs
for each alternative from 1975 to 2010 would range from $30
million to $1,570 million. Estimated costs and resulting
salinity concentrations are shown by program in Table 7.
If no control or augmentation program were undertaken,
comparable average salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam
would be 876 mg/1 and 990 mg/1 in 1980 and 2010 respectively.
Specific details used to compare and evaluate each alternative
program are discussed in Appendix C, Chapter V.
The eight alternative programs evaluated were not directly
comparable due to differences in the level of salinity
control achieved, the multi-purpose aspects of some programs
versus the singular salinity control natures of others, and
the time required for implementation. Based on evaluation of
a number of factors including total program costs,
practicality, the implementation time period, salinity control
benefits, and other benefits such as increased water supply,
the phased implementation of a salt load reduction program
41
-------
Table 7 Comparison of Alternative Salinity Control Programs
Average Salinity Concen- Average Annual Present
trations at Hoover Dam Program Worth
Alternative Salinity IT80 20TO~ 1980 2010
No. Control Programs (mg/1) (mg/1) ($ Million/Yr) ($ Million/Yr) ($ Million)
1. Salt Load Reduction 620 720 47 47 510
(Full scale implementation)
2. Salt Load Reduction 700 700 23 52 350
(Phased Implementation)
3. Flow Augmentation 780 870 3 3 30
(Weather Modification)
(1.7 MAF/Yr)
4. Flow Augmentation 750 830 75 75 800
(Interbasin Transfer)
(2.5 MAF/Yr)
5. Flow Augmentation 700 700 118 177 1,470
(Interbasin Transfer)
(3.9-5.9 MAF/Yr)
6. Desalination 700 700 41 62 510
(Source Control)
7. Desalination — — 140 160 1,570
(Supply Treatment)
8. Desalination 710 740 131 131 1,400
(Flow Augmentation)
(2.0 MAF/Yr)
-------
115
was selected as the least cost alternative for achieving
basinwide management and control of salinity. Should the
practicality of flow augmentation by weather modification
be demonstrated by current pilot studies, however, the
combination of such flow augmentation with a salt load
reduction program would be a more optimal approach.
SALINITY MANAGEMENT COSTS
If salinity concentrations are reduced by the implementation
of control measures, certain costs known as salinity manage-
ment costs will be incurred. The form and magnitude of these
costs depend upon a number of factors including the control
measures utilized and the degree of salinity control achieved.
Estimates of the probable costs and effects of the salt load
reduction program, were utilized to evaluate the magnitude
of salinity management costs for various levels of salinity
control.
The major features of the salt load reduction program are
presented in Table 8. This program was designed to reduce
the salt load contributed by five large natural sources and
twelve irrigated areas totaling 600,000 acres. Together,
the five natural sources contribute about 14 percent of the
Basin salt load. All of the irrigated areas selected
exhibit high salt pick-up by return flows of about three
to six tons per acre per year. Although this acreage
comprises only about 20 percent of the Basin's irrigated''
load from irrigation sources above Hoover Dam. The specific
control measures for the 17 component projects are listed in
Table 8 along with project locations (also shown in Figure
5).
Average annual costs, including operation, maintenance, and
amortized construction costs, were estimated for each of the
17 projects. For the five single-purpose salt load reduction
projects, all costs were assigned to salinity control. The
irrigation improvement projects would be multi-purpose. It
is estimated they would produce various economic benefits of
about the same magnitude as salinity control benefits and
for this reason, only half of the costs of irrigation
improvement were allocated to salinity control.
Estimates of the changes in streamflow depletions and salt
load reductions were also prepared for each project. The
five salt load reduction projects would remove an average
of 172,000 acre-feet per year from the river system above
Hoover Dam; of this amount, 140,000 acre-feet of demineralized
water from the Blue Springs project would be available for
use in central Arizona. The irrigation improvement projects
would reduce non-beneficial consumptive water use by an
estimated average of 299,000 acre-feet per year. The
43
-------
Table 8. Salinity Management Data For Potential Projects
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
L5
16
17
Location
Paradox Valley, Colorado
Grand Valley, Colorado
Lower Stem Gunnison
River, Colorado
Price River, Utah
Las Vegas Wash, Nevada
Uncompahgre River, Colo.
Big Sandy Creek, Wyoming
La Verkin Springs, Utah
Roaring Fork River, Colo.
Upper Stem Colorado
River, Colorado
Henry's Fork River, Utah
Dirty Devil River, Utah
Duchesne River, Utah
San Rafael River, Utah
Ashley Creek, Utah
Glenwood Springs, Colo.
Blue Springs, Arizona
Features
Stream Diversion
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Export & Evaporation
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Impoundment & Evap.
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Desalination
Export i Desalination
Totals
AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS
• Total
Proj . Cost
($1000)
700
3,140
3,600
1,000
600
4,000
490
600
880
1,420
710
710
5,660
1,360
830
5,000
16,000
46,700
Salinity
Control Costs
($1000)
700 •
1,570
1,800
500
600
2,000
245
600
440
710
355
355
2,830
680
415
5,000
16,000
34,800
EFFECTS AT HOOVER DAM
Flow Change
(1000 AF/Yr)
0
38
45
13
- 10
50
7
- 7
13
20
10
10
65
18
10
- 5
- 150
127
Salt Load
Reduction
(1000 T/Yr)
180
312
334
89
100
320 -
39
80
52
80
40
40
273
65
36
370
500
2,910
TBS Reduction
in nig /I
1980
15
29
32
9
7
31
4
6
6
9
4
4
29
7
4
30
27
253
2010
16
33
35
9
8
35
4
6
6
9
5
5
32
8
4
33
27
275
'cost
Index
«/T>
3.89*
5.04
5.40
5.65
6.00
6.25
6.28
7.50
8.47
8.88
8.88
8.88
10.37
10.48
11.55
13.50
32.00
--
-------
117
LEGEND
SALT LOAD REDUCTION PROJECT
IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS
HENRY'S FORK
ASHLEY CREEK
DUCHESNE AREA
BIG SANDY CREEK
ALLEY
AREA
GUNNISON
FORK
AREA
PAHGRE
AREA
Figure 5. Location of Potential Salt Load Reduction Projects
-------
118
salinity control program would thus result in a net increase
in available basin water supply of more than 250,000 acre-
feet per year.
The incremental reductions in average salinity concentrations
at Hoover Dam were estimated for each control project for
the years 1980 and 2010 by utilizing predicted changes in
flow and salt load. These incremental changes are shown
in Table 8. Note that the salinity reduction for each
project is greater in the year 2010 than in 1980. This
factor results from decreases in average streamflow predicted
to occur between 1980 and 2010.
A cost index utilizing estimated costs and salt load reductions
was computed for each project. This index was then used to
rank the projects in order of increasing unit cost of salt
removal.
By utilizing the data in Table 8, salinity management cost
functions relating cumulative salinity management costs to
salinity reductions were prepared. These cost functions are
also shown in Figure 6.
TOTAL SALINITY COSTS
For a given salinity level, there is an economic cost
associated with water use (salinity detriments) and a second
economic cost associated with maintaining salinity concent-
rations at that level (salinity management costs). The sum
of these costs, defined as total salinity costs, can be
determined for any time period and salinity level by the
proper manipulation of three factors: the salinity detriment
functions presented in Chapter IV, (Figure 4); the salinity
management cost functions, (Figure 6) ; and the predicted
future salinity concentrations with no control implemented,
(Figure 2) . Total salinity cost functions for various time
periods are presented in Figure 7. The methodology utilized
to develop these functions is discussed in Appendix C,
Chapter V.
ECONOMIC AND WATER QUALITY EFFECTS
Salinity controls could be implemented to meet a variety of
salinity management objectives which include both water
quality and economic objectives. Since salinity levels and
total salinity costs are interrelated, the selection of a
water quality objective will result in the indirect selection
of associated economic effects; conversely, the selection
of an economic objective will result in the selection of
associated salinity levels. A knowledge of the interrelation-
ships between economic and water quality effects is thus
46
-------
119
tSi
100 200 300 400
CUMULATIVE TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS REDUCTIONS (MG/L)
Figare 6. Salinity ManagemeBl Costs
-------
120
50
30
20
600 700 800 900 1000
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTIATIONS MG/L AT HOOVEI 0AM
Figure 7. Total Salinity Costs
-------
121
useful in the rational selection of salinity management
objectives.
By utilizing the total cost functions shown in Figure 7, the
economic and water quality effects associated with the three
salinity management objectives were determined: (1) Maintain
salinity at a level which would minimize its total economic
impact and achieve economic efficiency (minimum cost objective);
(2) Maintain salinity concentrations at some specified level
(constant salinity objective); and (3) Maintain salinity at
some low level for which the total economic impact would be
equal to the economic impact that would be produced if no
action were taken at all (equal cost objective). A
comparison of the economic effects associated with these
three objectives, in the form of variations in salinity costs
with time, are shown in Figure 8. The economic effects
associated with allowing unlimited water resource development
in the absence of salinity control works (no control approach)
and associated with the limited development approach are
also shown in Figure 8.
Total salinity costs would be minimized by the limited
development alternative. This approach might not be the
most economical, however, when all effects on the regional
economy are measured. Water resource developments are not
constructed unless it has been demonstrated that such
development will return economic benefits which exceed all
costs of the development. A project which is economically
feasible will thus produce a net improvement in the regional
economy. If the project is not built, the net benefits of
the project would be foregone representing an economic
cost. A determination of the net economic benefits fore-
gone if the limited development approach were utilized was
beyond the scope of the Project's investigations. It is
apparent from Figure 8, however, that if the annual benefits
foregone exceed $3 million in 1980 and $11 million in 2010,
the total economic impact of limited development would exceed
the impact of the minimum cost alternative.
If unrestricted water resource development is permitted,
implementing salinity controls to achieve the minimum cost
objective would minimize total salinity costs. The no
control and equal cost alternatives produce the identical
highest average costs and most rapid increase with time of
all the alternatives evaluated. Total costs associated with
a constant salinity objective will fall somewhere between
the extremes established by the other alternatives with
the exact cost dependent upon the target salinity level.
For a target level of 700 mg/1, total costs approximate
minimum costs until 1990, then increase rapidly, eventually
exceeding the no control costs. Beyond the year 2000, the
49
-------
122
rapidly increasing cost reduce the practicality of
maintaining this salinity level. Selection of a higher
target salinity concentration for the years 2000 and 2010
would reduce the total cost of this alternative.
One important observation can be made from Figure 8. Regard-
less of the alternative selected, the future economic impact
of salinity will be great. Although implementing salinity
controls will result in the availability of better quality
water for various uses and some of the economic impact will
be shifted from salinity detriments to salinity management
costs, the total economic impact of salinity will not be
substantially reduced. As a minimum, average annual total
salinity costs will increase threefold between 1960 and 2010.
Selection of the limited development alternative would reduce
total annual costs by only about 40 percent below the no
control alternative in the year 2010.
Variations with time of the predicted salinity levels
associated with the five alternatives evaluated are shown in
Figure 9. With no controls implemented, average annual
salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam are predicted to
increase between 1960 and 2010 by about 42 percent or 293 mg/1,
Selection of any of the other alternatives evaluated would
substantially reduce future salinity concentrations below
the no control levels. Except for the limited development
alternative, these reductions would result in the maintenance
of average salinity concentrations at or below present
(1970) levels for more than 25 years. Resulting water quality
therefore would be consistent with non-degradation provisions
of the water quality standards adopted by the seven Basin
States. The limited development alternative would result in
slight increases in average salinity concentrations.
COST DISTRIBUTIONS AND EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS
Although the total economic impact of salinity associated with
each of the alternatives evaluated varies over a limited
range, the distribution of salinity costs related to each
alternative differs greatly. Distribution of costs may
therefore be an important factor in the selection of
alternatives. Associated with cost distribution are various
equity considerations. These, too, influence the selection of
alternatives. Salinity cost distributions for the five
alternatives evaluated for both 1980 and 2010 conditions of
water use are compared in Table 9. A further breakdown of
salinity management costs, by individual projects, is shown
in Table 8.
The no control and equal cost alternatives produced the
extremes in the range of cost distributions evaluated. Total
50
-------
123
S al in ity
MG/L )
Salin ity
4 Equal Co
Limited Development
1970
1980 1990
YEAR
2000 2010
Figure 8. Salinity Costs vs Time
-------
124
1000
900
800
«/» 700
600
•- 500
196O 197O
198O 1990
TEAR
2OOO 2O10
Figure 9. Salinity Concr• tration vs Tine
-------
125
costs for these two alternatives, by definition, are equal
but the distributions of costs are vastly different. For
the no control alternative, all costs are in the form of
detriments. For the equal cost alternative, however, salinity
detriments are reduced by an average of 60 percent. This
cost reduction is offset by a corresponding increase in
salinity management costs.
The extremes in the range of cost distribution point out the
basis for equity considerations which may enter into the
selection of management objectives. If the no control
alternative is selected, all salinity costs would essentially
be borne by water users and by the regional economy in the
Lower Basin and southern California water service area. In
contrast, selection of the equal cost alternative would
redistribute a majority of the costs to investments in
salinity control facilities in the drainage area upstream
from Hoover Dam. Much of this investment would be for
irrigation improvements in the Upper Basin, improvements
that would produce substantial economic benefits in addition
to salinity control benefits. The equity of these two
extremes in cost distributions is vastly different.
Salinity detriments for the other three alternatives
evaluated fall between the extremes extablished by the
no control and equal cost alternatives. Salinity management
costs are less than for the equal cost alternative. The
equity of these cost distributions may also be an important
factor in selection of the most desirable alternative. The
cost distribution shown in Table 9 can be used to evaluate
the relative costs and benefits of a given alternative. For
example, a salinity control program designed to meet the
minimum cost objective would have an estimated average annual
cost of $7.2 million in 1980 and $12.7 million in 2010. The
benefits associated with a given alternative would be the
difference between salinity detriments expected if no controls
are implemented and if the control program associated with
that alternative is implemented. For the minimum cost
alternative, average annual salinity control benefits would
total $10.7 million in 1980 and $22.0 million in 2010.
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
Implementation of a basinwide salinity control program based
on salt load reduction projects would face a number of legal
and institutional constraints. Perhaps one of the most
formidable constraints would be imposed by existing State
water laws and their requirements concerning water rights
and beneficial use. These laws do not recognize utilization
of water for quality control purposes as a beneficial use,
yet several of the salt load reduction projects formulated
would result in some minor depletion of water. Modification
53
-------
Table 9 Comparison of Salinity Cost Distribution
01
Alternative
Objective
Ho Control
Limited
Development
Minimum Cost
Constant
Salinity
(700 mg/1)
Equal Cost
Salinity Management Costs
Date
1980
2010
1980
2010
1980
2010
1980
2010
1980
2010
Salinity
Detriments
($l,000/Yr)
27,700
50,500
21,000
29,000
17,000
28,500
13,500
19,000
9,200
21,000
Salt Load
Reduction
Projects
($l,000/Yr)
0
0
0
0
1,300
1,900
1,900
25,000
6,900
17,600
Salinity
Control
Costs
($l,000/Yr)
0
0
0
0
5,900
10,800
10,000
13,500
11,600
11,900
Total
Salinity
Management
Costs
($l,OOQ/Yr)
0
0
0
0
7,200
12,700
11,900
38,500
18,500
29,500
Total
Salinity
Costs
($l,000/Yr
27,700
50,500
21,000
29,000
24,200
41,200
25,300
57,500
27,700
50,500
(X)
-------
127
of existing constraints would therefore be required to allow
operation of these project facilities.
Improvement of irrigation efficiencies would reduce the
amount of water required for diversion to a given farm or
irrigation project. The effect of such a reduction in water
use on perfected water rights is unclear and could cause
legal problems. Such legal factors may affect the selection
of control measures to be incorporated in a basinwide salinity
management program.
The Water Quality Act of 1965 provided that the States establish
water quality standards for all interstate streams. Sub-
sequently, the seven Basin States developed water quality
standards for the Colorado River. The standards established
by the States did not include numerical salinity standards,
primarily due to a lack of adequate salinity control inform-
ation on which an implementation plan could be based. The
Secretary of the Interior approved the water quality standards
for the Colorado River, with the provision that numerical
salinity standards would be established at such a future
.time when sufficient information had been developed to
provide the basis for workable, equitable, and enforceable
salinity standards. The states are thus still faced with
the task of establishing suitable salinity standards in
compliance with the Water Quality Act of 1965. The lack of
numerical salinity standards may be a constraint to the
rational planning of water resources development and
implementation of salinity controls.
An important institutional factor for consideration is the
lack of a single entity with basinwide jurisdiction to direct
and implement a salinity control program. In addition, water
quality and water quantity considerations are generally under
the jurisdiction of different agencies at both the State
and Federal level. This split jurisdiction poses coordination
problems to all interests affected by a salinity control
program.
Existing legal and institutional arrangements would also place
constraints upon the means available to finance a salinity
control program. In addition, a detailed analysis has not
yet been made of the potential means for financing such a
program. A cursory review of programs available for financing
facilities similar to those contemplated indicated that
existing financing schemes are not fully adequate to meet
salinity control program needs. This is due either to an
insufficient magnitude of available funds or a lack of legal
authorization.
55
-------
128
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The least cost alternative program, utilized as the basis
for the evaluation of the economic feasibility of salinity
control, was directed toward the objective of minimizing
salinity concentrations on a basinwide basis. This objective
was achieved by reducing the average salt load passing
Hoover Dam, a control point for the quality of water
delivered to most Lower Basin and all Southern California
water users. It is important to note that salinity con-
centrations increase substantially between Hoover Dam and
Imperial Dam due to water use in the Lower Basin and exports
of water to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California. Implementation of salinity control measures
along the Lower Colorado River could offset or minimize
these salinity increases. Such measures have a higher unit
cost for salinity reductions at Imperial Dam than those
measures selected for the least cost program and were omitted
from consideration for this reason. Salinity control below
Hoover Dam, however, is a possible, practical approach toward
minimizing the economic impact of salinity and should receive
further consideration in the formulation of a basinwide
salinity control program.
Fluctuations in salinity concentrations resulting from
factors such as seasonal changes in streamflow and water use
occur throughout the Basin. Peak concentrations reached during
such fluctuation may exert adverse effects on water use far
exceeding the effects predicted on the basis of average
salinity concentrations. By reducing average salinity
concentrations, a salt load reduction program would provide
a moderating effect on peak concentrations. The possible
magnitude of such fluctuations and their adverse impact,
however, would indicate the need for more positive means of
minimizing peak concentrations. Possible control measures
would include the manipulation of reservoir storage and
releases, close control of water deliveries to minimize stream
fluctuations, and seasonal storage of salts in irrigated
areas. The water quality simulation model utilized to
predict future salinity concentrations only determines long
term average concentrations and does not have the capability
to predict the magnitude of short term fluctuations. Water
quality simulation capabilities therefore will need to be
refined before the effectiveness of control measures can
be evaluated.
56
-------
129
CHAPTER VIII. ACTION PLAN FOR SALINITY CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT
The preceding chapters defined the present and expected
future magnitude of the physical and economic impacts of
salinity. Possible technical solutions to minimize these
impacts including alternative approaches to management of
salinity and associated water quality and economic effects
were also discussed. The range of possible problem solutions
point out the need for rational selection by the Basin
states of objectives for future water quality and uses and
the formulation of a basinwide salinity control plan to meet
these objectives. This Chapter outlines a recommended plan
of action to achieve an early solution to the salinity
problem in the Colorado River Basin.
BASIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE
In the past, the development of the Basin's water resources
was primarily guided by two basic objectives: (1) full
development of the water supply allocated to each State by
applicable water laws and compacts, and (2) expansion of the
regional economy. A number of legal, institutional and
political factors have supported these basic objectives.
The lack of consideration given to the water quality impact
of such development has resulted in the creation of a
serious water quality problem which has basinwide economic
significance. There is thus the urgent need for a water
quality objective to supplement these basic objectives and
provide guidance in the optimal development of remaining
water resources.
The Project's investigations have demonstrated that basinwide
control and management of salinity is possible, practical
and economically feasible. In addition, the feasibility
of maintaining salinity concentrations at or below present
levels in the Colorado River below Hoover Dam has been shown.
The enhancement of water quality in the lower river would
alleviate much of the future economic impact of salinity.
Enhancement of the quality of the Nation's water resources
has been declared a national policy. It is therefore
recommended that a broad water quality objective be adopted
by Basin interests which would require salinity concentrations
to be maintained at or below present levels in the Lower
Colorado River. This objective would become part of the basic
policy guiding the comprehensive planning and development
of the Basin's remaining water resources.
Salinity Standards
The present lack of numerical limits on salinity concentrations
is a serious deficiency in the water quality standards
established by the seven Basin States for the Colorado River
57
-------
130
and interstate tributaries. Salinity affects a number of
water uses which are designated as uses to be protected by the
standards. Suitable limits should be established to provide
adequate protection for these designated uses.
In the initial process of establishing water quality standards
pursuant to the Water Quality Act of 1965, salinity standards
were not established, primarily due to a lack of information.
Salinity levels which could be maintained by implementing
controls were not known. More significantly, the economic
effects of maintaining any given salinity level were also
unknown. The Project's investigations have provided much of
the needed information. Although additional effort will be
required to establish detailed basinwide criteria which are
equitable, workable and enforceable, present information is
considered adequate to form the basis for the establishment
of a salinity objective which will set an upper limit on
salinity increases in the Lower Colorado River.
It is recommended that appropriate Colorado River Basin
States take the steps necessary to establish a numerical
objective for salinity concentration. Based on the factors
discussed below, it is recommended that, as a minimum,
this objective require the average concentrations of total
dissolved solids for any given month to be maintained below
1000 mg/1 at Imperial Dam. This would apply until such
time as detailed basinwide criteria can be established as
discussed in the following section.
Evaluation of the water quality effects of various salinity
control alternatives has shown that by either implementing
a basinwide salinity control program or limiting water
resource development, future salinity levels at Hoover Dam
could be maintained at or below an average annual concentration
of 800 mg/1. A corresponding limit of 1000 mg/1 at Imperial
Dam could be achieved. A maximum limit based on average
annual salinity concentrations would not provide water uses
with adequate protection against potentially damaging short-
term salinity fluctuations. A limit on average monthly
concentrations is considered necessary to provide a more
acceptable level of protection.
To achieve compliance with the basic policy objective to
enhance water quality in the Lower Colorado River will require
that detailed salinity criteria be established at a number
of key locations throughout the Basin. These criteria will
serve two purposes. By maintaining salinity levels at
upstream locations below assigned limits, compliance with
downstream criteria will be assured. Secondly, the
criteria will provide a basis for optimal development of
58
-------
131
the water resources of a given tributary, sub-basin or
State.
Complete Basinwide salinity criteria should be established
after careful consideration by the Basin interests of such
factors as existing salinity levels, proposed water resources
development, the feasibility of salinity control, water
quality requirements for water uses, and the economic impact
of salinity. Such criteria should be consistent with the
salinity policy and with the numerical objective outlined
above, and should be adopted by January 1, 1973.
It is recommended that a State/Federal task group be
established immediately to carry out the necessary activities
to develop detailed salinity criteria for key control points
in the Basin. Following completion of the Task Group's
activities, the salinity criteria should be adopted by the
appropriate Basin States in accordance with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Task groups have been utilized in a similar manner in the
Basin in the past. A task group was assembled to develop
guidelines for establishing the initial water quality
standards in the Basin. More recently, a task group was
utilized to develop operating criteria for the large main-
stem reservoirs.
To provide adequate consideration of all interests affected
by salinity, the Task Group should include representation
from Federal, State and local agencies. It would be
desirable for state representation to include the State
water pollution control agency and the State water resource
agency. In view of Federal involvement in water resource
development, water quality management, and the basinwide
nature of the salinity problem Federal representation should
include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau
of Reclamation, the Geological Survey, the Office of Saline
Water, the Soil Conservation Service, the Agricultural
Research Service and the International Boundary and Water
Commission. Representation from other groups such as the
Upper Colorado River Commission, Colorado River Commission
of Nevada, Colorado River Board of California, and the
Colorado River Water Users Association would be desirable.
SALINITY CONTROL AGENCY
One major constraint that must be overcome before basinwide
management and control of salinity can be achieved is the lack
of a single institutional entity with basinwide jurisdiction
59
-------
132
which could be responsible for planning and implementing
a control program. There are various agencies with
jurisdictions over parts or all of the Basin. In the case
of the States, no suitable basinwide organizations exist.
Several Federal agencies have basinwide responsibilities
but no single agency has legislative authority to carry out
all program elements. It would therefore appear necessary
to create a new institution with the necessary authority
to plan and implement a control program.
Three possible means of creating a salinity control agency
are available. The Task Group assembled to formulate salinity
criteria could continue to function and could be utilized
to develop policy and plan a basinwide salinity control
program. It would be heavily dependent upon member agencies
to carry out the necessary program planning activities. A
Task Group would be severly limited in its authority to
require the States or Federal agencies to proceed with specific
courses of action and would not have the necessary powers
to fully implement a control program. No new legislative
authority would be required to create this somewhat limited
salinity control agency.
A second possible approach would be to extend the authority
of an existing agency or commission to provide the necessary
powers to carry out all the phases of a basinwide salinity
control program. This approach would require changes in the
authorizing legislation for the particular institutional
entity selected for expansion of its functions.
Perhaps the most desirable approach would be to create a
new permanent State/Federal agency or river basin commission
with the authority to carry out all activities necessary to
the basinwide management and control of salinity. Such an
agency would have the advantages of concentrating all
necessary powers in one agency and of being a single purpose
institution with no conflict with other assigned functions.
New legislation would be required to create the agency.
In view of the magnitude and scope of the salinity problem
and possible solutions/ it is recommended that the third
approach be taken and that legislation be sought to establish
a permanent State/Federal agency or river basin commission
with the authority to plan, formulate policy, direct, and
implement a basinwide salinity control program. Consideration
should also be given to the possibility of extending the
authority of existing agencies or commissions to assume this
responsibility.
BASINWIDE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
A large-scale salt load reduction program was identified in
60
-------
133
Chapter VII as the least cost alternative means of achieving
basinwide control of salinity. The steps which must be
taken to authorize, fund, plan and implement such a program
are outlined in the following paragraphs.
Legislative Authorization
Existing legal and institutional arrangements are not
adequate to provide the basis for implementing a large-scale
salinity control program. It is therefore recommended that
the necessary congressional authorization and funding be
sought at an early date so that the implementation of the
salinity control program can proceed.
Due to the scale and types of control projects included in
the salt load reduction program an approach similar to that
utilized for the authorization and funding of water resources
developments is recommended. Water resource projects
normally move through three basic steps before they are
placed in operation. A project is first authorized by
Congress on the basis of preliminary plans developed by
limited studies known as reconnaissance studies. Following
authorization, funds may be appropriated for more detailed
planning investigations known as feasibility studies, a
feasibility report is submitted to Congress, and construction
funds are requested. The third step begins when funds are
appropriated for construction. Completion of construction
then places the project in operation.
Frequently, a number of related projects are authorized by
a single legislative act. This was the case for the
Colorado River Storage Project Act which authorized several
large reservoir projects at one time. It is recommended
that legislation be introduced in the near future to authorize
the entire basinwide salt load reduction program and to
appropriate funds for the necessary planning studies.
Planning Phase
In line with the three steps outlined above for authorizing
and funding a water resource project, once authorized, the
basinwide salinity control program should be conducted in
two phases, a planning phase and an implementation phase.
This section outlines the activities which make up the
planning phase.
The planning phase of the basinwide program should be directed
toward the objectives of providing sufficient information
for developing an implementation plan, and of providing the
feasibility reports on which requests for construction funds
for necessary control works can be based, and of identifying
61
-------
construction, operation and related costs which should be
properly assigned to the Basin States and other beneficiaries.
To achieve these objectives will require substantial efforts
to be expended in five types of activity: systems analyses,
research and demonstration activities, reconnaissance
investigations, feasibility studies and legal, institutional
and financial evaluations.
System Analyses. A systematic evaluation of the quality
and economic aspects of the salinity problem provided a key
element in the Project's determination of the potential
feasibility and practicality of a basinwide salinity control
program. Systems analysis capability similar to the
methodology developed for this evaluation will be required
for the planning phase. Refinement and updating of the
analytical tools will be required, however, to provide
adequate capability for the improved information developed
by other planning activities. Specifically, a refined water
quality simulation model and updated economic evaluation
models will be required.
The Project's water quality simulation model is basically a
water and salt budget model with the capability to predict
long term averages for streamflow, salt loads and salinity
concentrations at various points in the basin and to evaluate
the long term effects of modifications in water use and salt
loading at any point in the river system. This model is not
capable of predicting fluctuations in salinity concentrations
or of evaluating the short term effects of various control
measures. The model should be refined to provide for
simulation of water quality on a monthly basis including the
routing of salt loads through irrigated areas and large
reservoirs. This improved model would have the capability
to evaluate the water quality effects of proposed annual
operating plans for the major reservoirs of the basin, to
optimize reservoir operations to minimize salinity fluctuations,
to provide an improved degres of evaluation of the salinity
impacts of proposed water resource development projects and
to assist in the formulation of suitable numerical salinity
standards in addition to its utilization for evaluation of
alternative salinity control measures and facilities.
The Project's economic evaluations and models were largely
based on 1960 economic data. The economic impact of salinity
increases in specific areas in the Upper Basin and Mexican
water users was not evaluated. The effects of rising salinity
levels in the Colorado River supply on the feasibility of
controlling the salinity of the Salton Sea was not considered.
Economic effects were based on average salinity concentrations
and fluctuations in concentrations were not evaluated.
Updating the economic models on the basis of 1970 economic
data which should be available by 1972 would provide a better
62
-------
135
estimate of the current detrimental effects of salinity and
would improve predictions of future effects since historical
trends from 1960 to 1970 would be available. In view of
the probable economic impact of salinity on Mexican water
users, on water use in certain areas of the Upper Basin and
on control of salinity in the Salton Sea, the economic models
should have the capability for handling such areas. In
addition, the capability to evaluate the economic impact of
salinity fluctuations should be developed.
Research and Demonstration Activities. A number of research
and demonstration activities discussed in Chapter V are
currently directed toward improvement of salinity control
technology. Completion of these activities will not provide
the technology needed for control of all types of salinity
sources. Additional research will be required if certain
types of salinity sources are to be controlled.
The greatest lack of available technology is in the area of
natural diffuse sources. Control of salt contributed by
surface runoff and diffuse groundwater sources, although
the major sources of salt-loading in the Basin, is presently
not technically feasible. The Soil Conservation Service, the
Bureau of Reclamation, the Geological Survey, the Bureau of
Land Management and various State agencies are all concerned
with various aspects of water and land utilization which may
have an impact on diffuse salt contributions. It may be
possible to conduct research or demonstration efforts through
these agencies programs to develop means of minimizing diffuse
salt contributions.
Control measures applicable to natural point sources are
limited, especially in areas with low evaporation rates. The
Geological Survey has an extensive reserach program in the
field of groundwater quality and movement. Directing some
of this research effort toward mineral springs could result
in the development of additional control measures.
Another area for which present control technology is limited
is irrigated agriculture. Research concerning various
irrigation practices and facilities, crop yields, and land
characteristics being carried out by various State institutions,
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation Service and
the Agricultural Research Service may be expanded to include
salinity control aspects.
Reduction of salt loads from irrigated agriculture utilizing
present technology as contemplated for the salt load reduction
program previously discussed will require the education of
irrigators with regard to improved practices and will require
a substantial investment by irrigators for improved facilities.
Demonstrations of the economic benefits associated with
proposed improvements will be required to provide the incentive
for irrigators to make the necessary changes. Such
63
-------
136
demonstrations would also show the technical feasibility
of such control measures with regard to water quality
improvements. The Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil
Conservation Service, the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, the Extension Service, various water
user's associations and other state agencies conduct
programs which could assist in such education and demon-
stration efforts.
Completion of reconnaissance and feasibility studies
discussed in the following sections will be dependent upon
completion of research and demonstration activities in
some cases. This fact coupled with the time span required
for completion of most research efforts would indicate the
need for early initiation of desired additional research
and demonstration efforts.
Reconnaissance Investigations. Preliminary, limited scope
investigations known as reconnaissance investigations were
completed in sufficient detail to provide the basis for
seeking appropriations of funds for feasibility studies for
only two of the seventeen projects included in the salt
load reduction program. Reconnaissance investigations
would thus be required for the other 15 projects. In
addition, similar investigations should be made of control
measures along the Lower Colorado River below Hoover Dam,
in the Yuma Valley area with respect to the salinity of
Mexican water deliveries and in the Salton Sea area where
such controls might alleviate rising salinity levels in the
Sea. Such investigations could best be performed by the
water resource development agencies at both the State and
Federal level. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently
conducting a planning study for rehabilitation of irrigation
facilities for the Uncompahgre Project, Colorado, which
could be expanded to include the desired salinity control
reconnaissance investigation.
An evaluation of the results of the reconnaissance invest-
igations would provide the basis for initiation of feasibility
studies for those control projects showning economic
feasibility at the reconnaissance level.
Feasibility Studies
Feasibility studies are planning studies which go into much
greater detail than reconnaissance investigations and
frequently require extensive and costly field investigations.
For this reason, such studies should be conducted for
only those control projects which could reasonably be
constructed to meet salinity management objectives. Such
studies would provide the basis for seeking appropriations
for actual project construction.
64
-------
137
Legal and Institutional Evaluation
Constraints imposed by legal and institutional factors may
significantly alter the range of available salinity control
measures. Detailed evaluations of existing legal and
institutional constraints which may affect the basinwide
salinity control program should be conducted. Where
modifications of existing legislation or institutional
arrangements are needed to allow a rational approach to
management of salinity, such modifications should be
identified. Emphasis should be placed on evaluations of
the various water laws controlling use and distribution of
Colorado River water.
Implementation Phase
The final or implementation phase of the basinwide control
program would include the appropriation of construction
funds, the actual construction of projects, and the actual
management of salinity through operation of control works.
As feasibility studies are completed, a final implementation
plan should be developed which would be directed toward
meeting the established numerical salinity standards.
Feasibility reports for the control projects included in
the final plan should then be submitted to Congress and
construction funds requested. Funds should be made available
according to the construction schedule established by the
implementation plan. Since the implementation of control
works will be dependent to some extent upon the rate at
which water resources development proceeds, the actual
construction of control projects could extend over a lengthy
period.
Once control measures are implemented, provision will need to
be made for funding for continued operation and maintenance
as most facilities will be need continuously for the fore-
seeable future.
65
-------
138
THE MINERAL QUALITY PROBLEM
IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
APPENDIX A
NATURAL AND MAN-MADE CONDITIONS
AFFECTING MINERAL QUALITY
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONS VIII AND IX
1971
-------
139
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency was
established by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
and became operative on December 2, 1970. The
EPA consolidates in one agency Federal control
programs involving air and water pollution, solid
waste management, pesticides, radiation and noise.
This report was prepared over a period of eight
years by water program components of EPA and their
predecessor agencies—the Federal Water Quality
Administration, U.S. Department of Interior, April
1970 to December 1970; the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U.S. Department of Interior,
October 1965 to April 1970; the Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, U.S. Public Health
Service, prior to October 1965. Throughout the
report one or more of these agencies will be
mentioned and should be considered as part of a
single agency—in evolution.
-------
140
PREFACE
The Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project was estab-
lished as a result of recommendations made at the first session of a
joint Federal-State "Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Inter-
state Waters of the Colorado River and Its Tributaries," held in January
of 1960 under the authority of Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.). This conference was called at the
request of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, and Utah to consider all types of water pollution in the Colorado
River Basin. The Project serves as the technical arm of the conference
and provides the conferees with detailed information on water uses, the
nature and extent of pollution problems and their effects on water users,
and recommended measures for control of pollution in the Colorado River
Bas in.
The Project has carried out extensive field investigations along
with detailed engineering and economic studies to accomplish the follow-
ing objectives:
(1) Determine the location, magnitude, and causes of interstate
pollution of the Colorado River and its tributaries.
(2) Determine and evaluate the nature and magnitude of the
damages to water users caused by various types of pollution.
(3) Develop, evaluate, and recommend measures and programs for
controlling or minimizing interstate water pollution problems.
ii
-------
In 1963, based upon recommendations of the conferees, the Project
began detailed studies of the mineral quality problem in the Colorado
River Basin. Mineral quality, commonly known as salinity, is a complex
Basin-wide problem that is becoming increasingly important to users of
Colorado River water. Due to the nature, extent, and impact of the
salinity problem, the Project extended certain of its activities over
the entire Colorado River Basin and the Southern California water service
area.
The more significant findings and data from the Project's salinity
studies and related pertinent information are summarized in the report
entitled, "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin."
Detailed information pertaining to the methodology and findings of the
Project's salinity studies are presented in three appendices to that
report - Appendix A, "Natural and Man-Made Conditions Affecting Mineral
Quality," Appendix B, "Physical and Economic Impacts," and Appendix C,
"Salinity Control and Management Aspects."
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ii
LIST OF TABLES. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ° vii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. FACTORS WHICH AFFECT MINERAL QUALITY OF STREAMS ..... 2
SALT LOADING EFFECTS 2
Municipal and Industrial 2
Irrigation 3
Out-of-Basin Diversions ....... ... 5
Natural Sources ........... ... 6
Point Sources ......... ..... .. 6
Diffuse So\irces .. 6
SALT CONCENTRATING EFFECTS 8
Municipal and Industrial 8
Irrigation. 9
Out-of-Basin Diversions 10
III. HISTORIC CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY 12
INTRODUCTION 12
CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY WITH RESPECT TO TIME. . . . „ 12
Statistical Methods Employed. ..„....<.... 12
Results of Time Analyses. 31
CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY WITH RESPECT TO DISTANCE. . . 32
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS HO
IV. NATURE, LOCATION, AND MAGNITUDE OF SALINITY SOURCES ... 45
FIELD STUDY METHODS 47
IV
-------
1*3
Collection of Basic Information
Water Quality Investigations. .
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - UPPER BASIN.
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
1 (Green River Subbasin)
2 (Green River Subbasin)
3 (Green River Subbasin)
4 (Green River Subbasin) •
5 (Green River Subbasin)
6 (Green River Subbasin)
7 (Green River Subbasin)
8 (Green River Subbasin)
9 (Green River Subbasin) ......
10 (Green River Subbasin)
11 (Green River Subbasin)
12 (Green River Subbasin)
13 (Green River Subbasin-)
14 (Upper Main Stem) ........
15 (Upper Main Stem)
16 (Upper Main Stem)
17 (Upper Main Stem)
18, 19, 20, and 21 (Upper Main Stem)
22 (Upper Main Stem)
23 (Upper Main Stem)
24 (Upper Main Stem)
25 (San Juan Subbasin)
26 (San Juan Subbasin)
27 and 28 (San Juan Subbasin)....
29 (San Juan Subbasin) .......
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - LOWER BASIN.
Description
Findings. .
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR ENTIRE COLORADO RIVER BASIN. .
BIBLIOGRAPHY. .........
47
47
56
56
59
61
64
66
68
73
76
79
83
85
88
90
93
96
101
103
107
112
114
119
121
124
124
130
133
133
135
146
167
-------
144
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Changes in Water Quality at Sampling Stations in the
Colorado River Basin above Hoover Dam During the Base
Flow Months (August-March) 33
2 Changes in Water Quality at Sampling Stations in the
Colorado River Basin above Hoover Dam During the
Runoff Months (May and June) 35
3 Changes in Water Quality at Sampling Stations in the
Lower Main Stem of the Colorado River below
Hoover Dam 37
4 Mean TDS Concentrations for Key Stations in the
Colorado River Basin Water Years 1959-1963 . * 39
5 Salt Yields and Loads from Irrigation
In Green River Subbasin ...... 152
In Upper Main Stem Subbasin 153
In San Juan River Subbasin .....154
6 Salt Yields and Loads from Irrigation in Lower Colorado
River Basin 156
7 Salt Load Contributions from Major Point Sources in
Colorado River Basin 158
8 Salt Load from Principal Industrial Sources,
Colorado River Basin 161
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations
for the Eagle Fiver at Gypsum, Colorado ... ..... 15
2 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations
for the Colorado River near Cisco, Utah ........ 17
3 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for
Base Flow Months for the Eagle River at
Gypsum, Colorado. . ........ .......... 18
4 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for
Base Flow Months for the Colorado River near
Cisco, Utah ........ ..... ......... 19
5 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for
April, May, June, and July for the Eagle River
at Gypsum, Colorado ...„ ..... ... ...... 20
6 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for
Runoff Months for the Eagle River at Gypsum, Colorado . 22
7 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for
Runoff Months for the Colorado River near Cisco, Utah . 23
8 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for
the Colorado River at Parker Dam, California-Arizona. . 24
9 TDS Concentration Mass Curve for the Colorado River
near Glenwood Springs, Colorado ".. = .. ....... 26
10 TDS Concentration Mass Curve and Percent Average Flow
for May and June, for the Colorado River near
Glenwood Springs, Colorado .............. 30
11 Distance Pattern of TDS Concentrations During Runoff
Months for the Colorado River and Tributaries above
Lake Mead ...................... • *H
12 Distance Pattern of TDS Concentrations During Base
Flow Months for the Colorado River and Tributaries
above Lake Mead ........... «
13 Distance Pattern of TDS Concentrations for the
Colorado River below Hoover Dam
Vli
-------
Figure Page
14 Main Network Sampling Stations, Upper Colorado
River Basin .„.., „„ ,,. 49
15 Main Network Sampling Stations, Lower Colorado
River Basin = ...., <,...,, 50
16 Study Areas, Upper Colorado River Basin ........ 51
17 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 1,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 .......... 57
18 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 2,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 ..... 60
19 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 3,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 . „ . 62
20 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 4,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 „ . . . 65
21 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 5,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 „ . . 67
22 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 6,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 ..... 69
23 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 7,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 ... 74
24 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sour.ces in Study Area 8,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 77
25 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 9,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 ..... 80
26 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 10,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 84
V11L
-------
14?
27 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 11,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 86
28 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 12,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
29 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 13,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
30 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 14,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
31 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 15,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 97
32 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 16,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 102
33 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 17,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 105
108
34 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Areas 18, 19,
20, and 21, Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66. . . .
35 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 22,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
36 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 23,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
37 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 24,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
38 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 25,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66.
IX
-------
148
Page
39 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 26,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 ............ 125
40 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 27 and 28,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 ............ 127
41 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 29,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66 ............ 132
42 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources Between Lees Ferry and
Hoover Dam, Lower Colorado River Basin, 1964 ....... 136
43 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources Below Hoover Dam,
Lower Colorado River Basin, 1963-64 ............ 141
44 Percent of Average Daily Flow and TDS Load Entering
Lake Powell, 1965-66 .... ............... 148
45 Relative Magnitude of Salt Sources in the Colorado
River Basin ........................ 149
46 Percent of Average Daily Flow and Load Entering the
Colorado River Below Lees Ferry, 1963-64 ......... 150
47 Relative Salt Loads from Irrigated Areas in
Colorado River Basin . . ................. 155
48 Observed Range of Salt Yields from Irrigated Areas in
the Colorado River Basin i ................ 157
49 Comparison of Salt Loads from Point Sources in
the Colorado River Basin ...... i ..... ..... 159
50 Ionic Concentration Diagrams for the Lower Main
Stem Subbasin .............
51 Ionic Concentration Diagrams for the Upper Main
Stem Subbasin .......... ............. 163
52 Ionic Concentration Diagrams for the Green River
Subbasin ......................... 164
53 Ionic Concentration Diagrams for the San Juan
River Subbasin ...................... 165
-------
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
As a part of its overall study of the mineral quality problem, the
Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project (Project) carried out
a thorough review and analysis of past water quality data, and made de-
tailed field investigations of present conditions. These studies included
a thorough review of factors which affect mineral quality of streams, re-
view of previous investigations of the mineral quality problem in the
Colorado River Basin and other similar basins, a rigorous statistical
analysis of existing mineral quality data, and extensive field studies
to determine the location and magnitude of salinity sources throughout
the Colorado River Basin.
This Appendix includes a discussion of the factors which affect
mineral quality in streams, a description of the statistical methods
utilized in the analysis of existing water quality data and a summary of
the findings, a description of the methods employed in the field studies,
and a summary of the findings regarding sources of mineral salts within
the Colorado River Basin.
Detailed compilations, discussions, and interpretations of data
obtained in the field studies are available in open file reports at the
Project Office at the Federal Center, Denver, Colorado. Printouts of
analytical results and field measurements have been furnished to the
Conferees and are available for review at the Project Office.
-------
150
CHAPTER II. FACTORS WHICH AFFECT MINERAL QUALITY OF STREAMS
A clear distinction exists between the two basic causes of salinity
increases in streams. These may be referred to as the salt loading and
salt concentrating effects. The former is associated with the discharge
of additional mineral salts into the stream system in municipal and in-
dustrial wastes, in irrigation return flows, and in water from natural
sources. In other words, the salt load returned to the stream is greater
than that diverted thereby increasing the salt burden in the stream. In
contrast, the salt concentrating effect occurs as a result of consumptive
use of water. No mineral salts are added, but the salt concentration
increases as a result of water lost from the stream system. Some of the
salt loading and salt concentrating factors that influence water quality
are discussed in the following section.
SALT LOADING EFFECTS
Municipal and Industrial
The use of water for domestic purposes increases the mineral content
of water in several ways. Washing, bathing, and laundering, of beings
and things, make use of the principle of solution and disposal of mineral
matter. The human body concentrates the mineral constituents in the
food and water which passes through the digestive system. Water is forced
to live up to its reputation as the "universal solvent" in an endless
variety of ways in domestic use.
Municipalities having surface supplies of domestic water may add
to or subtract from the total salt burden carried by the affected stream,
but the waste water returned to the stream always has a higher mineral
-------
151
3
concentration than that of the diverted water. Municipalities which have
ground water supplies and discharge waste water to surface streams always
add salt loads to the receiving streams.
Industrial use of water affects mineral quality of streams much the
same way as municipal uses. Water is used in many processes which employ
its solvent properties, and in others, such as floatation, where solution
of mineral matter is a side effect. Many industries utilize ground-water
supplies; and discharge waste water to surface streams thereby adding to
their salt load.
Mining and milling industries may contribute salts through seepage
from waste holding ponds, tailings piles, and direct discharge of process
wastes. Many mines intersect fissures and pervious formations containing
highly mineralized water which may discharge to surface streams.
Brines and brackish waters are often brought to the surface by oil
and gas drilling operations and by producing wells. Existing regulations
are inadequate from the standpoint of limiting the quality of water dis-
charged to surface streams. Discharge of brackish oil field water to
streams can contribute substantial salt burdens.
Mineral exploitation, such as oil shale processing and subsurface
nuclear explosions, may contribute mineral salts to surface streams unless
such activities are properly monitored and regulated.
Irrigation
Irrigation contributes salt loads to streams through return flows.
Water is diverted from streams and applied to the land in varying amounts
depending upon the type of crops being grown. Some of the diverted water
is consumed by evaporation and transpiration and some is returned to the
-------
152
stream system by way of canal wasteways and surface drains. Some of the
water seeps into the soil and may or may not find its way back to the
stream from which it was diverted.
Sources of water entering the soil profile include seepage from con-
veyance systems, deep percolation from irrigated lands, and seepage from
tail water and other wastes. Wherever this water is in prolonged contact
with the soil, it tends to reach a chemical equilibrium with the soil.
The result may be either the dissolution of salts from the soil profile
or precipitation of salt in the soil profile. In the Colorado River Basin,
evidence indicates that salts are generally dissolved from the soils.
(1 2 3)
However, authorities differ in their estimates ' ' of the amount of
salts that will be dissolved and on the length of time solution will per-
sist following the initiation of irrigation. Some believe that with
proper irrigation practices, solution of salts will be inconsequential
after a brief "initial leaching." On the other hand, it seems apparent
that solution of salts will persist in some cases. Water may travel a
considerable distance in its underground route back to the stream system.
Thus, there is ample time for the water to approach a state of chemical
equilibrium with the soil formation. Soils yield soluble minerals
through the process of weathering and decomposition. The solution pro-
cess will proceed as long as the water in contact with the soil has not
attained chemical equilibrium with the soil mass.
The amount of soil material dissolved depends upon a number of factors,
including the type of soil, the quality of applied water, the length of
the flow path, and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide.
-------
153
Out-of-Basin Diversions
Much of the service area for Colorado River water lies outside the
confines of the Basin. The amount of water diverted from the Colorado
River into adjoining basins is shown in the following tabulation.
Amount
Diverted To (Acre-feet/year)
Platte River Basin-i/ 388,000
Arkansas River Basin— 71,000
Rio Grande River Basin— 2,000
Bonneville Basin-7' 103,000
•3 /
Southern California- U,H-25,000
Mexico^/ 1,580,000
Total 6,569,000
Diversions from the Upper Basin are generally made near the high mountains
which serve as the source of the river's water supply. Water from these
mountainous areas is generally of excellent quality (below 100 mg/1 TDS).
Thus, these diversions do not effectively reduce the salt load of the
Colorado River system* On the other hand, Lower Basin waters are of rela-
tively poor quality so that a substantial salt load is removed when water
is diverted from the stream system. Where the diverted water is exported
out of the Basin, as in the case of diversions to Los Angeles and to the
Imperial and Coachella Valleys, the salt load is removed from the Colorado
River Basin system. In these cases, a portion of the diverted supply must
I/ Water Resources Data for Colorado, U. S. Geological Survey, 1967.
27 lorns, et al, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 4U1.
V California Water Bulletin for 1966.
V International Boundary Water Commission Water Bulletin, 1963.
-------
leave the receiving area in order to purge imported salts from the systems
served. Future diversions to the Gila River Basin by way of the Central
Arizona Project will remove salts from the surface stream system since
there will be no return of water froa this project to the Colorado River.
Present and future diversions are discussed more fully in Appendix B of
this report.
Natural Sources
The natural sources of salt may be" classified as discrete or diffuse.
Discrete, or point sources include springs, or seeps, which issue as a
single flowing stream, or. as a series of such streams within a relatively
small area. In contrast, diffuse natural sources are characterized by
salt accretions from large drainage areas. In the Colorado River Basin,
diffuse sources are generally of much greater magnitude than point sources.
Point Sources
A significant portion of the salt load in the Colorado River Basin
issues from saline mineral springs which occur throughout the Basin. In
this report, flowing wells are treated as discrete sources of salinity.
Diffuse Sources
In the Colorado River Basin, virtually all the stream flow and much
of the salt load arise in the form of spring runoff. Much more moisture
falls on the uplands and high mountains than in the lowlands and valleys.
Because of both an increase in precipitation and a decrease in evaporation
with increasing elevation, the upland areas yield most of the runoff while
the lowland areas yield almost no surface flow except during and immedi-
ately following storms.
-------
155?
A portion of the precipitation which falls on the land surface is
evaporated, while some flows overland to enter nearby streams. Some
of the water which percolates into the soil may subsequently rise by
capillary action and evaporate. Soil moisture may likewise be transpired
by plants, move to nearby streams, or enter the ground-water reservoir.
In each case, except for direct evaporation, there is a potential mecha-
nism for solution of salts from the soil. Overland flow may pick up
soluble salts stranded at the soil surface by evaporation of the capillary
water. Streamflow enters bank storage in times of high stream stage and
while in bank storage, the water dissolves minerals from the alluvial
soils. Salts dissolved may be concentrated by the removal of water through
phreatic evaporation. During periods of low streamflow, water emerging
from bank storage will contain the salts leached from the alluvial forma-
tions. Precipitation entering the soil may emerge far downstream as the
mineralized flow of springs or wells, or it may emerge in nearby streams
as upwelling ground-water. Salts contained in these flows have been
leached from the soils and rocks enroute to the streams.
As a result of the interaction between soil and water, the mineral
quality of a stream is closely related to the geology and soils of its
drainage area. The upland areas of the Colorado River Basin are, for the
most part, composed of crystalline rocks which are resistant to weathering
and contain few soluble minerals. These factors coupled with the relatively
large amount of precipitation and restricted leaching opportunity result
in runoff with low concentrations of dissolved solids, although the total
salt load per unit of contributing land area is relatively large. The
lowland valleys were created by erosion and deposition of mineral solids.
-------
8 156
Thus, water which comes in contact with valley soils dissolves deposited
mineral salts and transports them to nearby streams. Formations in some
of these areas yield relatively high concentrations of mineral salts.
Examples of such formations include: the Paradox formation which is
composed of halite, gypsum, and anhydrite; Mancos shale which contains
abundant amounts of gypsum; and the saline facies of Tertiary lake beds.
In the Upper Colorado River Basin, lorns ^ has more extensively documented
this relationship between the geology of various areas and mineral quality
of streams in those areas.
SALT CONCENTRATING EFFECTS
The consumptive loss of water from the stream system reduces the
amount of water available to transport incoming salt loads. As a result,
water consumption increases the downstream concentration of salts. Ways
in which salinity concentration may be increased by removal of water from
the stream system are discussed briefly in the following sections.
Municipal and Industrial
A number of municipal and industrial uses cause salt concentrating
effects. Thermal electric power plants are a good example of this form
of mineral quality degradation. Such plants normally add very little
salt to a stream. However, they deplete the supply of water by evapor-
ation, thus concentrating mineral salts into an ever-decreasing volume
of water. The residual salts are removed from the power plant by "blow-
down" water from the system. If the "blowdown" is returned to the stream
system, it will return a quantity of salt approximately equivalent to
the amount withdrawn. Thus, the net effect of the power plant is to con-
sume water without affecting the salt burden of the river. The result
-------
157
9
is an increase in mineral quality in the stream. However, even if the
"blowdown" were excluded from the stream system, the power plant would
also affect mineral quality. The nature of this effect is discussed in
considerable detail in the following section.
Irrigation
Irrigation entails consumptive use of water through evaporation,
transpiration, and through seepage losses, where these losses do not
return to the stream system. Wherever such water losses occur upstream
from significant salinity sources, they may be expected to cause mineral
quality deterioration. Removal of water from the stream above a salinity
source diminishes the amount of water available for dilution of salts
from that source. The impact of that salinity source on stream quality
will therefore be increased by the consumptive loss of water. Thus, any
removal of flow from a stream, for any purpose will adversely effect
downstream water quality. This relationship is frequently overlooked
since there may be no effect in the immediate vicinity of the water-using
activity. Since irrigation depletes a significant quantity of flow from
the Colorado River system, the salt concentrating effect of irrigation
is especially important. Records indicate that an excessive amount of
water is applied to irrigated lands in some areas of the Colorado River
Basin. One reason is that irrigators feel compelled to use all the water
historically diverted in order to maintain their water rights. Another
reason is the lack of widespread understanding of the amount of irriga-
tion water required to meet evapotranspiration and salt balance require-
ments. A third factor is the inadequacy of most irrigation systems
-------
158
to operate in accordance with irrigation demands. These systems generally
serve water on a "rotation" basis so that the irrigator must use water
when it is available to him, rather than when his crops need it. Whatever
the justification, excessive consumptive use of irrigation water causes
a detrimental increase in the concentration of mineral salts in the Colorado
River Basin.
Out-of-Basin Diversions
Exportation of water from the Colorado River Basin increases salt
concentrations below the points of diversion in the same way as other
stream depletions. This concentrating effect is partially offset by the
removal of salt from the Basin, as explained previously. However, in
the Upper Colorado River Basin, diversions generally occur in the head-
waters areas where salt concentrations are relatively low. For this
reason, the net effect of these exports is to increase downstream sa-
linity levels through reduction in available dilution water.
In the Lower Colorado River Basin, the major out-of-Basin diversions
are at Parker Dam where nearly a million acre-feet of water is diverted
for distribution by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
and at Imperial Dam where water is diverted to the Gila Gravity Canal
and the All-American Canal for irrigation and domestic uses in south-
western Arizona and southern California. These diversions remove water
which would otherwise be available for dilution of downstream salt loads;
however, the detrimental effect is partly mitigated since they also remove
large quantities of salt.
Most of the seven Basin States have elected to utilize a portion of
their allocated share of Colorado River water outside the confines of
-------
the Basin's drainage area. Thus, excluding Mexico, some five million
acre-feet of water are currently exported from the Basin. The major
exports are in California and Colorado; however, other Basin States are
actively developing means for exportation of a part of their allocated
share of the Basin's water supply. These planned out-of-Basin diversions
will serve water to regions in the vicinity of Cheyenne, Albuquerque,
Salt Lake City, and the Phoenix-Tucdon area. Planned increases in the
amount of exportation are as follows: Colorado, 432,000 acre-feet;
New Mexico, 110,000 acre-feet; Utah, 144,000 acre-feet; Wyoming, 22,000
acre-feet; Arizona, between 676,000 and 1,321,000 acre-feet. Thus,
future out-of-Basin exports will account for about half of the water
supply of the Colorado River Basin.
The increase in out-of-Basin diversions, particularly those in the
Upper Basin, will result in further degradation of mineral quality in
the Colorado River system unless some means are found for augmenting the
Basin's water supply with good quality waters.
-------
12 160
CHAPTER III. HISTORIC CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
Those concerned with water resources of the Colorado River Basin
generally recognize that changes have occurred in the mineral quality
of surface waters of the Basin. This belief steins from the knowledge
that development of the water resource projects and consumptive use of
the water result in degradation of water quality. Although other studies
of mineral quality of Basin streams have alluded to such changes, there
has been no clear delineation of those changes which are associated
with normal fluctuations in hydrologic patterns and those changes which
can be attributed to man's activities.(4'5> The Project attempted to
fulfill this need by rigorous application of standard statistical tests
to the mass of historical data that has been compiled.
The Project's statistical analysis of existing mineral quality data
was designed to:
(1) Identify the statistically significant changes in mineral
quality with respect to time and distance.
(2) Provide a basis for development of sound conclusions regarding
relationships to natural and man-made hydrogeological factors.
(3) Assist in the selection of points and/or stream reaches where
additional sampling was needed;
CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY WITH RESPECT TO TIME
Statistical Methods Employed
Long-term mineral quality data developed by the U. S. Geological
Survey, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the
-------
161
13
Agricultural Research Service were utilized in the study. Quality and
streamflow data from twenty-seven stations representing 353 station-
years were analyzed. Many of the records dated from the early 1940's
and a few began in the late 1920's. In all cases, the most recent data
utilized was for water year 1963.
Preparation of Input Data. Total dissolved solids (IDS) or total
filterable residue was chosen as the parameter of interest. The total
dissolved solids determination is a broad analytical procedure encom-
passing all of the constituents involved in salinity concentrations in
a stream. Moreover, TDS was the only parameter, other than pH or
specific conductance, which was reported continuously throughout the
periods of record for each sampling location.
Since the analytical results reported for any individual sample
may have represented a variable time period based upon the collecting
agency's procedures at the time of collection, it became necessary to
develop a common time base for total dissolved solids concentration
at all stations. The most logical time base appeared to be the 30-day
month, since very few samples were composited for longer periods and
the use of monthly values still permitted input of sufficiently large
numbers of values for the statistical analysis.
Two methods of deriving a representative TDS value for each 30-day
month were considered. The flow-weighted mean concentration may be
thought of as representing the composition of all the water that passed
the sampling point during the period of interest and it is approximately
the result that would have been obtained if all the water had been
retained in a reservoir and thoroughly mixed before analysis. The
-------
14 162
time-weighted average is most meaningful from the standpoint of the user
who has a constant water demand and where the effect of variable flow
is not important.
To meet the overall objectives of the study, the flow-weighted
monthly mean TDS concentration was selected as most suitable for the
input statistic. These values were obtained or calculated for each
month of the period of record for all stations. The monthly mean TDS
values through water year 1957 were taken from USGS Professional Paper
No. 441 for stations in the Upper Colorado River. For water years 1958
through 1963 and for all stations in the Lower Colorado River Basin,
these values were computed from USGS Water Supply Papers and other
historical records. It was necessary to synthesize TDS values repre-
senting short periods where gaps in the data would have otherwise
rendered the record unusable. This was accomplished by the use of
flow-quality plots or the TDS-specific conductance ratio.
Specific Analytical Techniques. The analysis of variance and the
"Student t Test" which were employed have as one of their basic assump-
(6)
tions the normal distribution of the population to be tested. In
nature, few phenomena are characterized by true normal distributions.
The reason for this, in many cases, is the impossibility of negative
values. Fortunately, moderate departure from normal does not signifi-
cantly affect the use of more statistical tests which depend upon normal
distributions of input data.
Preliminary examination of the data for unregulated streams of the
Colorado River Basin revealed bimodal distributions of TDS concentra-
tions. Examples of this type distribution are illustrated in Figures 1
-------
30
23
UJ
S
o
X
10
100 2OO 300 400 500 600 TOO
T.D.S. CONCENTRATION mg/l
600
900
IOOO
Figure 1 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations Tor the Eagle River at Gypsum, Colorado
-------
16 161,
and 2 for the Eagle River at Gypsum, Colorado, and Colorado River near
Cisco, Utah. Bimodal distributions, such as those illustrated, indicate
that two different populations were sampled. Most of the low IDS con-
centrations are associated with the high spring runoff flows; whereas
IDS values associated with the second peak on the plots are for the low
streamflow months.
Examination of the monthly mean discharge data for each of the
unregulated streams indicated that the greatest portion of the spring
runoff occurred in the months of May and June. The runoff period often
extended into April or July, but only rarely to any other month. There-
fore, the water quality data for each year were separated into periods
of similar flow. The first period included those months associated with
the high TDS concentrations, or those months where the streamflow did
not include the spring runoff. The months of August through March were
found to exclude the spring runoff at all stations included in this
study, and are referred to hereafter as the "base flow months." This
grouping of monthly TDS data exhibits a nearly normal distribution as
shown in Figures 3 and 4. The "base flow" data, then, was found to be
suitable for analysis by standard parametric tests including analysis
of variance and the "t" test.
The second group ing of TDS concentrations represented the months of
April, May, June, and July. A histogram of these values for the Eagle
River at Gypsum, Colorado, is presented in Figure 5. It is evident from
this plot that the distribution is considerably skewed toward the lower
values. At most of the sampling locations studied, April and July are
in effect transition months. Their inclusion into either period would
-------
30
25
20
s
i
2 I0
I
200
400
600
800
22OO
IOOO 1200 I4OO I6OO 1600 2OOO
T.D.S. CONCENTRATION mg/l
Figure 2 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for the Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
1
• n
-------
FREQUENCY OF OBSERVATION
- _ J» n>
O w O w O m
n 17
350 450
mtmm
MMM
1
••MM
m—
—•
•••••
•-
1 1 1 1
550 650 750 850 950 IO50
TO.S. CONCENTRATION mg/l
Figure 3 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for Base Flow Months
for the Eagle River at Gypsum, Colorado
o-
-------
50
40
-------
10
CC
LU
cr>
s
fe6
Uj
UJ
cr
-I-
4
4
4-
r
4
•
I
I
NO
O
125
175
225
475
525
575
275 325 375 425
TD.S. CONCENTRATION (pg/l
Figure 5 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for April, May, June and July
for the Eagle River at Gypsum , Colorado
cr\
oo
-------
169
21
not have presented a. true picture of changes that may have occurred.
Moreover, the exclusion of the transition months from either the runoff
or base flow periods should not affect the detection of changes in
quality since any significant change, if present, would have been
demonstrated in the two clearly defined periods. Therefore, the data
representing the transition months of April and July were not used in the
analysis of changes in quality with time, and, for the purposes of this
study, May and June were designated as "runoff months."
Histograms of the TDS concentrations during the runoff months are
presented in Figures 6 and 7 for the Eagle River at Gypsum, Colorado,
and the Colorado River near Cisco, Utah. The distribution of TDS values
for the runoff months does not approximate a normal distribution but
is skewed toward zero. Parametric tests are not appropriate for analysis
of this type of data. Therefore, the median test, a non-parametric
method of testing for differences in means was utilized for analysis of
data for runoff months.
The classifications described above are only applicable to data for
unregulated streams. Streamflow regulation changes the distribution of
both flow and concentrations. Because of the large storage capacity
of reservoirs, such as Lake Mead, and mixing effects therein, variations
within any year of record tend to be considerably dampened. This is
illustrated by the distribution of TDS concentrations for the Colorado
River at Parker Dam, California-Arizona, for all twelve months as shown
in Figure 8. Therefore, data for stations on the main stem of the Colorado
River below Lake Mead were analyzed using all twelve months in the same
manner as the base flow data for stations in the Upper Colorado River Basin,
-------
FREQUENCY OF OBSERVATION
3 r\» * en co 5 i
-4-
MBMM
•MMMJ
-
I.I I.I
129
175
223
275
TC1S CONCENTRATION mg/l
Figure 6 Distribution of Monthly Mean IDS Concentrations for Runoff Months
for the Eagle River at Gypsum, Colorado
H
-~J
O
-------
25
8
t__
jj.U
u
(ft
8
p 10
tij
K
U.
IT
1 ' 1 '
200
—
—
™™"
III 1 1 III 1 1 1 1
' i i • iii«
3OO 4OO 50O 60O 7OO 8OO 9OO
T.D.S. CONCENTRATION mg/l
Figure 7 Distribution or Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for Runoff Months
for the Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
ro
U)
-------
FREQUENCY OF OBSERVATION
hi til * W
O O O O O O
r~
i — T"i P "T— — i j
—
•••••i
•— —
••^•4
«"~~^
,-, ru
5OO 540 580 620 660 TOO 740 780 820
D.S CONCENTRATION mg/l
Figure 8 Distribution of Monthly Mean TDS Concentrations for the Colorado River
at Parker Dam, California-Arizona
INJ
-------
25
(7)
Double Mass Curve techniques were employed to segregate periods
of data for testing. In this application of the mass curve technique,
the cumulative annual total TDS concentrations for either the runoff or
base flow months are plotted against the corresponding years. This
causes the time variable to be, in effect, cumulative. If no change in
water quality occurred, over the period of record, then the data plots as
a straight line and the slope of the line represents the mean concentration
for that period. A break in the slope of the TDS mass curve indicates a
change in the constant of proportionality between TDS and time, and the
position of the break indicates the time at which the change occurred.
The change in slope of the line at a break indicates the degree of change
in water quality for the two periods.
Cumulative annual totals of the flow-weighted monthly mean TDS con-
centrations were plotted as percentages of the 1963 water year cumulation.
This, in effect, normalized or placed all of the mass curves on a common
base. Figure 9 is a typical mass curve of the type utilized in this
I/
analysis."
Mass curves were developed for both the runoff and base flow months
on the unregulated streams and for complete years of data on the regulated
streams of the Colorado River Basin.
It was necessary to exercise judgment in the selection of breaks
representing changes in water quality and to ignore spurious breaks in the
I/ All mass curves and other graphical analyses are on file in the Project
Offices and are available for examination. The material is of such
bulk that its inclusion herein is not practicable. The examples of
these graphical techniques, provided herein, are intended to illustrate
methods used in the statistical studies.
-------
IOO
9O
80
7O
60
50
40
o 30
20
10
ro
52 54 56 58 6O 62 64 66
WATER YEARS
42 44 46 48 5O
Figure 9 "TD.S. Concentration Mass Curve for the Colorado River near Glenwood Springs, Colorado
-------
27 175
curve caused by the inherent variability related to short-term hydro-
logic patterns. Therefore, only those time periods representing changes
of at least five years duration were tested.
In the statistical evaluation of the time patterns, the objective
was to determine whether breaks in the mass curves corresponded to sta-
tistically significant changes in TDS concentrations. The hypothesis
of significant difference between mean concentrations for two periods
of time were tested by the "t" test. Since more than two apparent changes
were to be tested, at most stations, the analysis of variance, or F-test,
was the more appropriate analytical tool.
2
The F-test compares the variance, s^ , of each period tested with
2
the pooled variance, &2 . In other words, the F-test is a special case
of the "t" test wherein the variances are compared rather than the means.
If the same random factors that cause variation within time periods are
2
responsible for observed differences among time period means, then s^
2
and 82 will be equal within sampling limits. Therefore, the hypothesis
222
tested with the F-test is that s^ = S2 = a or that,
F = Sl =1
8
t.
2 2
Usually the assumption is made that the alternative to s, = s_ is
2 2
s, >s_ , and the one-sided test is used.
The analysis of variance method of testing hypotheses is based upon
the following assumptions: (1) that the samples come from a normally
distributed parent population, (2) that variances of the populations
are equal, (3) that the samples are random, and (4) that in cases of
more than one variable of classification the effects are additive. If
-------
28 176
any of these conditions are not met there is uncertainty in, tests of
significance, particularly when the variance ratio is very near the
critical value.
The assumption of randomness is always questionable in time series
data. However, study of runoff for the Colorado River indicated that
mean annual runoff can be considered random for periods of five years
/Q\
or more. Since there is a correlation between salinity concentrations
(2 9)
and runoff for most unregulated streams in the Colorado River Basin, '
the assumption of randomness is reasonable where means representing
periods of five years or more were compared.
The assumption of homogeneous variance was tested by the Bartlett's
test which is described in most statistics textbooks. If the
populations are not normal, the Bartlett's test is not appropriate since
rejection of the hypothesis could mean that the population variances are
unequal and that the populations are not normal, or both. However,
since this test is very sensitive to normality, acceptance of the hypothesis
of equal variances also indicates that the data approximates a normal
distribution.
The median test was utilized for the base flow months at those
stations where the assumptions of normality and homogeneous variance
were not satisfied. The number of cases in two samples, of size N^ and
No, falling above and below the median of the combined observations,
N = N, + N2» can be used to test the hypothesis that the samples are
randomly drawn from two identically distributed populations. This test
can be expanded for any number of samples and is not dependent upon
normal distribution or homogeneous variances.
-------
177
29
In cases where changes in quality appeared to be associated with
changes in streamflow, three techniques were employed to confirm their
association:
(1) Mass curve for stream discharge using a five-year moving
average. This curve illustrates any change in trend in the
runoff pattern with respect to time at each station. A five-
year moving average was used to minimize the large variation
in annual means which was exhibited at a number of stations.
(2) Percent of average flow graphs. The mean flow was calculated
for the period of record for each station, and then the
average flow for each year was converted to percentage of the
mean flow for the period of record. These percentages were
plotted on the IDS mass curves. Those years having greater
than average annual streamflow for the period of record are
represented by the area above the TDS mass curve line. The
area bleow the mass curve indicates deficient runoff. Figure
10 illustrates the percent of average flow plots utilized in
this technique.
(6)
(3) Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient. This is a non-
parametric test to determine the degree of correlation between
two variables when the observations are taken at the same time.
It is similar to the correlation coefficient of the least
squares technique. It has been shown that most unregulated
streams exhibit some flow-quality relationship. If a change
in quality was due to a change in climatic conditions, then a
flow-quality relationship should have prevailed during the
period examined.
-------
too
90
42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
64 66
Figure 10 IDS Concentration Mass Curve and Percent Average Flow for May and June,
for the Colorado River near Clenwood Springs, Colorado
-------
179
31
Testing for significant changes in water quality, with respect to
time, for the runoff months at each station was accomplished in a manner
similar to that used for the base flow months. The major difference
was in the use and interpretation of the analysis of variance since the
assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance could not be
satisfied. The non-parametric median test was used as the statistical
basis for decisions on the acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses of
equal means for the time periods being considered.
The same procedures that were employed for the base flow months
were followed in determining the causes of significant changes for the
runoff months.
Results of Time Analyses
The time studies revealed that significant changes in mineral quality
of Colorado River Basin streams, above Hoover Dam, occurred at eleven
locations, during base flow months and at five locations during runoff
months. Increases in mineral concentrations during base flow months
were detected for the Colorado River at Hot Sulphur Springs, at Lees
Ferry and at Grand Canyon; the Animas River at Farming ton, New Mexico;
and the San Juan River near Bluff, Utah. Statistically significant
decreases in mineral concentrations were detected for the Colorado
River near Cameo, Colorado, near Cisco, Utah, and Grand Canyon, Arizona;
the Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado; the White River near
Watson, Utah; and the San Rafael River near Green River, Utah.
Increases in mineral concentrations during runoff months occurred
for the Colorado River at Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado, near Glenwood
Springs, Colorado, near Cameo, Colorado, and near Cisco, Utah. No
-------
32 180
statistically significant decreases in mineral concentrations were
detected during runoff months at Upper Colorado River Basin sampling
stations.
All of the changes detected were definitely associated with changes
in streamflow but only the 22 mg/1 increase in IDS concentration for the
Colorado River at Hot Sulphur Springs could clearly be associated with
man-caused changes in flow. Closure of Willow Creek Dam of the Colorado-
Big Thompson Project coincided with this increase.
All stations downstream of Hoover Dam exhibited statistically sig-
nificant increases in mineral concentrations. These increases were
associated with the drought of the mid-1950's, introduction of and sub-
sequent improvements in the drainage of irrigated lands, the closure of
dams and increased consumptive use. Decreases in mineral concentrations
were detected at all stations below Hoover Dam at the conclusion of the
drought.
Results of the time analyses are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Detailed discussions of these analyses are available in an open file
report at the Project Office .
CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY WITH RESPECT TO DISTANCE
The objective of the distance analysis was to ascertain the signifi-
cance of changes in mineral quality between sampling locations on streams
in the Colorado River Basin. The study was also intended to single out
reaches of streams in which significant increases in TDS concentrations
occur. Such reaches would then be studied on a more intensive basis to
identify the sources of salinity.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
186
38
In the study of the distance patterns, the five years of record
immediately prior to water year 1964 were used in determining mean TDS
concentrations. The five-year period was selected in order that the
influences of wet and dry years might be eliminated and to assure that
the data would be as nearly homogeneous as possible. The water quality
data used in this portion of the s tudy were grouped as "base flow" and
"runoff months" in the same manner as in the time analysis.
The approach taken, in the distance pattern analysis, was somewhat
(4)
different from that taken by lorns, et al in that no synthesized data
were utilized and a uniform five-year time span was employed. These
constraints were imposed in order to minimize the effects of climatolog-
ical cycles and the non-uniform pattern of man's developmental activities
in the Basin. Minor differences in qualitative results of lorns1 analysis
and the Project are apparent; however, the results of both analyses lead
to the same conclusions regarding distance patterns in the Upper Colorado
River Basin. lorns did not undertake a similar analysis in the Lower
Bas in.
Data representing sequential pairs of stations were subjected to
analysis by parametric and non-parametric tests. The TDS mean concen-
trations for all stations on the Lower Colorado River differed signifi-
cantly at the 95 percent confidence level. Even the 29 mg/1 difference
in mean TDS concentration for the runoff months between Lees Ferry and
Grand Canyon was found to be highly significant.
The mean TDS concentrations at key stations on streams in the
Colorado River Basin are presented in Table 4. The difference in
concentrations for adjacent stations is obvious in most cases. The
-------
39
187
Table 4. Mean IDS Concentrations for Key Stations
in the Colorado River Basin
River
Colorado
San Juan
Green
Eagle
Gunnison
Dolores
Animas
Henry's Fork
Yampa
Little Snake
Duchesne
White
Price
San Rafael
Water Years 1959-1963
Location of Station
Hot Sulphur Springs, Colo.
Glenwood Springs, Colo.
Cameo, Colorado
Cisco, Utah
Lees Ferry, Arizona
Grand Canyon, Arizona
Hoover Dam, Arizona -Nevada
Imperial Dam, Arizona- Calif.
Yuma, Arizona
Archuleta, New Mexico
Bluff, Utah
Green River, Wyoming
Greendale, Utah
Ouray, Utah
Green River, Utah
Gypsum, Colorado
Grand Junction, Colorado
Cisco, Utah
Farmington, New Mexico
Linwood , Utah
Maybell, Colorado
Lily, Colorado
Randlett, Utah
Watson , Utah
Woods ide, Utah
Green River, Utah
Base All
Months Months
(mg/1) (mg/1)
94
402
732
1,152
1,015
1,069
677
792
Changing
259
869
441
557(533)
592
722
679
1,220
2,140
552
1,200
317
532
1,220
601
3,950
722
Runoff
Months
(mg/1 )
77
208
265
316
a/
477(372)^'
512(401)
124
316
265
407(337)
240
276
156
408
464
203
615
112
147
999
303
4,740
276
_
a/ Figures in parentheses are for water years 1959-62. Closure of Glen
~ Canyon and Flaming Gorge.Dams caused abnormally high TDS concentrations
at downstream stations in 1963.
-------
188
40
dendritic diagrams for the runoff months (Figure 11) and the base flow
months (Figure 12) show the changes in mineral quality with respect to
distance for streams above Lake Mead. The relationships between quality
changes and distance for sampling locations downstream of Hoover Dam are
shown in Figure 13. Increases in IDS concentration occur, generally,
in progression downstream, except where inputs of higher quality water
dilute the water in the receiving streams. Increases are most marked in
those reaches where agricultural drainage exerts strong influence and
where overland runoff contributes dissolved salts to the streams.
Causes of changes in water quality, with respect to distance, are dis-
cussed in detail in Chapter IV of this Appendix.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
During base flow months (August through March), four stations
located above Hoover Dam exhibited increases in TDS concentrations, four
showed decreases, and two experienced both increases and decreases. TDS
concentrations increased significantly at five stations above Hoover
Dam during runoff months. There were no cases of statistically signifi-
cant decreases in salinity during the runoff months at these stations.
All of the Colorado River stations downstream of Hoover Dam showed both
increases and decreases in TDS concentrations.
All of the changes in quality in the Colorado River Basin at
stations above Hoover Dam were associated with changes in the streamflow.
Only one of these changes in streamflow could be clearly associated with
man's activities. Closure of Willow Creek Dam was associated with
increases in TDS concentrations at downstream stations. Other changes
appeared to be the result of drought periods of the early and middle
1930's and mid-1950's.
-------
Mean Annual TDS Concentration (Ng/1)
O Water Years 1959-63
D Waler Years 1959-62
CS-17 - Sampling Station No.
us) SJS-IO SJS-6
San Juan River
Figure 11 Distance Pattern of TDS Concentrations During Runoff Months
for the Colorado River & Tributaries above Lake Mead
oo
vo
-------
Mean Annual TDS Concentration (Mg/l)
O Water Years 1959-63
D Water Years 1959-62
CS-19 - Sampling Station No.
SJS-IO SJS-6
Son Juan River
Figure 12 Distance Pattern of TDS Concentrations During Base Flow Months
for the Colorado River & Tributaries above Lake Mead
-------
LMS-I
Mean Annnal TDS Concentration (Ng/l)
O Water Years 1959-63
D Water Years 1958-60
O Water Years 1961-63
-1 - Sampling Station No.
Fignre 13 Distance Pattern of TDS Concentrations for the Colorado River below Hoover Dai
-------
192
44
Changes in quality of the waters of the Colorado River downstream of
Hoover Dam were found to be associated both with changes in streamflow and
with the drainage from irrigated areas.
Analyses of the changes in water quality with respect to distance
affirm that increases in TDS concentrations occur generally in downstream
sequence, except where inputs of higher quality water dilute the water
in the receiving streams. Increases are most marked in those reaches
where agricultural drainage exerts strong influence and where overland
runoff contributes dissolved salts to the streams.
-------
45
193
CHAPTER IV. NATURE, LOCATION, AND MAGNITUDE OF SALINITY SOURCES
Several studies of mineral quality of water have been carried out in
(12)
the Colorado River Basin. These include investigations by LaRue, the
U. S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Reclamation. These
studies were based largely on existing water quality data, but incorporated
the findings of special field studies in certain problem areas. Several
Federal agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Geological
Survey, have maintained long-term water quality surveillance programs, of
varying intensity and techniques, throughout the Basin.
A detailed review of publications, reports, and unpublished informa-
tion, by the Project staff, indicated certain gaps in existing data on
mineral quality of the Basin's waters that needed to be filled in order
to evaluate the changes in quality for certain reaches of streams. The
Project, therefore, carried out short-term sampling programs and field
investigations throughout the Basin to obtain data needed to fill major
gaps in existing water data and to obtain detailed information on the lo-
cation and magnitude of salinity sources. The Project studies included:
1. Detailed and intensive map and ground reconnaissance of the
Colorado River Basin.
2. Study of geohydrology and stratigraphy of the Basin, and their
effects on mineral quality of streams.
3. Evaluation of the effects of springs, seeps, diffuse natural
sources, overland runoff, municipal and industrial discharges,
and irrigation on mineral quality of streams.
-------
19**
4. Stream sampling and flow measurements to define stream reaches
in which major changes in salinity and mineral composition occur.
5. Intensive water and salt budget studies of individual watersheds
in the Upper Colorado River Basin, and of major irrigated areas
adjacent to the Lower Main Stem of the Colorado River.
The studies were carried out in the Lower Colorado River Basin during
the period November 1963 through December 1964, and in the Tipper Basin from
June 1965 through May 1966. The upper portions of the Little Colorado
and Gila River drainage areas were not included in the studies since lit-
erature review and study of hydrological records indicated that these
areas contribute insignificant amounts of flow and salt load to the Lower
Colorado River. Except during infrequent floods, the Gila River has been
discontinuous at Gillespie Dam since 1937. The river is reconstituted
near the mouth by drainage from the WeiIton-Mohawk Irrigation Project area.
The effects of this drainage on mineral quality of the Lower Colorado River
were included in the Project studies.
The waters in the upper portion of the Little Colorado River Subbasin
are impounded and consumptively used to the extent that flow below Winslow,
Arizona, becomes intermittent. Continuous flow is reestablished near the
river's mouth by discharges from Blue Springs. Both the "intermittent flow
from the lower river reaches and the flow from the springs were included
in the studies of the Lower Colorado River, but it was not possible to
quantify the effects of irrigation in the headwaters area of the Little
Colorado River.
In this Appendix, the term "Lower Colorado River Basin" is used to
describe the drainage area which actually contributes significant flow to
-------
195
the Lower Colorado River. This excludes the reaches of the Little Colorado
and Gila Rivers above the points at which the streams are discontinuous
or intermittent.
FIELD STUDY METHODS
Collection of Basic Information
Basic information on irrigated acreage; cropping patterns; locations
of springs and seeps; location, volume and quality of industrial waste
discharges; quantity and quality of oil field brine and brackish water
production; the effect of mine drainage; and other factors on mineral
quality of Colorado River Basin streams was collected during the course
of the field investigations. This information was obtained through inter-
views with responsible officials of irrigation districts, farm operators,
county agents, State Engineers and staff, and faculty of agricultural
schools, by detailed map and ground reconnaissance of streams and tribu-
tary areas, and by review and updating of municipal and industrial waste
inventories. Project personnel made full utilization of the excellent
information on geology, geohydrology, and stratigraphy of the Upper Colo-
rado River Basin contained in the U. S. Geological Survey Report by lorns
and his associates. ^ Since no such compendium on Lower Colorado River
Basin conditions was available, it was necessary for Project personnel to
develop the water-related geological information for this area.
Water Quality Investigations
As indicated in Chapter III, various agencies, most notably the U. S.
Geological Survey, have obtained mineral quality data at sampling stations
throughout the Colorado River Basin. These sampling locations generally
were selected to evaluate the effects of specific geohydrological factors
-------
196
48
or individual water resources projects. Data from these stations were of
great value to the Project, but the stations did not provide sufficient
areal coverage to meet Project objectives. Accordingly, the Project carried
out a two-phase water quality-quantity study with the following principal
features and objectives:
1. A network of sampling stations at key locations on principal
streams within the Colorado River Basin. These stations, here-
after referred to as "main network stations" were located,
insofar as possible, to provide measurement of salt loads en-
tering and leaving significant watersheds, to define the magni-
tude of changes in mineral composition within critical reaches
of streams, and to provide data for input to the Project's
routing model studies. The locations of these stations in the
Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins are shown on Figures 14
and 15, respectively.
2. Measurement of flow and mineral quality of selected streams,
irrigation diversions and returns, and point sources of salinity.
The stations sampled in connection with this activity are re-
ferred to, in this Appendix, as "survey stations." The Upper
Colorado River Basin was subdivided into 29 watersheds or
"study areas" for which salt and water budgets were developed.
The locations of the 29 study areas are shown in Figure 16.
Relative salt yields from these areas were evaluated in terms
of the total salt load entering Lake Powell. The Lower Colorado
River Basin studies were carried out in much the same manner.
Budgets were developed for the reach between Lees Ferry and
-------
49
197
LEGEND
• SALINITY STATION SAMPLED BY PROJECT
C SALINITY STATION SAMPLED BY 0'. MER AGENCIES
T MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT
SAMPLED BY PROJECT
Q 10 30 SO
Jl -i J
SCALE IN MILES
MAJOU IU»
ClllUie IIYEI ttSIX WtTER
IIUITT CONH8L HOIECI
IS lEPUTKEIT IF TIE IKIEIIII
Illlll! lltll Nllltlll ttllltl MIIIIII"1'!!
1H1IKII Illlll III FUICIICI IIIIF
Figure 14 Main Network Sampling Stations Upper Colorado River Basin
-------
198
50
LEKM
• SIllliTT IIITIII SliriEl IT rilHCI
* StllllU SHTIII UiriEl If IIIEI iCEKIEt
T IHICIHL II IIIISTIII1 EFFIIEIT SIIPLEI IT PHIECT
CILIUM IIVEI HSU «TH
IMIITT CilTHL PHJtCI
IS IEPIITIHT IF TIE IITEIIII
liMH liHf PMlMt MID MMlHMll
milttll lillll »l lUHttU. CMK
Fi|ire 15 Mail Network Sampling Statins Liur Colorado River Basil
-------
199
LEGEND
6) Numbered Study Areas
CILHIII IIKI ItSII HTEI
IHLITT CHTHl PMIECT
IS IfHITHIT If TIE IITEIIII
lidfil lilti ftHtlm CMul Iliiiiiliicm
1MIIIIII HIM 111 tllKIUI. tll»
II Strty Areas, Upper Ctltradi River Basil
-------
200
52
Hoover Dam, and for the reach between Hoover Dam and the Northerly
International Boundary. It was not possible to develop a budget
for the reach between the Northerly and Southerly International
Boundaries, known as the "Limitrophe Section."
Where possible, water quality stations maintained by the U. S.
Geological Survey, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other State and Federal
agencies were incorporated in the Project's field studies. Project samp-
ling stations were located near existing USGS flow-measurement stations
where possible. In situations where flow data were not available, Project
personnel performed the necessary stream gaging and stage measurements.
Main network stations were sampled at two-week intervals. Samples
were subjected to measurement of physical parameters in the field, and
to complete- mineral analysis at the Project laboratory in Salt Lake
City, Utah.
Survey stations were sampled at monthly intervals and samples for
alternate months were subjected to complete analysis. Specific conduct-
ance was measured on samples collected for intervening months. TDS~
conductivity relationships developed at the survey stations were utilized
to estimate IDS concentrations for the samples for which only conductivity
was measured.
The study methods employed did permit differentiation between the
salt concentrating and salt loading effects discussed in Chapter III of
this Appendix. Although the distinction between the two effects is clear
in the case of springs, some municipal and industrial effluents, and
I/ Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium plus Potassium, Chloride, Sulfate, Bicar-
bonate, residue at 180°C, pH, and Specific Conductance.
-------
53 201
discharges of water used only for cooling, most of the results of this
study represent the combined salt loading and salt concentrating effects.
Raw analytical data developed in the course of the field studies are
too voluminous for inclusion in this Appendix. These data have been fur-
nished to the Conferees, and to participating and cooperating agencies at
periodic intervals. Printouts of the raw data are available for exami-
nation at the Project Office in Denver, Colorado.
Evaluation of Discrete Sources of Dissolved Minerals. Springs and
seeps, for which salt loads were available in various reports and publi-
cations, were checked by field measurements. Salt yields were measured
and documented for other springs which were located by field reconnais-
sance. Several abandoned oil-test wells were found to be discharging
significant salt loads to Basin streams. An open file report, providing
salient information on all known discrete natural sources of mineralized
water in the Basin, has been prepared and is available in the Project
Office.'1*0
The salt loads contributed by municipal effluents were measured at
thirteen representative communities within the Basin. The quantity and
mineral quality of domestic water supplies, and of waste water discharged
to surface streams, were determined. Based upon data obtained at the
thirteen representative communities, salinity contribution coefficients
(tons of salt per day per 1000 population) were developed and used in
calculating salt loads for other coramunities throughout the Basin.
Salt contributions from industries having direct discharge of in-
dustrial wastes, process water, or cooling water to streams were docu-
mented by flow measurement and sampling at appropriate intervals. Salt
-------
202
loads contributed by discrete return flows in surface drains from irri-
gated areas were evaluated in the same manner.
The major producing oil fields within the Basin were surveyed on a
well-by-well basis to determine the extent and magnitude of the salt
loads attributable to disposal of produced water and other oil-field
activities.
Coal and metals mining operations, and associated mills and refin-
eries, were examined to ascertain their contribution of both mineral
salts and heavy metals to Basin streams.
Evaluation of Diffuse Sources of Dissolved Minerals. Mineral quality
data developed from sampling of network and survey stations were used to
prepare water and salt budgets for the study areas. These budgets were
then utilized to calculate the flow and total dissolved solids yields of
unit areas. The technique used has been described by lorns and.his
associates. The Project studies, however, utilized quality and flow
data for specific days, and included data for every known significant in-
flow within each area. lorns' work was based upon mean values for fewer
sampling stations.
The water and salt budgets were based upon data from all gaged and
measured runoff— to the stream system, runoff from ungaged tributaries,
and measured outflows. The flow and salt loads for ungaged tributaries
were derived by correlation with nearby gaged streams with appropriate
adjustments for variation in geological characteristics and precipitation.
I/ As used in this Appendix, the term "runoff" refers to all of the water
flowing in the stream channel and includes surface runoff, interflow,
and base flow. "Surfa'ce runoff" includes only the water tb,a|. reaches
the stream channel without percolating to the water table.
-------
55 203
The difference between the calculated input loads and flows and the
measured outflow, from the areas studied, was attributed to leaching and
seepage associated with irrigation, and direct overland runoff to streams.
The magnitude of the direct overland runoff from most areas was insignifi-
cant except during periods of snowmelt. Field observations, streamflow
records, and U. S. Weather Bureau records were used to obtain estimates
of the periods and magnitude of overland runoff. Periods of irrigation
diversions occurred only during summer and early fall months, and were
thus easily distinguished from periods of snowmelt. Return seepage from
irrigation which carried leached salts continued throughout the year in
most areas .
For irrigated areas served by surface water supplies, water and salt
budgets were structured so that only salt added to the streams by leach-
ing was attributed to irrigation. Where areas were irrigated with ground-
water, the entire salt load was attributed to irrigation since the dis-
solved minerals in the pumped ground-water in most cases would not have
reached the inmediate reach of stream in the absence of pumping for.irri-
gation .
The water and salt budget method utilized in these studies is well
suited to headwaters areas, where streamflow and quality are sensitive
to small inputs of water and salt. The method is less suitable for down-
stream reaches where errors in flow measurement or laboratory analyses
can mask or distort the calculated response to salt inputs. Owing to
the very large diversions and the highly developed systems of irrigation
drains, the Lower Colorado River Basin studies were treated in terms of
the effect of each salt load input and diversion on the stream.
-------
204
56
Outcrop patterns for the various geologic formations in the Upper
Colorado River Basin are shown on U. S. Geological Survey bedrock geology
maps for the Basin States. The geohydrologic characteristics of the
pertinent formations are summarized on Plate No. 1 of USGS Professional
(4)
Paper No. 441.
Evaluation of Changes in Mineral Composition. Changes in the rela-
tive proportions of chemical constituents in water may occur with, or
without, changes in the total dissolved solids content. Such changes
may result from ion exchange, precipitation or solution of mineral com-
pounds, or the addition of water having a different chemical composition.
Composition changes between key sampling stations, and the relationship
of composition of major inflows to that of receiving streams, were studied
by the method outlined by Hem in USGS Water Supply Paper No. 1473.
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - UPPER BASIN
A brief description of each of the study areas in the Upper Colorado
River Basin and the significant findings of the field studies for each
are presented in the following sections. Detailed discussions of each
study area are contained in an open file report which is available
for inspection at the Project Office in Denver, Colorado.
Study Area 1 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 1 consists of the Green River drainage upstream
of Big Sandy Creek, which encompasses 4,922 square miles in Sublette,
Lincoln, and Sweetwater Counties in Wyoming (Figure 17). Elevations range
from 6,300 feet at the junction of the Green River and Big Sandy Creek
to 13,785 feet on Gannett Peak in the Wind River Range.
-------
57
139 219 555
IEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LECEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Mineral Spring
Flow
-------
206
58
The higher portions of the Wind River Range are composed of highly
resistant igneous and metamorphic rocks. Precipitation on these uplands
ranges from 20 to 50 inches per year. Because of the abundant precipita-
tion and resistant characteristics of these areas, streams draining from
them yield large flows of good quality water. The northern end of the
Wind River Range and the entire Wyoming Range contain more soluble sedi-
mentary rocks that were deposited during the Cretaceous age. Although
there is less precipitation on these mountain ranges, the soluble rocks
yield runoff having TDS concentrations of 200 to 1,000 mg/1. Most of
Area 1 is underlain by Tertiary rocks which were deposited in a brackish
lake. The old residual lake beds contain highly saline materials and
yield base flow to streams having TDS concentrations of from 300 to
7,000 mg/1.
Findings. Most of the flow in streams of Area 1 originates in the
higher mountain areas and is of excellent quality. Nearly all of the
salt load contributed by the area is derived from the saline lake bed
materials in the central portion of the area.
Two mineral springs near Kendall added 26 tons of salt per day.
Irrigation of about 81,000 acres of hay and pasture land added approxi-
mately 30 tons of salt per day (Figure 17). The average salt contribu-
tion from irrigation was 0.1 ton per acre per year.
Ionic composition diagrams for streams of this area have the tri-
angular shape which is characteristic of most headwaters streams in the
Upper Colorado River Basin. A general increase in total dissolved solids
concentration occurs between Warren Bridge and the mouth of the New Fork
-------
59
River. Inflow from the New Fork River improved quality in the Green
River downstream of the confluence of the two streams, but there were
no important changes in the relative proportions of chemical constituents
in streams of Area 1 (Figure 48).
The salt budget for Area 1 is shown in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Springs 26. 2.1
Irrigation 30 2.4
Runoff 1194 95.5
Sub-Total 1250
Decrease in Storage 160
Net 1410
Study Area 2 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 2 covers approximately 1,720 square miles in
Sublette, Fremont, and Sweetwater Counties in Wyoming, and includes the
entire drainage area of Big Sandy Creek (Figure 18).
The topography of the area ranges from extreme relief in the Wind
River Mountain Range, to relatively flat desert land along Big Sandy Creek.
Elevations range from 6,300 feet at the confluence of the Green River and
Big Sandy Creek, to more than 12,000 feet in the Wind River Mountains.
The headwaters areas of Big Sandy Creek and its tributaries are under-
lain by insoluble pre-Cambrian rocks of the Wind River Range. These peaks,
which constitute a minor portion of the area, yield most of the runoff
in Area 2. A minor portion of the runoff is derived from Green River
Desert areas which are underlain by saline Tertiary lake bed materials.
Effluent ground^water from the saline lake beds reaches Big Sandy Creek
near its mouth.
207
-------
60
208
32 163 14
144 41 M
69
1290
242
140 |2190|I32
lit
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
k\\\\\Vi
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
J
Figure 18 Flow aid Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Soirees in Study Area 2,
Upper Colorado River Basil, 1965-66
-------
209
61
Findings. During the study period, the headwaters streams located
in insoluble outcrop areas yielded approximately 10 tons of salt per day.
The irrigation of 13,000 acres contributed approximately 200 tons of salt
per day, or an average of 5.6 tons per acre per year. The salt load yield
from these irrigated areas was among the highest observed within the Basin,
and results from leaching of the soluble gypsiferous sediments. Ground-
water seepage from saline lake beds caused an increase in flow of 71 cfs
and a salt load increase of 590 tons per day between the TJSGS gage below
Eden, Wyoming, and the mouth of Big Sandy Creek.
The chemical composition changed from essentially pure water in the
headwaters areas to predominantly sulfate-type water at the sampling
station below Eden, Wyoming. All cations increased above the Eden sta-
tion, and sodium became predominant in the reach below Eden. Chemical
composition of Big Sandy Creek, at its mouth, was essentially identical
to that of seepage collected in the stream reach below Eden. The high
sulfate content of the seepage water is caused by solution of gypsum
underlying the area.
The salt budget for Area 2 is shown in the following tabulation.
Study
TDS Load
Source (tons/day)
Irrigation 200
Runoff 632
Total 832
Area 3 (Green River Subbasin)
Percent of
Total Load
24
76
Description. Area 3 comprises the Green River drainage area between
Big Sandy Creek and Blacks Fork River, which covers approximately 2,960
square miles in Sweetwater County in Wyoming (Figure 19). Rock Springs
-------
62 210
3
0
2
*
3
1
t
25
90 I
IEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LfGENft
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
CFlow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/D
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF.
Figire 11 Flew aid Qitlity at Key Saapliig Station aid Loc«li««
•f Principal Saliiily Searces !• Stidy Area 3,
Upper Colorado River Basil, 1965-66
-------
211
63
and Green River, with 1960 populations of 10,371 and 3,496, respectively,
are the only significant commmities in the area. Bitter Creek is the
only significant tributary to the Green River within Area 3. The Bitter
Creek drainage area is underlain by continental and marine rocks which
are mostly shale and shaley sandstone of Cretaceous and Tertiary age.
The Bitter Creek area receives very little precipitation and yields only
small quantities of water except during periods of storms.
Findings. The increase of 360 cfs and 481 tons of salt per day from
the tributary area between Fontenelle Dam and the mouth of Bitter Creek
resulted from seepage of mineralized ground-water from highly saline rocks
underlying the drainage area.
The flow and salt load contribution by Bitter Creek varied widely
during the year. Flows ranged from 4 to 40 cfs and the salt load varied
from 26 to 280 tons per day. Flow data were insufficient to permit cal-
culation of a mean annual salt load contribution. It is estimated, based
upon available data, that natural runoff from the highly saline geologic
formations in the Bitter Creek watershed added a salt load of more than
30 tons per day to the area. Discharges from the communities of Rock
Springs and Green River added a salt load of one ton per day.
The chemical composition diagram for the station near Green River,
Wyoming, showed a significant increase in sulfate due to the saline in-
flow within the reach (Figure 48).
The salt budget for Area 3 is shown in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Municipal 1 °'l
Irrigation 30 8.6
Runoff .HZ 91.1
Total 348
-------
212
64
Study Area 4 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 4 includes the entire Blacks Fork River drainage
basin which covers 3,630 square miles in Lincoln, Uinta, and Sweetwater
Counties in Wyoming; and Summit County in Utah (Figure 20). Kemmerer
and Lyman, the only sizeable communities within the area, had populations
of 2,028 and 425, respectively, in 1960.
Elevations of the area range from 6,000 to more than 10,000 feet.
Annual precipitation isohyets roughly pa.rallel the contours and range
from less than 8 inches to more than 40 inches per year.
Principal tributaries to Blacks Fork River are Muddy Creek and Hams
Fork River. Blacks Fork River heads high in the nigged, glaciated Uinta
Mountains. Muddy Creek and Hams Fork River head in the Wyoming Mountains.
Virtually all runoff in the area is derived from the Uinta Mountans which
are underlain by insoluble igneous and metaiaorphic rock which yield water
of excellent quality. Only a minor portion of the flow originates in the
higher glacial moraine areas just north of the Utah-Wyoming line.
Findings. "Reagan Spring," located near Interstate 80 bridge over
Muddy Creek contributed approximately 2 tons of salt per day.
Irrigation of 71,000 acres in the vicinity of lyman, Mountainview,
and Fort Bridger, contributed a salt load of 475 tons per day or an average
of 2.4 tons per acre per year. This yield is significantly larger than
the 0.9 tons of salt per acre per year reported by lorns, et al. This
disparity probably reflects leaching of new lands brought under irriga-
tion since preparation of the lorns report. Irrigation of 7,000 acres of
hay and pasture lands upstream of Frontier, Wyoming, added a salt load
of 6 tons per day to the system.
-------
65
249 306 206
Ly m an
Mountain V
13
IEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Mineral Spring
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF
Figure 20 Flow aid Quality at Key SaBpliig Statieis aid Loealiei
of Principal Saliiitv Soirees ii Slidy Area 4,
Upper Colorado River Basil, 1965-66
-------
66
The salt budget for Area 4 is presented in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Irrigation 481 54.3
Springs 2 0.2
Runoff 403 45.5
Total 886
Study Area 5 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 5 includes the Green River drainage between the
mouth of Blacks Pork River and the mouth of the Yampa River (Figure 21).
It covers 3,555 square miles in Sweetwater County in Wyoming; Summit and
Daggett Counties in Utah; and Moffat County in Colorado.
The headwaters of the area are located on the older sediments and
igneous outcrops of the Uinta Mountains. This small area yields virtually
all runoff within the study area. -In TJtah, the Green River crosses a
small outcrop of sediments of Cretaceous through Mississippian age which
yield good quality water. Downstream from Sheep Creek, the Green River
crosses a fault and enters the canyon cut in pre-Cambrian meta-sediments
of the Uinta Range which also yield high quality water. The sediments
to the north and east of the Green River yield smaller amounts of water
with higher concentrations of dissolved minerals.
Findings. The Uinta Mountains yield most of the runoff within Area
5. Runoff from these headwaters areas is of excellent quality. Small
amounts of tributary inflow in the downstream areas contain variable
amounts of minerals dissolved from the sedimentary formations. Irriga-
tion of 18,000 acres of hay and pasture lands along Henrys Fork contri-
buted a salt load of 243 tons per day or an average of 4.9 tons per acre
-------
67
254 520 I 35 9 Flaming Gorge Reservoir
\
WYOMING.
Dutch'.John
2tO 54 MSO
KIY
Salinity Sampling Station
LICENI
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area")
Irrigated Land
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(ma/I)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
K\\\\\\\\N
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF.
Fig-re 21 Fl«w aid Qiality at Key Sanpliig Statiois aid Loeati»-
•fPriacipa) Stliiity S«irces \m Staily Area 5,
Upper C«l«rad« River Basil, 1965-66
-------
216
68
per year. This relatively large salt contribution is due to the leaching
of the soluble sediments which underly most of the irrigated area.
Runoff added more than 2,300 tons per day to the total salt load
from the area. Most of this load originates from the soluble sediments
of the lower areas. During the study period, storage in Flaming Gorge
Reservoir caused a negative salt load balance for Area 5.
Chemical composition of Henrys Fork at Linwood is predominated by
calcium sulfate and with the exception of a low sodium content, is typical
of Upper Basin streams which receive drainage from irrigated areas
(Figure 48). Mineral composition of the Green River below inflows from
Blacks Fork and Henrys Fork is typical of mature streams in the Basin,
i.e., calcium and sodium are the predominant cations, and sulfate con-
centrations exceed those of bicarbonate and chloride.
The salt budget for Area 5 is shown in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Irrigation 243 9.4
Runoff 2337 90.6
Flaming Gorge Res-
ervoir Storage -3770
Total -1190
Study Area 6 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 6 includes the entire Yampa River drainage basin,
and covers 3,560 square miles in Routt and Moffat Counties in Colorado;
and Carbon and Sweetwater Counties in Wyoming CFigure 22). Principal
communities within the area included Steamboat Springs, Hayden, Craig,
and Maybe11 in Colorado; and Baggs in Wyoming.
-------
69
217
t7» |Ut 1»*
1720
150
*95
1440 103 145.1
517
7t
110
LE9ENI
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Mineral Spring
Industrial Effluent
IEY
Salinity Sampling Station
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Lcadl
(tons/day) |
A
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Figire 22 Flew »•* Q«»lily at Key S.Mpli-| Sutiois aid Locatioa
of Priaripal Saliiily Sairces ia Sl«4y Area 6,
Upper C*l«ra4« River Basil, 1965-66
-------
218
70
The Yampa River heads on flat-lying lava flows of the White River
Plateau at elevations greater than 12,000 feet. Major tributaries up-
stream of Steamboat Springs head in mountains of the Park Range along
the Continental Divide. These headwater areas are underlain by insoluble
granitic rocks. Precipitation on these high areas exceeds 50 inches per
year and runoff is of excellent quality. Downstream areas receive as
little as 10 inches of precipitation per year. Runoff from these saline
formations contains moderate concentrations of dissolved minerals.
Findings. The TDS concentrations in Yampa River near Oak Creek,
Colorado, ranged from 177 mg/1 to 329 mg/1 during the study period. The
concentrations in the Yampa River at Steamboat Springs ranged from 29 to
174 mg/1. This illustrates the effect of the high quality runoff from
the Park Range which enters the Yampa above Steamboat Springs.
The total salt load of 110 tons per day in the Yampa River at Steam-
boat Springs includes approximately 6 tons per day from an abandoned coal
mine located along Oak Creek just downstream of Oak Creek, Colorado.
Mineral springs in the vicinity of Steamboat Springs add approximately
24 tons of salt per day. Irrigation of approximately 38,000 acres of
forage land contributes 20 tons of salt per day or an average of 0.2 ton
per acre per year.
The mean flow and salt load in the Yampa River at Craig, Colorado,
was 1,643 cfs and 458 tons per day, respectively. This reflects an addi-
tion of 1,126 cfs and 324 tons of salt per day downstream of Steamboat
Springs. Approximately 300 tons per day of this load is from natural
runoff contributed by Elk River, Elkhead Creek, Trout Creek, Fortification
-------
71
219
Creek, and other small streams. The remaining salt load addition of 24
tons per day results from irrigation along the Yampa River and its tribu-
taries. The average salt yield from irrigation was approximately 0.4
tons per acre per year. This value is in close agreement with the findings
(M
of lorns, et al.
The Yampa River at Maybell carried a mean annual flow of 1,720 cfs
and a mean salt load of 695 tons per day during the study period. This
represents an increase of 78 cfs and 237 tons per day over the flow and
salt load of the Yampa River at Craig. The release of saline water from
the lies Dome Oil Field located south of Lloyd, Colorado, was responsible
for the addition of 4 cfs and 17 tons of salt per day. Inflow from Milk
Creek added 96 tons of salt per.day and 30 cfs. Approximately 6 tons per
day of this addition resulted from irrigation of 2,100 acres of forage
area along Milk Creek. Natural runoff from Mancos shale outcrop areas
contributed 90 tons of salt per day. The Williams Fork River yielded
a salt load of 64 tons per day and a flow of 44 cfs. A Portion of this
load resulted from spillage of brine produced in the Williams Fork Oil
Field. Release of this saline water was discontinued during the study
period. Irrigation of 16,000 acres along Williams Fork added an esti-
mated 13 tons of salt per day to the system.
Observed changes in chemical composition of the Yampa River between
Steamboat Springs and Maybell were insignificant (Figure 48). Although
TDS concentrations decreased between Oak Creek and Steamboat Springs, the
effect of the saline bedrock above Oak Creek is reflected by the increase
in sodium concentration at Steamboat Springs.
-------
220
72
The Little Snake River and Slater Fork one of its principle tribu-
taries, yielded water with a IDS concentration of less than 160 mg/1
throughout the year. This excellent quality water reflects the insoluble
nature of the pre-Cambrian granite along the Continental Divide. Savery
Creek, another tributary to the Little Snake River, discharged water with
high salt concentrations derived from mineralized Tertiary sediments.
Runoff per square mile from Savery Creek watershed was approximately
equal to that for the Little Snake River; however, the salt contribution
was about twice as great.
Approximately 15,000 acres of irrigated land above Dixon contributed
15 tons of salt per day or an average of 0.3 ton per acre per year to
the Little Snake River. An additional 25 tons per day was added by irri-
gation of 17,000 acres along the Little Snake between Dixon and Baggs.
During the study period the Little Snake at Lily yielded a mean
annual flow of 686 cfs and a salt load of 402 tons per day. The major
portion of the salt load increase in Area 6 resulted from mineralized
natural runoff and the solution of minerals from the bed and banks of
the Little Snake River.
The salt budget for Area 6 is shown in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Springs 24 2.2
Irrigation 103 9.4
Industrial (Oil field
produced water)!./ 17 1«5
Mine Drainage 6 0.5
Runoff 950 86.4
Total 1100
I/ Does not include discharge of saline water from Williams Fork Oil
~~ Field which was discontinued during the study period.
-------
73 221
Study Area 7 (Green River Subbasln) ,
Description Area 7 includes the Green River watershed below the
mouth of the Yampa River and above the mouth of the Duchesne and White
Rivers. This 1,650 square mile area is located mostly within Uintah
County of Utah but includes a small portion of Moffat County in Colorado
(Figure 23). Major tributaries include Brush, Ashley, Cliff, and Jones
Hole Creeks. Vernal, Utah, the only major community within the area,
had a population of 3,655 in 1960.
Brush and Ashley Creeks originate high in the rugged, glaciated
Uinta Mountains. The Jones Hole Creek drainage area consists of high
uplands with deeply incised stream channels and steep hogbacks. The
streams flow southward to the Uinta Basin, a plateau underlain by flat-
lying sediments of Tertiary through Quaternary Ages. Elevations of the
area range from less than 4,800 feet to more than 10,000 feet. Annual
precipitation isbhyets closely follow elevation contours and ranges from
less than 8 inches per year on the lowlands to more than 40 inches per
year on the Uinta peaks. Thus, most of the runoff in Area 7 is derived
from a relatively small area of pre-Cambrian rock formation and is rela-
tively free of dissolved minerals. The sediments of lower areas yield
smaller quantities of salt-sladen water.
Findings. Data from survey stations on Brush Creek and Little Brush
Creek indicated that large losses of water occurred during the irrigation
season, and smaller losses occurred during the base flow period. Salt
loss occurred throughout the period of study indicating that salt may
have been stored in some portions of the 5,100 acres of irrigated land
within the area.
-------
74 222
in
Salinity Sampling Station
LIfiENI
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Mineral Spring
Industrial Effluent
Flow
(c*s)
TDS Cone.
(mg/0
TOS Load
(tons/day)
KXXV^I
o
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. 5. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
RtOIGN SAN PWANCISCO. CAUIF.
Figire
23 Flew aid QaalUy »4 Key
of Priicipal Sali»it> S«»r«es »
Upper Colorado River B«»n
St*ti««§ aid Loeatiei
Area 7,
-------
75
223
The predominantly clacium-bicarbonate composition of Brush Creek
during runoff months was characteristic of headwater streams in the Upper
Basin. Large increases in mineral concentrations occurred during the
irrigation season with sulfate being the prevalent anion. During the
winter months, sodium and sulfate decreased, although sulfate remained
the predominate anion. The high sulfate concentrations resulted from
solution of gypsum by overland runoff and irrigation waters.
Water quality data on Ashley Creek watershed developed by the Bureau
of Reclamation for the period 1957-1965 were included in the study.
During water years 1959, 1960, and 1961, irrigation of 20,000 acres in
Ashley Valley contributed approximately 50 tons of salt per day to Ashley
Creek. In water year 1962 the salt load increased to more than 100 tons
per day. In 1963, the salt load was only 60 tons per day and declined
to approximately 30 tons per day for water year 1964. In water year 1965
the salt load was 100 tons per day. The salt load during the Project
study period, June 1965 to May 1966, was computed to be approximately
230 tons per day, or an average of 4.2 tons per acre. The heavy snow
pack in 1965 produced abundant runoff and local irrigators applied large
amounts of water which undoubtedly leached out salts which had accumulated
in the soils during the previous dry years.
Several salt springs and other sources of saline ground-water added
to the salt load of the Green River in Area 7. Split Mountain Warm Springs,
located in Dinosaur National Monument, are reported to contribute 51 tons
of salt per day. These Springs have been inaccessible since the impound-
ment of Flaming Gorge Reservoir.
-------
224
76
Water produced at the Ashley Valley Oil Field along the lower reaches
of Ashley Creek is released to Ashley Creek for irrigation use. The water
from the oil field contributed 32 tons of salt per day to the system. An
oil-test hole located adjacent to U. S. Highway 40, east of Jensen, Utah,
discharges 100 gallons per minute with a TDS concentration of 1,800 mg/1.
This water is used for stock watering and was not included in the area
budget.
Magnesium and sulfate ions increase in proportion to the other
principal ions in the Green River as a result of irrigation return flows
(Figure 48).
The salt budget for Area 7 is shown in the following tabulation.
Sou rce
Springs
Irrigation
Industrial
Runoff
TDS Load
(tons/day)
51
230
32
599
Percent of
Total Load
5.6
25.2
3.5
65.7
Total 912
Study Area 8 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 8 consists of the entire Duchesne River drainage
basin, comprising 3,820 square miles located mostly in Duchesne County
but including small portions of Uintah and Wasatch Counties in Utah
(Figure 24).
Most of the streams originate in the glaciated Uinta Mountains or
the high uplands of the Wasatch Plateau. The Uinta Mountains are under-
lain by crystalline rocks which yield runoff of excellent quality. The
Wasatch Plateau is a high rolling upland with deeply incised streams.
The area is underlain by marls, shales, and oil shales of the Green River
-------
77
25
450| 594 j 722
1310
564
1990
LEGEND
Irrigated Land
I\\\\V)
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
Cmg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Figure 24 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 8,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
-------
226
78
and Uinta formations which contain numerous soluble minerals. The streams
flow south to the Uinta Basin crossing sedimentary layers en route. The
valley floor, which covers the greater part of the study area, is under-
lain with flat-lying Tertiary rock.
Virtually all the runoff in Area 8 is derived from the south flanks
of the Uinta Mountains or from headwaters area of the Strawberry River.
Together, these areas make up less than 10 percent of Study Area 8.
Findings. Several discrete natural sources discharge minor salt
loads to streams within the area. Stinking Springs on the Strawberry
River discharges from 20 to 50 gallons per minute of water with a TDS
concentration of approximately 7,700 mg/1. These Springs contribute
a salt load of approximately 1.3 tons per day. Springs along Indian
Creek add 3.3 tons of salt per day to the system.
The 166,000 acres of irrigated land in Area 8 adds approximately
1,350 tons of salt per day to the system. This amounts to an average
yield of 3.0 tons per acre per year.
Ionic composition of the headwaters of the Duchesne River was of the
characteristic calcium-bicarbonate type (Figure ^8). Inflow of poor
quality water from the Strawberry River caused increases in the propor-
tions of sodium and sulfate. The composition diagram for the most down-
stream station on the Duchesne showed the calcium, sodium, sulfate pattern
characteristics of a mature stream carrying irrigation return water.
The salt budget for Area 8 is given in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Springs k 0.2
Irrigation 1350 67.8
Runoff 636 32.0
Total 1990
-------
227
Study Area 9 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 9 includes the entire drainage area of the White
River and covers approximately 44,000 square miles in Garfield, Rio Blanco,
and Moffitt Counties of Colorado; and Uintah County in Utah (Figure 25).
The area includes the communities of Meeker and Rangely, and several other
smaller settlements. The area has a total population of approximately
5,600.
Main tributaries of the White River include the South Fork of the
White River and Piceance, Yellow, Douglas, and Evacuation Creeks. The
White River and South Fork of the White River originate on the White River
Plateau at elevations over 12,000 feet. This Plateau consists of a series
of flat laya flows with glaciated valleys through which the headwater
streams flow. Runoff from this Plateau is of good quality. Below Meeker,
the river channel cuts through the Grand Hogback and then enters more
varied- topography consisting of plateaus, ridges, and cliffs, interspersed
with open valleys. The varied topography reflects the varying erosion
resistence of the rocks which underlie the area. The easily eroded for-
mations in the lower elevations yield small amounts of mineralized water..
Findings. During the study period, the White River at Buford dis-
charged a mean flow of 352 cfs and a mean salt load of 157 tons per day.
The South Fork of the White River at Buford yielded a mean flow of 310 cfs
and a mean salt load of 115 tons per day. These two streams which origi-
nate on the White River Plateau contributed more than two-thirds of the
total runoff, but less than one-fourth of the salt load from Area 9.
An increase of 30 cfs and 70 tons of salt per day was measured down-
stream at the Coal Creek station. Almost all of the increase in flow and
-------
80 228
I14l 450
*f2 I ]I3 342
310 137 115
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Mineral Spring
o
IX\\\\\1
o
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons /day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pbllution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF
Fi-ure 25 Flow aid Quality at Key Sa«pli«g Stations aid Local!*"
of Principal Saliai'ty Soirees In Study Area 9,
Upper Colorado River Basil, 1965-66
-------
81
229
salt load resulted from tributary inflow to the reach. The effect on
water quality, of irrigation of approximately 10,000 acres within the
White River reach between Buford and Coal Creek, was virtually nil.
Soils within this reach have been well leached by abundant precipitation.
No significant changes in chemical composition were observed between the
Buford and Coal Creek stations.
Increases of 55 cfs and 296 tons of salt per day occurred between
the Coal Creek and Meeker stations on the White River. An abandoned oil-
test hole near Meeker contributed 3.1 cfs of water with a dissolved solids
concentration of approximately 19,000 mg/1. This accounted for approximately
160 tons per day of the salt load increase within this reach. The remain-
ing flow of 52 cfs and a salt load of 136 tons per day within the reach
was from undefined sources. Irrigation of approximately 10,000 acres
within.the same reach yields an undetermined quantity of salt to the
stream, but it is believed to be considerably less than the 136 tons per
day from undefined sources.
In the past, water flowed from a test hole located on the mesa to
the north of the White River. Salt water also flowed from a seismic shot
hole until it was recently plugged. Thus, it is evident that saline water
in the near surface formations east of Meeker is under artisian pressure
and may be moving into the stream through naturally occurring fissures or
other test holes.
Chemical composition changes in the White River reach between Coal
Creek and Meeker tends to substantiate that salt load increases are caused
by ground-water inflow. Sodium, chloride, and sulfate were the predomi-
nate ions in discharge from the Meeker oil-test hole. These ions increased
markedly in the immediate reach of the White River.
-------
230
82
Flow and salt load at the USGS station on the White River at Watson
reflect an increase of 67 cfs and 352 tons of salt per day in the reach
of the stream below Maeker. Approximately 100 tons per day of this in-
crease is discharged from the Piceance Creek drainage area. This in-
cludes the salt contribution from irrigation of approximately 5,000 acres
along Piceance Creek. A flowing oil-test hole along Piceance Creek added
17 tons of salt per day.
The salt load from Yellow Creek was approximately 7 tons per day.
This included approximately 2 tons of salt per day from a sulfur spring
located above the mouth of Yellow Creek. The TDS concentration in Yellow
Creek exceeded 2,000 mg/1 throughout the year. The salt load from Douglas
Creek varied widely with flow, but was estimated to average 35 tons per
day. Approximately 20 tons of salt per day were added by irrigation of
small areas along the White River below Meeker.
The saline inflow from Piceance, Yellow, and Douglas Creeks caused
major changes in chemical composition.of the White River (Figure 48).
Sodium, sulfate, and bicarbonate increased significantly below the entrance
of these streams. Relatively small changes in salt loads and chemical
composition were observed in the White River between Watson and Ouray, Utah.
The salt budget for Area 9 is given in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Irrigation 20- 1.7
Abandoned oil-test holes 177 15.4
Springs 2 0.2
Runof? .951I7 82.7
Total 1150
I/ Includes salt contribution from irrigated areas along Piceance, Yellow,
~ and Douglas Creeks.
-------
231
Study Area 10 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 10 includes the Green River drainage area between
the mouth of the White River and the town of Green River, Utah (Figure 26) »
The area covers approximately 3,000 square miles in Grand, Emery, Carbon,
Uintah, and Duchesne Counties of Utah. Major tributaries in the area
include Willow Creek, Pariette Draw, Nine-Mile Creek (Minnie Maud Creek),
and the Price River. There are no communities and few inhabitants within
the area.
The Green River flows from the Uinta Basin toward the east side of
the San Rafael Swell, cutting through the Roan Cliffs and Book Cliffs in
Desolation Canyon. In the Uinta Basin, the rocks are flat lying and form
broad flat valleys and mesas. In the Desolation Canyon area, streams
are deeply incised with small flat mesas remaining. As the river flows
south, it crosses progressively older rocks from the Tertiary sediments
in the Ouray, Utah, area to the Mancos shale at Green River, Utah. The
Book Cliffs are formed by the late Cretaeious Mesa Verde group and !Roan
Cliffs are formed by the oil shales of the Green River formation. Runoff
from all formations within the area is moderately to highly mineralized.
The mean annual runoff from Area 10 is negligible except during snowmelt
and infrequent summer storms.
Findings. During the study period, total flow within the a-rea de-
creased by 66 cfs while the salt load increased by 510 tons per day.
The total salt load added by Pariette Draw, Willow Creek and Nine-Mfte
Creek accounted for more than half of the salt load increase within the
reach. The remaining increase was derived from minor tributaries and from
direct runoff to the Green River. Virtually the entire salt load from
Area 10 was attributable to natural runoff.
-------
84_ 232
*290| 393 6470
Green River
t)tO| 470 18070
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LE6END
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
Cmg/0
TDS Load
(tons/day)
K\\\\\VI
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CAlJe
Figure 28 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling; Stations aid Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 10,
ler Colorado River Basil, 1965-66
-------
233
85
Study Area 11 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 11 includes the entire Price River drainage basin,
which covers approximately 1,900 square miles in western Carbon and northern
Emery Counties of Utah, and small portions of adjacent counties. The
communities of Castle Gate, Helper, Price, Wellington, Draggerton, and
numerous smaller settlements are located in the area. (Figure 27)
Most of the runoff in the area originates along the east flank of
the Wasatch Plateau, which forms the western boundary of the area. The
Price River crosses the Book Cliffs, flows across Castle Valley, the
source of most of the salt load in the Price River, then across the San
Rafael Swell and across the Book Cliffs again, to join the Green River.
The area downstream of Castle Valley yields little flow or salt, except
during snowmelt or summer storms.
Findings. During the study period, the Price River at Woodside,
Utah, carried a mean flow of 136 cfs and a mean salt load of 885 tons
per day. Irrigation in the San Rafael River area contributed approxi-
mately 100 tons of salt per day. Runoff above the diversion dam near
Price, Utah, yielded approximately 100 tons of salt per day. A coal
washing plant- and a dry ice manufacturing plant on Flood Wash near
Wellington yielded 13 tons of salt per day. Municipal discharges added
3 tons of salt per day. The small tributaries and direct runoff below
Price contributed approximately 80 tons of salt per day. The total
measured salt load from Area 11 was approximately 300 tons per day leaving
some 580 tons per day attributable to influent ground-water and irrigation.
I/ The coal washing plant ceased operations subsequent to completion of
this study.
-------
86
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Industrial Effluent
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF
Figure 27 Flow and Quality at key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 11,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
-------
87 235
Very intensive study of ground-water conditions would be required
to define the relative amounts of salt contributed by naturally occurring
effluent ground-water and irrigation. If most of the unmeasured salt load
was due to irrigation of the 25,000 acres in Castle Valley, the average
yield would be on the order of 8.5 tons per acre per year. In any event,
the application of irrigation water on the outcrop of Mancos shale
severely degrades mineral quality of the Price River.
The effect of leaching of soils underlain by Mancos shale is reflected
in the composition pattern diagram for the Price River at Woodside (Figure
48). The TDS concentration was very high with sulfate being the predomi-
nate anion. Concentrations of all cations were high, with sodium exceeding
all others. Although discharge from the Price River is small compared
to flow in the Green River, concentrations of sulfate and sodium in the
Price River were sufficiently high to cause significant alteration in
the chemical composition of the Green River.
The salt budget for Area 11 is shown in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Irrigation iy
(Castle Valley) 580- 65.5
Irrigation
(San Rafael River) 100 11.3
Industrial 13 1.5
Municipal 3 0.3
Runoff ^89 21.4
Total 885
I/ Includes effluent ground-water which cannot be quantified without
~~ extensive ground-^ater study.
-------
236
88
Study Area 12 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. The study area is the San Rafael River drainage basin,
including approximately 2,065 square miles in Emery and Sanpete Counties
of Utah. There are no communities of sufficient size to have signifi-
cant effect on mineral quality of water within the area. Rainfall with-
in the area ranges from less than 8 inches per year at the lower altitudes
to more than UO inches per year in the higher altitudes. Virtually all
the runoff from Area 12 is derived from streams which head in the uplands
of the Wasatch Plateau, along the western edge of the study area. The
streams then flow into the relatively flat Castle Valley which is under-
lain by the highly soluble Mancos shale. Most of the headwater streams
are intercepted by the San Rafael River in the Castle Valley area. The
San Rafael River crosses the San Rafael Swell which is underlain by sedi-
ments of the Morrison formation of the San Rafael group. These forma-
tions include thick beds of gypsum, but yield small amounts of runoff
except during periods of snowmelt. The San Rafael River then crosses
the relatively flat San Rafael desert and joins the Green River belov
Green River, Utah. The San Rafael watershed downstream of Castle Valley
Yields relatively small amounts of runoff and salt due to the low annual
precipitation. (Figure 28)
Findings. Two minor sources, Iron Wash Spring and Buckhorn Wash
Spring contributed approximately 0.5 tor. of salt per day to the stream
system.
The Bureau of Reclamation collected extensive data on water quality
in the Castle Valley area during the period 1962-1965. These data were
-------
89
237
240
1380
897
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(ma/I)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF.
Figure 21 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 12,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
-------
238
90
combined with quality data collected by the Project in developing the
salt budget for the area. Irrigation of 36,000 acres in Castle Valley
added a salt load of approximately 290 tons per day, a portion of which
is returned to the Price River. The average yield of approximately
2.9 tons per acre per year closely approximates the 3.2 tons per acre
(4)
per year calculated by lorns and his associates. Runoff, the major
salinity source in the area, increased the salt load from the area by
607 tons per day.
Chemical composition of the San Rafael River is similar to that of
the Price River with sulfate being the major anion (Figure U8). Nearly
equal amounts of calcium, magnesium, and sodium indicate that solution
°* gypsum from Mancos shale, by precipitation and applied irrigation
water, is responsible for a major portion of the salt load input from
this area.
The salt budget for Area 12 is shown in the following tabulation.
Source
Springs
Irrigation
Runoff
TDS Load
(tons/day)
<1
290
606
Percent of
Total Load
0.1
32.3
67.6
Total 897
Study Area 13 (Green River Subbasin)
Description. Area 13 consists of the Green River drainage below
the town of Green River, Utah, exclusive of the San Rafael River drainage
area (Figure 29). It covers approximately 1,900 square miles in parts
of San Juan, Wayne, Grand, and Emery Counties in Utah. The community
-------
91
239
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
'Entire Drainage Area)
Mineral Spring
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
(Note: No Sampling Stations
in Area 13)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF
Figure 29 Flo* and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 13,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965—66
-------
240
92
of Green River and the small village of Thompson are the only populatioji
centers in the area.
The study area is located in the "Canyon Lands" section of the Colo-
rado Plateau, an area characterized by young to mature canyon plateaus
with high relief. The northern portion of the area is underlain by
Mancos shale. In the southern portions of the area, streams have cut
deep canyons into the sandstones and shales of the San Rafael Group and
the Dakota and Morrison formations, which yield moderately mineralized
runoff. The Green River crosses the Little Grand fault downstream of the
town of Green River. In the geologic past, the Little Grand fault served
as a passageway for the upward migration of mineralized ground-water
prior to the drilling of a test hole, "Crystal Geyser," which currently
serves to relieve the driving pressure.
Findings. "Crystal Geyser" is the only known point source of salt
in Area 13. This "geyser" erupts periodically as carbon dioxide pressure
buildup in the originating formation exceeds the head required to expel
accumulated water from the test hole. This source adds a salt load of
53 tons per day directly to the Green River.
The reach of the Green River immediately above its mouth is inac-
cessible; therefore, no outflow station for Area 13 could be established.
Although it was not possible to develop a budget for this study area,
mineral contributions within the area are believed to be insignificant.
No perennial streams enter the Green River in Area 13, but Browns Wash
and Salaratos Wash, both of which drain Mancos shale outcrops, discharge
highly mineralized water during infrequent storms.
-------
93 241
Study Area 14 (Upper Main Stem)
Description. Area Ik consists of the Colorado River drainage above
the mouth of the Eagle River, which covers 3,480 square miles in Grand,
Routt, Eagle, and Summit Counties of Colorado. The communities of Hot
Sulphur Springs, Granby, Grand Lake, Kremmling, and other small settle-
ments are located within the area (Figure 30).
Streams in Area 14 originate along the Continental Divide, in and
south of Rocky Mountain National Park. The headwater areas are under-
lain by insoluble granitic formations. Elevations range from approxi-
mately 6,300 feet at Dotsero, to more than 13,000 feet at the Continen-
tal Divide. Precipitation varies from approximately 12 inches per year
at the lower elevations, to more than 40 inches per year at higher elfe-
vations.
Findings. During the period of the study, the Colorado River drain-
age area above Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado, yielded a mean annual flow
of 230 cfs and a mean salt load of 57 tons per day. In general, runoff
from the pre-Cambrian crystalline rocks and the Tertiary volcanics above
Granby was of very good quality. Irrigation added little salt due to
the low solubility of the soil. Flow and salt load contributions to
the Colorado River above Hot Sulphur Springs, due to runoff, were 232 cfs
and 40 tons per day. Irrigation of mountain meadows and forage crops in
the tributary area above Hot Sulphur Springs added 15 tons of salt per
day to the Colorado River.
The thermal springs, for which the town of Hot Sulphur Springs is
named, contributed approximately 0.4 tons of salt per day to the Colorado
-------
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainaae Area")
Irrigated Land
Mineral Spring
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/0
TDS Load 1
(tons/dav)!
I\\\\\\\N
O
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Figure 31 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling; Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 14.
Upper Colorado River Basin. 1965-66
-------
95
River. In the reach between Hot Sulphur Springs and Kremmling the increase
in mean flow and salt load amounted to 25 cfs and 92 tons per day. Tri-
butaries within this reach include Williams Fork, Reeder Creek, Trouble-
some Creek, East Troublesome Creek, Muddy Creek, and the Blue River.
These tributaries add approximately 30 tons of salt per day to the Colo-
rado River. Irrigation of approximately 24,000 acres in the Colorado
River Valley, upstream of Kremmling, added 61 tons of salt per day to
the stream system. This yield averages 0.9 tons per acre per year.
The Muddy Creek drainage area contributed a total salt load of 82
tons per day of which 32 tons per day were from runoff, and 46 tons were
attributable to the irrigation of 7,000 acres within the Muddy Creek
area. The salt yield from irrigation averaged 2.4 tons per acre per
year.
Flow and salt load increases in the Colorado River between Kremmling
and the mouth of the Eagle River were 588 cfs and 474 tons per day,
respectively. These figures indicate the low mineral content of runoff
from this area and are directly related to the insoluble character of
the rock which outcrops throughout much of the tributary area.
Chemical composition of the Colorado River at Hot Sulphur Springs
was typical of a headwater stream. The shape of the composition diagram
is roughly triangular, with calcium and bicarbonate concentrations pre-
dominant, and sodium and chloride present only in small amounts (Figure
47). Downstream stations show an increase in the proportions of magne-
sium and sulfate concentrations due to the influence of irrigation return
flows.
-------
96
The salt budget for Area lU-is given in the following tabulation.
Source
Springs
Irrigation
Runoff
TDS Load
(tons/day)
<1
122
694
Percent of
Total Load
0.1
14.9
85.0
Total 817
Study Area 15 (Upper Main Stem)
Description. Area 15 includes the drainage areas of the Eagle and
Roaring Fork Rivers and the Colorado River watershed between the mouth
of the Eagle River and the USGS gage at Silt, Colorado (Figure 31).
The area covers some 3,200 square miles in Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin, and
Mesa Counties of Colorado. The communities of Glenwood Springs, Aspen,
and several other smaller settlements are located in the area.
The higher mountain areas are underlain by resistant, insoluble rock
formations which yield large volumes of high quality water. The valleys
of the Eagle River below Gypsum and the Roaring Fork River between Carbon-
dale and Glenwood Springs are cut into more easily eroded rock including
the gypsum and anhydrite of the Paradox formation. These lower areas
receive less precipitation and yield smaller quantities of runoff, but
ground-water and runoff from these areas are highly mineralized.
Findings. The Eagle River upstream of Redcliff, Colorado, contained
TDS concentrations of 120 mg/1, or less, throughout the year of study.
Cross Creek above Minturn, Colorado, had TDS concentrations of less than
50 mg/1. These low concentrations of TDS demonstrate the insoluble
character of the bedrock underlying the headwater areas.
-------
97
245
2430 2*71 1750
763 238 491
enwood Springs
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land |\\\\\\l
Mineral Spring
Industrial Effluent A
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load I
(tons/day))
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF
Figure 31 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 15,
Upper Colorado Riv«r Basin, 1965-66
-------
98
The New Jersey Zinc Corporation mine and mill at Oilman, Colorado,
discharges process waste to a tailings pond located near the mo\:th of
Cross Creek. The decanted tailings liquor is discharged into Cross
Creek, and adds approximately 10 tons of salt per day to the stream
system. Ground-water moving through an old tailings area, at this lo-
cation, also picked up acid and dissolved metals which were then
carried into the Eagle River. The toxic materials which entered Eagle
River and Cross Creek eliminated aquatic life in the immediate reaches
of both streams. Since the completion of the study, the New Jersey Zinc
Corporation has installed pumps which collect and return the toxic
seepage to the tailings area.
Salt load in the Eagle River at Edwards, Colorado, varied from 130
tons per day during the winter months to more than 600 tons per day during
the spring runoff period. Much of this salt load is contributed by ground-
water seeping from mineralized formations which outcrop in the area, and
leaching from irrigated areas underlain by saline formations upstream
of Edwards. It was not possible to separate these ground^water and irri-
gation effects. Brush Creek, another Eagle River tributary, contributed
approximately 60 tons of salt per day, of which approximately 10 tons
per day were from small irrigated areas. The remainder of the salt load
was due to natural runoff from the outcrop of the highly saline Paradox
formation.
The quality of Gypsum Creek was determined at its mouth at Gypsum,
Colorado, but it was not possible to obtain accurate flow measurements
at this point; therefore, no salt load contribution could be calculated.
-------
99 247
Total dissolved solids concentrations at the month of Gypsum Creek ranged
from 400 to 1,250 mg/1 during the study period. These concentrations
were observed below an area underlain by gypsum of the Paradox formation
and downstream of 6,400 acres of irrigated land.
The salt load of the Eagle River above the mouth of Gypsum Creek
was 491 tons per day during the study period. The salt load contribu-
tion by Gypsum Creek is not included in this total. A total salt load
increase of 938 tons per day occurred within the reach of the Colorado
River in Study Area 15. Mineral springs, located on both banks of the
Colorado River approximately 2?§ miles below the mouth of the Eagle River,
and minor tributary inflow, appeared to be responsible for virtually all
of the 447 tons of salt per day increase which is not otherwise accounted
for.
Thermal springs in the vicinity of Glenwood Springs added 11.5 cfs
and 585 tons of salt per day to the Colorado River. Flow from one of
the major springs, not included in the above total, is used in a large
outdoor swimming pool at Hot Springs Lodge- in Glenwood Springs. Flow
from this spring is also used to heat the lodge and to convey raw sewage
from the lodge to the Colorado River. Discharge from the lodge was 7 cfs
and the salt load was calculated at 333 tons per day. Mineral springs
located in the area below Eagle River and above the mouth of Roaring Fork
River add a salt load of approximately 1,360 tons per day to the stream
system.
During the year of study, the Roaring Fork drainage area yielded a
mean flow of 1,694 cfs, and a salt load of 994 tons per day. The drain-
age area of Roaring Fork River above Basalt yielded 64 percent of the
-------
248
100
flow, but only 39 percent of the salt load. The Fryingpan River above
Basalt yielded 18 percent of the flow but only 7.5 percent of the salt
load in the Roaring Fork drainage area. Crystal River at Carbondale
yielded 26 percent of the flow in the Roaring Fork system, and 19 per-
cent of the salt load. Direct runoff to the Roaring Fork River from
small tributaries and ground-water inflow was calculated to yield 145
tons of salt per day. Irrigation of 21,000 acres in the Roaring Fork
drainage area contributed a salt load of 200 tons per day or an average
of 3.5 tons per acre per year. This irrigation occurs on lands under-
lain by saline material derived largely from the Paradox formation.
In the reach of the Colorado River between the mouth of Roaring
Fork River and the USGS gage at Silt, increases of 136 cfs and 212 tons
of salt per day were observed. Approximately 25 cfs and 16 tons per day
of these increases were attributable to runoff in Canyon Creek. Elk
Creek yielded approximately 50 cfs and 40 tons of salt per day. Natural
runoff contributed approximately 56 tons of salt per day and irrigation
of 16,000 acres contributed approximately 100 tons per day to the Colorado
River. The salt yield from irrigation averaged approximately 2.3 tons per
acre per year.
The chemical composition of the Eagle and Roaring Fork Rivers was
very similar and reflected the influence of outcrops of gypsum and anhydrite
of the Paradox formation over which the streams flow. The composition
pattern diagrams for the Colorado River show increases in chloride and
sodium due to the springs at Dotsero and Glenwood Springs (Figure 47).
The mineral springs in this area also add radioactive elements to the
river system.
-------
101 249
The salt budget for Study Area 15 is shown in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Industrial Effluents 10 0.3
Springs 1,360 44.4
Runoff 1,384 45.2
Irrigation 310 10.1
Total 3,064
Study Area 16 (Upper Main Steam)
Description. Area 16 includes the drainage area of the Colorado
River between the USGS gages at Silt and Cameo, Colorado. The area covers
1,375 square miles in Garfield and Mesa Counties of Colorado. The signifi-
cant tributaries within the area are Rifle, Parachute, and Roan Creeks.
Rifle which had a 1960 population of 2,135 is the principle community in
the area. Elevations range from less than 5,000 feet to more than 11,000
feet. Precipitation varies from about 12 to more than 30 inches per year.
With the exception of minor mesa areas along the south boundary of
the study area and the headwaters of East Rifle Creek, Area 16 is under-
lain by sediments containing saline minerals which result in mineralized
runoff. (Figure 32)
Findings. During the year of the study, flow within Area 16 increased
by 240 cfs and 490 tons of salt per day were added to the system. Approxi-
mately one ton of the load was contributed by sewage effluents from the
towns of Rifle and Silt. Forty tons of salt per day were added by efflu-
ent from the Union Carbide Nuclear Corporation uranium mill at Rifle,
Colorado. An additional undetermined amount of salt was added by seepage
from the tailings pond at this location. The mill is located on highly
pervious Colorado River alluvium and much of the process water from the
mill is discharged into ponds constructed on this alluvium. Water from
-------
102 250
4210 33* 3880
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(ton?/d«y)
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainaae Area)
Irrigated Land K\\\\\4
Industrial Effluent A
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF.
Figure 32 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 16,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965—66
-------
103 251
the ponds infiltrates to the ground-water body and moves downgrade to
intersect the river. Determination of the salt load added by this seep-
age would require further investigation of ground-water conditions in
the mi'll area.
During the study period, TDS concentrations in Roan Creek near
DeBeque varied from 600 mg/1 to 1,700 mg/1 with most values ranging be-
tween 800 and 850 mg/1. TDS concentrations at the mouth of Roan Creek
ranged from 1,200 to 2,400 mg/1. During most of the study period the
salt load in Roan Creek near DeBeque, above the irrigated area, was
greater than the salt load in Roan Creek at its mouth. This loss indi-
cated that irrigated areas within the reach may have been storing salt.
The negative salt balance resulted from an insufficient application of
irrigation water to leach the salt.
Only minor changes in chemical composition of the Colorado River
occurred within Area 16. There was a slight increase in sulfate concen-
tration in proportion to other constituents.
The salt budget for Study Area 16 is given in the following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Irrigation 30 6.1
Industrial Effluent 40 8.2
Runoff and Industrial
Wastes!/ 420 85.7
Total 490
Study Area 17 (Upper Main Stem)
Description. Area 17 consists of the drainage area of the Colorado
River between USGS gaging stations near Cameo and near Loma, Colorado,
I/ Salt loads contributed by effluent ground-water and seepage from in-
~ dustrial waste ponds in the Rifle area could not be separated at the
time of the study.
-------
252
excluding the Gunnison River drainage area. The study area covers approxi-
mately 1,866 square miles in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah.
Major tributaries which enter this reach of the Colorado River include
Plateau, Ashbury, and Salt Creeks. Principle communities within the area
and their 1960 population are Grand Junction, 18,694; and Fruita, 1,830.
Smaller communities in the area include Loma, Appleton, Clifton, Palisade,
Fruitvale, and Cameo (Figure 33).
A major portion of the study area is within the valley carved by the
Colorado River and is bounded on the north and west by the Roan Cliffs
and Book Cliffs and on the east by the Grand Mesa. Elevations range from
less than U,500 feet at the Loma gaging station to more than 10,000 feet
in the headwaters of the Plateau Creek on Grand Mesa.
Quality of runoff is directly related to the underlying rock forma-
tions. Grand Valley is underlain by gypsiferous Mancos shale. Ground-
water and runoff from this area contain high concentrations of calcium
sulfate. The lava capped Grand Mesa yields most of the runoff in Area
17. This runoff is of excellent quality due to the insoluble nature of
the lava formations.
Findings. During the study period, direct discharge of effluent
from the Climax Uranium Mill at Grand Junction contributed a salt load
of 35 tons per day to the system. The "South Sewage Treatment Plant" at
Grand Junction contributed approximately 5 tons of salt per day, and the
"West Sewage Treatment Plant" added approximately 11 tons per day.
Effluent from the American Gilsonite Corporation Plant near Fruita added
approximately 9 tons of mineral salts per day to the river. Direct
-------
105
53
751fl 494(10000
Grand Junction
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Industrial Effluent
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
k\\\\\N
A
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF.
Figure 33 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
ef Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 17,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
-------
106
tributary drainage in the immediate valley area added 2 tons of salt per
day to the river. Irrigation of approximately 88,000 acres in the Grand
Valley area added 1,925 tons of salt per day to the Colorado River, or
an average yield of 8.0 tons per day per acre per year. This high salt
yield, which is among the largest observed in the Colorado River Basin,
is due to the highly soluble nature of the Mancos shale underlying the
irrigated area.
Plateau Creek added 161 tons of salt per day to the Colorado River.
It was not possible to develop an accurate salt budget for the Plateau
Creek drainage, but the salt load contribution by irrigation was esti-
mated at 60 to 82 tons per day. Thus, the total salt contribution for
irrigation in Area 17 was approximately 2,000 tons per day. This amounts
to 93 percent of the total salt load contribution from Area 17 and 7.7
percent of the total Upper Colorado River Basin salt load.
Chemical composition of the Colorado River within Area 17 changed
significantly. Calcium increased slightly, but the relative proportions
of cations remained essentially constant. The large increase in sulfate
and decrease in chloride concentrations resulted from ion-exchange in
the gypsum-rich Mancos soils irrigated with Colorado River water and
from similar conditions in the Gunnison River drainage area.
The salt budget for Study Area 17 is tabulated below.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Industrial Effluents 44 2.2
Municipal Effluents 16 0.7
Runoff 90 4.1
Irrigation 2000 93.0
Total 2150
-------
255
Study Areas 18, 19, 20, and 21 (Upper Main Stem)
Description. Study Areas 18, 19, 20, and 21, comprising the Gunnison
River Drainage, were combined for study as a unit because of the complex
water diversions between the areas (Figure 34). The study area covers
8,000 square miles in Mesa, Delta, Gunnison, Saguache, Hinsdale, San Juan,
Ouray, and Montrose Counties of Colorado. Delta, Montrose, Gunnison,
Ouray, and Paonia are the principle communities in the area.
Major tributaries in the area include Tomichi Creek, Lake Fork,
North Fork, and the Uncompahgre River. The headwaters of the Gunnison
River, Tomichi Creek, and Lake Fork are underlain by resistant rocks
which yield large quantities of high quality runoff; while the areas
drained by the North Fork, the Uncompahgre* and the Lower Gunnison River
are underlain by more soluble formations which result in more mineral-
ized runoff.
Findings. The Gunnison River discharged a mean flow of 1,040 cfs
and a mean salt load of 314 tons per day at Gunnison, Colorado. The
salt load from irrigation upstream of Gunnison was 9 tons per day, or 0.3
tons per acre per year. Runoff from the Taylor River, East River, Ohio
CreeH and directly to the Gunnison River contributed a mean flow and
salt load of 1,085 cfs and 294 tons per day. The excellent quality of
this runoff is directly attributable to the resistant nature of the
headwaters rock formations.
Salt load budgets for the Razor Creek drainage and the irrigated
areas along Tomichi Creek indicated a similar low salt yield from irri-
gation. The soils which were under irrigation have been well leached
by the relatively high precipitation in this area.
-------
108 256
1040| 111 |314
341
78 73
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
IE6EKD
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Industrial Effluent
Mineral Spring
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/|)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF
Figure 34 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations
and Location of Principal Salinity Sources
in Study Areas 18,19,20,421 Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
-------
257
109
The Lake Fork drainage area contributed a mean flow of 348 cfs and
a salt load of 73 tons per day during the period of the study. About
one ton per day of this total salt load was contributed by drainage from
abandoned mines located in the headwaters area of Lake Fork. Irrigation
of 3,800 acres in the Lake Fork watershed contributed approximately one
ton per day to the total salt burden. The remainder of the salt load
resulted from natural runoff, and the low yield is indicative of the
highly resistant character of the igneous and metamorphic rocks under-
lying the area. Closure of Blue Mesa Dam on the Gunnison River during
the period of study precluded development of a salt budget for that reach
of the stream. During summer runoff, the area yielded approximately
1,000 cfs and 300 tons of salt per day. This yield declined to 150 cfs
and 30 tons per day just prior to closure of the dam in October 1965.
The Uncompahgre River drainage area, upstream of Ouray, Colorado,
yielded a mean annual flow of 137 cfs and a salt load of 62 tons per
day. Drainage from active and abandoned mines in the area above Ouray
yielded approximately 9 cfs and 13 tons of salt per day. Much of the
mine drainage is highly toxic and precludes aquatic life in many of the
headwater streams.
Flow from Ouray Hot Spring is collected in Box Canyon and piped
downstream to a swimming pool located below Ouray. Overflow from the
pool is discharged into the Uncompahgre River and adds a salt load of
approximately 4.5 tons per day to the stream. Other hot mineral springs
located along the Uncompahgre River, about one mile above Ridgeway,
add approximately 1 cfs and 7 tons of salt per day to the stream. Water
-------
258
110
budgets for the Uncompahgre River below Ouray and above the mouth of
Dallas Creek showed flows varying from a loss of 29 cfs to a gain of
278 cfs. The large variation in flow is due to the seasonal nature of
the runoff and the diversion of water for irrigation. The mean annual
flow in the reach was 28 cfs and the mean salt load was 124 tons per
day. Irrigation of 6,000 acres in the Uncompahgre River Valley consumed
7 cfs and added 74 tons of salt per day to the stream. The salt yield
from irrigation which was calculated to average 4.5 tons per acre per
year, was attributable to leaching of minerals from saline soils of the
area. Runoff from soluble sedimentary outcrops within the Region con-
tributed approximately 50 tons of salt per day. Losses in salt load,
within the reach of the Uncompahgre River between Ridgeway and Colona,
indicated the possibility of salt storage in irrigated lands.
Water and salt budgets for the Lower Gunnison Valley in the vicinity
of Montrose and Delta are highly complex. A detailed discussion of
sources and changes in mineral quality within this reach is available
in an open file report at the Project Office in Denver, Colorado. Irri-
gation of 164,000 acres in Gunnison Valley, most of which is underlain
by gypsiferous Mancos shale, yielded a salt load of approximately 3,000
tons per day or an average 6.7 tons per acre per year. This high yield
results from application of irrigation water to soils derived from the
Mancos shale.
During the year of study, the Gunnison River Basin yielded a mean
annual flow of 3,100 cfs and a mean salt load of 4,670 tons per day.
The 3,000 tons per day from irrigation in the Lower Gunnison River Basin
represents 64 percent of the total salt load additions to the area.
-------
Ill
An additional salt load of 100 tons per day was contributed by irrigation
throughout the remainder of the Gunnison Basin.
The chemical composition of the upper reaches of the Gunnison River,
Tomichi Creek, and Lake Fork was typical of headwater streams derived from
highly resistant rock formations. In the lower reach of the Gunnison
River, there was a significant change in chemical composition which was
caused by runoff from the North Fork of the Gunnison River and irriga-
tion in the vicinity of Delta. Solution of saline minerals in the Mancos
shale in this area caused calcium and sulfate to predominate.
Chemical composition of the upper reaches of the Uncompahgre River
was unusual for headwater streams in that calcium and sulfate predomi-
nated. The high concentration of these chemicals was due primarily to
mine drainage and natural oxidation of sulfide minerals in the Red Moun-
tain Creek drainage area. Calcium and sulfate were predominate through-
out the lower reaches of the Uncompahgre and Gunnison Rivers due to
irrigation return flows and runoff from the widespread gypsiferous Mancos
shale in the area.
The salt budget for Study Areas 18, 19, 20, and 21 is shown in the
following tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Municipal 36— 0.8
Irrigation 3100 66.4
Mine drainage 14 0.3
Runoff and Springs 1520 32.5
Total 4670
I/ Includes ungaged infiltration to the Delta sewage collection system.
-------
260
112
Study Area 22 (Upper Main Stem)
Description. Study Area 22 consists of the Colorado River water-
shed between Loma, Colorado, and the mouth of the Dolores River (Figure
35). It covers an area of approximately 1,190 square miles in north-
eastern Grand County, Utah, and northwestern Mesa County, Colorado.
Tributaries within the area include the Little Dolores River, West-
water Creek, Bitter Creek, and Cottonwood Wash, all of which yield in-
significant runoff.
The area is characteristic of the Colorado Plateau with steep-
walled buttes rising high above the valleys occupied by intermittent
streams. The tops of the buttes are forested while the valleys are
generally barren. Elevations in the area range from 4,000 to 9,500
feet. Annual precipitation ranges from slightly less than 8 inches,
along the river, to more than 20 inches at high elevations. The total
area yields insignificant runoff.
Findings. There were no significant salt load additions by tribu-
taries during the study period, and there were no consumptive losses
within the reach other than evapotranspiration by phreatophytes in the
valleys. During the study period, flow within this area decreased by
70 cfs and the salt load decreased by 60 tons per day. The observed
changes in flow and salt loading are well within the limits of accuracy
of stream measurement and sampling analysis. Small decreases in flow^
however, may have occurred due to evapotranspiration. Some precipita-
tion of minerals may also have occurred within the Colorado River reach
in Study Area 22.
-------
113
261
C isco
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
IEY
Salinity Sampling Station
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF
Figure 35 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 22,
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
-------
262
114
Study Area 23 (Upper Main Stem)
Description. Study Area 23 includes the entire drainage area of
the Dolores and San Miguel Rivers (Figure 36). It covers 4,536 square
miles in Montezuma, Dolores, San Miguel, Montrose, and Mesa Counties,
Colorado, and in Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. There are no com-
munities of significance from the standpoint of effects on water quality.
Active and inactive mines and mills within the area have profound effects
on water quality. Elevations of the area range from 4,200 feet to more
than 14,000 feet. The Dolores River and its major tributary, the San
Miguel River, head in the alpine topography of the San Juan Mountains,
in a region of high precipitation and resistant rocks. Most of the
streamflow comes from these areas which comprise less than 10 percent
of the study area. Downstream areas yield less runoff, having higher
concentrations of TDS.
Findings. The highly resistant rocks upstream of Dolores yield
large volumes of high-quality water. During the study period, the Dolores
River at Dolores yielded a mean annual discharge of 580 cfs, and a mean
salt load of 215 tons per day. Approximately 6 tons per day of this load
were attributable to drainage from three mines in the Rico area. This
drainage also contains high concentrations of heavy metals which limits
aquatic life in the Dolores River. Stoner Creek discharged water with
TDS concentrations of from 70 to 150 mg/1 and the West Fork of the Dolores
River had concentrations ranging from 100 to 350 mg/1. Paradise Hot
Springs, located on the West Fork of the Dolores River, discharged water
with a TDS concentration of 5,500 mg/1. This salt spring contributed a
salt load of 1.7 tons per day and partially accounts for the higher
-------
115
63
1060 578 1660
603 966 1570
437 462 544
437 360 425
384 306 318
|581 I 137 215
ide
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Mineral Spring
Industrial Effluent
— '
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
K\\\\\1
o
A
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF
Figure 3g Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 23,
tpper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
-------
264
116
mineral concentrations in West Fork. A small amount of irrigation may also
contribute some salt to the West Fork. Much of the flow in the Dolores
River is diverted into the McElmo Creek Basin. This diversion of high-
quality water deprives the Dolores River system of dilution water in the
downstream reaches.
Disappointment Creek, which flows over Mancos shale throughout its
entire length, discharged salt loads of from 3 to 142 tons per day to
the Dolores River. The runoff of Disappointment Creek was highly mineral-
ized throughout the year.
The Dolores River at Bedrock discharges a mean annual flow of 530
cfs and a mean salt load of 456 tons per day. This reflects a decrease
of 50 cfs and an increase of 240 tons per day over the stream reach
between Dolores and Bedrock. The decrease in flow resulted from the
diversion of water to the McElmo Creek Basin. This diversion also
carried a small amount of salt out of the Dolores River Basin.
In the reach of the Dolores River between Bedrock and the mouth of
the San Miguel River, water quality is severely degraded by solution of
minerals in Paradox Valley. The mean salt load addition, due to solution
of minerals from the Paradox Valley salt anticline, was calculated to be
688 tons per day. A detailed discussion of the geohydrologic conditions
which are responsible for this major salt load is available in an open
file report at the Project Office in Denver, Colorado.
The San Miguel River below Telluride had a mean flow of 88 cfs and
a mean salt load of 31 tons per day, reflecting the high quality of
runoff from the San Juan Mountains. This salt load included approximately
4 tons per day from several active and abandoned mines in the headwaters
-------
117 265
area. The Idarado Mining Corporation mill above Telluride adds small
amounts of salt through seepage from a tailings pond.
In the reach of the San Miguel River between Telluride and Naturita,
flow increased by 296 cfs and the salt load increased by 287 tons per
day. The South Fork of the San Miguel River contributed 30 to 150 tons
of salt per day of which approximately 10 tons per day resulted from
drainage from mines in the headwaters area. Naturita Creek added a salt
load of approximately 70 tons per day of which 46 tons per day were
attributable to irrigation of approximately 6,000 acres in the Norwood
area. The salt yield attributable to irrigation averaged approximately
2.8 tons per acre per year. The remainder of the salt load increase was
due to natural runoff from formations containing soluble minerals.
The San Miguel River above Uravan had a mean annual flow of 437 cfs
and a mean salt load of 425 tons per day. This represents an increase
of 53 cfs and 107 tons of salt per day in the reach between Naturita
and Uravan which was due to diffuse groundwater inflow and overland
runoff.
At the station below Uravan, there was a mean annual salt load of
544 tons of salt per day, a gain of 119 tons per day in the Uravan
reach. Effluent from the Union Carbide Uranium Mill at Uravan con-
tributed approximately 24 tons of salt per day. An unknown amount of
the increase within the Uravan reach was contributed by seepage from
the industrial waste holding ponds adjacent to the San Miguel River
bed at the Union Carbide mill.
The mean flow and salt load in the Dolores River near Cisco was 1,060
cfs and 1,660 tons per day, respectively. This represents an increase
-------
266
118
of 20 cfs and a decrease of 454 tons per day within the reach between the
mouth of the San Miguel River and the station at Cisco. The magnitude of
the decrease in salt load approximated the magnitude of an unexplained
increase in the Dolores River between Bedrock and the mouth of the San
Miguel River. This disparity cannot be further refined in the absence
of improved flow measurements on the Dolores River above the mouth of
the San Miguel. The Dolores at this point is a steep, boulder-strewn
canyon in which accurate flow measurement is virtually impossible.
Sinbad Valley, a small collapsed anticline similar in nature to
Paradox Valley salt anticline, is drained by Salt Creek. The TDS con-
centrations in Salt Creek during the year of study ranged from 34,000
mg/1 to 49,300 mg/1, although the salt load contributed to the Dolores
was only approximately 9 tons per day. Additional salt loads may enter
the Dolores River from the Salt Wash area as underflow from the alluvium
in Salt Wash Canyon.
Chemical composition of the headwaters of the Dolores River was
typical of headwater streams with calcium bicarbonate water of low TDS
concentrations. At Bedrock, the chemical composition of the Dolores River
was altered significantly by solution of minerals in Gypsum Valley and
the inflow of Disappointment Creek. Ionic composition of the Dolores River,
above the mouth of the San Miguel River, was altered drastically-by the
addition of sodium chloride and calcium sulfate from the Paradox formation.
The chemical composition of the headwaters of the San Miguel River
was very similar to that of the Uncompahgre River. Both streams head in the
San Juan Mountains and have calcium-sulfate type waters, reflecting the
oxidation of suIfides from natural sources and from active and abandoned
-------
267
119
mines. Downstream stations on the San Miguel show essentially no change
in the proportion of the mineral constituents, but do reflect substantial
increases in all constituents. The Dolores River near Cisco showed an
increase" in the proportion of sulfate, and a decrease in the proportions
of sodium and chloride, as a result of minerals contributed by the San
Miguel River.
The salt budget for Study Area 23 is shown in the Following tabula-
tion.
*
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Irrigation 46 4.8
Industrial Effluent
and Seepage from
Ponds 119 12.4
Springs and Salt
Seeps 695 72.5
Mine Drainage 20 2.2
Runoff _780 8'1
Total 1660
Study Area 24 (Upper Main Stem)
Description. Study Area 24 encompasses the Colorado River water-
shed below the mouth of the Dolores River and above the mouth of the
Green River (Figure 37). It covers an area of 2,504 square miles in
Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. The area includes the community of
Hoab, Utah, which had a population of 4,682 in 1960. Onion Creek,
Castle Creek, Salt Wash, Mill Creek, Hatch Wash, and Indian Creek con-
tributed insignificant flow during the study period. The effluent from
the Atlas Mineral Coporation uranium mill at Moab was the only signifi-
cant inflow in the area. This mill added a mean salt load of 36 tons
per day to the Colorado Rivera
*See corrected percentages, Page 724.
-------
20 268
[t5to| 542 ||2400|
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Industrial Effluent
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/l)
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF
Figure 37 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 24,
Ipper Colorado River Basil, 1965—66
-------
121
Study Area 25 (San Juan Subbasin)
Description. Area 25 includes the entire Dirty Devil River drain-
age area, which covers approximately 4,300 square miles in Wayne, Garfield,
Sevier, and Emery Counties of Utah. Settlements in the area and their
1960 populations include Loa (359), Bicknell (366), Torrey (128), and
Hanksville (80). The Dirty Devil River is formed at Hanksville by the
junction of the Fremont River and Muddy Creek (Figure 38).
The topography consists of high block plateaus, which are partly
lava capped, and young to mature canyoned plateaus with high relief.
With the exception of volcanic rocks in the headwaters of the Fremont
River, virtually the entire sedimentary section crossed by the Dirty
Devil River and its upstream tributaries is easily eroded and yields
poor quality ground-water. These conditions result in poor quality
runoff downstream of Bicknell. There are only a few perennial streams
within the area.
Findings. The Fremont River above the community of Fremont dis-
charged approximately 26 cfs and a salt load of 10 tons per day during
the study period. This high-quality water is derived from headwaters
underlain by relatively insoluble lava flows. An increase in flow of 28
cfs and a salt load pickup of 47 tons per day was observed between the
Fremont station and the station upstream of Torrey. Approximately 14
cfs and 8 tons of salt per day of this change was attributable to inflow
from a spring at Loa Fish Hatchery. A salt load of approximately 20
tons per day was contributed by irrigation of 18,000 acres upstream of
Torrey. The salt yield from irrigation averaged approximately 0.4 tons
per acre per year.
-------
270
To r rey
b^S>-
Fremont River
101
1780
485
KEY
Salinity Sampling Station
LEGEND
Natural Runoff
(Entire Drainage Area)
Irrigated Land
Flow
(cfs)
TDS Cone.
(mg/0
TDS Load
(tons/day)
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U. S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF
Figure 38 Flow and Quality at Key Sampling Stations and Location
of Principal Salinity Sources in Study Area 25.
Upper Colorado River Basin, 1965-66
-------
123 271
The reach of the Fremont River between Torrey and Caineville received
inflow of 9 cfs and a salt load of 33 tons per day during the study period.
Virtually all of this inflow was due to natural runoff over formations
which become increasingly saline in the lower reaches of the drainage area.
In the reach between Caineville and the mouth of Hanksville, the Fremont
River experienced a mean annual depletion of 6 cfs, but a salt load gain
of 32 tons per day. The small amount of irrigation within the drainage
area caused a salt load increase of about 16 tons per day. The leaching
of soluble salts by runoff in the immediate drainage area also added
about 16 tons per day to the system.
The waters of Muddy Creek at its mouth were highly saline during the
entire study period. Concentrations of IDS ranged from 3,600 mg/1 to
5,400 mg/1. Most of this salt was due to natural leaching from the
Mancos shale in the Castle Valley area upstream of the San Rafael swell.
Approximately 60 tons per day of the total salt load is attributable to
irrigation of 7,000 acres upstream of the San Rafael swell.
The Dirty Devil River, from its origin at the junction of the Muddy
and Fremont Rivers to its mouth at Lake Powell, flows through remote,
uninhabited areas. The area contributed almost no runoff, but some salts
are added to the system by leaching from the streambed and banks. The
Dirty Devil River contributed 101 cfs and a salt load of 485 tons per day.
Waters of the Dirty Devil River were of calcium-sulfate type, which
reflected leaching of gypsum from the Mancos shale outcrop area along the
Fremont River.
The salt budget for Study Area 25 is given in the following tabulation.
-------
272
124
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Irrigation 96 19.8
Springs 8 1.6
Runoff 381 78.6
Total 485
Study Area 26 (San Juan Subbasinj
Description. Area 26 consists of the Colorado River drainage area
between the mouth of the Green River and Lees Ferry, Arizona, excluding
the drainage area of the Dirty Devil and San Juan Rivers (Figure 39).
This extremely remote area receives little inflow, and yields almost no
runoff, except from the highlands along the western boundary of the area.
Two streams, the Escalante and Paria Rivers, discharge to the Colorado
River within this reach. The Escalante River heads on the Great Basin
Divide west of the town of Escalante, Utah, where formations are rela-
tively resistent to weathering. The formations which make up the drainage
area of the Paria River are easily eroded, as is evidenced by the bizarre
structure in Bryce Canyon.
Findings. Runoff from the area during the study period was prac-
tically nil. Total dissolved solids concentrations in the Escalante River
were usually on the order of 300 to 400 mg/1. Concentrations of TDS in
the Paria River usually exceeded 1,000 mg/1. The salt load from the
entire drainage area had virtually no effect on the Colorado River during
the period of study.
Study Areas 27 and 28 (San Juan Subbasin)
Description of Area 27. This study area includes the San Juan River
watershed upstream of Shiprock, New Mexico, excluding the Animas and
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
274
126
La Plata drainage areas (Figure 40). The area encompasses 11,484 square
miles in Hinsdale, Archuleta, Mineral, and La Plata Counties of Colorado;
and Rio Arriba, Sandoval, McKinley, and San Juan Counties in New Mexico.
Principal communities in the area and their 1960 populations include
Pagosa Springs, Colorado (1,374); and Farmington, New Mexico (23,786).
The San Juan River and its tributaries head on the Continental
Divide in the glaciated Rocky Mountains. Below Pagosa Springs, the
streams flow on flat-lying sediments of the Colorado plateau. Elevations
range from approximately 4,950 feet at Shiprock to more than 13,000 feet
in the headwaters areas. Precipitation varies from less than 8 inches
in the lowlands to more than 20 inches in the headwaters areas, with
virtually all the streamflow being derived from a small portion of the
area.
Description of Area 28. This area consists of the Animas and La
Plata River drainage basins, which cover 1,340 square miles in San Juan
and La Plata Counties in Colorado; and San Juan County in New Mexico.
Principal communities in the area and their 1960 populations include
Durango (10,530) and Silverton (822) in Colorado; and Aztec (4,137) in
New Mexico. A portion of the city of Fannington, New Mexico, also lies
within the Animas drainage. Elevations range from 5,400 feet at Farmington
to more than 13,000 feet in the headwaters areas. Precipitation varies
from less than 8 inches to over 20 inches per year, with the bulk of the
runoff coming from the high mountains in Colorado.
Findings (Areas 27 and 28). Because of the complex system of water
interchanges between Areas 27 and 28, they are considered together in the
discussion of findings.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
2?6
128
Irrigation of approximately 12,000 acres above Pagosa Springs con-
tributed a salt load of 3 to 4 tons per day to the San Juan River. This
low average yield of 0.01 ton per acre per year indicates the insoluble
nature of the formations underlying the irrigated areas. Mineral springs
in the Pagosa Springs area yielded 2.3 cfs and 20 tons of salt per day to
the San Juan River.
In the San Juan River reach, between Pagosa Springs and Carracas,
Colorado, the mean annual increase in flow was 540 cfs and the salt load
increase was 260 tons per day. Approximately 100 tons per day of this
increase was due to irrigation of lands underlain by Mancos shale and
Tertiary sediments, which are rich in soluble minerals.
Because of the complex interrelations between diversions and returns
within the watersheds of the Animas River between Durango and Cedar Hill,
and the Los Pinos and Florida Rivers, a water and salt budget was prepared
for this entire area. During the study period, the mean salt load from
irrigation in the area was only 33 tons per day, or an average yield of
approximately 0.2 tons per acre per year. In the Animas River reach
between Cedar Hill and Farmington mean annual flow was depleted by 60
cfs but the salt load increased 177 tons per day. Irrigation of
approximately 17,000 acres along this reach added 165 tons of salt per
day, or an average 3.5 tons per acre per year. Runoff from the area
contributed 33 cfs and 12 tons of salt per day to the river.
The Animas River headwaters above Howardsville are of fair quality,
with TDS concentrations of less than 300 mg/1. Cement Creek was badly
polluted with mine drainage and products of natural sulfide oxidation.
-------
129 277
The pH of the stream was approximately 4 and IDS concentration was greater
than 1,000 mg/1 during the study period. Much of this pollution was
attributable to drainage from an active mine at the old town of Gladstone;
however, drainage from other abandoned mines and tunnels added to the
problem. Mineral Creek is also polluted by mine drainage, although to a
lesser degree. During the study period, pH ranged from 4.6 to 7.1 and
IDS concentrations were less than 400 mg/1.
The Animas River reach, below Baker's Bridge and upstream of Durango,
had a salt-load increase of approximately 100 tons per day. Pinkerton
Hot Springs, at the Golden Horseshoe Ranch, accounted for approximately
5 tons of salt per day of this total. Other small springs, including
Trimble Hot Springs, contributed unknown amounts of salt to the stream.
The remainder of the salt load within the reach may result from mineralized
inflow into the stream directly from alluvium along the river.
Almost the entire flow of the La Plata River is consumed during the
irrigation season. The allocation of water between Colorado and New
Mexico is defined by the La Plata River Treaty. The mean annual flow
of the La Plata River at its mouth during the study period was 30 cfs,
and the salt load contributed was 105 tons per day. Irrigation of 15,000
acres in Cclorado contributed 56 tons of salt per day, or an average
yield of 1.4 tons per acre per year. Irrigation of 5,000 acres in New
Mexico contributed 4 tons of salt per day, or an average yield of 0.3 tons
per acre per year. The difference in salt yields from these areas is
largely due to the presence of Mancos shale in the Colorado areas, and the
less soluble formations underlying the New Mexico area.
-------
278
130
Seepage from the tailings ponds at the Vanadium Corporation of
America uranium mill at Shiprock added approximately 11 tons of salt per
day to the San Juan River. Bottom ash and fly ash removal systems at the
Four Corners Powerplant near Shiprock contributed a salt load of approxi-
mately 35 tons per day. The increase in total dissolved solids concentrations
in the San Juan River, due to blowdown from the cooling systems, consump-
tive use, and discharge of minerals dissolved from fly ash and bottom ash,
was 54 mg/1.
Chemical composition of all headwater streams in the study area were
generally typical, except that proportions of sulfate were slightly higher
due to irrigation in the headwater areas. Sulfate became pre;dcm?nnnt below
the inflow from the La Plata River reflecting the effects of irrigation
of gypsum-rich soils in the Colorado-New Mexico Border areas.
The salt budget for Study Areas 27 and 28 is given in the following
tabulation.
TDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Total Load
Mine Drainage 15 1.0
Irrigation 362 24.0
Mineral Springs 25 1.7
Runoff 1,037 69.5
Municipal Effluents 10 •?
Industrial Effluent 46 3.1
Total 1,495
Study Area 29 (San Juan Subbasinl
Description. Area 29 comprises the San Juan River drainage between
Shiprock, New Mexico, and the San Juan arm of Lake Powell. It covers
approximately 11,500 square miles and includes portions of Montezuma
and Dolores Counties in Colorado; San Juan County of Utah; San Juan
-------
279
County in New Mexico; and Apache and Navajo Counties in Arizona. Commu-
nities within the area and their 1960 populations include Cortez (6,764),
Colorado; Bluff (100), Blanding (2,200), and Mexican Hat (250), Utah.
The area downstream of Mexican Hat, Utah, is virtually inaccessible.
Tributaries to the San Juan River include Mancos River, McElmo Creek,
Navajo Springs Creek, and Chinle Wash. Elevations range from 4,000 feet
to approximately 7,500 feet. Precipitation varies from less than 6
inches per year in the lowlands to approximately 16 inches per year along
the northern boundary of the study area (Figure 41).
Area 29 is located in the flat-lying sediments of the Colorado Plateau.
Streams are deeply incised, throughout most of the area, but ground-water
is at such great depth that there is virtually no base flow to streams in
the canyon areas. A principal tributary, the Mancos River, flows across
the Mancos shale, dissolving salts from the formation, and degrading
the stream. Other than during infrequent thunder storms, the only signifi-
cant runoff originates in the uplands along the northern limits of the
study area.
Findings. Flow in the San Juan River reach between Shiprock, New
Mexico and Mexican Hat, Utah, increased by 240 cfs and the salt load
increased by 2,490 tons per day during the study period. Much of the
inflow is attributable to diversion from the Dolores River and subsequent
irrigation and drainage in the McElmo Creek Basin. Intermittent tributary
inflow within the reach conveyed approximately 650 tons of srftt per day to
the San Juan River. A major portion of this salt load was contributed by
irrigation return flows, including water which originated upstream of the
USGS gage on the San Juan River near Shiprock. Thus, it was not possible
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
281
133
to develop an accurate salt and water budget for the area. Within this
reach, the Mancos River upstream of the mouth of Navajo Creek contributed
a salt load of approximately 100 tons per day. Navajo Springs Creek
discharged approximately 80 tons of salt per day, virtually all of which
was attributable to irrigation return flow in the Cortez-Towaoc area.
TDS concentrations in the Mancos River varied from 280 mg/1 during spring
runoff to a high of 1,580 mg/1 during the winter months. The concentrations
in Navajo Springs Creek ranged from 1,790 mg/1 to 6,480 mg/1.
McElmo Creek yielded a mean annual flow of 89 cfs and a salt load
of 533 tons per day. Most of the flow in McElmo Creek is derived from
irrigation in the Cortez area which is supplied by water diverted from
the Dolores River. Chinle Wash contributed a mean flow of 25 cfs and a
salt load of 29 tons per day. Flowing oil-test holes in the Four Corners
area contributed an additional 5 tons of salt per day to the San Juan
River system.
The proportions of mineral constituents remained essentially the
same throughout the San Juan River reach in Area 29.
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - LOWER BASIN
A brief description of the Lower Colorado River Basin and the
significant findings of the Project's field studies in the Lower Basin
are presented in this section.
Description
For the purpose of this Appendix, the Lower Colorado River Basin
consists of the drainage area directly tributary to the Colorado River
from Lees Ferry near the Arizona-Utah state line to the Southerly
International Boundary, excluding the upper reaches of the drainage
-------
134
282
areas of the Little Colorado and Gila Rivers. The tributary areas include
lands in southwestern Utah, southern Nevada, southeastern California, and
northern and western Arizona. Principal communities and their 1960 popu-
lation are Las Vegas (170,000),- Henderson (12,525), and Boulder City
(4,058), Nevada; Kanab (1,645) and St. George (5,130), Utah; Kingman (4,525)
and Yuma (23,974), Arizona; Needles (4,540) and Elythe (6,023), California.
Numberous other small settlements and resort communities are located along
the Colorado River between Davis Dam and Yuma.
Principal tributaries include Kanab Creek, Bright Angel Creek, Havasu
Creek, the Virgin River, Muddy River, and the Bill Williams River. Through-
out the Colorado Plateau portion of the Basin, the Colorado River flows
through the Grand Canyon. The western and southern portions of the Basin
are within the Basin and Range Province and are made up of a series of
fault block and volcanic mountains separated by valleys filled to great
depths with alluvium. The climate of the Basin varies widely from near
Alpine conditions in the mountainous areas to true desert conditions in
the lowlands along the lower reaches of the Colorado River. Annual
precipitation ranges from less than 5 inches in the lower Colorado River
area to more than 20 inches along the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Only
small portions of the Lower Colorado River Basin yield significant amounts
of runoff.
Evaporation has a major effect on mineral quality in many areas of
the Lower Colorado River Basin. Evaporation from lakes and reservoirs
exceeds 6 feet annually in many areas. The concentrating effect of
I/ Includes metropolitan area outside city limits, but does not include
visitor population.
-------
transpiration by the large areas of phreatophyte growth along the streams
also has a major influence on mineral quality of water.
Owing to low precipitation and high evaporation, the lowlands yield
almost no runoff except during intense storms. Soluble minerals in the
soil profile are leached out and discharged to streams during the
infrequent runoff events.
Findings.
Lees Ferry to Hoover Dam. Flow and salt load in the reach of the
Colorado River between Lees Ferry and Grand Canyon, Arizona, increased
by 460 cfs and 2,310 tons per day during the study period. The flow
and salt load contributed by various sources within this reach are given
in the following tabulation (Figure 42).
Flow TDS Salt Load
Source (cfs) (mg/1) (tons/day)
Paria River at Lees
Ferry 18.1 880 43
Little Colorado River
at Cameron 209 780 439
Moenkopi Wash near
Cameron 27.3 1,490 110
Blue Springs at mouth
of Little Colorado
River 222 2,500 1,500
Miscellaneous Springs 14.0 iii
Total 490.4 2,102
Ionic composition within the reach was essentially constant throughout
the study area (Figure 50).
Between the Grand Canyon station and Hoover Dam it is not possible
to balance flow since there is no flow measurement on the Colorado River
near its entrance to Lake Mead. If evaporation from the lake could be
accurately quantified, ungaged flow into the lake could be calculated
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
285
137
from evaporation losses and the sum of flows from the Grand Canyon gaging
station and the intervening tributaries. Water and salt sources within
the reach are shown in the following tabulation.
Flow
Source (cf s)
Bright Angel Creek
Tapeats Creek
Kanab Creek
Havasu Creek
Vulcan or Lava Falls Spring
Approx. 18 misc. springs
Virgin River at Riverside
Muddy River at mouth
Rogers Spring
Las Vegas Wash
Total
20
80
12
70
6
26
60
2
2
27
305
IDS
(mg/1)
159
120
1,180
352
750
2,790
3,160
3,200
5,470
Salt Load
(tons /day)
8
26
38
66
10
21
452
17
17
400
1,055
The head\»?r.ers of the North Fork of the Virgin River in Zion
National Park yielded 66.3 cfs and 77 tons of salt per day. In the stream
reach between Springdale and Virgin, Utah, flow increased by 60 cfs and
salt load increased by 85 tons per day. These increases were attrib-
utable to ungaged inflow from the East Fork of the Virgin River and
irrigation of small parcels of land in the Rockville, Springville, and
Virgin areas.
In the reach of the Virgin River between Virgin, Ut*, and Little-
field, Arizona, mean annual flow decreased by 7 cfs and salt load increased
by 557 tons per day. Two major springs add salt and water to the Virgin
-------
286
138
River within this reach. One of these, LaVerkin Springs, is located along
both banks and in the channel of the Virgin River, immediately upstream
of the trace of the Hurricane Fault, at LaVerkin, Utah. The discharge
from this spring is of a sodium-sulfate-chloride composition and add
286 tons of salt per day to the system, as well as highly significant
quantities of radioactive elements. The second spring, located at
Littlefield, may not be an additional source since it is possible that
it represents the reappearance of water which is lost from the Virgin
River into the cavernous bedrock in Virgin Canyon between St. George and
Littlefield. Irrigation of approximately 18,000 acres within the reach
added a salt load of 112 tons of salt per day to the system, or an
average salt yield of 2.3 tons per acre per year.
In the reach of the Virgin River between Littlefield, Arizona, and
Riverside, Nevada, flow decreased by 59 cfs and the salt load decreased
by 267 tons per day. These decreases in flow and load indicate that
salt was stored in the irrigated areas during the study period.
Chemical composition of the Virgin River was not characteristic of
headwaters streams (Figure 50). Calcium and bicarbonate were predominant,
with concentrations of sodium and chloride nearly as high. Slight
increases in the proportions of calcium and sulfide were observed at
the sampling station at Virgin, Utah. At Littlefield the chemical
composition of the Virgin River was significantly altered by the irrigation
returns near St. George, Utah, and by the inflow from springs at LaVerkin
and Littlefield. Sulfate and chloride concentrations increased sharply
and all cations increased in approximately equal proportions. Additional
consumptive use and irrigation return flows in the Littlefield and Mesquite
-------
28?
139
areas caused increases in all mineral constituents in approximately
equal proportions.
Essentially the entire flow of the Muddy River was utilized consump-
tively in the irrigation of approximately 9,000 acres. Another 10,000
acres in the area are irrigated by ground-water. Mean flow and salt load
discharged at the most downstream station on the Muddy River was 2 cfs
and 17 tons per day during the study period. The sampling station near
the point of inflow to Lake Mead was situated such that considerable
amounts of seepage from irrigation may not have been measured.
Chemical composition of the Muddy River at Glendale was predomi-
nantly calcium-sodium-sulfate reflecting the character of runoff from
this area. Near the mouth of the Muddy River, sulfate and chloride
became the predominant anions, and each of the principal cations increased.
Except during infrequent storms, flow in Las Vegas Wash is made up
entirely of municipal and industrial effluent, seepage from industrial
waste ponds, irrigation return flow, and outflow from an artificially
recharged near-surface aquifer. During the period of study, mean annual
flow and salt load measured at the USGS gage near Henderson, Nevada, was
22 cfs and 229 tons per day. The mean TDS concentration was 3,850 mg/1.
At the mouth of Las Vegas Wash, mean flow was 27 cfs, mean salt load was
400 tons per day and the mean TDS concentration was 5,470 mg/1. Thus,
an increase of 5 cfs and 171 tons per day occurred between the two stations,
Since there were no surface inflows between these two stations, the
increase in flow resulted in flow of ground-water which is not measured
at the upstream gage. A natural bedrock sill below the gage apparently
forces water moving in the aquifer upward into the stream increasing the
-------
140 288
the surface flow at the mouth of the Wash. Discharge measurements at
the two stations subsequent to the year of study indicate that the inflow
between the two stations has increased to as much as 8 cfs.
Increases in individual mineral constituents between the two sampling
staions on Las Vegas Wash were essentially proportional.
The salt budget for the reach of the Colorado River between Lees
Ferry and Hoover Dam is given in the following tabulation.
IDS Load Percent of
Source (tons/day) Average Load
Springs 1,990 58.0
Irrigation 112 3.3
Municipal 43 1.3
Runoff 1,282 37.4
Total 3,427
Hoover Dam to Southerly International Boundary. The mean flows,
TDS concentrations and salt loads at stations within this reach are shown
in the following tabulation (Figure 43).
Location of Station Flow TDS TDS Load
on Colorado River (cfs) (mg/1) (tons/day)
Below Hoover Dam 11,430 721 21,860
Below Davis Dam 11,190 726 21,930
Below Parker Dam 9,290 723 18,130
Below Palo Verde weir 7,470 732 14,760
At Blythe-Ehrenberg Bridge 7,610 755 15,510
Below Cibola Valley 8,280 822 18,380
The causes of changes in flow and salt load between each of the stations
are discussed briefly in the following sections. More detailed discussions
of these changes are included in an open file report available at the
Project Office in Denver, Colorado.
The increase in TDS concentration between Hoover Dam and Davis Dam
is due to evapotranspiration by phreatophytes and inflow from saline
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
142 290
springs below Willow Beach. The decrease in flow is well within the
range of accuracy of flow measurement at the two stations, but may
actually reflect some losses due to the phreatophyte growth within the
reach.
In the river reach between Davis Dam and Parker Dam, the Metropoli-
tan Water District of Southern California (MWD) diverted 1520 cfs and
2770 tons of salt per day during the study period. The analytical meth-
ods employed by MWD in determining TDS concentrations at Parker Dam
utilized a calculation of the sum of the constituent ions which caused
the reported concentration to be slightly lower than that at upstream
and downstream stations. On the basis of residue concentrations, the
diverted load was on the order of 3,000 tons per day. Municipal discharge
from Needles, California, added 1 cfs and 4 tons of salt per day. The
Bill Williams River discharged a mean flow of 50 cfs at a TDS concentra-
tion of 549 mg/1 and contributed 74 tons of salt per day to the river
system. The salt load contributed by the Bill Williams River was vir-
tually all from natural sources. During the study period, water levels
in Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu increased as additional water was stored.
It is estimated that decreases in flow due to evaporation and bank stor-
age within the reach totaled 620 cfs during the study period. Bank
storage of salt load was estimated at 724 tons per day. The additional
losses of 60 cfs and 110 tons of salt per day were apparently caused by
the increase in storage in Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu during the study
period.
Between Parker Dam and Imperial Dam there are no major flowing trib-
utaries and no significant discharges of salt loads from natural sources.
-------
291
143
The Colorado River Indian Reservation (CRIR) on the Arizona side of the
river near Parker, Arizona, and the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID)
in California near the town of Blythe, returned irrigation drainage,
spillage of excess water from canals, and groundwater from drainage
wells to the Colorado River.
The CRIR, with 31,940 acres under irrigation, consumed 187,300 acre-
feet of water and contributed a salt load of 48 tons per day or an aver-
age of 0.5 tons per acre per year.
The Palo Verde Irrigation District, with approximately 84,300 acres
under irrigation, consumed 366,000 acre-feet of water and contributed a
salt load of 492 tons per day, an average of 2.1 tons per acre per year.
Much of the salt addition from the Palo Verde Irrigation District resulted
from lowering of the groundwater table by deepening of existing drains
which resulted in removal of salt previously stored in the irrigated area.
With adequate drainage, the salt yield from PVID would be expected to
approximate that from the Colorado River Indian Reservation. Irrigation
of a small area in Cibola Valley may also contribute some salt load to
the Colorado River through diffuse seepage.
A summation of the salt loads and discharge gains and losses between
Parker Dam and Imperial Dam revealed a loss of 242 cfs and a salt load
gain of 100 tons per day. Calculations indicate that transpiration from
41,600 acres of phreatophyte growth and evaporation from the 9,600 acres
of free water surface within the reach consumed 240,000 acre-feet of
water during the year of study. Ungaged inflow within the reach, due to
seepage from irrigated areas, was calculated at 60,000 acre-feet. Local
precipitation and runoff contributed 13,000 acre-feet. The ungaged inflow
of 73,000 acre-feet plus the previously cited loss in flow over the reach
-------
292
144
totaled 258,000 acre-feet. This approximated the calculated losses due
to evapotranspiration.
Chemical composition of the Colorado River in the reach between
Parker Dam and Imperial Dam reflected the inflow of drainage from irri-
gated areas having high sodium and chloride concentrations (Figure 50).
The chemical composition of drainage from the Upper Main Drain on the
CRIR had the same relative proportions as water of the Colorado River
but all concentrations were slightly higher. Drainage from the Lower
Main Drain on the CRIR was predominantly sodium-chloride-sulfate type
water. These observations are in keeping with the history of irrigation
development on the CRIR. Lands drained by the Upper Main Drain have
been irrigated for a number of years and are well leached. Some of the
lands drained by the Lower Main Drain were receiving initial leaching
during the period of study. Sodium, chloride, and sulfate were predomi-
nant in drainage water from the Palo Verde Irrigation District. As in-
dicated earlier, the higher TDS concentrations were related to the
deepening of drains within that area.
.Of the 8,280 cfs and 18,770 tons of salt per day reaching Imperial
Dam during the study period, 718 cfs and 1,630 tons per day continued
down the Colorado River channel; 1,240 cfs and 2,810 tons per day were
diverted into the Gila Main Gravity Canal; and 6,320 cfs and 14,330 tons
were diverted into the All American Canal.
Between Imperial Dam and the Northerly International Boundary, flow
and salt load in the river increased by 1,460 cfs and 6,780 tons per day.
These increases were attributable to numerous canal and irrigation returns
to the river. The measured contributions are summarized in the following
tabulation.
-------
145
293
Discharge IDS Load
Source (cfs) (tons/day)
Laguna Canal Wasteway 5.7 14
Levee Canal Wasteway 17.6 40
North Gila Drain 11.2 44
Gila River (incl. We11ton-Mohawk
Drainage as well as South and
North Gila Valley 335 3,470
Yuma Main Canal Wasteway 117 265
Reservation Drain No. 4 62.7 196
Drain 8-B 4.7 12
Pilot Knob Wasteway 806 1.830
Total 1,359.9 5,871
It is emphasized that the above tabulation lists gross returns to the
river. Net measured changes in flow and salt load due to irrigation within
the reach were a depletion of 1,160 cfs and an addition of 530 tons per day.
Domestic use of water at Yuma added a salt load of 17 tons per day to
the reach. The totals in the tabulation leave an unaccounted ungaged
increase in flow of 100 cfs and increase in salt load of 910 tons per
day. These increases are believed to be mainly due to seepage from
intensive irrigation within the reach although some of the increase may
be due to normal errors in flow measurements and laboratory analyses on
the many measured returns shown in the tabulation.
Subsequent to completion of the Project's studies in the Lower Basin,
the We11ton-Mohawk Main Outlet Drain was extended to the Northerly
International Boundary where the Mexican government exercises the
option of accepting the highly saline water above or below Morelos Dam.
-------
146
No attempt was made to develop' water and salt budgets for the Colorado
River downstream of the Northerly International Boundary. Return flows
to the Colorado River include the Cooper Wasteway which returned 5 tons
of salt per day; the 11-Mile Wasteway, returning 28 tons of salt per
day; and the 21-Mile Wasteway, discharging 19 tons of salt per day. The
Yuma Project Valley Division Main Drain and the East Main Canal join at
the Southerly International Boundary and cross into Mexico at San Luis
Sonora. The Main Drain discharged 187 cfs and 796 tons of salt per day,
and the East Main Canal discharged 12.2 cfs and 40 tons of salt per day
during the study period. In summary, discharges at the Northerly Inter-
national Boundary returns to the Limatrophe Section, and discharges at
the Southerly International Boundary totaled 2,400 cfs with a salt load
of 9,300 tons per day during the study period.
Chemical composition of the Colorado River, between Imperial Dam
and the Northerly International Boundary, became predominantly sodium,
chloride, and sulfate as a result of the highly saline inputs from the
lower Gila River and the We11ton-Mohawk Irrigation District (Figure 50).
Extension of the Wellton-Mohawk Main Outlet Drain to the Northerly
Border has ameliorated this unfavorable condition in the immediate
reach of the Colorado River.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR ENTIRE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
During the period June 1965 through May 1966, the mean annual flow
from the Upper Colorado River Basin was 19,263 cfs. The salt load
discharged into Lake Powell during the same period averaged 26,160 tons per
day. The flow and salt load contributed by each of three major subbasins
is shown in the following tabulation.
-------
cfs
8,582
6,600
4,081
Percent of
Upper Basin
Outflow
44.5
34.3
21.2
Tons /day
12,587
9,020
4,553
Percent of
Upper Basin
Outflow
48.1
34.5
17.4
147
295
Flow Salt Load
Subbasin
Upper Main Stem
Green River
San Juan River
Total 19,263 26,160
The percentage of total Upper Basin mean daily flow and salt load
passing key stations is shown in Figure 44.
Runoff, including both overland runoff and groundwater inflow to
streams, contributed 52 percent of the salt load from the Upper Colorado
River Basin. The mountainous headwaters areas, consisting of insoluble
rocks of highly resistant outcrops, yielded large quantities of good
quality water. The lower valley areas, composed of more soluble sedi-
ments, contributed small amounts of highly mineralized water. It became
clear that contact of water with the saline geologic formations of the
Upper Basin, whether from natural precipitation or from irrigation,
caused serious degradation of water quality in the streams receiving run-
off or drainage from these formations.
In the Lower Colorado Basin, consumptive use of water greatly exceeded
inflow to the river system and salt sources within the Basin added an esti-
mated 5,484 tons per day to the stream system. Approximately three-fourths
of the salt load and virtually all of the flow in the Lower Colorado Basin
was discharged from the Upper Basin. The relative magnitudes of salt
loads contributed by various types of sources in the Colorado River Basin
are summarized graphically in Figure 45. The percentage of Lower Basin
flow and load passing key sampling stations is shown in Figure 46.
-------
148 296
»JO« IJt - •»•!•*
ciitiui iini iisn itui
IHUTT CKHIL mitCI
IS KPIIIWIT If IK IIKIIII
iiiirii iim f«w»i tmiii u»miiiii«i
illlllll! HUH Ul IUKIUI (till
Figure 44 Percent of Average Daily Flow and IDS Load Entering lake Powe 11,1965-66-
-------
149
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN 297
AVEIAfiE SALT LIU - TINS/MY
Jut 1965 - May 1966
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
NATURAL POINT SOURCES
AND WELLS
357 T/d )
MUNICIPAL
AND
INDUSTRIAL
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
AVEIAfiE SALT LIAI TINS/IAY
NiviMbtr 1963 - Oettlir 1964
NET RUNOFF
15%
( 1990 T/d )
NATURAL POIN
SOURCES
UPPER COLORADO RIVER
BASIN INFLOW
72%
( 9833 T/d )
( 64 T/d )
( 1180 T/d
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
MUNICIPAL
AND
INDUSTRIAL
Figire 45 Relative Magaitide of Salt Soirees ii tke Colorado River Basil
-------
298
150
KEY
w/p«ceNT TO* LOAD
cntuii itiH UM nni
mim cjirm HMKT
I.S. KMITMIT ¥ IK ITEHH
fmni tux MMht CUM iM*>imi
MTIf It! HMN IM MMM. I
FiiirMI Pireeit if Avirait Daily Flu ill Liad Eitiriif thi Cilinli Rinr biliw Lees Firry , 1SS3-84
-------
151
299
Irrigation contributed 37 percent of the salt load produced in the
Upper Colorado River Basin. The salt load contributions and average salt
yields from the major irrigated areas in the three subbasins are given
by Table 5. Salt load contributions from the major irrigated areas in
the Colorado River Basin are compared graphically in Figure 47.
Irrigation adjacent to the reach of the Colorado River between
Hoover Dam and the Southerly International Boundary caused a net depletion
of 1928 cfs in the Colorado River, and a net salt load addition to the
stream of 1068 tons per day during the study period. The relative salt
yields from these areas are summarized in Table 6. The range of salt
load yields from the principal irrigated areas in the Colorado River
Basin is shown in Figure 48.
Point sources such as springs, wells, and abandoned oil-test holes,
contributed 10 percent of the salt load in the Upper Basin. The signifi-
cant point sources of salinity and their respective salt loads are given
in Table 7.
Springs added more salt load to the Lower Colorado River Basin than
any other type of source. The measured contribution was nearly 2,000
tons of salt per day. Blue Springs, located near the mouth of the Little
Colorado River, contributed a salt load of approximately 1,500 tons per day,
constituting the largest single point source in the Colorado River Basin.
Salt load contributions by major point sources are compared in Figure 49.
Municipal and industrial effluents added only about one percent of
the Upper Basin salt load. Salt inputs from oil-field activities were
found to be transitory in nature, and may at times, contribute considerably
more or less salt to the system than was observed during the study. The
-------
Big Sandy Creek
Blacks Fork i
Hams Fork
Henry's Fork
Yampa River ;
imps River,
Milk Creek
Williams Forl
Little Sanke
Little Sanke
Ashley Creek
Duchesne River
White River
Price River
San Rafael River
Total
Table 5. Salt Yields and
In Green River
\.rea
ove New Fork River
k
Lyman area
ove Steamboat Springs
teamboat Springs to Craig
River
ibove Dixon
Dixon to Baggs
;low Meeker
/er
300
152
Loads From Irrigation
Subbasin
Salt Load
C Tons /Day)
30
200
475
6
244
20
24
6
13
15
25
230
1350
20
580
290
3,528
Average
Salt Yield
(Tons/Acre/Yr)
0.1
5.6
2.4
0.3
4.9
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
4.2
3.0
2.0
8.5
2.9
aen River Subbasin Salt Load 39.2
•tal Upper Basin Salt Load
13.5
-------
153
301
Table 5 (Cont'd.)- Salt Yields and Loads From Irrigation
In tipper Main Stem Subbasin
Area
Main Stem above Hot Sulphur Springs
Main Stem, Hot Sulphur Springs to Kremmling
Muddy Creek Drainage Area
Brush Creek
Roaring Fork River
Colorado River Valley, Glenwood Springs
to Silt
Colorado River, Silt to Cameo
Grand Valley
Plateau Creek
Gunnison River above Gunnison
Tomichi Creek above Parlin
Tomichi Creek, Parlin to mouth
Uncompahgre above Dallas Creek
Lower Gunnison
Naturita Creek near Norwood
Total
Percent of Upper Colorado River
Subbasin Salt Load
Percent Total of Upper Basin Salt Load
Salt Load
(Tons /Day")
15
61
46
10
200
100
30
1,925
75
9
6
6
74
3,000
46
5,603
44.5
21.5
Average
Salt Yield
(Tons/Acre/Yr)
0.3
0.9
2.4
0.7
3.5
2.3
3.5
8.0
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
4.5
6.7
2.8
-------
302
154
Table 5 (Cont'd.). Salt Yields and Loads From Irrifiation
In San Juan River Subbasin
Area
Fremont River above Torrey, Utah
Fremont River,; Torrey to Hanksville, Utah
Muddy Creek above Hanksville, Utah
San Juan above Carracas
Florida, Los Pinos, Animas drainage
Lower Animas Basin
LaPlata River in Colorado
LaPlata River in New Mexico
Total
Percent of San Juan Subbasin Salt Load
Percent Total of Upper Basin Salt Load
Salt Load
(Tons/Day)
20
16
60
104
33
165
56
4
518
12.9
1.9
Average
Salt Yield
(Tons/Acre/Yr)
0.4
5.8
3.1
2.7
0.2
3.5
1.4
0.3
-------
155
303
UPPER MAIN STEM
SUBBASIN
GRAND VALLEY AREA
GREEN RIVER
SUBBASIN
LOWER MAIN STEM
SUBBASIN
SAN JUAN RIVER SUBBASIN
Figure 47 Relative Salt Loads from Irrigated Areas in
Colorado River Basin
-------
304
156
Table 6. Salt Yields and Loads From Irrigation
In Lower Colorado River Basin
Area
Virgin River
Colorado River Indian Reservation
Palo Verde Irrigation District
Below Imperial Dam
(Gila and Yuma Projects)
Total
Salt Load
(Tons/Day)
112
48
490
530
1,180
Average
Salt Yield
(Tons/Acre/Yr)
2.3
0.5
2.1
Variable
-------
6
• * ST
5" 2- 2
3^3
fr£i
H ^ P
^v A CKl
85
o
on
,3r«en River above New Fork River
La Plata River In New Mexico: Little Snake River above Dixon
Colorado Colorado River Indian Reservation
La Plata River in Colorado
Palo Verde Irrigation District
Muddy Cr. near Kremmling; Blacks Fork in Lyman Area
Duchesne River
Lower Animas River; Roaring Fork, Basalt to Qlenwood Springs
Uncompahgre River above Dallas Creek
H»nry« Fork
Big Sandy Creek
Lower Gunnison River
Grand Valley
Price River
U)
o
ui
-------
158
Table 7. Salt Load Contributions From Major Point Sources in
Colorado River Basin
Salt Load
Source (Tons/Day)
Green River Subbasin
Warm Kendall Spring 18
Cold Kendall Spring 8
Coal Mine Drainage near Oak Creek, Colorado 6
Steamboat Springs Mineral Springs 24
Jones Hole Creek-Whirlpool Canyon 21
Split Mountain Warm Springs 51
Test Hole near Jensen, Utah 1
Stinking Spring 1
Indian Creek Springs 3
Meeker Oil Test Hole 16°
Piceance Creek Well 17
Crystal Geyser _=LL
Total 363
Upper Main Stem
Hot Sulphur Springs 0
Dotsero Spring 440
Glenwood Springs Area 92°
Ouray Hot Springs 4
Ridgeway Hot Springs 7
Paradise Hot Spring 2
Paradox Valley 688
Total 2,061
San Juan Subbasin
Pagosa Hot Springs
Pinkerton Hot Spring
Total
Lower Colorado River Basin
Blue Springs 1,500
Miscellaneous small springs above Grand Canyon 10
Vulcan or Lava Falls Spring 10
Miscellaneous springs above Virgin River 21
Havasu Spring ^
LaVerkin Spring 2°°
Littlefield Salt Springs 81
Rogers Spring
Total
-------
159
307
UPPER BASIN
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
23%
DOTSERO
SPRING
7%
OTHER POINT
SOURCES
PARADOX VALLEY
15%
LA VERKIN ;;/:///:
BLUE SPR
4
LOWER BASIN
Figure 49. Comparisotf of Salt Loads from Poinl Sources
in the Colorado River Basin
-------
308
160
principal industrial and oil-field sources and their observed yields, are
shown in Table 8.
Municipal and industrial waste discharges added 64 tons of salt per
day to the Lower Colorado River. Seepage from ponds containing municipal
and industrial wastes contributed a portion of the 400 tons per day input
from Las Vegas Wash.
Headwater areas of streams in the Upper Basin, with few exceptions,
yield predominantly calcium-bicarbonate type water. The use of these
waters for irrigation of well-leached soils in upland areas did not
seriously alter the chemical composition of the streams. Leaching of
saline sediments in the lower valleys caused the waters to become predom-
.nantly sodium-calcium-sulfate type, in stream reaches below such areas
where precipitation and/or applied irrigation water came into contact with
these geological formations. The Mancos shale, the Paradox formation,
and various saline tertiary-age lakebed formations had the most serious
effect on the chemical composition of streams. The effects of major
springs and industrial effluents were discerned in the chemical composi-
tion of small receiving streams, but were essentially masked in the
larger streams. Figures 51, 52, and 53 show the chemical composition
of streams at key sampling stations in the Upper Basin.
The relative proportions of chemical constituents remained surpris-
ingly consistent in the Lower Colorado River between Lee's Ferry and the
mouth of the Gila River (Figure 50). Drainage containing predominantly
calcium-sodium-sulf ate-chloride type waters was discharged from newly
irrigated lands on the lower portion of the Colorado River Indian
Reservation, and from newly deepened drains in the Palo Verde Irrigation
-------
161
309
Table 8. Salt Loads From Principal Industrial Sources,
Colorado River Basin
Salt Load
Source (Tons/Day)
Green River Subbasin
Flood Wash near Wellington, Utah 13
lies Dome Oil Field water, Colorado 17
Ashley Valley Oil Field water, Utah 32
Total 62
Upper Main Stem
New Jersey Zinc tailings decant, Oilman, Colorado 10
Union Carbide uranium mill effluent, Rifle, Colorado 40
Climax uranium mill effluent, Grand Junction, Colorado 35
American Gilsonite refinery effluent, Fruita, Colorado 9
Union Carbide uranium mill effluent, Uravan, Colorado 119
Atlas Mineral Corporation uranium mill effluent, Moab, Utah 36
Total 249
San Juan Subbasin
Four Corners Power Plant, Shiprock, New Mexico 35
Foote Mineral Corporation uranium mill effluent
Shiprock, New Mexico 11.
Total 46
-------
310
162
MUDDY RIVER PARIA RIVER COLORADO RIVER
MOENKOPI WASH
LMS-
LMS-35
LMS-34
LMS-28
VIRGIN RIVER
LMS-2
LMS-3
LMS-6
LMS.13
PVID OUTFALL DRAIN
LMS-1S
LMS-16
Cm
MB
» <
N.+K
KEY >SO
C '
LITTLE COLORADO RIVER
>LMS-30 LMS-31
BRI6HT ANGEL CREEK
LAS VE6AS WASH
LMS-1O
Rl« IQWgP IIAIN PBill
LMS-O
CRIR MAIN CANAL SPILL
LMS-11
CRIR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DRAIN
6ILA RIVER AND WELLTON-MOHAWK DRAINAGE
SCALE IN me/I
Fignrf 50 Ionic Concentration Diagrams for the Lower Main Stem Sikkasia
-------
163
311
COLORADO RIVER
UMS-1
-------
312
164
HAMS FOIK BLACKS FORK GREEN RIVER
BIG SAMDY CREEK LITTLE SANDY CREEK
SS-35
_ SAN RAFAEL RIVER
SS-29
SOUTH FORK OF WHITE RIVER
Figure 52 Ionic Concentration Diagrams for the Green River Subbasin
-------
165
313
ANIMAS RIVER SAN JUAN RIVER PIEDRA RIVER
SHIPROCK
URANIUM MILL EFFLUENT
SCALE IN me/I
Figure 53 Ionic Concentration Diagrams for the San Juan River Subbasin
-------
District. These inputs were not of sufficient magnitude to significantly
alter the chemical composition of the Colorado River. Large quantities
of predominantly sodium-chloride type water discharged from the Wellton-
Mohawk Main Outlet Drain caused the Colorado River water to become predomi-
nantly sodium-chloride type in the reach between the mouth of the Gila
River and the Northerly International Boundary.
-------
315
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A
1. Hill, Raymond A., "Future Quantity and Quality of Colorado River
Water," ASCE Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division,
March 1965.
2. Benjamin, R. S. and Raynes, B. C., "Mineral Pollution from Natural
Sources," Rand Development Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, 1964.
3. Allsop, et al, "Soils and Drainage Studies Conducted at the
Colorado River Indian Reservation," January 1955 - June 1958,
Colorado River Agency.
4. lorns, W. V., Hembree, C. H., and Oakland, G. L., "Water Resources
of the Upper Colorado River Basin - Technical Reports," U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Papers 441 and 442, 1965.
5. Hem, John D., "Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Character-
istics of Natural Water," U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper 1473.
6. Dixon, W. J. and Massey, F. J., "Introduction to Statistical
Analysis," McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1957.
7. Searcy, J. K. and Hardison, D. H., "Double-Mass Curves,'! u. S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1541-B.
8. Brittan, Margaret R., "Probability Analysis Applied to the Develop-
ment of Synthetic Hydrology for the Colorado River," Bureau of
Economic Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1961.
9. Ledbetter, J. 0. and Gloyna, E. F., "Predictive Techniques for
Water Quality Inorganics," Engineering Journal, Sanitary Engineer-
ing Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 90, No.
SA1, February 1964.
10. Volk, William, "Applied Statistics for Engineers," McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York, 1958.
11. Blackman, W. C., Jr., Schillinger, G. R., and Shafer, W. H,, Jr.,
"Statistical Analysis of Historical Water Quality Data for the
Colorado River Basin," open file report of the Colorado River
Basin Water Quality Control Project, FWPCA, 1968.
12. La Rue, E. C., "Colorado River and Its Utilization," U. S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 395, 1916.
-------
13. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
"Quality of Watery Colorado River Basin," Progress Reports 1
through 4, 1966-1969.
Ik. Rouse, J. V., "Mineral Springs and Other Natural Point Sources
of Saline Pollution in the Colorado River Basin," open file
report, Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project,
FWPCA, 1967.
15. Wisler, C. 0., and Brater, E. F., "Hydrology," John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, 1959.
16. Rouse, J. V., and Shafer, W. H., Jr., "Nature, Location, and
Magnitude of Salinity Sources in the Colorado River Basin,"
open file report, Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control
Project, FWPCA, 1967.
GPO 7904)10
-------
317
THE MINERAL QUALITY PROBLEM
IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONS VIII AND IX
1971
-------
318
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency was
established by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
and became operative on December 2, 1970. The
EPA consolidates in one agency Federal control
programs involving air and water pollution, solid
waste management, pesticides, radiation and noise.
This report was prepared over a period of eight
years by water program components of EPA and their
predecessor agencies—the Federal Water CJuality
Administration, U.S. Department of Interior, April
1970 to December 1970; the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U.S. Department of Interior,
October 1965 to April 1970; the Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, U.S. Public Health
Service, prior to October 1965. Throughout the
report one or more of these agencies will be
mentioned and should be considered as part of a
single agency—in evolution.
-------
319
PREFACE
The Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project was estab-
lished as a result of recommendations made at the first session of a
joint Federal-State "Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Inter-
state Waters of the Colorado River and its Tributaries," held in January
of 1960 under the authority of Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.). This conference was called at the
request of the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, and Utah to consider all types of water pollution in the Colorado
River Basin. The Project serves as the technical arm of the conference
and provides the conferees with detailed information on water uses,
the nature and extent of pollution problems and their effects on water
users, and recommended measures for control of pollution in the Colorado
River Basin.
The Project has carried out extensive field investigations along
with detailed engineering and economic studies to accomplish the
following objectives:
(1) To determine the location, magnutide, and causes of inter-
state pollution of the Colorado River and its tributaries.
(2) To determine and evaluate the nature and magnitude of the
damages to water users caused by various types of pollution.
(3) To develop, evaluate, and recommend measures and programs
for controlling or minimizing interstate water pollution
problems.
In 1963, based upon recommendations of the conferees, the Project
-------
320
began detailed studies of the mineral quality problem in the Colorado
River Basin. Mineral quality, commonly known as salinity, is a com-
plex Basin-wide problem that is becoming increasingly important to
users of Colorado River water. Due to the nature, extent, and impact
of the salinity problem, the Project extended certain of its activities
over the entire Colorado River Basin and the Southern California water
service area.
The more significant findings and data from the Project's salinity
studies and related pertinent information are summarized in a report
entitled, "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin."
Detailed information pertaining to methodology and findings of the
Project's salinity studies is presented in three appendices to that
report - Appendix A, "Natural and Man-Made Conditions Affecting Mineral
Quality," Appendix B, "Physical and Economic Impacts," and Appendix C,
"Salinity Control and Management Aspects."
ii
-------
321
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE t
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION t
II. EFFECTS OF SALINITY ON BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER .... 4
CONSUMPTIVE USES 5
Municipal 5
Industrial 7
Irrigation 16
Livestock 23
NON-CONSUMPTIVE USES 26
Fish and Aquatic Life 26
Ground Water Recharge 29
III. PRESENT AND FUTURE MINERAL QUALITY 35
PRESENT MINERAL QUALITY 35
AREAS AFFECTED BY MINERAL QUALITY 37
METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED TO PROJECT MINERAL
QUALITY 44
Hydrology 45
Water Demand 47
Salt-Load Sources 50
DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY 50
TARGET YEAR MINERAL QUALITY . 53
INDEX OF MINERAL QUALITY 55
iii
-------
322
IV. DIRECT PENALTY COST EVALUATION 59
DEFINITION OF PENALTY COST 59
METHODS OF PENALTY COST EVALUATION 61
Irrigated Agriculture 7g
Industrial „,
Municipal
DETERMINATION OF DIRECT PENALTY COSTS 95
Lower Main Stem Study Area
Southern California Study Area
Gila Study Area • ' * * ' '
Summary of Lower Basin and Southern California Areas . 126
129
V. REGION-WIDE ECONOMIC IMPACT
INTERDEPENDENCE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES 129
130
INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL
EVALUATION OF TOTAL SALINITY EFFECTS 134
Agricultural Penalty Costs "6
Industrial Penalty Costs
Municipal Penalty Costs
144
TOTAL EFFECT OF WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION
SENSITIVITY OF MODEL TO FLOW INPUT DATA 146
SURFACE EQUATION OF DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS 153
161
VI. CONCLUSIONS
163
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
323
LIST OF TABLES
Table Pafle
1 American Boiler and Affiliated Industries' Limits
for Boiler Water Quality Concentrations in Units
with a Steam Drum .................. 9
2 Suggested Limits of Tolerance for Boiler Feed
Waters ....................... 10
3 Water Quality Tolerance for Industrial Process
Uses .................... .... 14
4 Classification of Irrigation Water as to Salinity
Hazard ....................... 17
5 Classification of Irrigation Water as to Bicarbonate
Ion Hazard ..................... 23
6 Safe Upper Limits of Salinity Concentrations
Recommended for Livestock Water in Western
Australia ...................... 25
7 Salinity Classifications for Livestock Water Set
by Several States .................. 25
8 Proposed Ground Water Quality Objectives for the
Bunker Hill Basin and the Santa Ana River in
California ..... ........ ........ 33
9 Recommended Chemical and Physical Quality Standards
for Water to be Exported to Southern California
from the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta ........ 33
10 Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations in the
Colorado River at Selected Stations (1960) ..... 38
11 Population and Irrigation Water Use in the Colorado
River Basin and Southern California Water Service
Area ........................ 39
12 Future Water Resources Projects
13 Water Quality Values (mg/1) for the Lower Main Stem
Subbasin Obtained by Flow and Salt Routing Model for
the Colorado River Basin .............. 53
14 Effect of Various Factors on Salt Concentrations in
Colorado River at Hoover Dam ............ 56
-------
324
Table Page
--- "
15 Annual Manufacturing Water Requirement by Type of
Use in California 1957-1959 83
16 Basic Data for Penalty Cost Assessment for Irrigated
Agriculture in Lower Main Stem Study Area 97
17 Municipalities Served by Colorado River Water in the
Lower Main Stem Study Area 99
18 Summary of Direct Penalty Costs in the Lower Main
Stem Study Area 99
19 Present and Projected Mineral Quality of
Metropolitan Water District Blended Water
Deliveries 104
20 Present and Projected Use of Metropolitan Water
District Water for Irrigated Agriculture 105
21 Present and Projected Data Used in Evaluating
the Direct Penalty Costs to Irrigation Water
Users Served by the Metropolitan Water District . . . 106
22 Water Use by Manufacturing Industry in the Six
Counties of the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, 1957-1959 103
23 Projected Industrial Water Requirements for
the Metropolitan Water District 109
24 Present and Projected Municipal Use of Metropolitan
Water District Water Ill
25 Basic Data for Penalty Cost Assessment to
Irrigated Agriculture, All American Canal Users . . . 112
26 Summary of Water Data Used for Industrial Penalty
Cost Assessment in Imperial County, California . . . 113
27 Present and Projected Populations of Imperial
County Communities 114
23 Principal Crops Grown, Present and Projected
Irrigation Acreages, and Amounts of Applied Water
in the Palo Verde Irrigation District 115
29 Present and Projected Populations of Needles and
Blythe, California 116
vi
-------
325
Table Pa%e
30 Summary of Direct Penalty Costs Incurred by All
Southern California Users of Colorado River Water . . 117
31 Present and Projected Water Required for Agriculture
in the Central Arizona Project Area 121
32 Present and Projected Sources of Water for Irrigation
in the Central Arizona Project Area 122
33 Quantity and Quality of Surface Waters Entering
the Central Arizona Project Area ' 122
34 Major Crops Grown, Present and Projected Irrigated
Acreages, and Amounts and Quality of Applied
Irrigation Water in the Central Arizona Project
Area 125
35 Summary of Direct Penalty Costs in the Gila
Study Area 127
36 Summary of Direct Penalty Costs in the Lower
Colorado Basin 127
37 Input-Output Model Results for the Lower Main
Stem Study Area 147
38 Input-Output Model Results for the Southern
California Study Area 148
39 Input-Output Model Results for the Gila Study
Area 149
40 Lower Basin Water Budgets for Year 2010 Under
Projected and Minimum Compact Conditions 154
41 Assumed Allocation of Colorado River Water Among
Lower Basin States and Mexico Under Minimum Compact
Conditions 154
42 Mineral Quality for Year 2010 Under Projected and
Minimum Compact Conditions 155
43 Total Penalty Costs for Projected Conditions and
Minimum Compact Conditions for Year 2010 156
vii
-------
326
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Diagram for the Classification of Irrigation Waters . . 21
Mean Salinity Concentrations in the Principal
Streams of the Colorado River Basin During
the Period 1956-1958 .................. 36
3 Location of Salinity Impact Study Areas . . . ..... 43
4 Typical Drainage Area Used for Flow and Salt
Routing Model for the Colorado River Basin ....... 51
5 Flow, Loads, and Salinity Concentrations in
Streams in the Colorado River Basin .......... 54
6 Future Mineral Quality Changes at Hoover Dam Due to
Consumptive Use of Water and Salt Load Increases
above that Point ....... . . . . ......... 57
7 Illustration of Detriments and Penalty Costs Due to
Water Quality Degradation ..... . ......... 60
8 Irrigation Water User Alternatives for Offsetting
the Effects of Mineral Quality Degradation ....... 63
9 Salt Tolerance of Major Crops Grown in Study Areas ... 65
10 Comparative Results of Irrigated Agriculture Penalty
Cost for a Portion of Yuma County - 1960 ........ 79
11 Comparison of Alternative Municipal Penalty Cost
Evaluations in the Lower Main Stem Study Area - 1960 .
94
12 Lower Main Stem Study Area 96
13 Southern California Study Area 101
14 Southern California Water Service Area 102
15 Quality of the Metropolitan Water District Blended
Supply Composed of Colorado River and Feather
River Water
118
16 Gila Subbasin Study Area . .
viii
-------
327
Figure Page
17 Mineral Quality of Ground Water Used for
Irrigation in the Central Arizona Project Area 120
18 Location of Major Groundwater Areas in the
Central Arizona Project Area 124
19 Summary of Direct Penalty Costs Incurred in the
Lower Colorado River Basin and Southern California
Study Areas 128
20 Illustrative Transactions Table 132
21 Total Penalty Costs Incurred in the Lower Main
Stem Study Area 150
22 Total Penalty Costs Incurred in the Southern
California Study Area 151
23 Total Penalty Costs Incurred in the Gila Study Area . . 152
24 Comparison of Total Penalty Costs for Projected
and Minimum Compact Water Supply Conditions 157
25 Summary of Direct Salinity Detriments to All
Colorado River Water Users Below Hoover Dam 158
ix
-------
328
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Salinity is one of the most serious water quality problems in the
Colorado River Basin. Like many streams in the arid West, the Colorado
River displays a progressive increase in salinity (total dissolved
solids)— between its headwaters and its mouth. Salinity concentrations
in the Lower Colorado River (below Lees Ferry, Arizona) are approaching
critical levels for municipal, industrial, and agricultural water use.
In the face of this present situation, planned and proposed water re-
source developments, primarily in the Upper Basin, will cause further
increases in salinity concentrations in the Lower Colorado River.
As a part of its overall study of the salinity problem, the Colorado
River Basin Water Quality Control Project (Project) carried out detailed
studies to evaluate the physical and economic impacts associated with
anticipated degradation in the mineral quality of Colorado River water.
The methods of investigation and the results of these studies are pre-
sented in this appendix.
Before the impacts associated with degradation in mineral quality
could be determined, it was necessary to understand the effect of salinity
on various beneficial uses of water The general effects of salinity on
domestic, industrial, agricultural, and other beneficial uses are dis-
cussed in Chapter II of this appendix. Hardness, a water quality
parameter closely related to total dissolved solids (TDS), is also
discussed since it has significant effects on domestic and industrial
water uses.
\l The terms "salinity" and "total dissolved solids" are used synony-
mously throughout this report.
-------
329
2
The mineral quality conditions presently prevailing at various
locations along the river and the conditions likely to occur in the
years 1980 and 2010 are described in Cahpter III. In order to deter-
mine these conditions, a mathematical flow and salt loading routing model
was developed for the Colorado River Basin. Published flow and salinity
data supplemented by data collected by the Project were used in this
model.
Once the general effects of salinity on beneficial uses of water
were identified and the anticipated mineral quality for the river system
had been determined, methods were developed to quantify the anticipated
quality effects in economic terms. Methods were developed also to
determine the direct impact of salinity. The methods and results for
the direct penalty-cost evaluation are described in Chapter IV.
The first step in the direct penalty-cost evaluation involved the
development of methods for relating increases in IDS to the economic
cost which each user would incur. Alternative methods were investi-
gated based on the study of the effects of salinity on beneficial
uses of water. After careful analysis, methods were chosen for evalu-
ating the effects on each category of water use. Among factors con-
sidered in this analysis were the hydrology of the Basin, the quantities
of water used by various users, the economy of the Basin, the population
of the Basin, and existing water-treatment technology. The amount and
location of direct penalty costs incurred by water users in the Basin
were determined by the magnitude of expected salinity increase and the
volume of anticipated water use.
In addition to the direct impact of degradation in mineral quality
upon water users, there are indirect economic effects upon the regional
-------
330
economy. These indirect effects result from the close interdependence
of one industry to another, which causes direct effects on one industry
to produce indirect effects on another. The first step in evaluating
this impact was to investigate the structure of the economy. An input-
output, or transactions, table was constructed to identify the flow of
goods and services between groups of industries or sectors. Once con-
structed, the transactions table became a series of linear simultaneous
equations that could be solved with a high-speed digital computer utili-
zing methods of matrix algebra. Direct changes in the economic structure
caused by salinity were thereby translated into indirect, or "multiplier,"
effects to arrive at the total regional economic impact associated with
mineral quality degradation. A final step of the analysis was to
determine the sensitivity of the calculations to some of the underlying
assumptions which were made. A more detailed discussion of the methods
used in calculating the total regional economic impact and the results
obtained are presented in Chapter V.
-------
331
4
CHAPTER II. EFFECTS OF SALINITY ON BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER
Water polluting substances have been traditionally classified in
relation to their degradability, principally by biological and bacteri-
ological processes. Biochemical oxygen demand, coliform density, organic
content, and nutrient concentrations are classic pollutant properties
that are degradable and subject to natural or man-induced biological
treatment. Some pollutants such as synthetic detergents, certain classes
of pesticides, or other organic substances are only slightly degradable.
A large class of substances, primarily the inorganic or complex organic
chemicals, exists that is non-degradable or conservative. Since inorganic
chemicals are not degraded by the usual stream purification processes,
the concentrations typically increase with each water use as the material
moves downstream. In the Colorado River Basin the mineral constituents
of total dissolved solids are of prime importance in the class of non-
degradable or conservative substances.
The effect of polluting substances is generally discussed in terms
of their impact upon water uses. In the case of salinity two- general
categories of water uses should be distinguished: consumptive and non-
consumptive. The former includes agricultural uses, such as irrigation
and livestock watering, as well as municipal and industrial uses. The
latter comprises such uses as hydroelectric power generation, navigation,
water-oriented recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, ground water
recharge, silt control, and general water quality control. The division
obviously arises from the fact that consumptive uses remove water from
the system, whereas the non-consumptive uses utilize water in situ. In
-------
332
the following two sections the affected uses in these two categories are
discussed in detail.
CONSUMPTIVE USES
Municipal
The use of water for domestic purposes is generally considered to
be the highest beneficial use. Standards for drinking water utilized
by carriers subject to the Federal Quarantine Regulations have been
established and revised by the United States Public Health Service since
1914, the latest being issued in 1962-.^' These standards have been
adopted by most states for all public water supplies.
Included in these standards are limits for certain inorganic mate-
rials which are mandatory in some cases and recommended in other cases.
The level of total hardness in a water supply is of primary interest in
assessing water quality effects on domestic use. A single criterion for
maximum hardness is not recommended for public supplies by the U. S.
Public Health Service since public acceptance varies from community to
community and is related to the normal levels for a particular community.
However, other publications do contain numerous recommendations for de-
sirable levels of hardness in public water supplies. A number of these
recommendations are summarized in "Water Quality Criteria."'2/ Also,
according to Sawyer'^' waters are normally classified in terms of degree
of hardness as follows:
0-75 mg/1 Soft
75 - 150 mg/1 Moderately Hard
150 - 300 mg/1 Hard
300 Up Very Hard
Using these criteria, all raw water supplies derived from the Colorado
River at or below Lake Mead would be classified as "very hard."
-------
333
6
Also of interest in domestic water supplies are the levels of total
dissolved solids. The Public Health Service^ ' recommends a limit of
500 mg/1 provided that more suitable supplies are not or cannot be made
available. A previous issuance of the Drinking Water Standards had
permitted a TDS concentration of 1,000 mg/1 in the absence of an alter-
nate source, but this provision is not included in the present Public.
Health Service standards. Increases in the concentration of hardness
and salinity can cause damages to municipal water users in five ways
discussed in the following sections.
Potable Water Supply. In extreme cases mineralization may render
a public water supply unfit or highly undesirable for human consumption.
One example of this situation within the Colorado River Basin is the
experience at Yuma, Arizona. The penalty costs in this situation could
include: (1) the cost of obtaining water rights and developing a new
water supply, (2) losses associated with abandoning the existing supply
and appanages, and (3) differences in operation and maintenance costs
between the old and new water supply facilities.
Water Softening. In communities where water softening is practiced,
either by municipal softening or invidivual home water softeners, harder
water increases the cost of treatment. Resulting increments of treat-
ment costs can be related to anticipated increases in the hardness of
the water supply.
Soap and Detergent Consumption. Communities that have hard water
supplies and do not elect to provide softening nevertheless incur penalty
costs in the form of higher expenditures for soap, synthetic detergents,
and softening additives. Such costs are normally greater than would be
-------
334
incurred in a central softening treatment plant. In areas where portions
of the population receive softened water and others do not, penalty
costs incurred from hardness are the sum of two items: (1) the opera-
tion and maintenance of softening equipment for the portion of the
population that benefits by such treatment, and (2) the additional cost
of soap and detergents incurred by the remainder of the community.
Corrosion and Scaling of Metal Water Pipes and Fittings. The cor-
rosiveness of water is governed by many factors such as temperature;
presence of dissolved gasses, acids, and mineral salts; and electro-
chemical properties of the materials utilized. No simple relationship
exists between the levels of mineral salts present and corrosiveness.
Therefore, translation of such a relationship into tangible economic
penalty costs is difficult and was not utilized in this study. Scaling,
as evidenced in home hot-water systems such as water heaters, is also
difficult to assess in terms of monetary values.
Accelerated Fabric Wear. Laundering with hard water has been stated
to be a factor in the hastening of wear of clothing and other textile
products. One reference^) cites a 25-percent faster rate of wear with
hard water than with soft. However, the relationship of fractional
changes in hardness to fabric wear is difficult to quantify and, for
this reason, penalty costs were not assessed for this factor.
Industrial
The effect of water quality on industrial uses is difficult to
generalize because of the varied purposes to which industry puts water.
A supply that meets Drinking Water Standards is often acceptable, but
some industries require even better quality water. For example, the
-------
335
8
confectionery trade and certain paper-making and textile processes
require water containing not over 200 parts per million (ppm) of dis-
solved solids and an iron content of 0.1 - 1.0 ppm. This is considerably
better than domestic quality water.
Industrial water use may be classified by purpose as cooling, boiler
feed, process, or general purpose. Data in a 1964 publication by the
State of California Department of Water Resources^) indicate that the
relative magnitudes of these uses in California were: (1) cooling -
57 percent, (2) boiler feed - nine percent, (3) process - 23 percent,
and (4) general purpose - nine percent. These relative percentages apply
to the State of California as a whole and do not reflect the effects of
recirculation of water which is quite significant in that state, espe-
cially for cooling and boiler feed operations.
When the raw water supply does not meet quality criteria for the
various purposes described above, industry uses two general types of
treatment approaches: external treatment or internal treatment. External
treatment is used when better quality water is required for nearly every
purpose for which water is to be used. Such methods include water sof-
tening, evaporation, and demineralization. Internal treatment, on the
other hand, is used to improve quality for a particular purpose such as
process water. This type of treatment includes such operations as
chromate addition and chlorination in cooling systems for control of
corrosion and slime. In some cases, economic considerations lead to a
combination of the two treatment approaches.
-------
336
Fundamental processes, water quality criteria, treatment methods,
and associated penalty cost considerations for the four major industrial
water uses are summarized in the following section.
Boiler Feed Water. Quality of boiler feed water is a significant
factor in the (1) rate of scale formation on heating surfaces, (2) degree
of corrosion to the system, and (3) quality of produced steam. Three
quality parameters - total dissolved solids, alkalinity, and hardness -
are most important, their relative significance being dependent upon the
system's operating temperature and pressure.
For convenience and uniformity, the operating temperatures of
systems are translated into equivalent pressures. Recommendations for
quality requirements vary widely; one such recommendation is that of
the American Boiler and Affiliated Industries shown in Table 1.
Table 1. American Boiler and Affiliated Industries' Limits for Boiler
Water Quality Concentrations
Pressure at Outlet of
Steam Generating Unit
(Ibs. per sq. in.)
0 - 300
301 - 450
451 - 600
601 - 750
751 - 900
901 - 1000
1001 - 1500
1501 - 2000
2001 and higher
Total
Solids
(ppm)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1250
1000
750
500
in Units with a
Total
Alkalinity
-. (ppm)
700
600
500
400
300
250
200
150
100
Steam DrumS./
Suspended
Solids
(ppm)
300
250
150
100
60
40
20
10
5
a/ Nordel, Eskel, "Water Treatment for Industrial and Other Uses,"
Second Edition, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1961,
p. 273.. (Reference No. 6)
-------
337
10
Another recommendation for boiler feed water quality requirements
was formulated by the Committee on Water Quality Tolerances for Industrial
Uses, NEWWA as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Suggested Limits of Tolerance for
Boiler Feed Waters
(From Progress Report of the Committee on Water Quality
Tolerances for Industrial Uses, NEWWA) (1959)
(units are in mg/1 except as otherwise noted)
Pressure (psi) 0-150 150-250 250-400 Over 400
Turbidity
Color
Oxygen consumed
Dissolved oxygen**
Hydrogen sulfide*
Total hardness (CaC03)
Sulfate-carbonate ratio
(ASME)
(Na2S04:Na2C03)
Aluminum oxide
Silica ---
Bicarbonate**
Carbonate
Hydroxide
Total solids^/
pH value (Min.)
20
80
15
2. OS/
5
80
1:1
5
40
50
200
50
3000-500
8.0
10
40
10
0.2S/
3
40
2:1
0.5
20
30
100
40
2500-500
8.4
5
5
4
0.0
0
10
3:1
0.05
5
5
40
30
1500-100
9.0
1
2
3
0.0
0
2
3-1
0.01
1
0
20
15
50
9.6
* Except when odor in live steam would be objectionable.
**Limits applicable only to feed water entering boiler, not to original
water supply.
a/Given as ml per liter. Multiply by 0.70 for ppm.
b_/Depends on design of boiler.
For the Project's analysis an operating tolerance of 3,500 mg/1 was
selected because: (1) most boilers in the Colorado River Basin appear
to be operated in the lower pressure ranges, (2) the American Boiler
Manufacturer's Association stipulates a limit of 3,500 mg/1 for boilers
operating at 300 psi or less in its standard guarantee of steam purity.!/,
_!/ Betz Handbook of Industrial Water Conditioning, Betz Laboratories,
Inc., Philadelphia, 1962, p. 211. (Reference No. 7)
-------
338
11
and (3) the relatively high tolerance provided a somewhat conservative
estimate of boiler feed water penalties.
For highly mineralized water supplies, some form of softening is
mandatory before use as a boiler feed water. While the costs of water
softening are generally proportional to the amount of hardness removed,
the cost of evaporation to produce distilled water is essentially
independent of the level of mineral constituents in the raw water supply.
For units operating at pressure levels where boiler feed water soften-
ing by more conventional means is appropriate, the penalty costs due
to salinity increases can be partially assessed in terms of increased
treatment costs. Such an approach is less readily applicable to high-
pressure boilers since the cost of obtaining the necessary quality by
distillation or evaporation has little or no dependence on influent
quality. Raw water quality may, however, affect the cost of pre-treatment
before evaporation.
In order to maintain a level of total dissolved solids in the boiler
system that can be tolerated, some of the concentrated boiler water must
be removed from the system. This process of solids removal by either
continually or intermittently drawing off a portion of the circulating
water is known as "blowdown." The quality of the boiler feed water
introduced to the system in relation to the concentration that can be
tolerated within the system determines the amount of blowdown required.
Cooling Water. Cooling water is used for a variety of purposes,
including the cooling of condensers, internal combustion engines, and
compressors. Also included would be water used in air conditioners as
well as a variety of other cooling processes.
-------
339
12
Although the intake water quality requirements and the extent of
water treatment depend in large measure on the particular system employed,
there are some generally desirable characteristics of an intake water.
The following characteristics are of great significance: low, relatively
constant temperature; non-corrosiveness; non-slime forming; non-scaling.
The following specific limits on the concentration of quality parameters
are presented in the manual, "Water. Quality and Treatment."(8)
Turbidity 50 mg/1
Hardness 50 mg/1
Iron 0.5 mg/1
Manganese 0.5 mg/1
Iron and Manganese 0.5 mg/1
Information on industrial cooling water practice available to the Pro-
ject indicates that, within the Lower Colorado and Southern California
areas, the concentration of total dissolved solids in cooling water
systems is normally held at a level of 2,000 mg/1. In addition, the
publication, "Water Quality Criteria,"(2) states:
"Among the constituents of natural water that may
prove detrimental to its use for cooling purposes
are hardness, suspended solids, dissolved gasses,
acids, oil, and other organic compounds and slime-
forming organisms."
Although cooling water systems are subject to the same type of
problems that affect boiler water systems (e.g., scale formation and
corrosion), each type of system experiences those problems to a different
degree. Once-through systems have fewer scale-buildup problems than
either open-recirculating or closed-recirculating systems. A closed
system utilizes a heat-excnanging mechanism rather than an evaporative
device such as a cooling tower to remove excess heat in the system.
Corrosion problems in open-recirculating systems are particularly acute
-------
3^0
13
due to the continuous saturation of circulating water with oxygen upon
passage through the cooling tower.
Penalty costs for quality degradation are incurred in additional
treatment costs and greater makeup water requirements. Calcium carbonate
scaling is often controlled by anti-nucleating agents which increase
the solubility of calcium carbonate. The use of such agents is limited
insofar as it is necessary to limit the mineral concentration by means
of blowdown. Often the relative costs of makeup water and treatment
methods dictate the magnitude of blowdown. Corrosion prevention is
frequently accomplished by corrosion inhibitors like polyphosphates.
Process Water. Process water is used in preparation of the products
of industry. This water is either incorporated directly in the finished
product, such as in bottled beverages and canned foods, or used in
transporting, washing, mixing, dissolving, concentrating, or cooking
operations. As might be expected, the water quality requirements vary
widely according to type of use and, in some instances as previously
noted, they are more exacting than for domestic water supply. In such
cases the expense of treating a public water supply to conform to par-
ticular industrial needs is accepted as a normal business expense. In
view of the great variety of special qualities needed in industrial
process waters, it is not feasible to make a comprehensive penalty cost
analysis. However, a summary of the water quality tolerance for indus-
trial process water uses is shown in Table 3.
General Purpose Water. General purpose water is used by industry
for plant personnel needs (drinking water, sanitation), general cleaning,
lawn sprinkling, and fire protection. While drinking water can be
-------
Table 3. Water Quality Tolerance for Industrial Process
Industry or Use
Baking
Brewing
Light Beer
Dark Beer
Canning
Legumes
General
Carbonated Beverages
Confectionery
Food: General
Ice
Laundering
Plastics, clear, uncolored
Paper and Pulp
Groundwood
Kraft Pulp
Soda and Sulfide
High-grade Light Papers
Rayon (Vicose)
Pulp Production
Manufacture
(Allowable limits in parts per million)
Hardness
Turbidity Color aa CaCCh
10 10
10
10
10 25-72
10
2 10 250
10
5 5 5D
50
2 2
50 20 180
25 15 100
15 10 100
5 5 50
Iron*/
as Fe
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.02
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
Manganese Total Alkalinity Odor Hydrogen
as Mn Solids as CaCOt Taste Sulfide
0.2 Low 0.2 P.
0.1 500 75 Low 0.2 P.
0.1 1,000 150 Low 0.2 P.
0.2 Low 1 P.
0.2 Low 1 P.
0.2 850 50-100 Low 0.2 P.
0.2 100 Low 0.2 P.
0.2 Low P.
0.2 Low P.
0.2
200.0 200
0.5 No
0.1 300
0.05 200
0.05 200
0.3
55
0.05
0.0
0.03
0.0
100 Total 50;
Hydroxide 3
Other Requirements0-'
P. NaCl less than 275 ppm
(pH 6.5 - 7.0)
P. NaCl less than 275 ppm
(pH 7.0 or more)
P. Organic color plus oxygen
consumed less than 10 ppm
P. pH above 7.0 for hard candy
P.
P. S102 less than 10 ppm
No grit, corrosivenesfl
Al.O. less than 8 ppm,
Si02 less than 25 ppm,
Cu less than 5 ppm
pH 7.8 to 8.3
(-• OJ
*> *r
-------
Industry or Use
Tanning
Textiles: General
Dyeing
Wool Scouring
Cotton Bandage
A*l* At
Turbidity
20
5
5
5
Color
10-100
20
5-20
70
5
(Allowable
limits
Hardness Ironk/ Manganese
as CaCOj as Fe as Mn
50-135 0.2
0.25
0.25
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.25
0.25
1.0
0.2
in parts per million)
Total Alkalinity
Solids as CaCCh
Total 135;
Hydroxide 8
200
Odor Hydrogen
Taste Suit ide
Low
Other Requirements0-
&/
Constant composition
Residual alumina less than
0.5 ppm
a/ Anonymous, "Progress Report of Committee on Quality Tolerance of Water for Industrial Uses," Journal New England Water Works Association,
Volume 54, 1940, p. 271. (Reference No. 9)
b/ Limit given applies to both iron alone and the sum of iron and manganese.
c/ "P" indicates that potable water conforming to U. S. Public Health Service standards is necessary.
-tr
ro
-------
343
16
impaired or rendered unusable by high salinity concentrations, the
quantity involved, in comparison to that used elsewhere in the industrial
plant, is so small that any penalty costs associated with salinity in-
creases would not be significant.
Hot wash water, which is used in lavatories and plant laundries,
may need to be softened but the same penalty cost considerations apply
as for municipal and domestic water previously discussed and the quan-
tity of water involved is comparatively insignificant. Increases in
salinity and hardness have little effect on water used for general
cleaning, lawn sprinkling, and fire protection.
Irrigation
Several characteristics of water are important in relation to its
use as an irrigation supply. These characteristics include: (1) the
total concentration of soluble salts, (2) the relative proportion of
sodium to other cations, (3) the concentrations of boron or other toxic
elements, and (4) under certain conditions, the bicarbonate concentration
as related to the concentration of calcium plus magnesium. A discussion
of each of these characteristics follows and is based on Handbook
of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, unless otherwise indicated.
The concentration of soluble salts in irrigation water is ex-
pressed either in terms of specific electrical conductance, which is
a measure of concentration of ions per unit of water, or in terms of
total dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter of water. The main
adverse effect of a high salt content in irrigation water is in re-
ducing osmotic action, and thereby reducing the uptake of water by
plants. Some other effects involve the direct chemical effects upon
-------
17
metabolic reactions of plants (toxic effects), and the indirect effects
of changes in soil structure, permeability, and aeration.^ '
It is difficult to set precise salinity limits for irrigation water
for several reasons, including: (1) plants vary widely in their toler-
ance to salinity and to specific constituents, (2) soil types, climate
conditions, and irrigation practices influence the reactions- of a crop
to salt constituents, and (3) the interrelationships between constituents
may be highly significant. Although absolute limits cannot be set for
irrigation water, the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Salinity Labora-
tory has established some general classifications which are shown in
Table 4.
Table 4. Classification of Irrigation Water as to Salinity Hazard
Conductivity
Classification micromhos/cm
Low 10° - 25°
Medium 250 - 750
High 750 - 2250
Very High > 225°
Salts dissolved in irrigation water tend to accumulate in the soil
on which they are applied. This accumulation eventually causes the soil
to become too saline to support plant life. Therefore, in order to main-
tain productivity, excess water must be applied to wash out an amount of
salt equal to the amount contained in the applied water. The application
of excess water, termed the leaching requirement, is directed at main-
taining a salt balance within the plant root zone.
In humid climates, leaching is accomplished by the excess of
percolating rain and snow-water. In arid climates there is no such
-------
18
natural excess, and the leaching must be accomplished by application
of irrigation water in excess of the normal crop growth requirements.
The amount of irrigation water needed for leaching increases in
proportion to the salinity concentration of the applied irrigation water.
Any increase in the salinity of an irrigation water supply therefore
results in an economic penalty since more water is required for equiva-
lent service. This is a large, although sometimes unrecognized, economic
loss caused by degraded irrigation water.
Combating the effects of saline irrigation water by leaching assumes
that the soil will accept an increase in the amount of irrigation water
applied. For the porous soils of the arid or semi-arid areas of the
Southwest, this assumption is generally valid.
There are two alternative courses an irrigation water user may
follow when confronted with degradation in the quality of his water
supply: (1) apply more water to the fields and thereby maintain crop
yields, or (2) maintain present water use and thereby suffer a decrease
in crop yields. Obviously, there are disadvantages in doing either.
If additional water necessary for leaching is not available, the
irrigator will have to either: (1) irrigate the same acreage and suffer
a decrease in crop yields, or (2) take some acreage out of production
and use the water previously applied to this acreage to leach the re-
maining acreage in order to maintain crop yields. Either alternative
results in an economic loss to the water user, comparable to that
suffered when additional water is available for leaching.
Where additional water is available for leaching several other
associated economic detriments are incurred. As the applied irrigation
-------
346
19
water becomes more saline, greater and greater volumes of water are
needed for leaching to maintain the salt concentration in the plant
root zone at a satisfactory level. In some areas, the application of
greater volumes of water may make it necessary to install artificial
drainage facilities, such as open drains or buried tile drains. Such
drainage facilities can represent a substantial cost to the irrigator.
Water percolating through the plant root zone will remove applied
fertilizers as well as mineral salts. The nitrate fertilizers are
especially susceptible to loss this way because of their high solu-
bility. As additional water is applied for leaching, an additional
amount of fertilizer must be applied to the land to offset the loss of
fertilizer dissolved by the additional leaching water.
Finally, when additional water has to be applied for leaching pur-
poses, more frequent applications of water are normally required causing
increased labor costs.
The second characteristic of irrigation water that must be con-
sidered is the relative proportion of sodium to other cations. The
alkali hazard involved in using irrigation water is determined by the
absolute and relative concentrations of cations in the water. Soluble
inorganic constituents in irrigation water react with soils as ions
rather than as molecules. Calcium and magnesium in proper proportions
maintain soil in good condition of tilth and permeability. The opposite
is true if sodium predominates. In the soils of arid and semi-arid
regions, calcium and magnesium are the major cations held in the soil
in exchange form. Under normal use these soils have a favorable physi-
cal condition for root and water percolation. In situations where
-------
20
sodium is predominant, the soil pores begin to seal resulting in a
decrease in permeability.
It is easier for calcium to replace sodium in the exchange complex
than vice versa. Unless the sodium of the soil solution is in con-
siderable excess of the calcium no reaction will occur. The soil
solution is always more concentrated than the applied irrigation water.
If the amount of magnesium is high in proportion to the total replace-
able cations of the soil, more sodium will be absorbed than if calcium
is the only divalent cation present.
The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) has been developed to express the
sodium hazard in irrigation water. The ratio expresses the relative
activity of sodium ions in the exchange reaction with ions in the soil.
The ratio is defined by the following equation:
SAR = Na+
(Ca
2
• I. II
where Na , Ca , and Mg represent the concentrations in milliequiva-
lents per liter of the respective ions. The SAR, in other words, is
related to the adsorption of sodium by the soil.
The Salinity Laboratory has set up classifications of irrigation
water in regard to the sodium hazard. The sodium hazard varies with
the salinity concentration of the irrigation water. The classifications
are shown in Figure 1.
Low sodium water can be used without much danger of development of
harmful levels of sodium. However, some sodium sensitive crops such
as stone fruit trees and avocados may be injured. An appreciable sodium
hazard may develop in fine textured soils with the use of medium sodium
-------
21
348
100
1 3 45471 1000 2 ) 4 5000
JO-
24-
24 -
— JO -(
— li-
o
S u-
10 -
I -
*-
4 -
i .
I
C1-S4
C1-S3
C1-S1
C1-S1
C1-S4
CI-SJ
C2-S2
C2-S1
C4-S4
100 2SO 7SO 22SO
CONDUCTIVITY- •IC»OB«0$/C« ( 1C i id6) AT 25' c
\
10*
MEDIUM
HIGH
VEIY NIGH
SALINITY HAZARD
Not* : Reproduction from U S Department of Agriculture.
U. 5. S a I i n t y Laboratory. '' Saline and Alkali Soils. '
Agriculture Handbook No 6O. 1954. Figure
Figure I. Diagram Tor the Classification of Irrigation Waters
-------
3*9
22
water, especially under low leaching conditions. The presence of gypsum
in the soil is helpful. High sodium water may produce harmful effects
in most soils and will require special soil management such as good
drainage, high leaching, and addition of organic matter. A very high
sodium water is generally not satisfactory for irrigation except at low
or medium salinity concentrations, where the solution of calcium from
the soil or the use of gypsum or other additives make the use of such
water feasible.
A third characteristic of irrigation water that must be considered
is the boron concentration. This element is present in most natural
waters with concentrations varying from traces to several milligrams
per liter. Boron is essential to plant growth but is very toxic at
concentrations only slightly above optimum. Eaton—' found that many
plants made normal growth in sand cultures with a trace of boron, but
injury often occurred with cultures containing one mg/1.
In waters containing high concentrations of bicarbonate ion, as
the soil solution becomes more concentrated there is a greater tendency
for calcium and magnesium to precipitate as carbonates. This reaction
-does not usually go to completion, but it may go far enough to cause a
decrease in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium with an increase
in the relative proportion of sodium.
Eaton's work2-/ resulted further in classification of waters with
regard to the bicarbonate ion hazard using the "residual sodium carbonate"
_!/ Eaton, F. M., "Deficiency, Toxicity and Accumulation of Boron in
Plants," Journal Agricultural Research. Volume 69, Illustration
1944, pp. 237-277. (Reference No. 12)
2/ Eaton, F. M., "Significance of Carbonates in Irrigation Waters,"
Soil Science. Volume 69, 1950, pp. 123-133. (Reference No. 13)
-------
23
concept. This classification is shown in Table 5. Waters classified
as marginal may be used if good management is practiced.
In appraising the quality of irrigation water, the salinity hazard
should be considered first, followed by the alkali hazard. Next, con-
sideration should be given to boron or other possible toxic elements,
followed by consideration of the bicarbonate ion concentration.
Table 5. Classification of Irrigation Water as to Bicarbonate
Ion Hazard
Residual sodium
carbonate in
Classification milliequivalents
Probably safe < 1.25
Marginal 1-25 - 2.5
Not suitable > 2 .5
Livestock
Information on livestock tolerance to mineralized water was
dervied from the "Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria"
published by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S.
Department of the Interior. (14) The following discussion of the effect
of total dissolved solids on livestock is also based on "Water Quality
Criteria"(2) published by the California Water Quality Control Board.
It has been assumed that water safe for human use is also safe for
livestock, and it has been recommended that such water be used for best
stock production. However, it appears that stock animals have higher
tolerances than humans, although they may differ in tolerance to par-
ticular substances. The use of highly mineralized water may result in
physiological disturbances such as gastrointestinal symptoms and death.
In animals, lactation and reproduction can be affected by use of water
of high concentrations of unfavorable minerals. Milk and egg production
350
-------
351
24
also may be reduced or interrupted. Animals can adjust, within limits,
to consumption of saline water that at first they refuse to drink. How-
ever, a sudden change from good water to highly saline water can cause
acute salt poisoning and rapid death. The salt tolerance of an animal
depends upon several factors including species, age, physiological con-
dition, season of the year, diet, and the quality and quantity of salts
present. Officials of the Department of Agriculture and the government
chemical laboratories of Western Australia have established threshold
concentrations for livestock, water in Western Australia as shown in
Table 6.
The effect of water containing heavy concentrations of chlorides,
sulfates, carbonates, bicarbonates, sodium, calcium, and/or magnesium
is due to the total salts present rather than the toxic effect of any
one constituent. Alkali salts are more harmful than neutral salts,
sulfates more harmful than chlorides, and magnesium chloride more harm-
ful than calcium or sodium chloride. Some of the states have set
classifications for stock water, as shown in Table 7. Except for short
reaches of some tributary streams, the waters of the Colorado River
Basin would fall within the highest quality classification.
Some particular salts are toxic to animals, even in very low con-
centrations. Compounds causing trouble in water are fluorides, nitrates,
and salts of selenium and molybdenum. The effect of fluoride on animals
is similar to that for humans, and 1.0 mg/1 is the threshold value below
which no harm results. Nitrates in livestock water have been harmful
in lower concentrations than mixtures of chlorides and sulfates of
alkaline metals. When the salinity concentration of livestock water
-------
352
25
Table 6. Safe Upper Limits of Salinity Concentrations Recommended for
Livestock Water in Western Australia
Animal
Poultry
Pigs
Horses
Cattle, dairy
Cattle, beef
Adult dry sheep
Threshold Salinity
Concentration in mg/1
2,860
4,290
6,435
7,150
10,000
12,900
Table 7. Salinity Classifications for Livestock Water Set by
Several States
State
Montana
Classification and Concentration in mg/1
good
0-2500
South Dakota excellent
0-1000
fair poor
2500-3500 3500-4500
good satisfactory
1000-4000 4000-7000
unfit
> 4500
unsatisfactory
> 7000
Colorado
acceptable
0-2500
-------
353
26
exceeds 570 to 1,000 mg/1, the nitrate concentration should be watched
carefully. The principal hazard of molybdenum and selenium results
from its uptake in pasture grasses and concentration in the plant tissues.
If copper is fed to cattle in some form along with molybdenum, the
toxicity of the molybdenum appears to be reduced. The concentration of
these minor elements in waters of the Colorado River and tributaries
are generally below the threshold values. In recent years the fluoride
concentrations at two stations on the Gila River were well above the
threshold value, being as high as 4.2 mg/1. These two stations are the
Gila River below Gillespie Dam and the Gila River at Kelvin, Arizona.
NON-CONSUMPTIVE USES
Non-consumptive uses of water include hydroelectric power generation,
navigation, water-oriented recreation, fish and wildlife, silt control,
general water quality control, and ground water recharge. Detriments
to navigation and power generation certainly should be insignificant for
the projected £Lse in salinity (from about 800 to 1,200 parts per million
at Imperial Dam). Similarly, little or no detrimental effect can be
envisaged on native fauna, water sports, recreation and esthetic enjoy-
ment. Although minor detrimental effects are expected for two categories
of non-consumptive use--(l) fish and wildlife, and (2) ground water re-
charge—these effects are not expected to have significant economic
impact on the Basin for the anticipated range of salinity concentrations.
Fish and Aquatic Life
Fish and aquatic life are affected by dissolved substances in two
basic ways:
-------
(1) Substances such as aluminum, iron, manganese, zinc, and copper
can be toxic to some species of fish in very low concentrations;
(2) Other substances exert lethal osmotic pressures at high con-
centrations. A pure solution of NaCl is lethal to fresh-water
fish at concentrations in excess of 7,000 ppm, the concentration
at which the fish's osmotic blood pressure (six atmospheres) is
exceeded.
Criteria for the required quality of fresh water supply that will
support a good mixed fish population were developed by Ellis, who proposed
the following limits-/15^
1. Dissolved oxygen, not less than 5 mg/1;
2. pH, approximately 6.7 to 8.6, with an extreme range of 6.3
to 9.0;
3. Specific conductance at 25° C, 150 to 500 mho X 10"6, with a
maximum of 1,000 to 2,000 mho X 10'6 permissible for streams
in western alkaline areas;
4. Free carbon dioxide, not over 3 cc per liter;
5. Ammonia, not over 1.5 mg/1;
6. Suspended solids such that the millionth intensity level for
light penetration will not be less than 5 meters.
In the absence of toxic substances or pollutants, the water described
above is favorable, not merely sublethal, for a mixed warm-water fish
population and its food organisms. It must not, however, be assumed
that fish are not found or cannot survive in waters with concentrations
beyond these limits.
-------
355
28
Measures of total dissolved solids, whether in terms of parts per
million, conductivity, or osmotic pressure equivalents, are inadequate
as an index of toxicity. Therefore, biossay techniques are used to
determine the degree of dilution essential for the safe disposal of
brines and other complex wastes which are high in dissolved solids.
After a review of available biological data and a limited amount
of field investigations, it can be concluded that the expected future
increases in salinity per se within the Colorado River Basin will have
very little or no effect on the fish and aquatic life. However, the
Salton Sea of Southern California, whose inflow is originally derived
from the Colorado River, is facing possible extinction to its fish and
aquatic life if present trends in salinity increases prevail into the
future. Present salinity of the sea is about 33,000 mg/1, or nearly
that of sea water. Chloride concentrations approximate 14,000 mg/1.
It has been estimated^16) that salinity will increase about 400 mg/1
per year. Other researchers have indicated that salinity can be expected
to increase at more rapid rates. At the rate of 400 mg/1 per year the
salinity of the sea will reach 40,000 mg/1 in 1975 and 50,000 mg/1 in
the year 2000. While the total effects of such salinity levels on the
biota of the sea is not definitely known, the State of California
Department of Fish and Game believe that the food chain will be seriously
affected and possibly destroyed sometime around 1980-1990. The problems
of the Salton Sea and possible solutions are currently being considered
by several groups.
-------
29 356
Ground Water Recharge
Underground basins are a major source of water supply in three of
the seven Colorado River Basin states. The ground water supply pro-
portion of the total water supply in the States of Arizona, California,
and New Mexico is 69 percent, 36 percent, and 58 percent, respectively.
In Southern California ground water comprises about 50 percent of the
total supply, or approximately 1,400,000 acre-feet per year, and 300,000
to 400,000 acre-feet of this amount is in excess of the estimated safe
yield from natural recharge.
Imported water has a large and growing role in the replenishment
of ground water basins in Southern California. This replenishment is
the intentional or managed recharge, and not the adventitious recharge
accomplished by disposal of waste water on land. The amount of Colorado
River water used for direct recharge of ground water basins in Los
Angeles and Orange counties was 346,000 acre-feet in 1962-63 and 300,000
acre-feet in 1963-64. The use of Colorado River water for this purpose
is declining because of the growing demand for domestic and industrial
water. Leading authorities in the water resources management field in
California foresee a continual decline in the amount of Colorado River
water available for recharge. If and when the Central Arizona Project
is completed, Colorado River water will probably not be available for
direct recharge in California because all of the Metropolitan Water
District entitlement will be needed for municipal and industrial uses.
The Central Arizona Project planning documents indicate that im-
ported Colorado River water will not be used for direct replenishment.
It is anticipated that the Project will provide a net delivery of
-------
357
30
1,020,000 acre-feet annually. Municipal and industrial users will con-
sume approximately 250,000 acre-feet of this net delivery, and the
remainder will be used for supplemental irrigation. A fraction of this
amount will certainly replenish ground water basins by percolation, but
this fraction will contain nearly all of the dissolved salts in the
imported water, plus increments added in a cycle of municipal, indus-
trial or agricultural use.
The effects of the quality of recharge water upon a ground water
body have been recognized only in recent years. In the operation of
any ground water reservoir large amounts of mineral salts may be brought
in by tributary inflow; both surface and underground. As a result of
human activities other salts are brought into the area in the form of
agricultural chemicals, inorganic fertilizers, and numerous chemicals
of commerce. A considerable portion of these latter forms of salt
may percolate through the upper soil horizon to the ground water.
Since the ground water body is of finite size, it is evident that
a stable condition of quality requires salts to be removed in the same
amount that enter the Basin. This condition is known as salt balance.
In nature it is achieved by removal of the dissolved salts in sub-
surface outflow or in rising ground water (springs) which contribute
to surface streams. In developed areas the process may be modified
considerably by well pumping, import or export of water, outfall sewers,
etc., but the principle is unchanged.
The process can be expressed mathematically for an idealized case
by the simple relation,
-if*- . I - 0
dt
-------
358
31
where x = the total weight of dissolved salts in a ground water
basin at any time £,
I = the rate of inflow or addition of salts
0 = rate of outflow of salts.
If the natural balance is altered by the importation of water con-
taining dissolved mineral salts, the outflow of salts must be increased;
otherwise, water quality will deteriorate. The increased burden of
salts can be removed in three ways: (1) by an increased outflow of
water of unchanged salinity concentration, (2) by an unchanged outflow
of water with an increased proportion of dissolved salts, or (3) by some
condition intermediate between these two.
If the quality of the imported water becomes degraded in time,
i.e. attains a higher salinity, it is apparent that provision must be
made for removal of the new burden of salt. A degradation of the im-
ported source engenders two alternative economic penalties. Either more
water must be wasted in outflow from the Basin in order to maintain a
stable water quality in the underground aquifers, or the salt concentra-
tion in those aquifers will build up, perhaps to the point where the
ground water will become unfit for domestic, industry or agriculture
uses. This is an issue in the proposed Central Arizona Project. A
worsening of the mineral quality of Colorado River water might generate
these undesirable effects: (1) the need for higher outflow, with con-
sequent waste of water and drainage expense, and (2) a salinity in-
crease in the ground water basins in the Project area.
Specific limits on the quality of water for ground water recharge
have rarely been recommended or imposed by regulatory agencies. Numerous
-------
359
32
factors must be taken into consideration in the establishment of such
limits including: (1) the quality of the recharge waters, (2) a reason-
able allowance for effects of water use in their area of origin, (3) the
existing quality of water in the aquifers to be replenished, and (4) the
beneficial uses of water within the overlying areas.
In the late 1950's a State of California regulatory agency^17'
established mineral quality objectives for the underground and surface
water outflows in the Bunker Hill Basin and in the Santa Ana River.
These objectives were designed to preserve the quality of those waters
for replenishment of downstream ground water basins. The limiting values
adopted are shown in Table 8 .
In 1955 a board of consultants to the California Department of
Water Resources recommended chemical and physical quality standards
for water which was to be exported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta to Southern California.(18) Major uses of the exported water
included ground water replenishment, which was undoubtedly an influential
factor in determining the quality limits which are shown in Table 9.
The results of a water resources study(^) made several years ago
by the Department of Water Resources of the State of California illus-
trate the importance water quality may have in ground water recharge.
An analysis was made of the effects of differences in quality between
two alternative replenishment supplies for certain ground water basins
in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The economic penalty in-
curred by using the poorer of the two sources was estimated to be about
four million dollars annually.
-------
360
33
Basin and
the Santa Ana River
in California
Maximum Tolerable Concentration
fparts per million)
Constituent
Total dissolved solids
Total hardness as CaC03
Chloride
Bicarbonate
Bunker
Hill Unit
500
300
60
300
Santa Ana
River at Prado
800
400
175
320
Table 9. Recommended Chemical and Physical Quality Standards for Water
~to~be Exported to Southern California from the
Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta
Item
Total dissolved solids 40° PPm
Electrical conductance @ 25° C 600 micromhos
Hardness as CaC03 16° PPm
507
Sodium percentage J °
„ , u .. 100 ppm
Sulphate
«_n -j 10° PPm
Chloride
•i I-0 PPm
Fluoride
0.5 ppm
Boron
7-°-8-5
Color 10
-------
361
34
The actions cited above serve to show that salinity or mineral
quality is an important consideration in waters used to replenish ground
water reservoirs, and that poor quality of such recharge waters is
likely to engender economic loss. Although methods can be derived to
evaluate such losses, data for such an evaluation are quite limited.
Therefore, no attempt was made to evaluate such effects in the Project's
salinity studies of the Colorado River Basin.
-------
362
35
CHAPTER III - PRESENT AND FUTURE MINERAL QUALITY
PRESENT MINERAL QUALITY
The findings of field studies conducted by the Project to define
present mineral quality and its causes are presented in Appendix A of
the Project's Report entitled "Mineral Water Quality Problem in the
Colorado River Basin." The purpose of this section is to summarize
those findings and to relate them to methods used in the economic
impact analysis
A summary of water quality, as defined by Project field studies
during the period October: 1963, to May, 1966, is shown in Figures 19
through 46 of Appendix A. Although the overall findings of the Project.
studies were substantially identical to the 1956-1958 quality described
above, local discrepancies were noted. Discrepancies of this type are
quite common when two records based upon relatively short-duration
studies are compared The value of short-term studies resides in
refinement of cause-and-effeet relationships; however, long-term records
and analysis must be used to establish average or base qualities.
Average salinity concentrations existing in the Basin streams
during the period from 1956 to 1958 are illustrated by Figure 2
Salinity increases progressively in the main stem of the Colorado from
the headwaters to the mouth. With the exception of a few streams such
as the Price, San Rafael and Dolores Rivers, mineral quality of major
streams in the Upper Basin (upstream from Lees Ferry) is good, averaging
less than 10 tons of dissolved solids per acre foot (T/AF). In the
Lower Basin salinity increases more rapidly, reaching concentrations
-------
COCDRAD
GILA
< 0.5 **•••
0.5- 1,0
1.0 - ». 5
1.5 -
> 2.0
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Woter Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST iM 9*" FHAMCISCO. CALIF
Figure 2. Mean Salinity ComantfOtlons «n the Principal Streams of the Colorado
Rivtr Basin During th« Period 1956-1958
-------
36H
37
exceeding 2-0 T/AF at the Mexican border. Diverse factors, both
natural and man-caused, contribute to this pattern of mineral quality
as described elsewhere in this report,
As discussed later in this chapter, a suitable salinity base was
established to which a comparison of projected quality was made. Since
any record of water quality is a function of changing patterns of water
use and pollution discharge, it was determined that a mathematical
model of the Basin should be constructed to similate long-term mineral
quality The development of the model and the resulting analyses are
described in the section of this chapter entitled, "Methods and
Assumptions Used to Project Mineral Quality " Results of the analyses
based upon the 1942-1961 hydrologic period are summarized in Table 10.
These results, corrected for 1960 condition of water use, are referred
to as present, or 1960, mineral water quality in the remainder of the
report.
AREAS AFFECTED BY MINERAL QUALITY
The greatest impact of mineral quality occurs in the Lower Colorado
Basin and Southern California water service area where water usage is
much greater than in the Upper Basin The relative concentration of
population and irrigation water demands in the Tipper and Lower Basins
are shown in Table 11 It is clear that there is a preponderance of
population and irrigation in the Lower Basin and, consequently, a
greater requirement for water The areas of greatest water use, or the
location of largest water-demand centers, are below Lees Ferry and
comprise the subbasins of the Lower Main Stem (IMS) of the Colorado
with urban territory centered in Las Vegas and Yuma; the Gila Basin,
-------
365
38
Table 10. Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations in the Colorado
River at Selected Stations (I960)
Stream Mile
(Measured from Southern
International Boundary)
716
625
356
200
50
28
Station
Lee Ferry, Arizona
Grand Canyon
Hoover Dam
Parker Dam
Imperial Dam
Yuma, Arizona
Total
Dissolved Solids-^
(Mg/1)
558
631
697
684
759
2,632k/
a/ Results of flow and salt routing model based on 1942-1961 hydrologic
period.
Jb/ Time-weighted mean value for water year 1962, including drainage
from Wellton-Mohawk Project.
-------
39
366
Table 11. Population and Irrigation Water Use in the Colorado
River Basin and Southern California Water Service Area
Area
Upper Basin above Lee Ferry
Lower Basin below Lee Ferry
Little Colorado Subbasin
Gila Subbasin
Lower Main Stem Subbasin
less Imperial County,
California
Southern California Water
Service Area
1960 Population
(1000)
338
106
1,159
236
8,900^
Estimated Deliveries
of Water for Irrigation
(acre-feet per year)
2,800,000^
Lower Basin plus Southern
California Water Service Area 10,401
6,323, 000^
Percent of Total in Upper Basin
Percent of Total in Lower Basin
and Southern California
97
31
69
a/ Based upon an assumed 60 percent irrigation efficiency, a high value,
* and a total estimated consumptive use of 1,685,000 acre-feet See
report of the U. S. Department of the Interior, "Quality of Water,
Colorado River Basin," January 1965, pp. 10-11. (Reference No. 20
b/ Comprises the 1963 population of the Metropolitan Water District plus
August 1963. (Reference No. 21)
-------
367
40
with large populations in Phoenix and Tucson; and the Southern
California (SC) water service area. The latter area covers all of
Southern California lying outside the natural drainage basin of the
Colorado River which is served by water exported from that stream.
It includes parts of Los Angeles and San Diego served by the Metropolitan
Water District (MWD) of Southern California and the Imperial and
Coachella Valley lands and communities which receive water via the All
American Canal.
Present use of Colorado River water in Arizona is limited to land
riparian to, or located only a short distance from the river. The
principal users are the Colorado River Indian Reservation vCRIR)
with consumptive water use in 1960 of about 185,000 A.F. and the several
subdivisions of the Gila and Yuma Projects with consumptive water use
( 22)
in 1960 of about 640,000 A.F. The only sizeable diversion for
urban use is for the city of Yuma, which currently uses about 8,000 A.F.
per year. The Pacific Southwest Water Plan of the Department of the
Interior provides for considerable expansion of irrigation on the CRIR,
with a future water requirement estimated to reach 380,000 A.F. annually
by the year 2000 . These areas are all sensitive to changes in
mineral quality of water at the present time.
The Central Arizona Project (CAP) of the Department of the Interior
will, when completed (probably about 1979), divert a gross volume of
about 1,600,000 A.F. annually from the Colorado River at Lake Havasu.
This diversion will be decreased to 676,000 A.F. annually by the year
2030. Delivery to municipal and industrial users in Phoenix and Tucson
will make up five percent of the diversion and is expected to increase
-------
368
41
to 50 percent in 2030. The remainder of the delivery will be for
agricultural service in the rural areas of Maricopa and Final Counties^23)
These uses, as well as the replenishment of ground water bodies in the
area, will be affected by changes in mineral quality of the Colorado
River supply after 1975 and the associated importation of over one
million tons of salt annually.
Although the principal effects of future degradation in mineral
quality will be experienced in the Lower Basin, two Upper Basin areas
will experience pronounced salinity increases in surface water supplies
because of future economic and water resources developments. These are
the Duchesne Basin in Utah and the upper basin of the San Juan River
above Shiprock, New Mexico.
The first, the Duchesne River Basin located in northeastern Utah,
is made up of portions of Wasatch, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties. Total
irrigated acreage amounts to about 140,000 acres, of which about 62,000
acres is Indian land. According to estimates of the Bureau of Recla-
mation, (20) the average dissolved solids concentration in the Duchesne
River near Randlett, Utah, will rise from a present-modified value of
0.98 T/AF (720 mg/1) to 1.59 T/AF (1170 mg/1) following construction
of the Bonneville and Upalco Units of the Central Utah Project.
Municipal and industrial water supplies are obtained mainly from ground-
water. Thus, the impact of mineralized Colorado River water upon
these users will be practically nil.
The second area in the Upper Colorado Basin, the Upper San Juan
subbasin, comprises all or portions of 22 counties in southern Colorado,
northern New Mexico, and southeastern Utah. Like the first area,
population is sparce and agriculture dominates the economy. Unlike
-------
369
42
the Duchesne area, the gas and petroleum industry has replaced
agriculture in importance in some areas. In the San Juan River near
Bluff, Utah, progressive small increases in salinity are anticipated
following construction of the Navajo, Hammond, and Florida Projects,
and a larger rise under operation of the San Juan-Chama and the Navajo
Indian Irrigation Projects. The maximum increase expected is 0.38 T/AF,
of which the greater part, 0.35 T/AF, would result from consumptive
use and leaching of salts from irrigated lands on the Navajo Reser-
vation. The magnitude of the future water quality change will be too
small to have appreciable effect on the limited amount of irrigated
land downstream of the anticipated increase. The municipal penalty
costs are also insignificant due to the small population and the
relatively low hardness of the water.
Economic analysis of the Duchesne and San Juan areas indicated
that a significant impact of salinity on water uses is not likely to
be incurred by any Basin area unless it possesses the following character-
istics in combination with appreciable future water quality degradation
of the Colorado River: (1) contains large population centers, and/or
(2) has a high level of industrial and irrigated agriculture development.
After studying various areas within the Colorado River Basin and
applying the above criteria, it became fairly obvious that significant
physical and economic impacts were most likely to occur in the Lower
Colorado River Basin and its contiguous water service areas. Three
study areas, as shown in Figure 3, were therefore delineated below
Lees Ferry.
It should be noted that the study area boundaries do not always
-------
43
370
IIEtIN
IDill
IEUII
LEKN
SUIT 11(1 IIIHIIT
ItSII IIIMIIT
sun IHIIIIT
CIHIT MIMtIT
Kill II Illll
Clllllll IIKEI Kill IITEI
IIUITT CIITill riilECT
I.!. IEPIITIERT IF lit IITEIIII
fllllll Illll Plllltlll Clllill Illlllllllllll
iiinittt linn HI FIIICIIII. utir.
Figure 3. Loealion of Salinity Impact Study Areas
-------
371
44
conform to hydrologic basins. Since economic data are most often
reported by civil areas rather than natural drainage areas, it was
necessary to alter boundaries somewhat to achieve the objective of
analyzing economic impacts. The Lower Main Stem study area includes
Clark and Lincoln Counties in Nevada; Washington County in Utah; and
Mohave, Coconino, and Yuma Counties in Arizona. All California land in
the Lower Main Stem hydrologic subbasin is included in the Southern
California study area. This study area includes the following counties:
Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside,
San Diego, and Imperial. The Gila study area includes Cochise, Gila,
Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Pima, Final, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai
Counties in Arizona, and Catrol County in New Mexico.
METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED TO PROJECT MINERAL QUALITY
In order to calculate economic impacts associated with mineral
quality degradation, it was necessary to establish a base quality and
to project future qualities. Since long-range effects were to be
assessed, including one projection to the year 2010, the decision was
made to use a long-term average for base quality Future changes in
mineral quality would then be compared to the base quality in order
to quantify the effect of anticipated development upon future water
users Furthermore, it was decided that the methods used to calculate
future quality should be consistent with those used to determine base
quality In any such determination of mineral quality there are three
factors which are critical: (1) the basic flow or hydrology of the
system; (2) location and magnitude of demands for water; and (3) the
location and magnitude of salt sources. These three factors must be
-------
372
45
known or estimated for each target year for which the economic impact
of water quality is to be determined.
Hydrology
A long-term hydrological period of flow was selected as a base
condition for several reasons, the first of which is that short-term
(24)
fluctuations may be accomodated within the Basin. It is well
known that short-term variations in stream quality are dampened by the
large mainstream reservoirs and that salts can be stored in the soils
of the water-producing and water-using areas.
Secondly, it was felt that economic losses due to water quality
problems of short duration might be balanced against bountiful returns
obtained in years of good water quality. Long-term conditions, however,
would lead to permanent changes in water-use practices and would,
therefore, be reflected in detectable economic effects.
A third reason for using a long hydrologic period is that mean
flows for periods longer than five years may be treated as stochastic
variables, which allow the application of the principals of elementary
statistics to the virgin flow or modified flow data.
Fianlly, augmentation of flow through storage regulation may be
ignored for long-base periods since it evens out flow variability. A
study of the 20-year yield from present and proposed storage has not
been made; however, it has been assumed that the 20-year mean virgin
I/ For * study of the firm yield of the Upper Basin reservoir system,
see p. 21 of reference 26. Their estimate of the firm yield from
Upper Basin storage is 13.8 MAF of regulated delivery. Some additional
yield could presumably be developed from Lower Basin reservoirs.
-------
373
46
flow could not be effectively augmented by releases from storage.
The period 1942-1961, which has a mean annual virgin flow at Lees
Ferry, Arizona, of 13.8 million acre-feet (MAF), was chosen as the lowest
available consecutive 20 years of record in 1963 when the Project study
was started. This choice is consistent with the practices of basing
water quality studies on extreme low flow conditions when there is ade-
quate assurance that the extremes are significant. There is a probability
of about 0.13 that this value will not be exceeded by any 20-year mean
virgin flow, and a probability of about 0.62 that the virgin flow for any
one year will exceed 13.8 MAF.
Selection of a longer period of record or of any other 20-year period
of record would yield a slightly higher mean annual virgin flow and mean
annual salt burden. If water-use conditions were such that the increased
flow could be consumptively used above Lake Powell, predicted salinity
concentrations would be higher than for the 1942-1961 period of record
since a larger salt burden would be carried by essentially the same
stream flow below Lees Ferry. However, operational hydrology studies
indicate that existing and planned holdover storage above Lake Powell
would not be adequate to permit full utilization of excess supply in
periods of extremely high runoff. Thus, the larger salt load produced
during such periods would be carried into Lakes Powell and Mead in high
It is also possible to augment the in-basin storage by exporting water
to holdover storage in other basins as is done in the Colorado Big-
Thompson Project. Thus, one might realistically expect the long-
term yield to approach the long-term mean flow; however, the water
will not be available as a uniform regulated annual flow. Thus,
questions concerning the impact of high »d low flow sequences are
important.
-------
374
47
high quality runoff resulting in lower mean salinity concentrations
in the Lower Basin.
Additional hydrologic information for the Upper Basin was taken
(27)
from Geological Survey Professional Papers 441 and 442 (Iorns).v '
The historic flows published in the Geological Survey Water Supply
Papers were compiled for the station at Lees Ferry during the base
period and were then modified to 1960 conditions of use in the Upper
Basin. These modified values were used as the factors to adjust lorns'
data (1914-1957 period) to the 1942-1961 period. For the Lower Basin
the historic flows recorded at U. S. Geological Survey gaging stations
during the base period were modified to 1960 conditions.
Water Demand
Present water-use data were obtained by means of a limited number
of field interviews and an extensive search of current literature.
Municipal water-use data were obtained from the publications of agencies
like the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the Arizona Water Company. For
the most part, industrial and agricultural water-use data were obtained
by means of field interviews.
Future municipal water-use projections were obtained from the cur-
rent literature wherever possible (BR and Arizona Water Company).
Industrial water-use projections were obtained by assuming a relationship
between future water use and economic production. Consideration was also
given to the industrial water-use projections made by agencies like the
BR. Future water resource projects that were included in the analysis are
shown in Table 12. Methods used to determine future water-use require-
ments for irrigated agriculture are described in another part of this chapter.
-------
375
48
a/
Table 12. Future Water Resources Projects—7
Project
Completion
Date
Acreage Total Flow
Total
Salt Load
(acre-feet) (tons)
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
Lyman, Wyoming
Silt, Colorado
Emery County, Utah
Hammond, New Mexico
Seedskadee, Wyoming
Central Utah, Utah
Bonneville Unit
Jensen Unit
Upalco Unit
Uinta Unit
Denver, Englewood, Colorado
Springs & Pueblo Diversions
M&I Green Mountain
Independence Pass Expansion
Homestake Project, Colorado
Hayden Steam Plant
Bostwick Park, Colorado
Savery-Pot Hook, Wyoming-
Colorado
Fruitland Mesa, Colorado
Expansion Hogback
Utah Construction Company,
New Mexico
Westraco-Utah Power & Light
Company, Wyoming
San Juan-Chama, Colorado-
New Mexico
Navajo Indian Irrigation,
New Mexico
Fryingpan-Arkansas, Colorado
M&I Ruedi Reservoir, Colorado
Four County, Colorado
San Miguel, Colorado
Cheyenne, Wyoming
West Divide, Colorado
Animas-La Plata, Colorado-
New Mexico
Do lo res, Co lo rado
Dallas Creek, Colorado
Resources Inc., Utah
1980
1980
1980
1980
2010
2010
1980
1980
2010
2010
1980
1980
2010
2010
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
2010
1980
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
0
2,120
770
2,000
58,775
500
1,320
21,920
16,520
110,000
26,000
19,000
47,500
32,000
15,000
10,000
6,000
17,000
5,000
165,000
166,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
234,000
12,000
14,000
74,000
12,000
4,000
38,000
28,000
10,000
25,000
36,000
110,000
250,000
70,000
40,000
40,000
85,000
31,000
76,000
146,000
87,000
37,000
102,000
3,964
1,925
3,420
129,305
- 31,000
1,220
- 16,000
- 3,000
- 10,000
673
26,304
8,425
- 14,000
188,100
- 15,000
- 4,000
70,460
- 10,000
35,530
81,225
54,720
45,000
-------
49
376
Table 12. Contd. Future Water Resources Projects3-/
Project
Completion
Date
Acreage Total Flow
Total
Salt Load
(acre-feet) (tons)
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
Arizona M&I, Arizona 198°b
Marble Canyon, Arizona 2010_/
Dixie Project, Utah 2010
Southern Nevada Pumping 2010
Ft. Mohave Indian Reservation 1980
Chemeheuvi Indian Reservation 1980
11,615
18,974
1,900
39,000
14,000
62,000
253,000
76,000
8,000
14,000
19,000
2,000
a/ Marble Canyon Project deleted from Bureau of Reclamation Progress
b/ References.4 U^Te^-nt'of Interior, "Quality of Water, Colorado
^ River Basin," Progress Report No. 3, January 1967 (Reference No. 29).
-------
377
50
A different method was used to determine present and future water
use in situations where groundwater is blended with Colorado River water
to make up a given entity's supply. Since water demand is frequently a
function of water quality, it was necessary to consider the demand for a
blend of water with different qualities. If the entity in question was
utilizing Colorado River water exclusively, the intake quality was taken
as the quality of the Colorado River at the point of diversion. If, how-
ever, an entity utilized Colorado River water in conjunction with a ground-
water supply and blended the two, it was necessary to estimate the intake
quality by determining the quality of the resulting blended supply. The
projected demand for water was then modified to reflect this quality.
Salt-Load Sources
Salt-load sources in the Upper Basin were estimated primarily from
(27)
data contained in the lorns report. In cases where published infor-
mation was lacking, the Project used its own supplemental data which was
obtained from field surveys, A description of these surveys and results
obtained are presented in Appendix A.
DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY
A computer program which calculates water quality at critical points
in the system was used to integrate the hydrologic characteristics, water
demand data, and estimates of salt loads for each target year. This pro-
gram, a flow and salt-routing model, was used to develop estimates of the
average mineral quality levels for the years 1960, 1980, and 2010.
The computer program simulates Basin response to input data in a
series of calculations for small drainage areas. Figure 4 illustrates
the method used for dividing the Basin into drainage areas and establishing
-------
51
378
IlilHCE HE! I •
Agirc 4. Typical iraingr 4rea Used Ur FUv A Salt ••Htiag H*ir\ f«r ike €«UraJ« liver la§ia
-------
379
52
points at confluence of streams. Natural flow discharges and salt loads
originating within the defined drainage areas were first determined. The
effects of man's activities, such as depletions of water for consumptive
use or addition of salt loads by irrigation, were added to the natural
effects. The program then accumulates these effects and routes them
downstream to be added to successive effects.
From Figure 4 the accumulated flow and salt load runoff below
junction X would be FR - FRa + FRj, + FR,,, and
SR = SRa + SRfc + SRj,, respectively.
The flow discharge runoff equation for each drainage area would be
FRa,b,c = (AN x CN) + DS - (IA x CI) - (P x CP) + DV;
and the salt load runoff equation would be
SRa,b,c " (AN x CN) + DS + (IA x CI) + (P x CP) + DV;
where FRa,b,c = annual flow runoff in acre-feet,
SRa,b,c = annual salt load runoff in tons,
AN = natural drainage area in square miles,
CN = coefficient for contributions from the natural
area in acre-feet/sq. mi. or T/sq. mi.,
DS = annual contribution from discrete sources in
acre-feet or tons,
IA = irrigated acreage,
CI = coefficient for depletions or contributions from
irrigation in acre-feet/acre or tons/acre,
P - population,
CP » coefficient for depletions or contributions by the
population in acre-feet/person or tons/person, and
DV » annual diversions (imports or exports) within the
drainage area in acre-feet or tons.
The drainage areas were divided, where possible, so that the
-------
380
53
stations or points selected for the routing model would coincide with the
locations of USGS gaging stations. As the inflows of water in the Lower
Basin were small compared to the Upper Basin, the routing model for the
Lower Basin was simply a budget listing the various depletions of water.
TARGET YEAR MINERAL QUALITY
Flow depletions and expected salt loads from new irrigation projects,
growth of existing irrigation district water demands, and increased
municipal and industrial uses were projected independently and entered
into the model. The model was used to correlate the data and to produce
a new array of quality values for years 1980 and 2010. The water quality
values obtained by this analysis are shown in Table 13 and Figure 5.
Salinity concentrations were computed by the model to the nearest mg/1.
This degree of refinement in reporting computer predictions was selected
to allow evaluation of the small incremental changes in salinity concen-
trations produced by a given salt source or water resource development
and to reduce rounding errors. It was not intended that a high degree
of accuracy be implied as predictions of future salinity concentrations
are dependent upon a number of factors which are not known with certainty.
Table 13.
Water Quality Values (me/1) for the Lower Main
stem Subbasin Obtained
Model for the Colorado
Location
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
River
River
River
River
@
e
e
@
Hoover Dam
Parker Dam
Palo Verde
Imperial Dam
TDS
697
684
713
759
by Flow
and Salt Routing
River Basin
1960
Hard-
ness
345
340
350
370
1980
TDS
876
866
940
1056
Hard-
ness
420
415
445
485
2010
TDS
990
985
1082
1223
Hard-
ness^
460
460
495
540
-------
381
54
[264] [1531] 423
GREEN RIVER.UTAH
4055 2506 i _454
3464 2620_L556
GRAND CANYON. ARIZ
_11313il0727l 697
_B823JK>5i2r_876
8078110880^ 990 !
IMPERIAL 0AM. ARIZ -CALIF
9348!9659! 759
LEKH
Flow S UirrilrilioiK i. Slrra.s in ifcr (..Urad. Rivrr Ba«i.
-------
382
55
It is interesting to note that the quality at Lees Ferry is projected
to increase from 558 mg/1 to 764 mg/1 (37 percent increase) while the
quality at Imperial Dam, the last delivery point in the system, is pro-
jected to increase from 759 mg/1 to 1223 mg/1 (61 percent increase).
These results tend to verify the conclusion that the impact of mineral
quality degradation in the Colorado River Basin will be much more severe
for downstream users than for upstream users.
The model describes the relative effect of the various types of salt
sources on salinity concentrations. Accumulated data on flow, salt
loading and salinity concentrations can be summarized by source for a
number of key points in the system. Table 14 presents such a summary
for the target year 1960 at Hoover Dam. As illustrated by the table,
approximately 73 percent of the 1960 salinity concentration at Hoover
Dam was contributed by various sources of salt loading and only 27 per-
cent of the salinity was the result of consumptive water use including
water exports from the basin.
From similar tables developed from routing model data, it is possible
to determine the relative effect of projected changes on mineral quality.
Future mineral quality changes at Hoover Dam due to projected consumptive
use of water and added salt loads above that point are shown in Figure 6.
It will be noted that nearly 83 percent of the projected mineral quality
increase at Hoover Dam will be caused by increased consumptive use of
water. Such a significant effect is important in view of anticipated
diversions from the Upper Basin.
INDEX OF MINERAL QUALITY
For any given "steady state" of a river system, a fixed array of
-------
Table 14. Effect of Various Factors on Salt Concentrations in Colorado River at Hoover Dam
Factor
Natural Diffuse Sources
Natural Point Sources
Irrigation (Salt
Contribution)
Irrigation
(Consumptive Use)
Municipal and
Industrial Sources
Exports Out of Basin
Evaporation and
Phreatophytes
Storage Release from
Hoover
TOTAL
Flow
1000 AF/Yr)
14,471
229
0
- 1,883
- 42
- 465
- 1,409
412
(1942-1961
Cumulative
Flow
(1000 AF/Yr)
14,471
14,700
14,700
12,817
12,775
12,310
10,901
11,313
11,313
period of record
Salt Load
(1000 Tons/Yr)
5,408
1,283
3,536
0
146
- 37
0
391
adjusted to 1960
Cumulative
Salt Load
(1000 Tons/Yr)
5,408
6,691
10,227
10,227
10,373
10,336
10,336
10,727
10,727
conditions)^/
Cumulative
Concentration C
Tons/AF
0.374
0.455
0.696
0.798
0.812
0.840
0.948
0.948
Mg/1
275
334
512
587
597
617
697
697
697
Change in
oncentratlonJ
Mg/I
275
59
178
75
10
20
80
0
Percent of Total
Concentration
39
8
26
11
1
3
12
0
100
a/ Based on data from the following sources:
(1) lorns, W. V., Hetnbree, C. H., and Oakland, G. L., "1965 Water Resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin - Technical Reports,"
U. S. Geological Survey Professional Papers 441 and 442.
(2) U. S. Department of Interior, "Quality of Water, Colorado River Basin," Progress Report No. 3, January 1967.
(3) FWPCA unpublished records.
bj Concentrations in this column will vary depending upon the order in which they are calculated.
in
ON
U)
CO
OO
-------
57
384
1000
(5
876MG/L
861 MG/L
990 MG/L
940 MG/L
I960
I960
YEARS
2010
CHANGE IN QUALITY DUE TO INCREASE IN SALT LOAD
CHANGE INQUALITY DUE TO CONSUMPTIVE USr OF WATER
Figure 6 . F«l»" Mineral Quality Changes at Hoover Dam
,« to Consumptive Use of W.'.er & Salt Load Increases Above That Point
-------
385
58
water quality and use data exists. A change in quality or use at any
point may affect the entire system. To simplify presentation of the prob-
able impact caused by a modification in the system, it is useful to
have a single index representative of water quality for the entire
system. Selection of such an index is discussed below.
Since the concentration and the volume of water withdrawn at each
water-use location are important in determining total effects, one possible
index representing the state of the system could be:
n n
Di Ci '
Where: I is the mineral quality index,
D is the volume of diversion at a location,
C is the IDS concentration at a location,
i is a location index ranging from 1 to n, and
n is the total number of diversions in the basin.
A second, more simplified approach is to select a single key point
in the system to which water quality at major points of use is related
and utilize water quality at this key point as an index of the system.
Essentially all of the economic impact of projected salinity increases
will accrue to Lower Basin water users. Since Hoover Dam regulates
water releases to Lower Basin users, salinity concentration at various
downstream points of use can be directly related to salinity concentration
at Hoover Dam. Therefore, mineral quality at Hoover Dam was selected
as a simplified index of water quality for the entire Colorado Basin.
For the remainder of this report, presentations of the economic impact
of various proposed changes in water use are directly related to this
mineral quality index at Hoover Dam.
-------
386
59
CHAPTER IV. DIRECT PENALTY COST EVALUATION
DEFINITION OF PENALTY COST
In order to define the term "penalty cost," it is necessary to
understand the term "detriments." Detriments are user costs incurred
when a specific quality of water is used. 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 permits the cost effect of water quality to
be isolated. The following hypothetical situation will serve to illus-
trate the meaning of the terms defined above.
Assume that a city utilizing Colorado River water as its source
of municipal supply has an intake hardness of 200 mg/1 in 1960 and a
forecasted intake hardness of 300 mg/1 in 1980. The detriments in 1980
associated with using water of 200 mg/1 and 300 mg/1 hardness are shown
as points "a" and "c" respectively in Figure 7. The difference
between the detriments is the penalty cost "A" which would be incurred
by the municipal users in 1980 if the hardness of their supply increasd
from 200 mg/1 to 300 mg/1. It should be noted that, if the intake
quality remained at 200 mg/1 from 1960 to 1980, there would be an
increase in the detriments from 1960 to 1980 as indicated by points "a"
and "d." The increase is caused by changes in economic conditions,
such as a larger population affected, not by a change in the water
quality. Although such a difference in detriments represents an economic
penalty associated with water quality, it is not a penalty cost as
defined above.
-------
CO
cr
o
o
V)
»-
z
UJ
o:
^~
LU
Q
A and B <>«•« Penalty Costs
200 250 300
HARDNESS OF WATER SUPPLY IN MG/L
Figure 7. Illustration of Detriments & Penalty Costs Due to Water Quality Degradation
• *• J ^y
0 LO
o oo
-------
388
61
METHODS OF PENALTY COST EVALUATION
Users in the Lower Basin have recently begun to recognize that
degradation of the mineral quality of Colorado River water is having
a direct adverse affect upon their economic welfare. Although individual
users have not felt the impact to a significant degree, there is a
general awareness of the problem. In such a situation each individual
affected begins searching for potential solutions which will offset the
direct loss to his welfare. From various alternative solutions, the
individual will generally select one which is the least costly.
In a similar fashion the Project attempted to formulate several
alternatives for each major type of water use in the Basin, each of
which was considered satisfactory from a practical viewpoint. Various
alternatives were evaluated and one was selected for the purpose of
analyzing basinwide effects. It should be emphasized that, even though
one alternative was selected for use in the analysis, the Project does
not propose that such an alternative be implemented in practice. This
analysis was carried out for the purpose of measuring the value of
anticipated changes in a physical system. The various alternatives con-
sidered and the one selected for use by the Project in its penalty-cost
evaluations are discussed in considerable detail in the following sections.
Irrigated Agriculture
Several alternatives are available to an irrigator when the quality
of his water supply becomes degraded. If additional water is available
and no soil problems exist, he can increase the quantity of applied
leaching water. When soil conditions are such that additional leaching
water cannot be applied, the alternatives are to adjust the soil conditions
-------
389
62
or replace salt-sensitive crops with less sensitive ones that require
less leaching water. The remaining alternative with additional water
available is to take no action and, thereby, suffer a decrease in crop
yields. If additional water is not available, two alternatives exist.
The acreage in production can be reduced, either uniformly or non-
uniformly, or no action can be taken. All these alternatives are shown
schematically in Figure 8.
The following methods were investigated: (1) the yield-decrement
method, (2) the Scofield-Hill equivalent service concept/30) (3) the
"constant quality of percolate" leaching requirement formula/9' (4) the
uniform acreage reduction alternative, and (5) the selective acreage
reduction alternative. The techniques for calculating penalty costs
by each of these methods are discussed in the following sections.
Yield Decrement. One alternative available to an irrigator when
the quality of his water supply becomes degraded is to take no remedial
action. This is shown as alternative No. 1 in Figure 8. Salinity detri-
ments in this case are considered to be the loss in yield per acre due
to increased salinity in the irrigation water supply. The percent of
optimum yields realized are calculated for base and for adjusted water
qualities. The economic value of the difference in yield associated with
the two water qualities represents the penalty costs due to increased
salinity in the irrigation water.
The Department of Agriculture Salinity Laboratory at Riverside,
California, has developed data^31) that show the relationship between
the expected yield of various crops as a function of the root zone soil
-------
63
390
QUALITY
DEGRADATION
A Its
E
0
c
3
r
Additional Water
Not Available
r Cropping No Action
Pattern
Non Uniform
y vy 0
ALTERIS
No A
)c!
IATT
Additional Water
A
ct ion
L.
«
•»-
<
) <:
VE [
v ai lab le
Can't Use Can Use
(Soil Problems)
Use Do Not
Modify Soil Water Use Water
m
a.
° Cost Based
Decision
y 0© 0
DIAGRAM
1. NO ACTION, LEADS TO YIELD REDUCTION.
2. INCREASE PURCHASE AND USE OF WATER.
3. MAINTAIN SAME TOTAL USE ON FEWER ACRES,
LEADS TO MORE USE/ACRE.
a. Remove Least Profitable Crops (S/A-ft.)
b. Remove Least Tolerant Crops (Yield in $/ppm)
c. Remove Crops in Proportion to Acreage
4. INCREASED PURCHASE OF SOIL CONDITIONERS.
Figure 8. Irrigation Water User Alternatives for Offsetting
the Effects of Mineral Quality Degradation
-------
391
64
saturation extract^/ quality. These data were used to construct salinity-
yield curves for various crops as shown in Figure 9. The percent of
optimum yield with respect to salinity can be computed by determining
the mean conductivity of the root zone soil saturation extract and by
reading the corresponding "percent of optimum yield" from the salinity
crop yield curves. Since the consumptive use, amount of applied water,
and quality of the irrigation water are known, the quality and quantity
of the drainage water may be calculated using Department of Agriculture
Handbook 60 formulas.•£/ The mean conductivity of the root zone soil
saturation extract is the average of the conductivities of the applied
water and the drainage water. This average value is divided by two
in order to correct the conductivity of the soil solution to an equiva-
lent conductivity of the saturation extract, as recommended by the
salinity laboratory.
As previously stated, the conductivity of the saturation extract,
when applied to the empirical salinity-yield relationship, gives a
percent of possible yield. In order to obtain the salinity detriments
for each target year, including 1960, it was necessary to choose a base
quality below the 1960 target-year quality. A base quality was selected
for each area and was used in all calculations pertaining to that area.
\J The electrical conductivity of the saturation extract of a soil was
adopted by the salinity laboratory as a scale for estimating the
salinity of a soil. The procedure for determining the saturation
extract value involves preparing a saturated soil paste by stirring,
during the addition of distilled water, until a characteristic end-
point is reached. A suction filter is then used to obtain a suffi-
cient amount of the extract for making the conductivity measurement.
2J U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Salinity Laboratory, "Saline
and Alkali Soils," Agriculture Handbook No. 60, 1954, pp. 31-38.
(Reference No. 10).
-------
100
E°LECTR,CAL* CONDUCTVITY OF SOIL SATURAT.ON EXTRACT ,N MILLIMHOS PER CM
Figure 9. Salt Tolerance of Major Crops Grown in Study Areas
16
tA)
-------
3? 3
The salinity detriment for each crop is equal to the decrease in yield
per acre times the total gross value of the crop, and is calculated
according to the following equation:
DET
PYIELDx I
where: ^E^YD = ^e^ decrement detriment for a
crop in a given area for a
given quality (IDS) ,
PYIELD^ = Percent of optimum yield at base
quality,
PYIELD2 = Percent of optimum yield at
adjusted quality (target year),
A = Gross acreage of the crop, and
V = Gross value of crop per acre.
Gross value is used here because the technique assumes no change
in farm management practices. Therefore, pre-harvest costs are still
incurred, and no profit is realized for that portion of the crop lost
because of quality degradation. To obtain the total detriments for
each area for a given target year, the detriments for all the crops are
summed. The penalty costs for 1980 and 2010 are the differences between
the detriments for these two years, respectively, and the 1960 detri-
ments. It should be noted that the actual values of the detriments have
little meaning because a base quality was used to obtain them. However,
the penalty costs do have meaning if the same base quality is used for
all target year calculations.
-------
67 391
Equivalent Service. As an alternative to the no-action condition,
the irrigator could choose to maintain existing yields as the quality
of his water supply degrades. This is shown as alternative No. 2 in
Figure 8. He could accomplish this by applying more water in order
to increase the leaching fraction. In this case the major problem lies
in determining how much additional water would be required. Hill and
Scofield considered this problem and set forth the concept of "equiva-
lent service1 as one method of calculating the amount of water
required. Equivalent service requires reduction in the concentration
of the drainage water in order to offset the increase in concentration
of dissolved solids in the applied water. This concept calls for a
substantial increase in the leaching fraction in order to improve the
drainage water quality.
The quantity of water required for a given crop being irrigated
with a certain quality of water can be calculated by the following
equation:
\
y A»
- 4Ca
\
where: Da - Quantity of applied water required
for a crop at a given quality,
DQ - Consumptive use required by a crop,
Ca » Concentration of salts in applied water,
Cr = Average effective concentration of the
soil solution, and
A = Gross acreage of crop.
As was the case with the yield decrement method, it is felt that the
-------
395
68
mean effective concentration of the soil extract is closer to one-fourth
of the sum of the concentrations of the applied water and the percolate.
It should be noted that this judgment leads to a more conservative esti-
mate of penalty costs than that resulting from using the average of
the concentration of the applied water and the percolate.
Maintaining the root zone water quality at its present level would
be sufficient to maintain existing crop yields. However, in order to
evaluate penalty costs attributable to this alternative, the volume of
additional water needed to maintain present root zone quality has to
be determined for the range of irrigation water quality expected in the
future. It should be noted that maintenance of present root zone con-
centrations requires use of water in excess of the amount required to
maintain salt balance.
The dollar value of salinity detriments in a given area is cal-
culated by the following equation:
TOTAL DETES
\
where: TOTAL DETgg = Total equivalent service detriments
for a given area at adjusted quality,
« Summation of applied water required
for all crops at adjusted quality
(target year),
= Summation of applied water required
for all crops at base quality,
RVW = Residual value of water, and
E - Overall delivery efficiency.
-------
396
69
The penalty costs for 1980 and 2010 are the difference between the
detriments for these two years, respectively, and the 1960 detriments.
A short discussion is in order at this point concerning the
economic value of water used for irrigation. Water for irrigating
agricultural crops is often in scarce supply, thus it has an economic
value. Several methods may be used in determining the value of irri-
gation water. The most widely accepted method is the "market price,"
where water is not appurtenant to the land. Very few areas have a
true market price for water, i.e., where, water is traded or rented
for the season just like any other commodity. In the absence of a
market price for irrigation water in the Colorado River Basin, the
"residual value" is the most widely accepted substitute. The residual
value of irrigation water represents the average amount a farmer can
pay for water without impinging on the going rate of return to other
inputs (land, labor, capital, overhead, and management) used in crop
production. Crop budgets were used to calculate crop receipts, crop
expenses, and the return to water. Total residual value for each crop
and residual value per acre-foot of water applied were both calculated.
When the TDS concentration of the applied water equals the present
mean root zone quality for any crop, no amount of water of the same
quality can dilute it enough to offset the concentrating effect caused
by consumptive use and the technique of equivalent service is no longer
applicable. Therefore, salinity detriments calculated in this manner
become infinitely large when the quality of water nears the present mean
root zone quality of the most inefficiently irrigated crop.
Since excess amounts of water are applied in some areas and the
-------
397
70
supply of water Is limited in others , equivalent service has been found
to be not directly applicable to areas in the Lower Colorado River
region.—'
Constant Quality of Percolate. The equivalent service concept
discussed in the previous section is one method of calculating leach-
ing water requirements. Another method is known as the "constant
quality of percolate." The theories used as a basis for this method
are described in detail in Handbook 60 published by the U. S. Department
of Agriculture. The equation developed for calculating the leaching
water requirement for a given applied water quality and for a particu-
lar crop is:
LR = - - (U)(A) ;
TOL - QUAL
where: LR = Total leaching requirement for a
crop at a given quality,
TOL = Salt tolerance of crop in mmhos / cm ,£/
QUAL = Quality of irrigation water in mmhos/cm,
U = Consumptive use (evapotranspiration) , and
A = Gross acreage of crop.
Total detriments for a given area are calculated according to the
following equation:
JL/ The staff of the Economic Research Service, USDA, collaborated in
the investigations; results were also reviewed with Dr. Bernstein
and the staff of the salinity laboratory, as well as Dr. Vaughn
Hansen and Mr. Raymond Hill who served as consultants to the Project.
2J According to Mr. L. V. Wilcox, the conductivity of the drainage
water associated with a 50 percent decrease in yield is nearly the
same as the conductivity of the root zone saturation extract associated
with a 10 percent reduction in yield.
-------
398
71
(£LR2 - ZLRi) ,D.r . .
TOTAL DETCQp = ^ •- (RVW) ;
where: TOTAL DETCQP = Total detriments for a given area at
adjusted quality for target year,
= Summation of leaching water requirements
for all crops at adjusted quality for
target year,
= Summation of leaching water requirements
for all crops at base quality,
RVW = Residual value of water, and
E - Overall delivery efficiency.
The penalty costs for 1980 and 2010 are the differences between the
detriments for these two years, respectively, and the 1960 detriments.
To determine the penalty costs associated with quality degradation,
it is necessary to account for the increase in conveyance losses and
to determine the dollar value of this quantity of water. This is done
by dividing the increase in leaching water by the overall delivery effi-
ciency .i/ The costs added by the need for extra labor, more fertilizer,
and additional drainage associated with the application of more irri-
gation water should be added to these detriments. The latter has been
shown to be quite substantial, sometimes equal to the value of the
water itself.
In many locations waters of the Colorado River are fully appropri-
ated or systems are used to capacity. In such cases an irrigator may
be unable to purchase more water at a reasonable cost. He does have
the option, however, of reallocating the priorities of use without
I/ This includes conveyance, main system, and farm lateral losses.
-------
399
72
increasing total consumption. In evaluating the costs of this option,
the water requirement is determined as explained above except it is
assumed that the additional water would be available from a reduction
in irrigated acreage. Thus, slightly less additional water is required
in this case since quality control water is not needed on the acreage
taken out of production. The methods used in the acreage reduction
analyses are described in the following sections.
Uniform Acreage Reduction. In the event additional water is not
available for leaching as the quality degrades, an irrigator may take
a portion of his crop land out of production and use the water thereby
saved to increase the amount of leaching water applied to the remaining
crop acreage. Even though this may prevent any yield reduction of the
remaining crops, the profit that would have been made on the crops
taken out of production is lost. Three methods of reducing acreage
were investigated: (1) removal of 2 portion of all crops in propor-
tion to total acreage (uniform reduction), (2) removal of the least
profitable crops, and (3) removal of the least salt-tolerant crops.
These alternatives are shown as "3c," "3a," and "3b" respectively in
Figure 8.
The first step in determining detriments by the uniform acreage
reduction technique is to calculate the leaching water requirements
associated with a base quality and an adjusted quality for the target
year. The "constant quality of percolate" method is used to obtain
these leaching water quantities. The next step is to calculate the
total volume of water required at the adjusted quality using the
following equation:
-------
400
73
i-1
where: R2 = Total volume of water required at
adjusted quality,
CU = Total consumptive use (evapotrans-
piration) of the ith crop,
EFF = Field efficiency, and
LR2 = Total leaching requirement for the
ith crop at adjusted water quality.
To obtain the percentage of land to be removed, let
p = y* (100%) ;
R2
P = Percent of land to be removed
from production, and
ALR = Additional leaching requirement,
( ZLR2 - ELR].), associated with
quality degradation.
Careful analysis reveals that the percentage, "P" determined by
the above equation is slightly over-estimated since no additional
leaching water is needed on the land removed from production. To
obtain the actual percent of land to be removed, it is necessary to
use a successive approximation technique.
First, the true quantity of additional leaching water, LR1,
needed on the acreage that remains is calculated by the following
equation:
ALR1 - PR2 - ?2R2 + p3R2 - p4R2 + •••• + pIlR2'
-------
401
74
ALR*
The actual or true percent to be removed, P' , is then equal to -
R2
By substitution, the following equation can be derived:
P'R2 = PR2 - P2R2 + p3R2 ~ p4R2 + •••' + pIlR2 »
and
P' = P - P2 + P3 - P4 + ---- + Pn .
If P is less than 100%, which it will be, the sum of the infinite
series can be expressed as P' = . After P' is determined, the
total salinity detriments can be calculated by the following equation:
n
TOTAL DETUAR -
where: TOTAL DETITAT( = Total uniform acreage reduction detriments
Unix
for a given area at adjusted quality,
A. = Gross acreage of i crop before reduction,
and
Vj = Net value of itn crop.
The net value is used because production costs are not incurred and only
profit is lost.
Selective Acreage Reduction. Another acreage reduction method
involves taking out of production the least profitable crops , The first
step in this method is to calculate the leaching water requirements
associated with a base quality and the adjusted quality for the target
year by the "constant quality of percolate" method. The additional
leaching requirement, ALR, due to quality degradation is the difference
in the leaching water requirements referred to in the previous section.
The quantity, A^R, is the amount of water that would be saved by reducing
the acreage. The next step is to arrange the crops in order of increasing
-------
402
75
economic return from water use and then to calculate the total amount
of water required by each crop according to the following equation:
where: *2 ~ Tota^ water required by the ith crop,
CU = Total consumptive use (evapotranspira-
tion) of the ith crop,
EFF - Field efficiency,
LR2 = Total leaching requirement of the ith
crop at adjusted quality.
The next step in the analysis is to determine if the total amount
of water required by the least profitable crop is less than ALR. If
i.t is, the entire crop is removed from production and ALR is reduced
by ro of the crop removed. The same comparison is then made between
the amount of ALR remaining and the total amount of water required
by the next lowest profitable crop. If the r2 of this crop is less than
the portion of ALR remaining, the entire crop is removed and the process
is repeated.
At some point in the process, the portion of ALR remaining after
several crops have been removed will be less than the total amount of
water required by the next crop in line for removal. (Actually this
could be the case with the least profitable crop grown, or the first
considered.) When this point in the process is reached, it becomes
necessary to determine the portion of this crop to be removed. The
actual percentage of the crop to be removed, F, is equal to -^ + D
percent). The value of D is determined by dividing the portion of
-------
remaining at this stage by T£ of the crop being considered. At this
point, the analysis becomes identical to the uniform acreage reduction
technique. The values D and F are similar to the values P and Pf,
respectively.
After F is determined, the total salinity detriments can be deter-
mined by the following equation:
TOTAL DETSAR = V (A^) +
i=o
TOTAL DETg^n » Total selective acreage reduction detri-
ments for a given area at adjusted quality,
AO - 0,
X = Reference number of the last crop affected
(the numbering system begins with the least
profitable and proceeds to the most profitable),
Ai = Gross acreage of the i crop,
V.^ = Net value of the i crop,
AJJ = Gross acreage of the i=x crop, and
Vx = Net value of the i=x crop»
A third acreage reduction method, which involves selective removal
of those crops having the greatest yield loss per unit of root zone
concentration increase, was not used by the Project.
Labor, Fertilizer, and Drainage. When more irrigation water is
applied, additional labor costs are incurred; additional amounts of
fertilizer are lost; and additional drainage facilities may be needed.
In the case of additional labor costs it was assumed that irrigators
would tend to decrease the interval between irrigations. In order to
-------
404
77
maximize the interval, an irrigator would apply the maximum amount of
water which could be beneficially used during each irrigation. It fol-
lows that any substantial increased water requirement would necessitate
more irrigations per year. The cost of additional irrigations was
assessed at $2 per foot of required additional irrigation water in
excess of three inches. The initial three inches of additional water
was assessed no labor cost. The foregoing values are based on an
application of six inches per irrigation at a cost of approximately
$1 per irrigation.
Fertilizer losses were calculated according to a first-order
chemical solution reaction equation. For convenience, this equation
was expressed in the form:
T - T Pn •
L - L,O r ,
where: Lo = Quantity of fertilizer presently applied,
L = Quantity of fertilizer remaining,
p = Percent of fertilizer remaining under present
conditions, and
n = Ratio of the volume of drainage with degraded
water supply to present volume of drainage.
From this equation, the loss in nitrogen fertilizer associated with
increases in drainage water may be calculated. This amount is multiplied
by the 1960 fertilizer cost to establish a dollar penalty cost ($.12/lb.).
Drainage facilities were assessed no penalty costs for two reasons.
First, it was found that irrigation districts build facilities as they
are needed; and secondly, the additional leaching water required because
of water quality degradation can easily be carried by the existing
-------
405
78
closed drain systems. Hence, the size of drains would not have to be
increased due to additional volumes of percolating water.
Selection of Best Method. Penalty costs associated with each of
the alternatives discussed above were calculated for each of the major
irrigation water-use areas below Hoover Dam, and the results compared.
Figure 10 shows such a comparison for a typical water-use area.
Within each of the study areas, water users utilize various combina-
tions of alternatives in an attempt to minimize the economic impact of
salinity increases in their water supply. Given sufficient data with
regard to the acreage and crops to which each alternative is applied,
it would be possible to accurately evaluate the magnitude of present
salinity detriments. However, such data is not available. Also, the
accuracy of projections of future detriments based on present combina-
tions of alternatives would be questionable as changing conditions might
alter the selection of alternatives in the future. It was thus desirable
to select one alternative as a means of evaluating present and future
penalty costs. The selective acreage reduction method, the least cost
alternative, produced inconsistent results and was rejected. The yield
decrement method, which assumes no increased use of water nor any acreage
reduction, was selected as it was considered to be most applicable to
conditions in the three study areas. This method results in a con-
servative estimate of penalty costs since any combination of other
methods would result in higher costs. Thus, present penalty costs are
probably higher than estimates presented in this report, but a more
accurate evaluation cannot be made at this time.
Industrial
The study of industrial penalty costs of mineralized water supplies
-------
LEGEND
EQUIVALENT SERVICE
CONSTANT QUALITY OF PERCOLATE f LABOR AND FERTILIZER
UNIFORM ACREAGE REDUCTION* LABOR AND FERTILIZER
YIELD DECREMENT
SELECTIVE ACREAGE REDUCTION + LABOR AND FERTILIZER
600
700
1100
800 900
QIUUTY Of APPUID WATII (TOS) IN M6/1
Figure 10. Comparative Results of Irrigated Agriculture Penally Cost for a Portion of
Yuma County - 1960
1200
-------
407
80
involves two of the four major types of industrial uses classified in
Chapter II, namely cooling and boiler feed. The large number and variety
of manufacturing industries in the major centers of water use, especially
in Southern California,^ made it impracticable to attempt an evaluation
of effects on process waters within the scope of this study. In addition,
process water use falls into two categories: (1) use that is insensitive
to small incremental changes in mineral concentration, or (2) use that
requires a completely demoralized supply. In either case the effect
of changes in mineral quality over the range of concentrations expected
to prevail is considered to be unmeasurable. General purpose water, or
that used for plant drinking water, sanitation, lawn irrigation, and
fire protection, is small in volume compared with other types; and for
some applications, such as general cleaning and fire protection, the
mineral content is not very important.
In view of these considerations, the industrial penalty costs
derived in the Project's study are somewhat understated. There is no
doubt, however, that the included costs cover a major portion of the
fresh water used in manufacturing. In the United States as a whole
over 74 percent of all industrial fresh water is used in cooling and
boiler feed,(33) and in the state of California 67 percent is so
employed.(34) A survey of water use in the chemical and metallurgical
complex at Henderson, Nevada, made in August, 1964, by the Nevada Depart-
ment of Public Health(35) showed 80 percent of the water to be employed
for cooling, four percent for boiler feed, and the remaining 16 percent
I/ Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States,"
1964, lists 17,665 manufacturing plants in the Los Angeles-San Diego
metropolitan areas. (Reference No. 32).
-------
408
81
for processing, sanitary, and miscellaneous purposes *
There are two pertinent types of cooling and boiler systems: those
which are not sensitive to mineral quality and those which are sensitive
to mineral quality. High-pressure boilers require a demineralized sup-
ply; thus, they are not sensitive to minor changes in plant intake water
quality. Similarly, specially designed cooling towers can accept
brackish or highly saline waters; thus, they are insensitive to water
quality.
Low-pressure boilers and cooling towers on fresh water systems,
however, can tolerate only a limited concentration of dissolved mineral
constituents. These systems, therefore, are directly affected by
changes in mineral quality. This analysis is based entirely on an
evaluation of penalty costs associated with Colorado River water used
in sensitive systems. Therefore, all references to cooling and boiler
feed water are meant to imply such use in sensitive systems only.
Current practice in the region has established the tolerance limit
for low-pressure boilers to be in the range of 2,000 to 3,500 mg/1 of
IDS? There are several suggested requirements for mineral quality
limits of boiler feed supply water which depend on the operating pres-
sure of the boiler system/6' 36) (See Table 1 in Chapter II.) Limited
investigations of manufacturing plant practice made in the Colorado
River Basin indicated that steam for plant processes is generated at
comparatively low pressure, 300 psi and under. This is in contrast with
operation of modern thermoelectric power stations where very high pres-
sures are often employed„ Accordingly, the value of 3,500 mg/1 was used
in the Project's study as a basis for the determination of penalty effects
-------
409
82
of saline boiler feed water.
For the Colorado River Basin, it appears that upper limits of dis-
solved solids for cooling water supplies are somewhat lower than for
boiler feed water supplies, The limited studies which the Project was
able to make indicate that the maximum in actual practice ranges from
1,000 mg/1 to 2,500 mg/1. Accordingly, a value of 2,000 mg/1 seems
typical and was used as a basis for penalty cost assessment.
To simplify the calculation of industrial penalty costs, a single
tolerance value was established for a system which considered both
boiler feed and cooling use. It was found that cooling water use
accounted for at least seven times the boiler feed usage (Table 15);
and, based on this information, a volume-weighted tolerance was cal-
culated to be approximately 2,200 mg/1.
Material balance in these systems establishes the quantity of dis-
charge water required for any level of water use, intake quality, and
system tolerance. Increasing concentrations of dissolved mineral con-
stituents in the feed water necessitates an increase in the discharge
requirement, and thus an increase in the water intake requirement, in
order to prevent salt accumulation within the system. The increase in
water use, the 1960 cost of water, and feed-water treatment costs were
used in the assessment of industrial penalty costs.
The cleaning and sanitary water use portions of the industrial
supply were assessed no user penalty costs. Only those costs incurred
in providing and treating additional makeup water for cooling and low-
pressure boiler systems were used in assessing industrial penalty costs,
Four major steps were required to evaluate industrial penalty
-------
290
340
370
by Type of
Total Cooling
Type of Intake % of
Industry Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Total
Petroleum 148,000 128,500 86.9
Refining
Food 93,600 44,800 47.8
Chemical & 60,600 31,300 51.6
Allied Products
Paper & 24,200 6,500 26.8
Allied Products
Stone, Clay 27,900 11,000 39.3
& Glass
Fabricated 5,070 665 13.1
Metal Products
Transportation
Equipment 12,600 1,110 8.8
Primary 9,890 4,400 44.3
Metals
Lumber (wood 27,100 10,850 40.1
TJoe In California 1957-59
Processing Boiler Feed Sanitary & Misc.
% of % of % of
Ac re -Feet Total Ac re -Feet Total Ac re -Feet Total
3,850 2.6 13,490 9.1 2,070 1.4
30,900 33.0 4,680 5.0 13,500 14.4
21,000 34.7 5,340 8.8 3,090 5.1
16,250 67.0 655 2.7 849 3.5
14,700 52.6 559 2.0 1,680 6.0
3,070 60.6 137 2.7 1,190 23.5
5,460 43.4 302 2.4 5,710 45.4
1,580 16.0 1,220 12.3 2,620 26.5
4,070 15.0 10,050 37.1 2,080 7.7
except furniture)
Sub-Totals 408,960 239,125
Percent of Total — 100.0 — 58.5
Total for all
Manufactures 421,700 242,500
Percent of Total 100.0
57.5
100,880 36,433
— 24.6 — 8.9
104,100 37,100
— 24.7 — 8.8
32,789
37,900
8.0
9.0
-------
84
costs: (1) present and future intake water demands for the cooling and
boiler feed water categories of use were estimated; (2) the quality of
available supplies, including the effect of blending different supplies,
was determined; (3) the required increase in water intake to offset
quality degradation was calculated; and (4) the penalty costs associated
with quality degradation were derived. Methodology used in the penalty
cost assessment varied slightly between the study areas, but the basic
four-step approach was used in all. A discussion of each step, with an
explanation of the differences in methodology used for specific areas,
is presented in the following sections.
Intake Water Requirements. Intake water requirements were esti-
mated by the input-output model (see Chapter V) method in the Lower
Main Stem study area and by trend-extrapolation methods in the Southern
California study area. As explained in the section entitled, "Deter-
mination of Direct Penalty Costs, Gila Study Area," it was determined
that industrial user penalty costs could not be calculated for the Gila
study area.
Cooling and boiler feed intake water requirements for 'each economic
sector of an input-output table can be calculated by the following
equation:
U = (TGO)(Wi)(%) / 325851 ;
where: U = Cooling and boiler feed use in acre-feet,
TGO - Total gross output in $,
W± = Water use coefficient in gal/$, and
% « Percent of total use for cooling and boiler
feed purposes.
-------
85 412
As previously noted, this relationship was used for industries located
in the Lower Main Stem study area because an extensive study of the
subbasin economy had been completed and the input-output, or transactions,
table had been assembled.
At the time of this phase of the Project's study, the input-output
table had not been constructed for the Southern California area; there-
fore, more conventional techniques of trend-extrapolation were used
for Southern California. Such techniques are well known and will not
be discussed here. The data and assumptions which were utilized are
discussed in the last section of this chapter.
Quality of Supply. As described in Chapter III, the mineral quality
of the Colorado River was determined by a computer program at critical
points throughout the Basin for each of the target years. No additional
calculations were required for those industries served directly from
the river.
Some industries were known to rely on a blended water supply from
the Colorado River and one or more other sources. The determination of
the blended quality in such situations is straightforward once the
volume and quality of each source have been established. For a three-
source blended supply,
(q1)(F1) + (q2)(F2) + (q3>(F3>
qt> FJL + F2 + F3
where: q^ = quality of the blended supply,
q,, qo, q3 = mineral qualities of each source
F,, F,, F- = volumes of water from each source used in
the blended supply.
-------
Many assumptions must be made to determine the quality of a blended
supply. A discussion of assumptions made and the resulting qualities
appear in the last section of this chapter entitled, "Determination of
Direct Penalty Costs."
Incremental Water Requirement. A mathematical relationship,
derived from salt-balance and water-balance equations for a closed
system, was used to determine the amount of additional water required
to offset any increase in dissolved solids projected for each supply.
The relationship is:
(~ T (Q2 - Q,)
AI = U 1
- Q2) (T -
where: A I = Change in intake volume in acre- feet resulting
from the change in quality from Q^ to Q2»
U = Cooling and boiler feed water use in acre-feet,
T = Tolerance of system in mg/1 or tons /acre- foot, and
Q2> QI = Quality of intake in mg/1 or tons /acre-foot.
Penalty Cost Assessment. The difference in makeup water require-
ments at any two levels of quality, multiplied by the unit cost of water,
equals the first detriment associated with a change in water quality.
Since the additional makeup water needs to be chemically treated in the
same manner as the rest, a second detriment is computed by multiplying
the incremental amount of makeup water by its unit cost of treatment.
Costs of treating cooling water vary according to the type of treat-
ment, scale of the operation, and local costs of chemicals.
Municipal
Although irrigation is the major water use in the Basin, municipal
-------
87
use is also significant. Hardness, which is closely correlated with
dissolved solids content, creates undesirable effects in domestic uses.
Three alternative methods of evaluating the economic impact upon muni-
cipal uses were examined: (1) the acceptance of undesirable effects,
(2) home water softening, and (3) central softening. Each of these
methods is discussed in the following section.
Acceptance of Undesirable Effects. Domestic users may elect to
accept the consequences of a degraded water supply, in which case the
economic penalties associated with soap use, corrosion, and evaporative
cooling systems are incurred. However, only the additional soap costs
(37)
were used in evaluating penalty costs. Howson studied the relation-
ship between hardness and soap use, and his results indicate an approxi-
mate linear relationship between hardness and annual soap cost per
person. The equation applicable for the Lower Colorado River region
is:
C = K! + K2H ;
where: C = Annual per capita cost of all cleaning products,
H - Total hardness of the water supply in mg/1,
KI - $8.224 when H > 300 mg/1 and $9.60 when H < 300
mg/1, and
K2 - $0.0128/mg/l when H > 300 mg/1 and $0.0084/mg/l
when H < 300 mg/1.
In this case, K, represents the annual per capita expenditure for clean-
ing agents, whereas K2H represents the annual per capita cost of cleaning
agents lost through chemical association with water hardness. As hard-
ness increases, this non-beneficial soap loss also increases. The
-------
415
88
detriments then are calculated as follows:
TOTAL DET » (C) (population affected);
where: TOTAL DET = Total detriments considered when undesirable
effects of a degraded supply are accepted, and
C = Annual per capita cost associated with
specific hardness.
The penalty cost is the difference between the two target years' "total
detriments."
Penalty Cost = ( C) (population affected)
Other forms of economic loss incident to a hard domestic water have
been recognized, of which the following four seem most important:
(1) Accelerated depreciation and higher maintenance costs of
hot-water appliances, pipe, and fittings due to scaling
and corrosion;
(2) Higher fuel costs caused by heat losses in water heaters
(these losses are a consequence of hard scale formation on
heating coils, tubes, and similar fittings);
(3) More rapid wear of fabrics (clothing, linens) washed in
hard water, owing to longer time needed for washing;
(4) Cost of bottled water for drinking and culinary uses (an
unpalatable mineralized water supply may induce consumers
to buy relatively expensive bottled water).
The sum of losses (1) and (2) has been reported from several different
sources to range from $22 to $70 annually for a family of four persons.
Available estimates of savings by use of soft water to offset excess
fabric wear range from $8 to $75 annually per family. Although these
-------
416
S9
losses are known to exist, several studies - including one conducted
by a member of the Project staff in 1964 - have failed to find acceptable
relationships between quality and incurred cost for these four effects.
The Project staff concluded that it would be incorrect to assume any
direct linear relationship between quality and user cost. Therefore,
no attempt was made to evaluate losses associated with these four factors
although it is recognized that such losses may outweigh those associated
with soap and detergent wastage.
For this alternative it was assumed that part of the community
would elect to purchase home softeners and the remainder would elect
to incur increased costs for soaps and detergents to offset the
increased hardness. The penalty costs associated with the use of home
softeners is derived by:
Penalty Costs . p b _ P b .
(Home Softeners)
where: FjL = Number of people using home softeners
with Colorado River water at the pro-
jected quality level,
bi = The unit cost of home softening at the
corresponding water quality level, and
P2, b2 = similarly defined, except Colorado River
water is taken at tne 1960 quality
level.
Estimates for total future population were provided the Project's
economic contractor.<38) Field interviews with officials of individual
water softening companies were made in order to determine the percentage
-------
90
of the present population using home softeners. The percentages of sof-
tener users for future water quality conditions were estimated from the
(37)
information contained in Howson's article. From these sources of
information, a conservative range of increases (5 to 15 percent) in
the percentage of people using softeners was assumed for future quality
conditions.
The variables, b± and b2, in the equation for home softener penalty
costs represent the unit costs of home softening in dollars per capita
per year. The values used for the "b" terms were derived empirically
from rate schedules obtained in interviews with representatives of
individual water softening companies. Although not all people employ-
ing home softening units do so on a rental basis, the unit cost of
rented units compares favorably with the unit cost of purchased units
if the purchase price is amortized over a ten-year period. For this
reason the unit cost on a rental basis, which is easier to work with
both conceptually and mathematically, was utilized in the determination
of home softener detriments. An average family of three to five per-
sons ^39-) and an average daily usage of softened water of 50 gallons per
capita were used to determine the grain capacity of the softening unit
required and "b" values referred to earlier.
Penalty costs for this alternative are also incurred by the portion
of the community not using home softeners as reflected in increased
cost of soaps and detergents. It should be noted that this is a con-
sequence affecting only those persons who do not seek a remedy in water
softening. The penalty costs for the second effect of this alternative
are calculated by the following equation:
-------
418
91
Penalty Costs - C^ - C^2 ;
(Non-Use of
Home Softeners)
GI = Annual per capita costs associated
with future hardness levels,
Co = Annual per capita costs associated
with 1960 level of hardness, and
P, , P2 = Number of people not using home
softeners at projected quality level
and 1960 quality level, respectively.
The total penalty costs for this alternative are the sum of the penalty
costs for the two effects.
Central Softening. Municipal users could elect to install central
softening facilities as the third alternative. The detriments for
this alternative are calculated as follows:
Detriments ^ x d + (K + K H } .
(Central Softening) x 1 •"•
Q = Annual volume of water treated,
A Hi = The difference in hardness between the
plant influent and effluent,
d = Unit operating cost of central soften-
ing expressed in dollars per 1,000
gallons per 100 mg/1 hardness removed,
Ki, K2 = Constants defined under first alter-
native, and
HI = Hardness of the plant effluent.
Since a plant is usually designed for a particular quality effluent, the
-------
92
quality of the effluent remains constant. Thus, ^ » H-^ so that the term
(Ki 4- K2H^) cancels out. Penalty costs are therefore calculated as
follows:
Penalty Costs . Qd(AH _ AH > .
(Central Softening) ^ ^ 2 V '
AH2 = Difference in hardness between a
future target year quality and the
plant effluent quality,
AH^ - Difference in hardness between the
1960 quality and the same plant
effluent quality.
If Q is in thousands of gallons per year, A hardness is in mg/1,
and d is expressed in terms of dollars per thousand gallons per 100 mg/1,
the equation will yield penalty costs in dollars per year.
In the foregoing relationship, the appropriate values of Q were
derived from various estimates in current literature of such organiza-
tions as the Bureau of Reclamation and the Arizona Water Company, and
the values of A hardness were derived from the Project's flow and salt
routing model. The value of d was computed from data obtained in
interviews with the officials of the specific central softening plant
under consideration. The values compared closely with those developed
by Howson who estimated the unit cost of central softening to be $0.05
per 1,000 gallons for the first 100 mg/1 removed and $0.0125 per 1,000
gallons for each subsequent 100 mg/1 removed. In all cases considered
by the Project the differences in hardness were well above the 0-100
mg/1 "ange; therefore, a d value of $0.0125 per 1,000 gallons per 100
-------
420
93
mg/1 hardness removed was used.
If central softening facilities are not available, the cost of
building such a plant can be determined. The fixed costs for proposed
planis were evaluated using a load factor of two-thirds, an assumed
life of 50 years, and interest rates varying between 3-1/2 and 4-1/2
percent- The foregoing values correspond to current design practice
and municipal bond interest rates in 1965, respectively. Although
operating costs in existing softening plants vary considerably, an
average value of $0.0125 per 1,000 gallons per 100 mg/1 hardness
removed was used in this study.
For this alternative, plants were evaluated for several levels of
water supply hardness for which operating costs were calculated. These
costs defined several points on a continuous cost-concentration func-
tion. The increase in costs over the range of increased hardness
concentrations studied was taken as the penalty costs associated with
:;his alternative.
Comparison of Alternatives. The penalty costs associated with each
of the alternatives described were calculated for each major municipality
in the geographic region studied. A comparison of these penalty costs
for che Lower Mara Stem study area is presented in Figure 11, Except
for the Colorado River Aqueduct service area, the alternative resulting
in highest penalty cost was home softening followed by central softening
and soap wastage, in that order. This ranking undoubtedly reflects the
.fact that the soap-wastage method does not account for a\l the costs
incurred. Nevertheless, the soap-wastage method was selected as the
measure of municipal water use penalty costs for all municipal entities
-------
2.0-
tn
a:
o
a
OE
z
HOME SOFTENING-
Z
Ui
a.
Z
CENTRAL SOFTENING
ACCEPTANCE OF UNDESIRABLE
EFFECTS (SOAP WASTAGE!
5gO 380 400 420 440
WATER HARDNESS AT HOOVER DAM IN MG/L
Figure 11. Comparison of Alternative Municipal Penalty Cost Evaluations
in the Lower Main Stem Study Area - 1960
460
-fcr
ro
-------
95
except those that actually hare central softening plants„ These are
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the city of
Calexico, California, in the Southern California water service area.
For these municipalities the central softening method was used to
calculate penalty costs.
DETERMINATION OF DIRECT PENALTY COSTS
Direct economic impacts of projected changes in mineral quality
of the Colorado River were determined for the three primary study areas
(Figure 3): (1) Lower Main Stem, (2) Southern California, and (3) Gila.
The determination of penalty costs associated with each area is dis-
cussed below, A summary of penalty costs for the entire area affected
by quality changes begins on page \26.
Lower Main Stem Study Area (Figure 12)
Irrigated Agriculture Users Affected. The irrigation water users
assessed penalty costs in the Lower Main Stem study area are all located
in Yuma County, Arizona, Yuma County was divided into two areas: (1)
Colorado River Indian Reservation, and (2) the remainder of Yuma County
A third area in the Lower Main Stem - including Washington County, Utah;
Clark and Lincoln Counties, Nevada; and Coconino and Mohave Counties,
Arizona - was studied, but the results of penalty cost assessments
proved negligible. Table 16 summarizes data inputs which were assumed
for penalty cost assessment for irrigation water uses.
Industrial Users Affected. Industrial water users are defined as
all non-agricultural users other than municipalities. They include
mining, manufacturing, trades and services, and all utilities. The per-
cent of total use for boiler feed and cooling purposes was projected
-------
423
96
k
\J
LEGEND
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY
OF SUBBASIN *~>
CIVIL BOUNDARY OF 6
COUNTY STUDY AREA — -
ic jo
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fcdtrol Walct Poih,i-»" Ccwtrol JU*>mitlraiKK>
SOUTHWCST KCfiKMt S«H FKAHCISCO. CALI
Figure 12. Lower Main Stem Study Area
-------
Table 16. Basic Data for Penalty Cost Assessment for Irrigated
Area
Colorado River Indian
Reservation
Remainder of Yuma County
Yuma Project
Gila Project
Agriculture in
Major Crops Grown
Barley, Sorghum Grain,
Cotton
Cotton, Pasture,
Alfalfa, Flaxseed,
Grapefruit, Oranges,
Lower Main
Target
Year
1960
1980
2010
1960
1980
2010
Stem Study Area
Acreage_
30,461
84,525
101,360
153,085
150,568
133,500
Applied Amount
(Acre-Feet)
126,500
406,600
483,000
760,700
714,000
618,000
Tangerines, Lemons,
Limes
Alfalfa Hay, Cotton,
Irrigated Pasture,
So rghums, Lemon s, Lime s,
Oranges, Tangerines,
Cantaloupes, Lettuce
VO
JS-
ro
js-
-------
425
98
to remain at the 1960 level for all sectors except electrical energy
which is the major heavy water use in the Lower Main Stem study area,
(40
Although recent trends indicate that this percentage is decreasing, '
it was felt that the majority of industrial users would not convert to
more costly high tolerant systems. These users would, therefore, be
forced to maintain the present relative percentage of boiler feed and
cooling water usage. For the electrical energy sector, it was assumed
that present volume of cooling and boiler feed water use by sensitive
systems would remain constant over time although total use was projected
to increase. This assumption resulted in projected percentages of 90,
11, and 3 for 1960, 1980, and 2010, respectively, for sensitive-system
use relative to total intake requirement.
The intakes for industrial users of Colorado River water are located
throughout the length of the study area. However, more than 75 percent
of all industrial water consumed in the Lower Main Stem study area is
diverted from Lake Mead to the Henderson, Nevada, industrial complex.
Thus, it was assumed that all industrial diversions occurred at Lake
Meadc The target year mineral qualities at Lake Mead were, therefore,
used as intake qualities for all industries in the Lower Main Stem
study area. The relative magnitude of penalty costs did not warrant
further refinement.
Municipal Users Affected. Five municipalities in the Lower Main
Stem area will be affected by changes in the quality of Colorado River
water. The target year populations served by Colorado River water (not
necessarily the total populations) and the target year water qualities
(hardness) at the respective points of diversion from the river are
shown in Table 17.
-------
426
99
Table 17. Municipalities Served by Colorado River Water
in the Lower Main Stem Study Area
Hardness (CaC03)—^
Population Served^/ (mg/1)
Municipality 1960 198QJL/ 201Qby 1960 1980 2010
Las Vegas, Nevada 42,500 141,000 272,000 345 420 '460
Henderson, Nevada 17,000 39,000 75,000 345 420 460
Boulder City, Nevada 4,300 12,700 24,000 345 420 :.50
Parker, Arizona 1,500 4,000 7,000 340 415 460
Yuma, Arizona 30,000 58,000 101,000 370 485 540
&f Population served by Colorado River water, not necessarily the total
population. .„„,.
b_/ Population projections are Leasure's median projections.
c/ Intake quality as developed in Project's salt and flow routing model.
Results of Analyses. Each individual user's water quality is
directly related to the water quality at Hoover Dam, as shown in Table
17. As indicated in Chapter III, penalty costs incurred by each user
were plotted versus Hoover Dam water qualities. Hoover Dam serves as
a convenient reference point and is the major control structure on the
river system below which all significant penalty costs are incurred
In fact all user intakes in the three study areas are located at at below
Hoover Dam. The results of the direct penalty cost analyses are
summarized in Table 18.
Table 18. Summary of Direct Penalty Costs in the
Lower Main Stem Study Area
Target Years
Type User 1980 2010
($1000 annually)
Irrigated Agriculture 1,096,5 2,423,8
Municipal 275.0 779.0
Industrial 106.7 410.2
TOTAL 1,478.2 3,613,0
-------
427
100
Southern California Study Area (Figure 13)
For convenience, all California lands receiving Colorado River water
were included in this study area. The area is divided into three parts:
one served by the Colorado River Aqueduct with diversion point at Parker
Dam, one served by the All American Canal which originates at Imperial
Dam, and the other comprising California lands along the Colorado River
with varying diversion points. The total study area is shown in Figure
13, and the water distribution systems are shown more clearly in Figure 14.
Colorado River Aqueduct Service Area. A substantial blending of
northern California water with Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) water is
expected by 1980. An increasing supply of northern California water of
high quality will be delivered via the Foothill Feeder to MWD's present
treatment plants at La Verne and Yorbe Linda, and probably also to a
third plant near Pasadena proposed for construction in the 1980's.
An analysis of the possible effect on MWD water blended with northern
California water was made assuming that the CAP delivery schedule is
met. The results are summarized graphically in Figure 15. The upper
curve shows that, based upon projected Colorado River quality degrada-
tion, the quality of MWD supply will continue degrading until 1971 when
deliveries of northern California water are scheduled to begin and,
thereafter, will improve rapidly to 550 mg/1 by 1979, the date .postulated
for the beginning operation of the CAP. Assuming that the full load of
the CAP is realized immediately, salinity levels in the blended MWD
supply should drop to about 380 mg/1 in the following year. Thereafter,
over the next 35 years, there will be a long decline as gradually
increasing amounts of high quality northern California water are brought
-------
1 \ Los /Angeles
Santa Barba
Ventura
San Bernadino
County
San Bernadino
Riverside" ~ ~- -
RIVER
AQUEDUCT
MAIM HIGHWAY
STATE BOUNDARY
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY
COUNTY BOUNDARY
Riverside
County
Study Area
Bou n dary
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATE
QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF
Figure 13. Southern California Study Area
XT
IY>
00
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
LEGEND
8OO
WITH PROJECTED QUALITY DEGRADATION
IN COLORADO RIVER.
WITH CONSTANT GUALITY ! N COLORADO
RIVER.
I960
1970
"•"•••».»„„„„
1980
TIME IN YEARS
990
2000
2010
Figure 15. Quality of the Metropolitan Water District Blended Supply Composed of Colorado River
and Feather River Water
-------
104
In. In the year 2010 the quality of the blended MWD supply will be
about 290 mg/1 if quality degradation of Colorado River water continues
at the projected rate.
The lower curve shows the consequences of an unchanging quality
level in the Colorado River portion of the supply with total dissolved
solids maintained constant at the 1960 value of 684 mg/1 at Parker
Dam. Therefore, use of Colorado River water affects the blended MWD
supplies by 55 mg/1 (325 to 380) in 1980 and by 50 mg/1 (240 to 290) in
2010. A synoptic tabulation of anticipated changes in salinity of the
MWD blended supply is shown in Table 19.
Table 19. Present and Projected Mineral Quality of Metropolitan
Water District Blended Water Deliveries
Year
Colorado River Supply Feather River Supply Blended Supply
Quality TDS5/
Volume
TDS
Volume
TDS
(1000 AF/Yr) (mg/1) (1000 AF/Yr) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
1960 817 684
1971 1,105 784
1972 1,120 793
1979 1,212 857
1980 550 866
2010 550 985
95 160
200 160
956 160
1,064 160
2,635 160
684 684
740 640
700 600
550 450
380 325
290 240
aj Blended quality assuming constant Colorado River salinity of 684 mg/1.
Agricultural Users Affected. The MWD provides an agricultural
water supply to several constituent members. At the present time,
the most prominent agricultural use member - the San Diego County
Water Authority - distributes water to four irrigation districts
in the western part of the county, and this pattern is expected to
continue. The relationship between the total agricultural use of
-------
432
105
MWD water and the agricultural use of MWD water supplied to the
San Diego County Water Authority is shown in Table 20.
Table 20. Present and Projected Use of Metropolitan Water
Year
1960
1965
1980
2010
District Water for
Total MWD Use£/
(Acre- Feet)
119,160
152,756
161,000
130,000
Irrigated Agriculture
San Diego County
(Acre-Feet)
39,700
69,069
110,000
130,000
Use*/
aj Information obtained from personal contact with MWD
personnel.
Three assumptions were made in order to evaluate the effects
of changes in the quality of Colorado River water on the MWD
users. The first assumption was that the cropping pattern of
western San Diego County is representative of the cropping pat-
tern in the total area served by the MWD. This assumption seems
reasonable since the portion of MWD agricultural water used in
San Diego County will increase until the year 2010 when all MWD .
agricultural water will be used in that area. The second assump-
tion was that by the year 1980 the MWD deliveries would be a blend
of 485,000 AF of Colorado River (684 mg/1) and 1,5 million AF of
Feather River water (160 mg/1).^ The third assumption was that
I/ The blend of northern California and Colorado River water is based
upon published delivery schedules assuming that CAP will be completed
by 1980. MWD personnel have informed the Project that present plans
are to divert 65,000 AF from the CRA directly to agricultural users
in the San Diego area before any blending with northern California
water. Therefore, the amount of Colorado River water which will be
blended has been reduced from 550,000 AF to 485,000 AF.
-------
106
433
the blended irrigation water would be diluted uniformly by an
average annual effective local rainfall of nine inches—' and that
this water would be consumed by crops and other vegetation. (It
should be recognized that the economic effects are dampened con-
siderably by the last two assumptions.)
Based upon the assumptions stated above, data were developed
for use in calculating the direct economic penalty costs to the
irrigation water users served by the MWD. These data are summarized
in Table 21.
Table 21. Present and Projected Data Used in Evaluating
the Direct Penalty Costs to Irrigation Water
Users Served by the Metropolitan Water District
Amount
Target Irrigation Water Effective Total Water Blended
Year Acreage Applied Rainfall Applied Quality (TDS)
(mg/1)
1960
1980
2010
(AC)
62,900
83,100
66,700
(AF)
120,000
160,000
130,000
(AF)
50,000
66,000
53,000
(AF)
170,000
226,000
183,000
409
452
Industrial Users Affected. The Colorado River Aqueduct
delivers water to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California which, in turn, serves water users in a six-county
area stretching from Ventura County to San Diego County (Tigure 14).
Present total water use for the Southern California study areas
Ij "Effective rainfall" is defined as rainfall that is not lost by runoff
during a storm and is not lost by evaporation from the ground surface
after a storm. During the seasons 1932-1957, 15 inches of seasonal
rainfall was exceeded only five times at Pomona, an area with higher
rainfall than the study area. There were only three years in 25 that
were likely to produce any leaching of lands under winter crops.'19'
-------
107
was determined from available published data. Data for the MWD,
which is the only entity served by the Colorado River Aqueduct, was
t n t V
obtained from State of California publications. A summary of
these data for the six-county area served by MWD is given in Table
(19)
22. Bulletin 78, California Department of Water Resources,
contains information indicating that 87 percent of the six-county
area is served by MWD; however, only 28 percent of the water
delivered by MWD is supplied by the Colorado River.-' Therefore,
the present total amount of industrial water supplied to Southern
California via the CRA was estimated to be: (0.87)(0.28)(290,000)
- 71,000 AF.
Future intake requirements for the CRA were extrapolated from
estimates of the probable ultimate industrial development and the
ultimate delivery requirements per irrigated acre. An alternate
calculation relating industrial use to projected urban demand
produced a second approximation of intake requirements. From
these two estimates, a total intake requirement of 825,000 AF was
established for the year 2010 and 500,000 AF for the year 1980,
Based upon the assumptions: (1) published delivery schedules for
northern California water will be met; (2) Colorado River water
will be delivered in accordance with the authorized schedule for
the Central Arizona Project; (3) two-thirds of all water use is
for cooling and boiler feed purposes;<5) and (4) industry will
use local and imported waters in proportion to their general
availability in the area, it was estimated that 215,000 AF of
Colorado River water would be used for cooling and boiler feed
I/ Records of MWD for water year 1962-63.
-------
Table 22. Water Use by Manufacturing Industry ri.r. the
Six Counties
of the Metropolitan Water District >
of Southern California
SIC No.
Los Angeles
Orange
San Diego
San Bernardino
Riverside
Ventura
Petrol.
Ref
Food
Cherru&
Allied
Paper
Stone .
Clay &
Glass
(Ac re -Feet per year x
29
75.3
2.6
9.2
0.2
1.8
0.4
20
32.4
4.8
3.7
2.0
1.2
1.7
28
22.0
2.0
1.1
0..3
0.0
0.7
26
19.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6
32
7.2
0.1
0..2
5.6
2.9
0.2
Fab.
Metals
1000)
34
20.6
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
., 1957-1959 c
Transp.
Eqpt.
37
16.3
0.9
2.5
0.1
0.5
0.0
Prim.
Metals
33
5.6
0.5
0,1
6.5
0.4
0.0
Wood
(Exc.
Furn.)
24
0.5
0.4
0.1
1,4
0.0
0.4
Sub--
Totals
199.5
13.2
17.2
16,2
7.0
4.0
% of
County County
Totals Totals
89 224.2
74 17.9
93 18.5
93 17.5
96 7.3
92 4.4
o
00
Grand Total 289.8
or Approximately 290
-Cr
CO
v_n
-------
purposes within the MWD in 1980 and 418,000 AF would be used for
these purposes in 2010.
Incremental water requirements were calculated by the mathe-
matical relationship discussed in the section entitled, "Methods of
Penalty Cost Evaluation." The mineral quality of water delivered to
Industrial uses was assumed to deteriorate from 360 to 400 mg/1 in
1980 and from 240 to 300 mg/1 in 2010. Based on an average tolerance
of 2,200 mg/1 for sensitive industrial systems in the Colorado River
Basin, additional water required to offset quality deterioration was
estimated to be 455 AF/yr in 1980 and 735 AF/yr in 2010.
A unit cost of $35 per acre-foot was used to calculate the
penalty cost associated with makeup water requirements in the MWD.
Incremental treatment costs were derived from an industrial water-
(42)
use survey made in 1959 by the National Aluminate Corporation.
Unit costs for treating cooling water generally ranged between three
and seven cents per 1,000 gallons for internal treatment in Southern
California with a bias toward the higher figure. The latter figure
was used except where a lower cost was known to prevail.
A summary of pertinent data used to evaluate industrial penalty
costs in the Southern California area is presented in Table 23.
Table 23. Projected Industrial Water Requirements
for the Metropolitan Water District
ffi ffi
Cooling Requirement 46,000 187,000 362,000
Boiler Feed Requirement 6,000 28,000 56,000
-------
110 437
Municipal Users Affected. The MWD has two large water treat-
ment plants. The older F. E. Weymouth Filtration and Softening Plant
located near La Verne has a capacity of 400 mgd. Softening is done
by a cation-exchange process. The large-scale and integrated nature
of the operation (the district itself produces much of the sodium
chloride needed for regeneration of the cation exchange materials)
permits softening at a very low cost of less than 1-1/2 cents per
1,000 gallons. A new water treatment facility, the Robert B. Diemer
Plant located near the community of Yorbe Linda, was dedicated in
1964. It has a filtration capacity of 200 mgd, but does not have
any water-softening facilities.
Of the 550,000 AF/year assumed to be diverted from Lake Havasu
in 1980 and 2010, the MWD municipal users are assessed the costs
of softening 400,000 AF/year in both target years. The remaining
unsoftened volumes are assumed filtered at the Diemer Plant and
then blended with northern California water. Of these
remaining volumes, it was assumed that agriculture would use 95,000
AF/year and 65,000 AF/year in 1980 and 2010, respectively. Only
the softening expense makes up the penalty costs; the cost of
filtering is, of course, not included.
Penalty cost assessments were based on central softening treat-
ment cost of $0.125/1,000 gal/100 mg/1 hardness removed. The present
and projected municipal use of MWD water is shown in Table 24.
All American Canal Service Area.
Agricultural Users Affected. The All American Canal conveys
water diverted at Imperial Dam to Imperial County and the Coachella
-------
438
in
Table 24. Present and Projected Municipal Use
of Metropolitan Water District Water
Target Year Volume
(AF)
I960 442,000
1980 400,000
2010 400,000
Valley Irrigation District. The present and projected acreages,
amounts of applied water, and major crops grown in these areas
are shown in Table 25.
Industrial Users Affected. Present industrial water intake
requirements for the All American Canal service area were derived
from existing data. Future demand was assumed to grow in strict
proportion to sales of manufactured products. Based upon this
assumption and considering that the relative ratio of boiler feed
and cooling water use to total intake would remain constant, esti-
mates of 125 AF/year in 1980 and 380 AF/year in 2010 were derived.
Table 26 shows present and future intake water requirements. In
addition to the amounts shown in the table, approximately 433 AF
of water were consumed in steam-electric power generation in 1964.
The annual projected intake requirements for this purpose are 860
AF in 1980 and 1,740 AF in 2010.
Industries served by the All American Canal use Colorado
River water exclusively so that there are no effects caused by dilu-
tion water from other sources. The water quality at Imperial Dam
was used as the intake quality in all cases for industries in this
area. The significant industrial supply qualities for diversion
-------
Area
Imperial County
Coachella Valley
County Water
District
Irrigated Agriculture
Major Crops Grown
Alfalfa, Barley, Vegetables
Carrots, Grapes, and Cotton
r All American
Target
Year
1960
1980
2010
1960
1980
2010
Canal Users
Acreage
489,716
560,000
529,000
44,671
54,800
54,500
Water Applied
(Acre-Feet)
2,426,700
2,704,000
2,552,000
284,000
351,750
351,000
-Cr
U>
vo
-------
Table 26. Summary of Water Data Used for Industrial Penalty
Cost Assessment in Imperial County, California
Year
1960^
1965
1980
2010
Cooling
(A-F/yr)
1,927
2,670
5,290
10,800
Boiler Feed
(A-F/yr)
192
270
530
1,070
Process
(A-F/yr)
1,706
2,360
4,680
9,520
Other
(A-F/yr)
526
560
1,100
2,250
Total
(A-F/yr)
4,351
5,860
11, 600^
23,60(£X
Intake
Quality
(mg/1)
759
1,056
1,223
a/ Based on 1957-1959 period
b/ Values rounded
-------
114
and delivery points are summarized in Table 26.
Municipal Users Affected. As mentioned before, several com-
munities in Imperial County get their water supply from the Colorado
River via the All American Canal distribution system. These com-
munities, listed in order of their population, are El Centre, Braw-
ley, Calexico, Holtville, Imperial, Calipatria, Westmorland,, and
Niland. The present and projected populations of these communities
are shown in Table 27.
Table 27. Present and Projected Populations of
Imperial County Communities
Towns
I960 1980 2010
El Centro
Brawley
Calexico
All Others
18,300
13,000
8,900
11,200
25,800
14,300
12,600
15,000
45,400
16,800
22,300
22,500
Total
51,400 '^7,700 107,000
Only Calexico practices softening in a central municipal plant.
Privately owned or rented water softeners are widely used in other
communities because of the hardness of the supply (approximately
385 mg/1). A survey conducted in December of 1964 among several
comniercial water softening services and sales outlets indicated
that between 2,500 and 3,000 water softeners are in use in Imperial
County. A reasonable estimate of the total population using sof-
tened water in the valley would be 19,000 (9,000 in Calexico and
10,000 in the remaining communities). This is about 37 percent of
the urban population. All of this group would be affected by
rising costs of water softening if the hardness of the supply should
-------
115
increase. The remaining 63 percent of the population would also
be injured, not by rising expense of treatment but rather by the
necessity for heavier consumption of soap, etc., as previously
described.
Other California Users. There are other users of Colorado River
water located in California that are not served either by the MWD system
or the All American Canal. These users, located along the Colorado River,
are the Palo Verde Irrigation District and the communities of Needles
and Blythe.
Agricultural Users Affected. Irrigation water for the Palo
Verde district is diverted from the Palo Verde Diversion Dam located
upstream from Blythe, California. The present and projected
acreage of principal crops grown and amounts of applied water in
the district are shown in Table 28.
Table 28. Principal Crops Grown. Present and Projected
Irrigation Acreages, and Amounts of Applied
Water in the Palo Verde Irrigation District
Target Irrigated Applied
Principal Crops Grown Year Acreage Irrigation Water
c c —~ (Acre-Feet)
Alfalfa, Cotton, Barley 1960 78,735 ?,76,600
1980 111,800 541,400
2010 121,000 595,400
Municipal Users Affected. The towns of Needles and Blythe
are located in California along the Colorado River and both get
their municipal water supply from the river. For purposes of
penalty cost assessment, they are included in the Southern Cali-
fornia water service area. The present and projected populations
-------
116
of these two towns are shown in Table 29.
Table 29. Present and Projected Populations
of Needles and Elythe, California
Town I960 1980 2010
Needles 6,080 10,600 14,000
Blythe 6,000 13,900 18,500
Results of Analyses. The results of the penalty cost analyses for
the MWD service area, the All American Canal service area, the "other
California" area, and the total Southern California study area are
summarized in Table 30.
Gila Study Area (Figure 16)
The Gila study area is defined by counties. It includes Maricopa,
Pima, Final, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, Yavapai, and
Catron Counties.
Agricultural Users Affected, In order to evaluate the effect of
salinity in the Central Arizona Project area, it was necessary to make
four assumptions: (1) All Colorado River water deliveries will be used
for irrigated agriculture, the least sensitive of all users; (2) there
will be uniform mixing of agricultural supplies from all sources (ground,
surface, and CAP deliveries); (3) the quality of ground water in the
CAP area is the median or 50 percentile average quality of all ground
water presently used; and (4) the quality of surface and ground water
presently used will not change in time, and only CAP water delivered
from the Colorado River will change.
Each of the above assumptions was designed to produce conservative
-------
Table 3O. SUWIMJ of Direct Penalty Costs Incurred by All
Southern California Users of Colorado River Water
1980
2010
Colorado River All-Aoerican Other
Type Users
Irrigated
Agriculture
Industrial
Municipal
TOTAL
Aqueduct
484.9
49.4
1,220.0
1,754.3
Canal
Calif.
($1,000 annually)
3,704.3 427.8
6.8
100.0
3,811.1
27.0
454.8
Southern Southern
Calif. Study Colorado Biver All-American Other Calif. Study
Area Total Aqueduct Canal Calif. Area Total
($1,000 annual ly)
4,617.0
56.2
1,347.0
6,020.2
751.9
79.7
1,950.0
2,781.6
8,371.7
22.9
233.0
948.5
56.0
8,627.6 1,004.5
10,072.3
102.6
2,239,0
12,413.9
-------
IECEM
CEOCIANMC lOiltAIT
OF SIIIASIN
CIVI1 IOIMAIY
Srt»T AtfA
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ffd«rol Water Pollution Conlfol Adminiftralian
SOUTHWEST NEftlOM (AM rRANCISCO . CALIf
Figure 16. Cila Subbasin Study Area
45
4S-
Ul
-------
446
119
estimates of total penalty costs„ The assumptions were necessary because
present and projected data were not adequate and, in some instances,
not available. The first assumption implies that good quality ground
water now used for irrigation will be exchanged for CAP water allocated
to municipal use. Refining the second assumption would require opera-
tional data and projections of use (in many cases not available) from
each individual water company, entailing a long and expensive survey and
analysis. In the third assumption, quality of ground water used for
irrigation was estimated at a median TDS concentration of 835 mg/1
(Figure 17). A more representative flow-weighted average could have
been computed if the volume of water and quality data were available
for each well. The arithmetic average TDS concentrations for the wells
is 1,300 mg/1 (Figure 17). The fourth assumption was based on infor-
mation obtained from knowledgeable persons in the Phoenix-Tucson area
who indicated that separate analyses for each ground water basin would
be required to identify quality trends. Preliminary attempts to identify
quality trends using limited data were unsuccessful, primarily because
ground water quality in the CAP area varies widely in composition and
concentration both horizontally and vertically. This variance is not
only related to the quality of the recharge waters, but also to the
chemical changes occurring within the ground water mass.
The present (1960) and projected irrigated acreages were defined
for the Gila study area by economic sector. From the aqueduct delivery
and turnout points, it appeared that substantially all of Maricopa and
Final Counties and portions of Pima County would receive CAP water or
return flows. It was assumed that no area south of Tucson would be
-------
ZOO-]
180-
MEDIAN = 635 M6/L
ARITHMETIC AVERAGE = 1300 MG/L
NOTE;
Data From " The Quality of
Arizona Irrigation Water*"
University of Arizona,
Report 223, Sept 1964,
400
600
1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4OOO 4400
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN MG/L
480O
Figure 17. Mineral Quality of Ground Water Used for Irrigation in the Central Arizona Project Area
fs
I
- J
-------
121
affected and that areas outside the Santa Cruz River Valley proper north
of Tucson would not be affected, Thus, about 50 percent of the irrigated
area of Pima County would be influenced. Therefore, all irrigated lands
in Maricopa and Pinal Counties and half of those in Pima County were
assessed agricultural salinity penalty costs,
A decline in irrigated acreage is projected for every county in
the study area. Since the irrigated area affected by the CAP accounts
for 81.5 percent of all acreage in the study area in 1960, it was assumed
that the CAP area acreages would decrease in proportion to the total
reduction in subbasin acreage Water requirements for the CAP are
shown in Table 31.
Table 31. Present and Projected Water Required for Agriculture
in the Central Arizona Project Area
Year Amount
(1000 AF/Yr)
1960 3,482
1980 3,286
2010 2,.923
The sources from which the water requirements will be met are shown
in Table 32. The surface supply quality was estimated to be the average
of the 1914-1958 hydrologic period as shown in Table 33.
Estimating an average ground water quality is subject to uncertainty
due in part to a lack of both flow and quality data. Therefore, a sta-
tistical analysis of domestic and of irrigation ground water quality
was made, based on data from two University of Arizona publications.
(43, 44) The affected ground water areas were delineated as indicated
-------
122
Table 32. Present and Projected Sources of Water
Year
1960
1980
2010
for Irrigation in the CAP Area
Surface
a/
723-
723
723
Sources
Ground
(1,000 A.F.Ar
2,759
1,606
1,627
CAP
.)
b/
957-
b/
573-
Total
3,482
3,286
2,923
a/ Farm deliveries from diversion of 1,096,000 acre-feet.
fc>/ Applied CAP water assuming a 70 percent delivery efficiency
to farm headgates.
Table 33. Quantity and Quality of Surface
v'Vrde River at Bartlett Dam
3-.11 River at Stewart Dam
Gila River at Kelvin
Waters Entering the
Pleasant
Dam
un
;e for all Supplies
CAP Area3/
Volume
100,600
454,800
626,000
356,000
___
TDS
Quality
(mg/1)
210
240
810
600
555
a/ From Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project
routing model.
-------
450
123
in Figure 18. The distribution of mineral quality for wells in these
areas is shown in Figure 17. The median IDS concentration is 835 mg/1
while the flow-weighted mean is about 1,300 mg/ln The median and weighted
mean for the domestic wells are 480 mg/1 and 700 mg/1, respectively.
It was assumed that the TDS concentration of ground water used for
agriculture would be 835 mg/1 in each target year.
Imported water is the third supply source* Mineral quality at
Parker Dam, the diversion point, was projected by the routing model to
be 866 mg/1 in 1980 and 985 mg/1 in 2010. Mineral quality at the point
of delivery was estimated by computing the evaporation losses (concen-
trating effects) incurred in transit. These losses were determined
by subtracting the seepage losses from the total losses. Bureau of
Reclamation estimates of total losses on the order of 10 percent of total
volume were used. The dimensions of the proposed aqueduct and the
coefficient of permeability of the concrete lining were obtained from
Bureau of Reclamation reports and were used in computing the seepage
losses. Based on these calculations, the qualities at the point of
delivery were estimated to be 920 mg/1 and 1,010 mg/1 in 1980 and 2010,
respectively.
The penalty cost assessment was based on the schedule of deliveries
presented in the 1967 Hearings on the Central Arizona Project before the
U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Major crops grown, irrigated acreages, and the amount and quality
of applied irrigation water in 1960 and projections for 1980 and 2010
are shown in Table 34.
-------
124
Proposed
C.A.R AQUEDUCT
Proposed MAXWELL
v DAM SITE
\
\
T.14S
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER AREA
j
24
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
SOUTHWEST REGION SAN F»ANCItCO.CALIF
Figure /&• Location of Major Groundwater Areas in rhe Central Atizona
Project Area
-------
452
125
Table 34. Major Crops Grown, Present and Projected Irrigated
Acreages, and Amounts and Quality of Applied
Irrigation Water in the Central Arizona Project Area
Major Applied Blended
Crops Grown Year Acreage Amount Quality (IDS)
(AF) (mg/1)
Cotton, alfalfa, I960 835,700 3,482,000 777
barley 1980 771,000 3,286,000 796
2010 630,000 2,923,000 800
Existing surface and ground water supplies made up the 1960 require-
ment since there was no Colorado River water used in that year. The
effect of the CAP is shown from 1980 to 2010. There is no salinity
penalty cost in 1980 - the assumed water delivery date for the CAP,.
Industrial and Municipal Users Affected. According to the assump-
tions previously discussed, all CAP water would be used for irrigated
agriculture. Based on this assumption, there would be no industrial
and municipal users affected by quality degradation of Colorado River
water.
Results of Analyses. There would be no penalty costs in 1980, the
assumed base year for this analysis. The use of 1980 as a base for
the CAP analysis is comparable to the use of 1960 as a base for analyses
of other areas.
Again, the purpose of this study was to measure external dis-
economies caused by the degradation of Colorado River water only. In
the CAP area it was anticipated that the Colorado River would provide
no more than 30 percent of all agricultural water. Thus, the effects
of the water quality degradations of the blended supply are diminished
at least three-fold, based on the assumption that the qualities of all
-------
126
other supplies would remain constant over time as previously discussed.
The results of the direct penalty cost analyses are shown in Table 35.
Summary of Lower Basin and Southern California Areas
The results of the analyses of direct penalty costs are summarized
in Table 36 and Figure 19. Based upon this analysis, the total direct
penalty cost in 1980 due to mineral quality degradation of Colorado
River water would be $7.5 million. The projected total for year 2010
would be $16.3 million. It should be noted that more than 75 percent
of the total direct penalties in both target years will be incurred
by irrigated agricultural users.
453
-------
127
Table 35. Summary qf Direct Penalty Cost in
the Gila Study Area
Type
Agricultural
Industrial
Municipal
1980 2010
(In $1,000 Annually) (In $1,000 Annually)
0
0
0
'AL 0
245.7
—'
.^^____
245.7
a/ All CAP water is assumed to be used for irrigated
agriculture.
Table 36. Summary of Direct Penalty Costs in
the Lower Colorado Basin
Type
Irrigated
Agriculture
Industry
Municipalities
1980 2010
(In $1,000 Annually) (In $1,000 Annually)
TOTAL
5,713.5
162.9
1,622.0
7,498.4
12,741.8
512.8
3.018.0
16,272.6
-------
2010
20
oc
o
a
O
J
to
o
o
U
Z
15
10
675
700 725 750 775 800 825 850 875 900 925 950 975 1000
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/l) AT HOOVER DAM
Figure 19. Summary of Direct Penally Cosls Incurred in the Lower Colorado River Basin
& Southern California Study Areas
.t-
..i,
HI
-------
129
CHAPTER V. REGION-WIDE ECONOMIC IMPACT
INTERDEPENDENCE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
In addition to the direct economic effects of salinity upon beneficial
users of water, there are numerous indirect effects which are brought
about by the interdependence of economic activities. These effects are
observed in nearly every sphere of economic activity and can be calculated
when the dependency of each economic sector upon other sectors is known.
Examples of the interdependence between economic activities are discussed
in this section.
Water quality degradation of an industrial source causes either a
direct loss of production or added costs of treatment and water purchases
in order to maintain production. The former situation leads to decreased
demands for other resource inputs to the production process forcing the
supplier of such input resources to reduce his production. This secondary,
or indirect effect, continues in a domino-like sequence until all such
interdependent relationships have been exhausted. Added costs of pro-
duction, the latter situation, induces indirect costs through a misalloca-
tion of resources (expenditures for treatment versus expenditures for
productive purposes) representing a loss to the optimum regional economic
output.
Similar effects are observed in other sectors of the economy. A
decrease in the output of agriculture products leads to both direct and
indirect decreases in the output of all other industries due to regional
economic interdependence. Agriculture decreases its purchases from
dependent industries and these industries in turn decrease their purchases
-------
130 457
from dependent industries until all reduced demands are satisfied. The
economy settles back to a new demand-supply relationship.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology used to
calculate the indirect economic effects of water quality degradation.
INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL
The technique and underlying assumptions of input-output analysis
are well documented.^5^ This chapter is concerned with the application
of the model to evaluate mineral quality degradation effects. This
type of analysis depends basically on a transaction table. This table
is described succinctly by Miernyk-' as follows:
"The transactions table simultaneously describes
the demand-supply relationships of an economy in
equilibrium. It describes the economy as it is,
not as it should be, on the basis of some criterion
or set of criteria. The table does not tell us
whether the economy is operating at peak efficiency
--it does show the final demand for goods and
services and the interindustry transactions
required to satisfy that demand."
The input-output table is essentially a record of sales and pur-
chases for each of the sectors defined in the table. The table describes
the demand-and-supply relationship of the region's economy for the year
designated.
I/ Miernyk, William H., "The Element of Input-Output Analyses," New York
~ Random House, 1965, Library of Congress No. 65-23339, p. 30.
(Reference No. 45)
-------
131 458
Construction of the input-output table for a given year is the
first of several steps. From the 1-0 table, a matrix of requirements
(direct coefficients) from each industry per dollar of adjusted gross
output for each industry is computed, and a corresponding table of
interdependence (Direct-Indirect) coefficients is derived. The inter-
dependence coefficients take into account the direct and indirect
effects on all industries of changes in final demand for any one
industry.
To illustrate the use of this tool, a simplified version of a
model composed of the agricultural, mining, and manufacturing- sectors
will be discussed. Symbolic transactions for this simplified version
of the economy are shown in Figure 20. The portion of the transactions
table enclosed in black lines is defined as the processing sector.-'
Reading across the top row, Aj_, A2, AS, and DA represent total sales
(TA) by agriculture. Reading down the left column, AI} MI, F^ and PA
represent total purchases (TPA) by agriculture. The same procedures
apply for mining and manufacturing. The expression in mathematical
terms for the agriculture sector
TA = A-L + A2 + A3 + DA, and (1)
TPA = A1 + ML + Fx + PA (2)
applied equally with different symbols for the mining and manufacturing
sectors. Thus, gross output (TA) minus intermediate use (Alf A2, and A3)
equals final use (DA) for the total system.
II A sector may be defined as a single industry such as mining, or a
~ group of industries such as referred to in the table. The meaning
in each case should be clear from the context.
-------
132
1*59
.
M tX
4J C
CO -H
3 <->
•O .-I
c cui
H «
Agriculture
Mining
Manufacturing
Final Payments
Total Gross Outlay
Industry
Purchasing
QJ
1-1
3
r-l
3
•r-l
^
00
Al
MI
Fl
00
c
T*
c
•H
A2
M2
F2
t>0
C tJ
•r-l C
M 0)
3 e
4-1 Ol
o Q
(Q
"4-1 r-l
3 ^
C C
S £
A3
M3
F3
DA
DM
DF
4-1
(X
4-1
cS
CO
CO
o
v^
o
I— 1
(4
4-1
o
H
TA
TM
TF
PA PM PF DP (TP)
TPA TPM TPF (TD)
Figure 20. Illustrative Transactions Table
-------
133
The equation form of the table is more useful for analytical pur-
poses. As described earlier, the direct coefficients show the direct
purchases by each sector from every other sector per dollar of output.
Thus, for agriculture we can define a direct coefficient as follows:—'
ail = Al . (3)
TPA
a21 = Ml . and (4)
TPA
a31 = Fl . (5)
TPA
The production function (equation 2) may be replaced by its equivalent
form:
TPA = a11 TPA + a21 TPA + a31 TPA + PA, (6)
or, since TPA = TA,
TA = an TA + a TA + a31 TA + PA.!/ (7)
Originally the sales distribution equations were defined as:
TA = A-j^ + A2 + A + DA, (8)
TM = »!]_ + M + M3 + DM, and (9)
TF = FL + F2 + F3 + DF. (10)
If direct coefficients are defined for the mining and manufacturing
sectors, these may be rewritten as follows:
TA = an TA + a12 TM + a13 TF + DA, (11)
TM = a21 TA + a22 TM + a23 TF + DM, and (12)
TF = a31 TA + a32 TM + a33 TF + DF. (13)
II This simplified description overlooks problems of inventory adjustment,
margin-ing and so on which are important to the process but not to
illustration of the logic. For a detailed discussion, see Reference
No. 46.
-------
134
These equations in standard form are written:
, TM + a,0 TF + DA
(au -1) TA +
a TA + (a -1) TM +
0, (14)
TF + DM = 0, and (15)
TM + (a33 -1) TF + DF = 0. (16)
The same equations in the notation of matrix algebra are written:
21
a31 TA +
21
!2
22
!3
33
X
TA
TM
TF
+
DA
DM
DF
0.
(17)
In short hand notation the same equations are written:
solving for the level of total output
or
S - E-3-1* 0
(18)
(19)
Equation (19) is the "model" used for evaluating the indirect effects
of salinity upon the Colorado River Basin economy. This model may be
used to evaluate constraints on output, T; changes in economic structure,
A; or changes in demand patterns, D. Although the notation of equation
(19) is used throughout this section, it is necessary to emphasize that
the effect of changing any individual transaction in the initial table
can be evaluated by the model. Thus, equation (19) is merely a short
hand notation which indicates the mathematical form of the economic
mode1.
EVALUATION OF TOTAL SALINITY EFFECTS
Because economic activities are interrelated, any change leads
the economy to adjust to a new equilibrium condition. Economic changes
directly related to water quality degradation were evaluated by using
the economic model to determine their influence on the regional economic
-------
462
135
equilibrium. Total changes in the conditions of economic equilibrium
attributable to water quality degradation are defined as the "direct
and indirect" effects.
With the analytical model of the economy described in the preceding
section, it is possible to evaluate three principal kinds of potential
decisions or courses of action: (1) decisions which affect the avail-
ability of resources; (2) decisions which affect the demand for goods
and services; (3) decisions which affect the production processes. Each
of these decisions may deal with either absolute or relative changes,
e.g., one can consider limits on the availability of a particular
resource, or changes in patterns of resource use through substitution.
Furthermore, the decisions are not mutually exclusive. Changes in the
production process may implicitly involve changes in: (1) patterns of
resource use; (2) demand; (3) resource employment; and (4) production.
The first step in analysis of the direct and indirect economic
impact of water quality is to determine what alternative decisions are
available to a water user who is confronted with water quality
degradation. The direct economic effect of each alternative decision
is then identified, and the results are quantified. These steps, taken
together, constitute the process of "direct penalty cost assessment"
described and evaluated in the preceding chapter. The penalty cost is
then injected into the model in order to determine its effect on the
regional economy. Different procedures are used to evaluate the effect
of each type of potential water quality decision. These procedures
are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
-------
136
Agricultural Penalty Costs
Direct penalty costs incurred by agricultural sectors are inter-
preted as causing a resource constraint. The cost of developing addi-
tional water is the principal factor limiting present and projected
future agricultural development. In response to an increment of water
quality degradation, an irrigator can increase water use, reduce
acreage, or incur a yield loss. As previously indicated, results
from the yield decrement method of analysis were chosen as representa-
tive of the direct agricultural penalty costs. However, regardless of
the penalty cost assessment method used, the effective water supply is
diminished by reducing the yield per acre foot. Therefore, the effect
of water quality degradation is to constrain agricultural development.
In the case of irrigated agriculture it was assumed that any reduction
in output would result in fewer consumer and export sales rather than
fewer interindustry sales. Consider the definition of the aggregated
input-output model presented previously:
-AJ^D;
if
or
or
R =
, the equation takes the form
T = RD,
TA
TM
TF
r!2 r!3
DF
r21 r22 r23
r31 r32 r33
•— ~—
expanding by the rules of vector algebra
DA
DM
ru DA +
TA
TM = r21 DA +
TF = r31 DA +
DM + r13 DF,
DM -f- r23 DF, and
DM +
DF.
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
-------
137
In the above equations, r's are referred to as direct and indirect
coefficients. These coefficients are fixed by the v-.lues of a, the
direct coefficients. It is apparent from equations (24) and (25) that
if Di were to change, because of a constraint on the level of Tp then
T9 and To would also change. In this simple illustrative case, the
magnitude of the change may be easily determined.
From equation (23)
ADA = ATA ; (26)
where ATA is the direct penalty cost (determined by the yield
decrement technique),
ADA is the associated reduction in consumer and export
sales, and
r,, is the direct-indirect coefficient.
The direct and indirect economic impact of water quality costs is
defined as the sum of TGO changes in all sectors, corresponding to the
final demand change, ADA, in the first sector:
TEA, = ^~ A.I = ATA + ATM = 4TF. (27)
*1 -
1=1
Values of ATM and ATF can be determined from equations (24) and (25)
as follows:
ATM = rn 4DA = r21 A TA. and (28)
ATF = r31 ADA = r31 ATA. (29)
-------
138 465
Substituting these values into equation (27) gives:
TEA, = ATA / V~ rn\ = A TA (rn + r?1 + r31), (30)
•L if •*-•*- I i. J- £. J_ ™/i
or 1EA.l = ATA PM1; (31)
where TEA, = Total economic effect of costs incurred by
the agricultural sector, and
PM, = Water quality cost multiplier (Note: that the
multiplier is always greater than 1.0, and
that it is determined by the structure of the
economy).
PM = 1 + r21 + r31 + ...; where r^ >0; therefore,
PM >1, and PM = f(a) since R =
Industrial Penalty Costs
Direct penalty costs incurred by industries in sectors other than
agriculture cause changes in the economic structure. For example, in
order to offset the effect of water quality degradation, the industrial
water users provide a higher level of treatment for the existing supply
or divert, treat, use, and discharge an additional quantity of water.
The cost of obtaining or treating the additional water is the direct
penalty cost. Such additional costs are identified sector-by-sector and
entered in the model.
Water purchased from local governmental entities is assumed to be
an expenditure otherwise distributed in the form of income or profit in
the final payments sector. Since payments to local governmental entities
are also composited in the final payments sector, a payment for additional
-------
139 466
water is exactly compensating. Since both sector entries are outside
the processing sector (refer to Figure 20) there is no interdependence
effect and the direct cost of the water purchase is taken as the total
cost. This cost is determined by summing the water use cost for each
sector:
m
WUC = ^ WUCi; (32)
i=l
where m is the number of affected sectors.
Treatment costs of the increment of water required to offset
quality degradation is considered to be an increase in the retail sales
of water treatment chemicals to the affected industry. To reflect this
increase, the corresponding direct coefficient is changed and the model
is used to produce a new transaction table. The procedure is illus-
trated for a simplified model as follows: Assuming a direct effect of
"X" dollars, a new direct coefficient is defined.
A'22 = A22 Tm + X (33)
TM
= A22 + _X. (34)
TM
This coefficient increases the transaction amount entered in the inter-
section of row 2 and column 2 of the model by an amount- "X".
The second step in calculating indirect costs is to substitute A1
2 /
into equation (12), and to obtain a new set of solutions— for the set
II The actual amount of the increase is determined by multiplying the
direct effect by a trade margin. For a discussion of trade margins,
see Reference No. 46. _ n
21 The solution given by the model is: T* = |I-A*| -1 D; where A* is
identical to A except for element &22 which has been replaced by
A'22-
-------
140
of equations (11), (12), and (13). The new set of solutions, as repre-
sented by TA', TM', and TF1 are:
TA' = An TA1 + A12 TM1 + A13 TF1 + DA, (35)
TM' = A21 TA' + A22 TM1 + A23 TF1 + DM, and (36)
TF1 = A31 TA' + A32 TM1 + A33 TF1 + DF. (37)
The combined direct-and-indirect effect of water quality due to
the increased demand for chemicals per unit of manufacturing sector
output is defined as the total increase in gross economic output:
= (TA1 - TA) + (TM1 - TM) + (TF1 - TF) (38)
n
In the general case, where more than one industrial sector may
incur water user penalty costs, the detriments are defined as the total
of the detriments incurred by each sector as follows:
TEM = £2 TEMi' (39)
m
the number of industrial sectors, and TEM^ is
the value obtained from equation (38) for each
sector .
Two important aspects of this procedure should be pointed out. The
first is that direct and indirect penalty costs calculated according to
equation (39) are determined for each sector of the model and summed.
This procedure is based on the desire to associate the indirect effects
of each element of assessed user cost with its source. The step-by-
step process also identifies those industries which have a relatively
large "secondary" effect (strong interdependence) associated with a
-------
141 468
moderate direct cost. This so-called "innocent industry" effect is
discussed more fully in "An Interindustry Analysis of the Colorado River
Basin in 1960 with Projections to 1980 and 2010," University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado, June, 1968.^ '
The second important aspect is that an increase in gross output is
interpreted as a penalty cost. This stems from the fact that more
chemical inputs are required to produce at the same level (delivery of
goods and services to final demand) in each sector directly affected
by water quality. The model measures the increased inputs (costs)
required from all other sectors even though the regional level of
production remains unchanged. The effects of the increase in resource
inputs required to sustain the same level of production is an indication
of the regional economic cost of offsetting the impact of water quality.
Municipal Penalty Costs
The effects of increased hardness of water in domestic or municipal
uses can be partially evaluated through the cost of softening or de-
mineralizing. In areas where softeners are not used the effects can be
measured by the additional outlays for soap and detergents, plumbing
repairs, and the like. Thus, the direct municipal penalty costs for
degradation of water quality are represented by two effects: increased
treatment costs incurred by municipal and private softening plants, and
the increased cost of soap and detergents used by individual households.
The impact of these direct costs are observed mainly in the trades,
services, and government sectors.
Increased treatment costs by municipalities (local government
sector) are offset by additional charges or taxes to the consumers,
-------
142
469
thereby reducing household profits or income. However, since both
households and local government are components of the final demand
sector (outside the processing sector), the net effect is zero. On
the other hand, the purchase of additional chemicals by local govern-
ment from the trade sector (source of supply for chemicals) and the
change in household purchasing patterns in order to purchase additional
soap and detergents alter the resulting outputs of the model. The
underlying assumption concerning households is that income previously
allocated to what might be termed "luxury items" (eating out, incidental
services, etc.) will be reallocated to the retail sector to purchase
more soap and detergents. To properly handle such factors, a rather
detailed procedure is required to adjust the model for the municipal
and domestic penalty costs.
The first step in the procedure is to determine the percentage of
household purchases allocated to each sector. This is accomplished by
dividing the household final demand entry (purchase) in the affected
sectors (trades and services) by the total of all household purchases
as shown by the equation:
HHi ;
h£ - n (40)
where hj = the percentage of household expenditures
allocated to the i— sector,
HHf = the dollar amount of household purchases from
the i-tk sector, and
-------
143
n = the number of all sectors in the economy
including processing and final payments
sectors .
The next step is to determine the relative reduction in final
demand in each of the effected sectors, which are Eating and Drinking,
Retail Trade, and Services. These changes are assumed to be proportional
to the relative percentage of household expenditures:
hq+hr+hs
rr
' and (42)
hq+hr+hs
where r is the relative reduction in final demand, and
Subscripts q, r, and s refer to the eating and
drinking, retail trade, and services sectors,
respectively .
The next step is to calculate a Final Demand Change Coefficient as
follows :
*%- i,
dq - rq 51 V
i-1
m .
dr = rr hlf and
ds " rs
where d is the final demand change coefficient, and
m is the number of processing sectors.
-------
144
The actual change in final demand, corresponding to a direct munici
pal penalty cost of X is determined as follows:
= -dqTqX, (47)
- -
-------
145 472
TEC = TEA + WVC + TEM + TEH;
where TEC is the total direct and indirect effect of quality
deterioration on the subbasin,
TEA is the total direct and indirect economic impact
of agricultural detriments,
(WVC + TEM) is the total direct and indirect economic
impact of industrial penalty costs, and
TEH is the total direct and indirect economic impact
of municipal penalty costs
Again, it is important to note that each of the above measures of
cost has been determined by calculating the impact of a direct penalty
cost on the economic equilibrium of the unconstrained (with regard to
water quality) subbasin economy. The model was used to measure the
total effect of water quality degradation. In some cases, as a result
of the measurement technique, the shift is in the direction of increasing
dollar value of economic output, at a constant level of production while
other cases have led to direct decreases in the level of production,
therefore, encompassing both income and production effects. If these
effects were to be considered simultaneously, changes in dollar value
of output would be partially self-cancelling. The result would be a
projection of the actual condition of the economy under the influence
of a water quality constraint. Such a projection is relevant to the
development of a complete economic base study and is considered in the
Economics Volume of the Project's Report. It should be noted, however,
that one may not arrive at indirect costs by comparing the constrained
econo.ic projection with the unconstrained projection. Conversely, one
-------
146 473
cannot arrive at the constrained projection by comparing direct and
indirect penalty costs with the unconstrained economic projection. For
these reasons, a sector-by-sector breakdown of the direct and indirect
costs has not been presented. Instead, direct and indirect costs are
presented by study area total, with a breakdown for the major categories
(irrigated agriculture, industrial and municipal) discussed previously
(Tables 37, 38, and 39). The results are also shown graphically in
Figure 21 for the Lower Main Stem study area, in Figure 22 for the
Southern California study area, and in Figure 23 for the Gila study
area. Total direct and indirect penalty costs for all three study areas
are estimated to be $11.0 million in 1980 and $25.4 million in 2010.
SENSITIVITY OF MODEL TO FLOW INPUT DATA
Sensitivity analysis is a technique used to determine the contri-
bution which each variable makes to the uncertainty of results obtained
in a study such as this one. The specific purpose of this section is
to determine sensitivity of penalty costs to variations in flow. Mineral
quality of the Colorado River at a specific location and time is deter-
mined by the quantity of water and salt load carried in the river. As
discussed in Chapter III, the analysis of mineral quality was based on
the flow period 1942 to 1961, modified to 1960 conditions. However,
since various other base periods could have been used, it was deemed
advisable to analyze other flow conditions in order to determine whether
the results and conclusions would change significantly under these
conditions. As an extreme limit, the minimum compact delivery at Lees
Ferry was chosen for the sensitivity analysis. This reduced water supply
-------
147
Table 37. Input-Output Model Results for the
Lower Main Stem Study Area
1980 2010
($1,000 annually)
Agricultural Penalty Costs
Direct
Indirect
Total
1,096.5
765.4
1,861.9
2,423.8
2.237.2
4,661.0
Industrial Penalty Costs
Direct
Indirect
Total
106.7
3.8
110.5
410.2
14.5
424.7
Municipal Penalty Costs
Direct
Indirect
Total
Total Direct Penalty Costs
Total Indirect Penalty Costs
Total Penalty Costs
275.0
13.6
288.6
1,478.2
782.8
2,261.0
779.0
39.3
818.3
3,613-0
2.291.0
5,904.0
-------
148
Table 38. Input-Output Model Results for the
Southern California Study Area
1980 2010
.($1,000 annually)
Agriculture Penalty Costs
Direct
Indirect
Total
4,617.0
2.447.0
7,064.0
10,072.3
6.194.5
16,266.8
Industrial Penalty Costs
Direct
Indirect
Total
56.2
2.9
59.1
102.6
5.5
108.1
Municipal Penalty Costs,
Direct
Indirect
Total
Total Direct Penalty Costs
Total Indirect Penalty Costs
Total Penalty Costs
1,347.0
304.8
1,651.8
6,020.2
2.754.7
8,774.9
2,239.0
506. 6
2,745.6
12,413.9
6.706.6
19,120.5
-------
Table 39. Input-Output Model Results for the
Gila Study Area
a/
Agricultural Penalty Costs—
Direct
Indirect
Total
1980 2010
($1,000 annually)
245.7
125.4
371.1
149
a/ No penalty costs were assessed to municipal or industrial users
For explanation see Chapter II.
-------
7.0-
a:
6,0
O
Q
O 5.0-
2
Z4.0-
to
3.0-
<
£2.0
= 10
Proportion of Total Penalty Cost by Use
080
876 MG/L
FOTAL PENALTY
COSTS
INDIRECT
PENALTY COSTS
INDUSTRIAL -
MUNI, i P.«, L
AfiPK Ul TURAL —
DIRECT PENALTY COSTS
0
675 700 725 750 775 800 825 850 875 900 925 950 975 1000
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/l) AT HOOVER DAM
Figure 21. Total Penally Costs Incurred in the Lower Main Stem Study Area
-------
20(0
I
20-1 Proportion of Total Penalty Cost by Use
990 MG/L
TOTAL PENALTY COSTS
I NDUSTRlAL
MUNICIPAL
AGRI CULTURAL
0
675 700 725 750 775 800 825 850 875 900 925 950 975
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/l) AT HOOVER DAM
1000
Figure 22. Total Penally Costs Incurred in the Southern California Study Area
oo
-------
2010
O.4
Proportion of Total Penalty Cost by Use
TOTAL PENALTY COSTS
1980
P76MG/L
LEGEND
INDUSTRIAL
MUNICIPAL
AGRICULTURAL|)
I960
DIRECT PENALTY COST
675 700 725 750 775 800 825 850 875 900 925 950
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/l) AT HOOVER DAM
975 1000
o«
K)
Figure 23. Total Penalty Costs Incurred in the Cila Study Area
-tr
-4
vo
-------
153 480
was assumed to occur in target year 2010 because the Upper Basin allot-
ment is not projected to be fully utilized until that time,
For purposes of this analysis minimum compact delivery was taken
as 8.25 MAF per year, based on the assumption that the Upper Basin
must deliver 7.5 MAF to the Lower Basin and 0.75 MAF to Mexico. To
satisfy Mexico's total apportionment of 1.50 MAF, the Lower Basin must,
in turn, deliver 0.75 MAF of their allotted share. A comparison of
2010 water budgets for the Lower Basin for both the projected study
condition and the minimum compact delivery condition is shown in Table
UQ. Allocation of the supply for the Lower Basin under the minimum
compact condition is shown in Table 41- This supply condition was
incorporated into the flow and salt load routing model, and a new array
of mineral qualities was developed as shown in Table 42.
The new array of mineral qualities was incorporated into the model
and new total penalty costs were determined The results show that the
model is relatively sensitive to flow- Total penalty costs to all users
of Colorado River water below Hoover Dam as shown in Table 43 increased
from $25.4 million to $27-8 million annually, or about ten percent,
because of an assumed reduction in the available water supply of four
percent. A comparison of the results based upon the two different flow
conditions is shown in Figure 24.
SURFACE EQUATION OF DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Figure 25, a display of three traces on a three-dimensional figure
called a response surface, illustrates total direct user costs as a
function of water quality at Hoover Dam The curves represent total
user costs associated with each of the three target years, 1960, 1980
-------
154
Table 40- LowerJBasin Water Budget? for Year 2010 Under
Projected and Minimum Compact Conditions
Projected Supply Minimum Compact
Condition Supply Condition
(maf) (maf)
Delivery at Lees Ferry, Arizona 8.629 8.250
Inflows and Water Salvage 1 323 1.323
Reservoir Evaporation & Other -J..250 __^1-250
Depletions
Available for Use in Lower Basin 8-702 8.323
Table 41 Assumed Allocation of Colorado» RiveiLJJater_Ainong
Lower Basin States &_Mgxico_ynder_Minimum
Compact Condition.?
State or Republi£ Allocation
(maf)
California 4.400
Arizona 2.023^
Nevada 0-300
Mexico l.eOO^7
Total 8.323
a/ A volume constraint was applied to the Central Arizona Project
decreasing the diversion volume from ~>0°,000 acre-feet/year to
373,000 acre-feet/year.
b/ Includes 0-100 maf of uncontrolled and unmeasurable underflows
-------
155
482
Table 42 Mineral Quality for Year 2010 Under Projected
and Minimum Compact Conditions
Station
Colorado River at Hoover Dam
Colorado River at Parker Dam
Colorado River at Palo Verde
Colorado River at Imperial Dam
Minimum
Projected Compact
Conditions Delivery
IDS Hardness TDS Hardness
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
990
985
1,082
1,223
460
460
495
540
1,022
1,018
1,115
1,256
470
470
505
550
-------
Compact Conditions for
Lower Main Stem
Study Area
Type of
Penalty Costs
Agricultural
Direct
Indirect
Total
Industrial
Direct
Indirect
Total
Municipal
Direct
Indirect
Total
Total Direct
Total Indirect
Projected
2,423.0
2,237.2
4,660.2
410.2
14.5
424.7
779.0
39.3
818.3
3,612.2
2,291.0
Min.a/
Compact
2,672.3
2,292.8
4,965.1
469.3
44.5
513.8
841.0
42.0
883.0
3,982.6
2,379.3
Year 2010
<
($1,000 annually)
Southern California
Study Area Gila Study Area Total
Projected
10,072.1
6,194.5
16,266.6
102.6
5.5
108.1
2,239.0
506.7
2,745.7
12,413.7
6,706.7
Min.J*/
Compact
10,934.0
7,271.1
18,205.1
115.0
9.2
124.2
2,416.0
535.6
2,951.6
13,465.0
7,815.9
Min.Ji'
Projected Compact Projected
245.7 82.3 12,740.8
125.4 42.2 8,557.1
371.1 124.5 21,297.9
512.8
20.0
532.8
3,018.0
546.0
3,564.0
245.7 82.3 16,271.6
125.4 42.2 9,123.1
Min.
Compact
13,688.6
9,606.1
23,294.7
584.3
53.7
638.0
3,257.0
577.6
3,834.6
17,529.9
10,237.4
Ui
TOTAL
5,903.2 6,361.9
19,120.4 21,280.9
371.1
124.5
25,394.7
27,767.3
a/ Quantity Unconstrained.
W Quantity Constrained.
Xr
OO
CO
-------
50
40
8
o
I 3°
to
o
u
z
Ul
OL
Z
Z
o
V-
20
10
I960
1970
Minimum Compart Flow Conctitions-
(6.323 MAP)
Projected Flow Conditions
(8.702 MAP)
I960
TIME IN YEARS
2000
2010
Figure 24.€omparision of Total Penalty Costs for Projected & Minimum Compact Water Supply Conditions
S5 co"
-Cr
-------
o
o
z
o
tu
IU
o
o
u
o:
D
Z
Z
35
30
15
IO
675 700 725 75O 775 90O 825 850 8t5 9do 925 950 975 1000
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/l) AT HOOVER DAM
Figure 25. Summary of Direct Salinity Detriments to All Colorado River Water Users Below Hoover Dam
Jr
OO
VJ1
-------
IT16
and 2010 The three traces on this surface were selected arbitrarily
for illustration purposes. To be more general, an equation was developed
that defined the response surface. With the equation, user costs for
water qualities and economies at any time in the future can be investi-
gated without duplicating all the detailed analysis described in
Chapters III and IV.
The response surface equation is a polynomial in the form:
S = Ax2 + Bxy + Cy2 + Dx + Ey
where S « Annual direct detriments in million dollars below
Hoover Dam (1960 dollars);
x = The total dissolved solids concentration (mg/1) at
Hoover Dam;
y = The economic year, where 1950 = 0, 1980 = 20, and
2010 = 50; and
A, B, C, D, and E are the coefficients of the polynomial
as determined by the least squares technique.
The coefficients are:
A = 0,22663 X 10"4
BB = 0.45845 X 10'3
C - -0.19157 X 10'3
D = -0.50383 X 1(T2
E = -0.17265 X 10°
The response surface equation can be used to evaluate the economic
benefits which would be realized if the mineral quality at Hoover Dam
could be improved. Assuming that means are available to reduce the
-------
160
projected 1975 mineral quality at Hoover Dam from 840 mg/1 to 740 mg/1,
benefits could be calculated as follows:
For the Projected conditions; x = 840, y = 15. Thus,
S = .22663 X io'4(840)2 + .45845 X KT3(840) (15) +
(-.19157 X 10'3) (15)2 + (-.50803 X 10"2) (840) +
(-.17265) (15)
S = 14.8 million dollars annually.
For the proposed condition, x = 740 and y = 15.
Thus S = .22663 X 10'4(740)2 + .45845 X 10'3(740) (15) +
(-.19157 X 10"3) (15)2 + (-.50803 X 10'2) (740) +
(-.17265) (15)
S = 11.1 million dollars annually.
The net worth or negative penalty cost to the economies is then,
Worth = 14.8 - 11.1 = 3.7 or $3,700,000 annually.
The indirect benefits which would accrue to water users would be
calculated by input-output analysis.
-------
161 488
CHAPTER VI. CONCLUSIONS
Projected degradation of mineral quality in the Colorado River
during the next four decades will impose significant economic penalties
upon water users in the Lower Basin and Southern California areas.
These penalty costs will be incurred generally by consumptive users
of water. Little or no detrimental effects are anticipated for non-
consumptive uses of water such as recreation, water sports, native
fauna, navigation, hydropower generation, and esthetic enjoyment.
Adverse effects of salinity are anticipated in municipal, indus-
trial, and irrigated agriculture water uses. Among these three, irri-
gated agriculture is by far the most important in terms of amount of
water used. Even after considering the heavy urban demand of the Los
Angeles - San Diego metropolitan areas, irrigation still accounts for
85 to 90 percent of all water presently consumed in the Colorado River
system.
Based upon projected patterns of future water resource and economic
development, mineral quality was forecasted at key locations in the
Basin for the target years 1980 and 2010. The mineral qualities at
Hoover Dam and Imperial Dam are projected as 876 mg/1 and 1,056 mg/1,
respectively in 1980 and 990 mg/1 and 1,223 mg/1, respectively in 2010.
These quality levels represent increases in salinity concentrations
over 1960 levels of 179 mg/1 (25.7 percent) and 297 mg/1 (39.1 percent)
at Hoover Dam and Imperial Dam, respectively, for the year 1980. These
concentrations are projected to undergo additional increases by the
year 2010 of 114 mg/1 (13.0 percent) and 167 mg/1 (15.8 percent) at
the same locations, respectively.
-------
162 H89
Nearly all economic penalty costs will be incurred by water users
in the Lower Colorado River Basin and Southern California Water Service
area. Direct economic losses to water users in these areas will amount
to 7.5 million dollars annually by the year 1980. The magnitude of
these damages which represent the direct added costs of using a degraded
water supply, will increase to 16.3 million dollars annually by the year
2010.
Indirect economic effects caused- by the direct impact upon water
users will represent an additional loss to the regional economy of 9.1
million dollars annually by the year 2010. Of the total (direct and
indirect) annual economic impact in 2010 (25.4 million) nearly 84 percent
will be incurred as a result of the direct impact upon irrigated agricul-
ture water users.
-------
490
163
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX B
1. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service, "Drinking Water Standards, 1962," U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1962.
2. State of California, "Water Quality Criteria," Second Edition,
State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento, California, 1963.
3. Sawyer, Clair N., "Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers," McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, 1960
4, U. S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Adminis-
tration, August 20, 1964. Colorado River Project file correspondence,
Region VIII, U S. Public Health Service, Denver, Colorado.
5. State of California, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento,
California, "Water Use by Manufacturing Industries in California,
1957-1959," Bulletin No. 124, April 1964
6. Nordel, Eskel, "Water Treatment for Industrial and Other Uses,"
Second 'Edition, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1961.
7. Betz Laboratories, Inc., "Betz Handbook of Industrial Water
Conditioning," Betz Laboratories, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., 1962.
8. American Water Works Association, New York, "Water Quality and Treat-
ment," Second Edition, 1951.
9. Anonymous, "Progress Report of Committee on Quality Tolerances of
Water for Industrial Uses," Journal New England Water Works Associa^
j^ion, Volume 54, 1940.
10. U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S Salinity Laboratory, "Saline
and Alkali Soils," Agriculture Handbook No. 60, 1954
11. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service "Proceedings of the National Conference on Water Pollution,
December 12-14, 1960," U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C., 1961.
12. Eaton F. M. , "Deficiency, Toxicity and Accumulation of Boron in
Plants," _T™.™*I Agricultural Research, Volume 69, Illustration 1944.
13. Eaton, F. M. , "Significance of Carbonates in Irrigation Waters,"
Soil Science. Volume 69, 1950.
-------
164
14. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department
of the Interior, "Water Quality Criteria," Report of the National
Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior,
April 1, 1963.
15. Ellis, M. M. , "Detection and Measurement of Stream Pollution," U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Bulletin No. 22, 1936.
16. State of California, "The Ecology of the Salton Sea, California, in
Relation to the Sport-Fishery," Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, California, 1961.
17. State of California, Santa Ana Regional Water Pollution Control
Board, Santa Ana, California, Resolutions 54-4, January 28, 1955,
and 57-7, May 24, 1957.
18. State of California, "The California Water Plan," Department of
Water Resources, Sacramento, California, Bulletin No 3, May, 1957-
19. State of California, "Investigation of Alternative Aqueduct Systems
to Serve Southern California," Appendix B, Bulletin No. 78, Depart-
ment of Water Resources, Sacramento, California, January, 1959=
20. U. S. Department of the Interior, "Quality of Water, Colorado River
Basin," January, 1965.
21. Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Department of the Interior, "Pacific
Southwest Water Plan," August, 1963.
22. Geological Survey, U. S. Department of the Interior, "Surface Water
Records of Arizona," 1961.
23. U. S. Department of the Interior, "Supplemental Information Report
on the Central Arizona Project," January, 1964.
24. Eldridge, Edward F., "Return Irrigation Water - Characteristics
and Effects," U, S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Region IX, Portland, Oregon, May 1, 1960.
25. Garnsey, et al , "Past and Probable Future Variations in Stream Flow
in the Upper Colorado River - Part I," Bureau of Economic Research,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, October, 1961.
26. Tipton and Kalmbach, Inc., Upper Colorado River Commission, "Water
Supplies of the Colorado River - Part I," July, 1965
27. lorns, W. V., Hembree, C. H., and Oakland, G. L. , "1965 Water Resources
of the Upper Colorado River Basin - Technical Reports," U. S Geologi-
cal Survey Professional Papers 441 and 442.
-------
165
28. U. S. Department of the Interior, "Quality of Water, Colorado
River Basin," Progress Report No. 4, January, 1969.
29. U. S. Department of the Interior, "Quality of Water, Colorado
River Basin," Progress Report No. 3, January, 1967.
30. Hill, Raymond A., "Leaching Requirements in Irrigation," Reprint
from Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division. American
Society of Civil Engineers, March, 1961.
31. Soil and Water Conservation Research Division, "Salt Tolerance
of Plants," Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, December, 1964.
32. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, "Statistical
Abstract of the United States," 1964.
33. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, "Industrial
Water Use, 1958 Census of Manufacturers," U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1961.
34. State of California, "Water Use by Manufacturing Industries in
California, 1957-1959," Bulletin 124, Department of Water Resources,
Sacramento, California, April, 1964.
35. State of Nevada, Department of Health and Welfare, unpublished
report on survey of industrial water uses, August, 1964.
36. American Boiler and Affiliated Industries Manufacturers' Associa-
tion, "Limits for Boiler Water Concentrations in Units with a
Steam Drum."
37. Howson, L. R., "Economics of Water- Softening," Journal of the
American Water Works Association. February, 1962
38. Leasure, J. William, "Population Projections for the Three Lower
Subbasins of the Colorado River Basin," San Diego State College,
San Diego, California, June, 1964.
39. Anonymous, "Statistics on Population of Households," Journal of
the American Water Works Association. 42:904, September, 1950.
40. U. S. Bureau of the Census, "Census of Manufacturers: 1963 Water
Use in Manufacturing," Subject Report MC63(1)-10, Washington, D.C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
41'. Select Committee on National Water Resources, U. S. Senate, Water
Supply and Demand, Committee Print No. 32, 1960.
-------
166
493
42. Study by the National Aluminate Corporation reported in the State
of California, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California
"Investigation of Alternative Aqueduct Systems to Serve Southern
California," Appendix B, Part Five.
43. University of Arizona, "The Quality of Arizona Irrigation Water,"
Report 223, September, 1964.
44. University of Arizona, "Quality of Arizona Domestic Waters," Report
217, November, 1963.
45. Miernyk, William H., "The Element of Input-Output Analyses," New
York Random House, 1965, Library of Congress No. 65-23339.
46. University of Colorado, "An Interindustry Analysis of the Colorado
River Basin in 1960 with Projections to 1980 and 2010," Edited by
Bernard Udis, Associate Professor of Economics, Boulder, Colorado,
June, 1968.
•Cr GPO 7WMHO
-------
THE MINERAL QUALITY PROBLEM
IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
APPENDIX C
SALINITY CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT ASPECTS
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONS VIII AND IX
1971
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency was
established by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970 and became operative on December 2, 1970.
The EPA consolidates in one agency Federal
control programs involving air and water
pollution, solid waste management, pesticides,
radiation and noise. This report was prepared
over a period of eight years by water program
components of EPA and their predecessor
agencies—the Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Interior, April 1970
to December 1970; the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U.S. Department of
Interior, October 1965 to April 1970; the
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
U.S. Public Health Service, prior to October
1965. Throughout the report one or more of
these agencies will be mentioned and should
be considered as part of a single agency—in
evolution.
-------
M96
ii
PREFACE
The Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project
was established as a result of recommendations made at the first
session of a joint Federal-State "Conference in the Matter of
Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and
Its Tributaries", held in January of 1960 under the authority
of Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.). This conference was called at the
request of the States of Arizona,. California, Colorado,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah to consider all types of water
pollution in the Colorado River Basin. The Project serves
as the technical arm of the conference and provides the con-
ferees with detailed information on water uses, the nature
and extent of pollution problems and their effects on water
users, and recommended measures for control of pollution
in the Colorado River Basin.
The Project has carried out extensive field investigations
along with detailed engineering and economic studies to accomplish
the following objectives:
(1) Determine the location, magnitude, and causes of
interstate pollution of the Colorado River and
its tributaries.
(2) Determine and evaluate the nature and magnitude of
the damages to water users caused by various types
of pollution.
-------
497
iii
(3) Develop, evaluate, and recommend measures and pro-
grams for controlling or minimizing interstate water
pollution problems.
In 1963, based upon recommendations of the conferees,
the Project began detailed studies of the mineral quality pro-
blem in the Colorado River Basin. Mineral quality, commonly
known as salinity, is a complex Basin-wide problem that is
becoming increasingly important to users of Colorado River
water. Due to the nature, extent, and impact of the salinity
problem, the Project extended certain of its activities over
the entire Colorado River Basin and the Southern California
water service area.
The more significant findings and data from the Project's
salinity studies and related pertinent information are
summarized in the report entitled, "The Mineral Quality Problem
in the Colorado River Basin". Detailed information pertaining
to the methodology and findings of the Project's salinity
studies are presented in three appendices to that report -
Appendix A, "Natural and Man-Made Conditions Affecting Mineral
Quality", Appendix B, "Physical and Economic Impacts", and
Appendix C, "Salinity Control and Management Aspects.".
-------
498
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. MINERAL QUALITY STANDARDS 6
III. TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR SALINITY
CONTROL 12
MEASURES FOR INCREASING WATER SUPPLY... 15
Water Conservation Measures 16
Water Reuse 27
Salinity Control Effects of Water
Conservation 27
Water Augmentation Measures 29
MEASURES FOR REDUCING SALT LOADING 34
Control of Natural Sources 34
Control of Man-Made Sources 38
IV. STATUS OF SALINITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES 44
TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS 44
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES.. 49
SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS 56
V. ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGEMENT OF SALINITY.. 59
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE BASINWIDE SALINITY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 60
Salt Load Reduction Programs 61
Flow Augmentation Programs 74
Desalination Programs 79
Comparison of Alternatives 83
Other Considerations 89
-------
499
ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Salinity Detriments
Salinity Management Costs
Total Economic Impact
Economic and Water Quality Effects...
Cost Distributions and Equity
Considerations 131
-------
500
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Technical Possibilities for Salinity Control. 13
2 Potential Full Scale Salt Load Reduction
Program ...................................... 63
3 Comparison of Alternative Salinity Control
Programs .......... . .......................... 84
4 Direct and Indirect Penalty Costs ............ 98
5 Range of Virgin Flows at Lees Ferry .......... 103
6 Salinity Management Project Data ............. 112
7 Distribution of Salinity Costs for Alternative
Objectives ................................... 130
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Colorado River Basin and Southern California
Water Service Area ........................... 7
2 Schematic Drawing of Irrigation Cycle. ....... 22
3 Location of Potential Salt Load Reduction
Projects ..................................... 64
4 Illustration of Penalty Cost Evaluation ...... 96
5 Direct and Indirect Penalty Costs - Lower
Colorado River Basin and California Water Service
Area ......................................... "
6 Salinity Detriments .......................... 102
7 Sensitivity of Salinity Projections to Base
Flow Variations .............................. 104
8 Sensitivity of Detriment Projections to Base
Flow Variations .............................. 106
9 Sensitivity of Salinity Projections to Deplet-
ion Schedule Variations ......... ............. 108
10 Sensitivity of Detriment Projections to
Depletion Schedule Variations ................ 109
-------
501
vii
Figure
11 Salinity Management Costs .................... 116
12 Salinity Management Cost Variations .......... 117
13 Determination of Total Salinity Costs ........ 119
14 Total Salinity Costs ......................... 120
15 Total Cost Sensitivity Analysis .............. 122
16 Comparison of Alternative Objectives ......... 124
17 Salinity Costs vs. Time ...................... 127
18 Salinity Concentration vs. Time .............. 129
-------
502
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Salinity is one of the most serious water quality problems
in the Colorado River Basin. Like many streams in the arid
West, the Colorado River displays a progressive increase in
salinity (total dissolved solids)!./ between its headwaters and
its mouth. Salinity concentrations in the Lower Colorado River
below Lees Ferry, Arizona are approaching critical levels for
municipal, industrial, and agricultural water use. In the face
of this present situation, planned and proposed water resource
developments, primarily in the Upper Basin, will cause further
increases in salinity concentrations in the Lower Colorado
River.
As a part of its investigations of interstate pollution
problems, the Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project
(Project) has carried out activities since 1963 directed toward
three primary objectives related to the salinity problem. These
objectives are:
(1) To assess the nature and magnitude of the salinity
buildup in the main stem of the Colorado River and its
tributaries,
(2) To evaluate the net basinwide economic benefits
associated with various degrees of control, and
I/ The terms "salinity" and "total dissolved solids'; are used
synonymously throughout this Appendix.
-------
503
(3) To investigate and evaluate feasible methods of
controlling and minimizing salinity concentrations
and loads in the river.
Project activities concerned with the first objective are
discussed in detail in Appendix A, "Natural and Man-Made
Conditions Affecting Mineral Quality." To provide the basis for
evaluating the economic benefits of salinity control, the
second objective, detailed studies of the physical and economic
effects of salinity on water use in the Colorado River Basin
were carried out. The results of these studies are discussed
in Appendix B, "Physical and Economic Impacts." This appendix
summarized the present status of knowledge with respect to the
second and third objectives. Results of activities completed
to date are sufficient to achieve these objectives only pro-
visionally. Most of the evaluations presented herein are based
on preliminary data not on final results. Activities are
continuing which will improve the store of salinity control
knowledge and which will result in refinement and improvement
of the information presented. This report can thus be con-
sidered an interim summary of the "state-of-the-art" with
respect to salinity control and Management for the Colorado
River Basin.
Closely related to the salinity control studies described
herein were the efforts to establish water quality standards for
the interstate waters of the Colorado River system as required
by the Water Quality Act of 1965. Early in the process of
-------
504
3
establishing standards, it became apparent that available
information on the technical aspects of management and control
of salinity was not adequate to develop equitable, workable
and-enforceable salinity standards. The water quality standards
subsequently developed by the states and approved by the Secretary
of the Interior did not include numerical salinity standards.
However, the Secretary stated that it would be the intention
of the Department of the Interior and basin states to pursue
active programs to lay the foundation for setting numerical
criteria with emphasis on the demonstration of salinity control
measures and ways to revise the legal and institutional con-
straints that could impede implementation and enforcement. The
Project's activities thus form a major link in Department of
the Interior's efforts to provide the basis for establishing
suitable salinity standards. Activities related to salinity
standards are summarized in Chapter II.
A wide range of technical possibilities for salinity
control were identified and their potential feasibility for
application in the Colorado River Basin evaluated. Present
knowledge of many of these control measures is quite limited
before actual project application can be anticipated. Present
information is considered adequate, however, to provide a basis
for preliminary estimates of the potential for salinity control
in the Colorado River Basin. The various salinity control
measures evaluated are discussed in Chapter III.
A number of technical investigations as well as research
-------
505
and demonstration projects directed towards improving salinity
control and management knowledge have been undertaken by other
institutions and agencies with financial support from the Federal
Water Quality Administration. These activities have contributed
to the third primary study objective. The present status of
these activities is discussed in Chapter IV.
To provide the basis for determining the potential feasibility
of basinwide salinity control, a total of eight alternative
control programs were formulated. Cost estimates were prepared
for these programs which included three salt load reduction pro-
grams, four flow augmentation programs and a water supply treat-
ment program, and the relative costs and water quality effects
were compared. The phased implementation of a salt load reduction
program was selected as the least cost alternative and costs of
the program were utilized to evaluate the economic feasibility
of various levels of salinity control.
A number of alternative economic or water quality objectives
were identified which a basinwide control program could seek to
achieve. The water quality and economic effects associated with
each of these objectives for the least cost program were evaluated.
The distribution of salinity costs associated with these ob-
jectives were evaluated and are discussed in Chapter V.
The Project's investigations comprise essentially a
reconnaissance level analysis of the overall salinity problem'
and provide a preliminary assessment of the potential for
achieving a measurable degree of salinity management. It is
clear, however, that further investigation and demonstration
-------
506
5
of salinity control technology will be required before a basin-
wide salinity control plan can be formulated and implemented.
Also, a number of legal and institutional factors must be analyzed
and modified where practical before implementation of a basinwide
plan can be assured.
-------
50?
CHAPTER II. MINERAL QUALITY STANDARDS
The salinity problem in the Colorado River Basin (see
figure 1) was brought into sharp focus by the passage of the
Water Quality Act of 1965. f1) Under this Act, the states were
required to adopt water quality standards for their interstate
waters along with a plan for implementing and enforcing standards
by June 30, 1967. Early in the standards-setting process,
representatives of the water pollution control agencies for the
seven Basin States recognized that it would be highly desirable
to have agreement on certain principles and factors to be used
in formulating consistent State water quality standards for the
interstate waters of the Colorado River system. A Technical
Water Quality Standards Committee was therefore formed for this
purpose. It consisted of one representative from the water
pollution control agency for each of the seven Basin States.
Between August 1966 and December 1967, the Committee held a
number of meetings for the purpose of reaching agreement on the
principles and factors to be used in developing consistent
State water quality standards for the interstate waters of the
Colorado River system. At the outset, members of the Technical
Committee recognized that, because of legal and institutional
constraints combined with lack of technical knowledge on its
control and management, salinity would be a most difficult
problem to resolve in their standards-setting process.
-------
508
7
JLfKNQ
Colorado River Basin Boundary
Southern California Water Service Area Boundary
1 Colorado River Basin and Southern California Water Service Area
-------
509
At the fourth meeting held in Phoenix, Arizona, on
January 13, 1967, the Technical Committee reached final agree-
ment on "Guidelines for Formulating Quality Standards for the
(2)
Interstate Waters of the Colorado River System." A
significant point covered under "General Considerations" program
for establishing within two years the numerical criteria for
such specific chemical constituents as chlorides, sulfates,'
sodium and boron. Representatives of the water pollution control
agencies of the seven Colorado River Basin States met in Denver,
Colorado, on November 15, 1967 to consider FWPCA position on
numerical criteria for total dissolved solids. By unanimous
vote, the representatives of the seven Basin States (Conferees)
adopted a "Resolution Relative to Numerical Standards for
Salinity of the Colorado River System."*3) If was resolved:
(1) "That the Conferees do not believe it is appropriate
that a standard of 1,000 mg/1 or any other definite
number for TDS at Imperial Dam be set by the basin
states or the Secretary of the Interior at this time.
(2) "That the Conferees urge the completion of water
quality reports of the Federal agencies at the earliest
practicable date, and that thereafter the basin states
and Federal agencies again consider the setting of
salinity standards for the Colorado River system.
(3) "That the Conferees hereby urge the FWPCA to consider
the approval of the water quality standards of the
seven Colorado River Basin states conditioned upon
ultimate establishment of acceptable numerical salinity
standards after completion and consideration of FWPCA
and Bureau of Reclamation reports presently underway. "
The Chairman was instructed to transmit copies of the
resolution to the Secretary, Department of the Interior;
Commissioner, FWPCA; and Director, Southwest Region, FWPCA. It
was also agreed that each Conferee would attempt by appropriate
-------
510
9
means to achieve support of the resolution by the Governor of
his State and encourage transmission of the resolution to the
Congressional delegation.
The Secretary of Interior expressed his views concerning
salinity standards for the Colorado River in his statement of
January 30, 1968 to the House Subcommittee on Irrigation and
Reclamation (4> (House Document 90-5, Colorado River Basin Project,
Part II, pp. 705-706). His remarks on this matter include the
following statement:
"The Colorado River is the only major river of the world
that is virtually completely controlled. With the existing
system of large storage reservoirs it is possible to plan,
for all practical purposes, on complete utilization of
the river's runoff with no utilizable water escaping to
the sea. This means that the limited water supply in the
Colorado River Basin must be used and reused and then
used again for a wide variety of purposes. In this com-
plete utilization of runoff, the Colorado Basin is unique.
"The River is unique also with respect to the number and
extent of the institutional constraints on the division
and use of the Basin's water which include an international
treaty, two interstate water compacts , Supreme Court
decisions, Indian water rights, State water laws, and Federal
law.
"These two aspects, in turn, make the problem of setting
n«SoST-lii2r.l quality standards for the Colorado River
not onlv unique but extremely complicated. Before dis
culslng this problem further, I would like to state that
saliii?y standards will not be established until we have
SufScienf information to assure that such standards will
be equitable, workable, and enforceable.
"The principal water uses in the Basin include irrigated
ot iater for ££h irrigated agriculture and municipal and
industrial water supply
-------
511
10
"Further development and depletion of water allocated to
the Upper Basin States will raise the salinity of water
downstream.
"Salinity standards must be so framed that they will not
impede the growing economy of the Colorado River Basin and
yet not permit unwarranted degradation of water quality.
This is the hard dilemma which is the core of the problem
of establishing equitable salinity standards.
"A decision not to set salinity standards at this time
does not and will not preclude getting started with programs
to study and demonstrate the feasibility of controlling
and alleviating the Basin's salinity problem."
The Secretary also discussed some promising methods of
attaching the salinity problem. He concluded his remarks by
stating: "Although the salinity problems of the Colorado River
are difficult, I am confident that they can and will be resolved.1
In letters dated February 2, 1968, to Governors of several
Basin States, the Secretary of Interior also made the following
statements concerning salinity standards:
"After consideration of all the factors involved, I have
decided that salinity standards should not be established
until such time as we have sufficient information to be
reasonably certain that such standards will be equitable,
workable, and enforceable. Arriving at this decision
at this time does not and will not preclude initiating
of programs to study and demonstrate the feasibility of
controlling and alleviating the Basin's salinity problem."
In a letter to the Chairman, Technical Water Quality
Standards Committee for Colorado River Basin States, dated
February 12, 1968, the Assistant Secretary for Water Pollution
Control, Department of the Interior, made the following comments
regarding the Secretary's position on the establishment of
salinity standards for the Colorado River:
"It is the intention of the Secretary that the Department
of the Interior and the states pursue active programs to
-------
512
11
lay the foundation for setting numerical criteria at some
future time. These-programs should focus on devising and
demonstrating salinity control measures and finding ways
to revise the legal and institutional constraints that
could impede the implementation and enforcement of salinity
standards."
The seven Basin States' water quality standards for the
interstate waters of the Colorado River system, which contained
no specific numerical criteria for salinity, were subsequently
approved by the Secretary of Interior. No further formal action
has been taken by the States toward adopting mineral quality
standards for the Colorado River.
-------
513
12
CHAPTER III. TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR SALINITY CONTROL
Salinity increases result from many diverse factors. How-
ever, two basic process — salt loading and the salt concentrating
effects of consumptive water use — are the primary causes of
salinity increases. Two types of salinity control measures —
water-phase and salt-phase methods — may be employed to control
or minimize these processes. Water-phase measures are those
employed to reduce salinity concentrations by increasing the
volume of water available for dilution of a given salt burden.
This can be accomplished by conserving the water supply presently
available in the Basin or by increasing the Basin supply through
importation or other augmentation measures such as weather
modification. Salt-phase measures function to reduce salinity
concentrations by reducing the salt load discharged to the
river system. Salt load reductions can be achieved in a variety
of ways including desalination or impoundment and evaporation
of highly mineralized spring flows, modification of irrigation
practices and improvement of irrigation facilities to minimize
salt pickup by return flows, and the subsurface injection of
highly saline industrial wastes.
A number of salinity control measures have been identified
which have technical merit and which may be applicable to
salinity problems in the Colorado River Easin. These measures
are outlined in Table 1.
All of the salinity control measures listed in Table 1
-------
514
13
Table 1. Technical Possibilities for Salinity Control
I. Measures for Increasing Water Supply
A. Water Conservation Measures
1. Increased Watershed Runoff
2. Suppression of Evaporation
3. Phreatophyte Control
4. Optimized Water Utilization for Irrigation
a. Reduced Consumptive Use
b. Improved Irrigation Efficiency
5. Water Reuse
B. Water Augmentation Measures
1. Weather Modification
2. Water Importation
a. Fresh Water Sources
b. Demineralized Sea Water
II. Measures for Reducing Salt Loading
A. Control of Natural Sources
1. Natural Discrete Sources
a. Evaporation of Discharge
b. Injection into Deep Geological Formations
c. Desalination
d. Suppression of Discharge
e. Reduction of Recharge
2. Natural Diffuse Sources
a. Surface Diversions
b. Reduced Groundwater Recharge
c! Reduced Sediment Production
B. Control of Man-Made Sources
1. Municipal and Industrial Sources
a Evaporation
b. Injection into Deep Geological Formations
c. Desalination
2. Irrigation Return Flows
a. Proper Land Selection
b. Canal Lining .
c. Improved Irrigation Efficiency
d Proper Drainage
e! Treatment or Disposal of Return Flows
-------
515
14
have been given consideration in the search for the most
practical means of achieving basinwide salinity management.
Technical investigation, research and demonstration project
activities completed to date have indicated that some of the
methods considered are not economically feasible and other
measures may not be practical due to institutional and legal
constraints or other factors. The salinity control potential
of water conservation measures has not been evaluated
quantitatively as present legal and institutional constraints
would appear to preclude any practical application of such
measures at this time. Such measures are discussed in qualita-
tive terms in this chapter however, as a means of identifying
their potential should existing constraints be modified in the
future.
Implementation of water augmentation measures to increase
the Basin water supply, would also provide significant salinity
control benefits. The salinity control potential of several
augmentation measures has been evaluated in detail. These
measures are discussed qualitatively in this Chapter and
quantitatively in Chapter V.
A large number of salt load reduction measures were given
consideration; however, only a few are considered to be
economically feasible at this time. All of the measures con-
sidered are discussed qualitatively in this Chapter as a means
of comparison. Those measures which appear to be practical or
economically feasible include desalination or impoundment
-------
516
15
and evaporation of highly mineralized flows from discrete
sources including mineral springs, diversion of certain stream
sections, and reduction of salt pickup by irrigation return
flows by lining canals, improving irrigation efficiency and
installation of subsurface drains. These measures are discussed
quantitatively in Chapter V.
MEASURES FOR INCREASING WATER SUPPLY
Although highly variable from year to year, the Colorado
River Basin receives a relatively fixed total water supply from
atomspheric precipitation. Much of this supply is depleted by
evapotranspiration and out-of-basin diversions with only a
sinall fraction leaving the Basin as discharge of the Colorado
River. Under virgin conditions, evapotranspiration occurred
from native vegetation, from natural water courses, and from
land and snow surfaces.
Development of the Basin's water resources has increased
water losses in several ways. Construction of large reservoirs
and canal systems has increased evaporation from water courses.
The development of irrigated areas has increased the vegetation
present in the Basin and accompanying transpiration losses.
Irrigation and reservoir construction have also raised the
groundwater table in many areas which has been accompanied
by increased growth of native vegetation and increased eveDe-
ration from the land surface. The amount of water diverted
out of the Basin has also increased over the years. Together,
these losses have reduced the water supply remaining to carry
-------
517
16
mineral salts out of the Basin and have contributed to the
increases in average salinity concentrations above those con-
centrations existing under virgin conditions.
Man's activities have also increased the salt burden carried
by the river system. This increased salt burden also contributes
to the increases in salinity concentrations above virgin
conditions but to a lesser degree than the decrease in water
supply.
Much time and effort has been directed toward understanding
the natural processes which make up the hydrologic cycle. As
a result, a number of techniques have been developed for minimizing
evapotranspiration. Along with water reuse, these techniques
can be classified as water conservation measures.
Study of the hydrologic cycle has also yielded potential
methodology for modifying precipitation. Weather modification
and water importation are two activities which can be classified
as water augmentation measures. The technical merits of water
conservation and augmentation measures from the view point of
salinity control are discussed in the following sections.
Water Conservation Measures
Water may be conserved at a number of points as it passes
through the various phases of the hydrological cycle. Con-
servation measures may be applied in the headwaters, in the
river and reservoir system, and at the point of consumptive use.
Increases Watershed Runoff. Man has attempted to modify
the natural vegetative cover of watersheds in a manner which would
-------
518
17
reduce the rate of runoff following precipitation. Such
modification has produced several effects including reduced flood
flows, reduced sediment production, and higher base flows during
low-flow periods. This latter effect contributed to the belief
that holding precipitation on the watershed increased the water-
shed yield.
From a salinity control viewpoint, the present practices
of watershed management may be detrimental. We now know that
holding precipitation on the watershed increases evapotranspira-
tion and decreases watershed yield. Reduced runoff rates also
increase the opportunity for precipitation to dissolve salts
from the soil and groundwater aquifer and salt pickup rates
from the watershed may be increased. Increasing the rate of
runoff from a watershed may thus produce lower salinity con-
centrations, both in the water supply derived from the watershed
and at other downstream locations. Large downstream reservoirs
are available to regulate this increased runoff for downstream
use.
The U. S. Forest Service and various state agencies are
experimenting with forest management practices as a means of
increasing watershed yields and rates of runoff. Some of the
practices under study include forest cutting, logging and slash
disposal, conversion of bushland to forest, burning of under-
brush, and grazing.
A large portion of Colorado River streamflow originates
in mountain forest areas. Increasing the water yield and
-------
519
18
reducing the salt contribution of forest areas could thus have
a major impact on salinity problems. Increasing rates of runoff
could produce adverse effects however, such as increased sediment
concentrations in streams, reduced low-flow volumes with
accompanying warmer water temperatures, and degraded fish and
wildlife habitat. Studies, conducted jointly by appropriate
State and Federal agencies, are needed to determine if watershed
management techniques can be modified to improve the quantity
and quality of watershed yields without causing the adverse
effects previously described. Investigations of techniques for
increasing the rate of runoff from non-forested areas, such as
the construction of impervious catchment areas and the treatment
of solid surfaces are also needed. No estimates are currently
available of the increases in watershed yields or decreases in
salinity concentrations that could be achieved by application
fo such measures.
Suppression of Evaporation. Water losses by direct evaporation
from the surface of reservoirs, lakes, streams, and canals are
large. Evaporation losses from large, mainstem reservoirs alone
are presently estimated to exceed 1 million acre-feet annually
under normal operating conditions. Such losses increase
salinity concentrations by reducing the water available for
dilution of a given salt burden.
Since evaporation losses are directly related to water sur-
face area, one obvious control method for reservoirs is to
maintain the water surface at the minimum area practicable.
-------
520
19
fowever, operating requirements place serious constraints upon
aaintenance of a minimum area. Reservoirs in the Colorado River
Jasin are also relatively deep with respect to their surface
irea and significant reductions in storage produce relatively
small reductions in surface area.
A significant amount of research effort has been devoted to
development of chemical covers for reservoirs such as mono-
molecular films. Such films have proven effective in suppressing
evaporation but their cost and tendency to be broken up rapidly
by wind action or biological activity reduce their practicality.
No practical methods for reducing evaporation from flowing
streams have been developed. Evaporation losses from irrigation
conveyance systems can be reduced by covering canals and by
using pipe distribution systems. The use of pipe systems also
reduces seepage losses; and, in some cases, the pickup of salt
by return flows is decreased. The feasibility of installing
pipe distribution systems is dependent upon a number of factors,
and construction cannot be justified on the basis of evaporation
reduction alone.
The magnitude of evaporation losses is such that research
should be continued to develop economical- methods of suppressing
evaporation. The salinity control effects of enclosed distribut-
ion systems should also receive further study to determine if
additional benefits would justify the installation of effective
evaporation control devices.
-------
521
20
Phreatophyte Control. Phreatopbyteg are non-beneficial
plants with, a high rate of consumptive water use. Phreatophytes
are found in areas where the gro-unawater table is near the
surface allowing the plants to derive their water supply from
groundwater* Common locations are along the banks of streams
and reservoirs or on wasteland adjacent to irrigated areas.
Based on present surveys of phreatophyte acreages, these losses
are estimated to total several hundred thousand acre-feet
annually. Such losses contribute significantly to increases in
salinity concentrations.
Phreatophytes may be controlled by lowering the water table
below the depth of root penetration and by removing or destroying
the plants by mechanical or chemical means. In most cases where
the water table is now lowered, controls must be continued to
prevent regrowth. Revegetation of the cleared areas with
beneficial crops or with plants having a lower consumptive water
use may be a satisfactory method of long-range control.
Some phreatophytes provide erosion control and shelters for
livestock. Other phreatophytes provide wildlife habitat which
may complement recreational activity. The feasibility of
removing such growths would be dependent upon the practicality
of providing suitable substitute vegetation with lesser con-
sumptive water use.
Optimized Water Utilization for Irrigation. Irrigation has
been practiced in the Basin since the latter part of the nine-
teenth, century. Irrigation practices in many areas have changed
little since the traditional methods developed by th.e early
-------
522
21
irrigators. Prior to the construction of storage reservoirs
and modern canal systems, irrigation supplies were obtained by
direct diversion from flowing streams. Streamflow was high
during the spring snowmelt but dwindled to very low levels
during late summer. A heavy application of irrigation water
was made in the spring with the hope that storage in the soil
would offset a deficiency of supply in the latter part of the
growing season. Such application methods resulted in poor
irrigation efficiencies and excessive water diversions.
With the construction of storage reservoirs to even out the
seasonal supply, irrigators were slow to adopt more efficient
irrigation practices. In many cases water rights were based on
the excessive diversions formerly made. Irrigators were
reluctant to reduce water diversions as part of their water
rights could be lost. Thus, in many areas, irrigation
efficiencies are less than optimal and significant water con-
servation could be achieved by optimization of water utilization.
Water use for irrigation can be minimized by reducing
consumptive use through proper selection of land and crops or
by improving irrigation efficiency through proper irrigation
management. These conservation measures are discussed in the
following sections.
Reduced Consumptive Use. The total water consumptively
used by a given irrigated area is dependent upon the consumptive
use per acre of growing crops, the total irrigated acreage,
and the volume of non-beneficial losses such as evapotranspiration
-------
ATMOSPHERE
IRRIGATION
CANAL
DISTRIBUTION^
SYSTEM
GROUNDWATER AQUIFER
RIVER SYSTEM
Figure 2 Schematic Drawing of Irrigation Cycle
\J1
ru
-------
524
23
by phreatophytes. Reduction of any one of these factors will
conserve water.
Different crops have different water requirements. Con-
sumptive use of water could be decreased by growing crops that
use less water per unit of food or fiber produced. Thus, water
conservation could be effected by ^promoting the raising of the
most efficient water-using crops of equal economic value. The
development of new crop varities that are more efficient in
water utilization would achieve additional conservation. The
water conservation that could be achieved by crop modification
would be small however, in relation to the potential conservatior
that could be achieved by increased irrigation efficiency.
A number of irrigated farms scattered throughout the Basin
provide only a marginal economic return to their owners. These
farms may be limited to inefficient operation by poor soils,
poor drainage, marginal or inadequate water supply, or other
factors. Eliminating the irrigation of farms that are not
economically efficient would reduce irrigated acreage and con-
sumptive use. Factors that limit the practicality of such action
include the difficulty in evaluating which farms should stop
irrigating, the problems in transferring water rights and possible
relocation of farm owners or tenants.
Significant quantities of water, in the form of surface run-
off and.excessive return flows, are wasted by inefficient irri-
gation practices. Some of this waste water may support sub-
stantial consumptive use by non-beneficial vegetation located on
-------
525
24
non-irrigated land. Improvement of irrigation efficiency would
reduce the volume of water wasted and would help reduce such
non-beneficial losses. Methods of improving irrigation
efficiency are discussed in the following section.
Improved Irrigation Efficiency. In normal practice, the
volume of water supplied to an irrigated area is much larger than
the volume of water consumptively used by growing crops. The
ratio of the volume consumed to the volume supplied is known as
the irrigation efficiency and may be determined for a number of
different points in an irrigation"system such as the supply
reservoir or the farm headgate. Improving irrigation efficiency
reduces the gross supply that must be provided for a given
irrigated area and may reduce consumptive use in some cases as
previously discussed.
Unnecessary water losses occur at a number of points in the
irrigation cycle. These losses are shown schematically in Figure
2. Efficient irrigation requires the application of only enough
water to meet the consumptive use requirement of crops plus some
excess flow to leach accumulated salts from the root zone (termed
the leaching requirement). Efficiency can thus be improved by
reducing all other water losses.
Land characteristics such as soil type, soil permeability,
land slope, surface drainage patterns, and depth to the water
table or impermeable barrier are limiting factors in obtaining
high irrigation efficiencies. Thus, proper selection of new
land for irrigation can eliminate those areas that would require
-------
526
25
excessive water supplies for crop production. Classification
of existing irrigated areas with respect to land characteristics
would allow identification of those areas which possibly should
be removed from irrigation because of serious limitations on
obtainable irrigation efficiencies.
In many systems, large volumes of water are lost by
seepage from canals and distribution systems between the point
of diversion from the stream or the storage reservoir and the
farm. Reduction of seepage losses by lining canals and pipe
distribution systems can substantially increase overall irrigation
efficiency.
Perhaps the most significant factor affecting farm irrigation
efficiencies is the management of both the timing and method
6f application of irrigation water. By timing the application
to meet crop requirements and by selection of the method of
application to match crop and land characteristics, high
efficiencies can be obtained. It is estimated that improved
irrigation methods and practices could reduce the farm irrigation
requirement by as much as 30 percent.
Construction of storage and equalizing reservoirs for irri-
gated areas obtaining irrigation supplies by direct diversion
from uncontrolled streams provide major improvements in farm
efficiencies in these areas by allowing a change to a demand
system of irrigation. Under such a system, the timing of
irrigation applications can be based on crop requirements rather
than on the seasonal availability of a water supply. In one
-------
52?
26
irrigated area in Utah., overall irrigation efficiencies in-
creased by an estimated 20 percent following completion of a
storage reservoir and inauguration of the demand system of
irrigation.^5)
Proper selection of methods of applying irrigation water
can also significantly improve farm efficiencies. Flood irri-
gation methods, which are commonly used in the Upper Basin at
present, result in poor irrigation efficiencies in most cases.
Use of such methods as border strips, furrows, corrugates, and
sprinkler systems can produce field application efficiencies of
over 50 percent.
A program to educate and assist irrigators in the selection
of methods of application and proper timing of irrigation could
significantly increase farm efficiencies. Consolidation of
irrigation companies, canal companies, irrigation districts,
drainage districts, and private ditch companies or users into
one unit for an irrigated area would provide an organization for
establishing an educational and assistance program and would also
allow more efficient distribution of the available irrigation
water. A single entity controlling all of the irrigation and
drainage systems in an area could promote more efficient irri-
gation by establishing rules for determining irrigation needs,
economic incentives for installing more efficient irrigating
methods or systems and practices and by establishing penalties
for misuse of irrigation water. This would require legal and
institutional changes, however, and might be difficult to
implement in many cases.
-------
528
27
Water Reuse
By utilizing th.e waste water or return flow from an
industry, municipality, irrigated area or other water uses to
supply the water requirements of additional users, the gross
volume of water diverted from a river system to supply all users
may be reduced. In the case of a single water user, recycling
of all or a part of the waste water can reduce gross water
requirements. In the extreme case, wastewater discharge can
be eliminated and gross diversions reduced to consumptive use
requirements.
The economic feasibility of water reuse is dependent upon
the relative costs of sequential water use or of treating waste-
water for reuse versus the costs of providing and treating a
larger raw water supply. The technical feasibility is dependent
upon the availability of treatment methods, such as desalination,
capable of producing suitable quality water from wastewater, or
the presence of suitable industries, etc., with water quality
requirements which will allow sequential water use.
Salinity Control Effects of Water Conservation
Application of water conservation measures should result
in a temporary increase in the available water supply of the
Basin. However, the long-term effects on supply and the
availability of any supply increase for salinity control are
not clear.
Reduction of consumptive use by irrigation, by phreatophytes,
and in the headwaters area would increase the available water
supply. In areas where the present supply is fully utilized,
-------
529
28
availability of additional water would probably result in new
land being placed under irrigation to utilize any surplus water.
This action is encouraged by the appropriate water right procedures
which prevail in many state water laws. Thus, the long-term
effect of such water conservation could be no net change in the
water supply available for salinity control.
Reduction of diversion requirements by water reuse or
improved irrigation efficiency could have a slightly different
effect on available water supply. The immediate result would be
an increase in the supply available at the point of diversion.
This surplus water would probably be utilized as previously
discussed. Increasing the irrigated acreage would increase con-
sumptive use. Thus, the long-term effect of such conservation
measures might actually be a decrease in water supply leaving a
subbasin. It is doubtful if any increased supply of water avail-
able for salinity control would result.
Reduction of reservoir evaporation losses could potentially
increase the available water supply for salinity control as such
savings would be produced below most Upper Basin use points.
Long-term releases from the Upper Basin will probably eventuallly
be held to compact allotments. Thus, conserved water would
probably be utilized to meet Lower Basin delivery requirements
allowing increased consumptive use in the Upper Basin.
The application of conservation measures in areas receiving
water exports could potentially increase available supply by
decreasing export requirements. However, any increased supply
would probably be beneficial used as previously discussed
resulting in no increase in the supply available for salinity
-------
530
29
control.
In summary, under present legal constraints and traditional
patterns of water utilization, the application of water con-
servation measures would produce few benefits as a direct result
of increased water supply available for salinity control. Such
measures may be significantly beneficial in reducing salt loading
as discussed later in this chapter. Also, if legal constraints
were modified to make only a portion of the conserved water
available for salinity control, significant benefits could
result.
Water Augmentation Measures
The actual quantity of water available for use in the
Colorado River Basin and its allocation among water users has
been the subject of much controversy. It is now apparent that
a water shortage will exist in the Basin if the water resource
developments proposed by various local, state, and federal
agencies are carried to completion. To alleviate this shortage,
a number of water augmentation measures have been investigated.
These measures include weather modification to increase Basin
precipitation and various schemes to import high quality water
from other river basins or from the ocean following desalination.
A number of potential water augmentation measures are discussed
in the following sections.
Weather Modification. Increasing precipitation and water-
shed yield by weather modification is a relatively new concept.
Consequently, operations in this field have not progressed
significantly beyond the pilot stage. Pilot scale activities
-------
531
30
conducted for several years in several states by a number of
agencies including the Bureau of Reclamation have shown the
technical feasibility of increasing watershed runoff by as much
as ten to twenty percent. '*>)
Research has been initiated by the Bureau of Reclamation
to investigate the feasibility of augmenting Colorado River flow
by weather modification. A five-year pilot program of weather
modification in the Upper Basin was initiated in September 1968.
Seeding of target areas will begin during the 1970-1971 winter
season.
Preliminary estimates indicate that an annual watershed
yield increase of as much as 1.87 million acre-feet might be
obtained by a full-scale, basinwide weather modification
program.f6) Costs are estimated to total less than $1.50 per
acre-foot of increased yield. Results of the pilot program will
allow these estimates to be verified and refined.
A full-scale program would probably concentrate on increasing
snowfall in the high mountain areas of the Upper Basin. Since
runoff from these areas is generally low in salinity,. the in-
creased yield would probably be low in salinity also, with
significant salinity control benefits.
Water Importation. Traditionally, man has devised schemes
for transporting water from areas of excess supply to areas of
need whenever water shortages have developed. Thus, the im-
pending water shortage in the Colorado River Basin has spawned
a number of diverse and imaginative proposal for augmenting basin
-------
532
31
supply by importation of high quality water from various sources
outside the basin. At least six major projects which would
import water from other basins have been proposed in the past.
In most cases these proposals envisage tapping rivers in the
Pacific Northwest which, at present, have surplus water avail-
able.
In addition, several international water resource development
schemes have been proposed which would integrate a number of
river systems in Canada and the United States. Surplus Canadian
water could be diverted southward by such development to a number
of water-short areas including the Colorado River Basin.
Water imported from most of the sources considered by these
schemes would be high quality with relatively low salinity
concentrations (less than 300 mg/1). The introduction of
large quantities of this low salinity water could substantially
reduce salinity concentrations at a number of locations in the
Basin. The degree and location of resulting salinity control is
dependent upon the locations of both the point of importation
into the Basin and the point of consumptive use. Significant
quantities of salt will be imported along with the water thus
increasing the salt burden carried by the river system. If
water were imported into the Upper Basin and significant
quantities consumptively used at that location, the salt load
reaching the Lower Colorado River would be increased and the
salinity contol effects of flow augmentation would be less than
if the entire volume of imported water were allowed to reach the
-------
533
32
Lower Basin. The proposed location and magnitude of water
imports and associated consumptive use must be carefully evaluated
for each importation scheme to insure that the salinity control
effects of water importation are maximized.
Another potential source of high quality water for importation
into the basin is demineralized sea water. Desalination tech-
niques have steadily improved in recent years with concurrent
reductions in unit costs of demineralized water. At present,
desalination is not competitive with alternative sources of
fresh water. It is anticipated that unit costs of demineralized
water will continue to decrease as a result of continued research
and development in this field. Thus, desalination should receive
further consideration as a source of imported water.
The Gulf of California and Pacific Ocean are in relatively
close proximity to the Lower Colorado River and to areas utilizing
large amounts of Colorado River water. Demineralized sea water
from these two sources could potentially be utilized to augment
the Basin supply directly or to indirectly increase the supply
available for use in the Basin by exchange of water outside the
Basin. By exchanging demineralized water for Colorado River
water now diverted out of the Basin to such areas in Southern
California, out-of-basin diversions could be decreased resulting
in an increase in the supply available for use in the Lower
Colorado River Basin. If the demineralized water were imported
into the Basin to a point such as Hoover Darn, significant re-
ductions in salinity concentrations in the Lower Colorado River
-------
534
33
would result. Decreasing out-of-basin diversions by exchange
of water would produce little effect on salinity concentrations
in the Lower Colorado River. Significant improvement in the
quality of the water supplied to the area receiving the
demineralized exchange supply would result however.
A proposed large-scale desalination plant located near Los
Angeles has received serious consideration as a source of supple-
mental water supply for that metropolitan area. Depending upon
the timing of the construction of this facility, this source
could possibly be utilized to supply water in exchange for
present Colorado River diversions.
A reconnaissance study completed by the Bureau of Reclamation
in January 1968, determined that it may be technically feasible
to import demineralized sea water from a desalination plant,.
located between Los Angeles and San Diego on the Pacific Ocean,
to augment the flow of the Colorado River.at Hoover Dam.* '
Staged development with flow augmentation increasing from one-
million acre-feet in 1990 to two-million acre-feet in 2010 was
evaluated. A large aqueduct and numerous pumping plants would
be required to convey the demineralized water to Lake Mead. Thus,
the cost of such imported water* would be high. This source could
also be utilized to provide exchange water to the Southern Cali-
fornia area. An exchange scheme would eliminate the need for
the lengthy aqueduct with a significant reduction in average
water costs. However, no salinity control in the Lower Colorado
River would result.
-------
535
34
A related study of a potential desalination plant located
on the Gulf of California in Mexico has been conducted jointly
by the United States and Mexico under the chairmanship of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.(80) This study demonstrated
that it would be technically feasible to provide a supplemental
water supply for the Lower Basin from such a source.
MEASURES FOR REDUCING SALT LOADING
Salt is discharged to the Colorado River system from a
variety of sources, both natural and man-made. Man-made sources
appear to be most amenable to successful control. Some natural
sources, particularly discrete sources, may also be controlled.
Control measures may be employed to either remove the salt load
from the river system at the point of discharge from the source
or to reduce water flow through an area of salt pickup and thus
reduce the salt contribution of such an area. Specific control
measures which may be applicable in the Basin are discussed in
the following sections.
Control of Natural Sources
A number of natural sources of salt existed in the Basin
prior to man's arrival. These sources remain relatively un-
changed in magnitude by man's activities. The necessary technical
knowledge is available to control some natural salt loads. How-
ever, the economic feasibility of such control has not been fully
evaluated.
-------
536
35
Natural Discrete Sources. Discrete sources encompass flow
from springs, seeps, and other localized, concentrated discharges.
Since such sources contribute high salt loadings from a small
area, effective control may be technically feasible. Discrete
sources may be controlled by removing the entire discharge from
the river system, by removing only the salt load from the system,
or by preventing any discharge from the source.
A number of discrete sources discharge to small tributary
streams or have well defined discharge channels. In such cases
the entire discharge may be intercepted and appropriate control
measures applied. The intercepted flow could be conveyed to
an impoundment and confined for evaporation, thus effectively
removing the entire discharge from the river system. Application
of this measure requires adequate area for an evaporation closed
basin. Such impoundments may be developed and managed for
recreation, wildlife habitat, or other beneficial uses. One
drawback to this measure is that evaporation losses in the basin
are increased. This should be utilized for moderate to highly
mineralized discharges or no net reduction in salinity will
occur.
Small sources of highly concentrated brines may be controlled
by subsurface disposal. This method is feasible only if suitable
geological formations are available to confine the brine and
prevent any return flow to the river system.
Demineralization of the collected discharge is an effective
means of removing the salt load from the river system with only
-------
537
36
a small depletion of water discharged by the source. Two
factors limit the feasibility of demineralization. The con-
centrated brines resulting from this process must be disposed
of by one of the two methods discussed earlier. The most
serious limitation is the lack of a low coast method of demineral-
ization for the small discharges contributed by discrete sources.
In a few cases, mineral springs may be the outlet for an
aquifer confined by impermeable boundaries on all sides. It may
be technically feasible to plug the aquifer outlet or to apply
hydrostatic pressure to suppress aquifer outflow. Such action
could completely eliminate the discharge and salt load from such
sources. However, a more probable result, following a period
of adjustment, would be that the same volume of flow would re-
appear at some higher elevation near the aquifer recharge
area. In this case the discharge would probably have a much
lower salinity concentration. Thus, the salt load would be
reduced with little or no loss of aquifer yield.
Natural Diffuse Sources. Over half of the salt load dis-
charged to the Upper Basin river system is contributed by surface
runoff and ground water inflow from diffuse sources. Surface
runoff picks up salts as it passes over the surface of the soil
and salt-bearing formations. Additional salt is believed to be
picked up from sediments carried in suspension by streams. Ground
water picks up salt as it percolates through the soil profile
and moves through aquifers. Measures for controlling diffuse
sources are thus aimed at reducing the opportunity for surface
runoff and groundwater to leach or dissolve minerals from soil
-------
538
37
and underlying geological formations.
Salinity contributions from natural runoff may be decreased"
by various measures aimed at reducing the extent and amount of
water infiltration in areas of high salt pickup. For example,
contour ditches might be constructed to intercept runoff and
carry it rapidly into the stream, and surface sealants might
be used to control the percolation of surface waters into the
soil profile. In local areas where salt is picked up from
formations crossed by the stream channel, it may be possible
to construct an impervious channel or a bypass channel to pre-
vent contact of water with the saline formation.
Highly mineralized groundwater is discharged by aauifers
in some areas. By utilizing diversion or surface sealing
techniques to reduce the recharge of the aquifer, displacement of
this saline groundwater could be reduced with resulting reductions
in salt loads discharged to the system. This approach may also
have application to the control of mineral springs.
Percolation of water into the alluvium and shallow ground
water underlying river valleys exposes water to the underlying
formations much like the percolation of irrigation return flows.
Reducing the underground movement of such water should, in most
cases, reduce the salt load derived from valley soils and under-
lying formations.
Sediment swept into the stream from sheet and channel
erosion is weathered by continued exposure to well aerated water,
and by persistent turbulent mixing. The amount of salt
-------
539
38
contributed from this source is not known. Numerous erosion
control measures have been developed for land protection but
little is known about how they affect salinity. Additional
study of sediment and salinity relationships will be required
to devise effective control techniques.
All of the control measures discussed above involve some
form of modification of the movement of surface or groundwater.
Flood control, wildlife habitat and water rights are just a
few of the various factors that should be carefully evaluated
before such modifications are carried out.
Control of Man-Made Sources
Man has increased the salt burden carried by the river
system by the discharge of municipal and industrial wastes and
by heavy utilization of water for irrigation. Since man has
control of such water use, these sources of salt may be more
completely controlled than natural sources.
Municipal and Industrial Sources. Municipal wastes are
generally relatively low in salinity. With the exception of oil
field brines and uranium mill effluents, industrial wastes are
also relatively low in salinity. The most effective means of
controlling these salt sources are lagooning and evaporation of
the wastes, injection into deep formations, or discharge into
closed basins. These control measures result in the removal
of the entire waste flow from the river system. Due to the
low salinity concentrations, the loss of water involved in
eliminating such waste discharges would, in most cases, offset
-------
540
39
decreases in basin salinity levels resulting from removal of
salt from these sources. Thus, salinity control measures should
be considered for only the most concentrated sources.
Several abandoned oil test wells discharge highly mineralized
water. Such flowing wells can frequently be controlled by
plugging the casing with concrete. Alternatively, the discharge
can be disposed of in the same manner as natural spring flow.
It should be noted that since the salt load from municipal
and industrial sources represents a small fraction of the total
basin salt burden, complete control of such waste discharges
would have little effect on basinwide salinity problems.
Irrigation Return Flows. Irrigation contributes an in-
creased salt load to the river system in a number of different
ways. When new land is brought under irrigation, any highly
soluble salts present in the soil are leached out by the irrigation
water in a relatively short period of time. As irrigation con-
tinues, additional salts are dissolved from the soil. These
dissolved salts are picked up by any excess irrigation water and
returned to the river system as surface wastewater or as ground-
water flow. This pickup of salts from the soil by return flows
may continue for many years.
The major portion of return flows usually percolates down-
ward into the giroundwater aquifer and then moves horizontally
either into drains or to the river system. If the groundwater
is highly saline, the return flows may displace large volume
of the saline groundwater with resultant large salt loads entering
the river system. Return flows may also pick up significant
-------
5*1
40
salt loads from aquifer materials or underlying formations if
sufficient soluble salts are present in these locations.
Wastewater from inefficient practices may flow onto or under
adjacent non-irrigated land. Evaporation from such lands con-
centrates salts drawn to the surface by capillary flow into a
surface crust which is easily removed by surface runoff. Irri-
gation may thus indirectly contribute to salt pickup from non-
irrigated lands.
Salt loads contributed by irrigation may be controlled by
the proper selection of land to be irrigated, by reducing return
flows.to a minimum, and by intercepting return flows for treat-
ment or disposal. Specific control measures are discussed in
the following sections.
Land Selection. Many soils within the Colorado River Basin
contain high concentrations of soluble salt. Irrigation of these
soils results in high salt pickup by return flows during the
initial leaching period. Large salt loads are also contributed
by the irrigation of shallow soils overlying highly saline
shales. Classification of all lands in the Basin would allow
identification of these problem soil areas. Cessation of irri-
gation of shallow soils overlying shale would lower the Basin
salt burden. It may be possible to purchase the water rights
or the land and water rights and discontinue irrigation of some
of these shallow soils. Major problems associated with purchase
of this type of land would be the disruption of the owner's farm
operation and the transfer of water rights to other land or
-------
5M2
41
other uses. Some state water laws prohibit separating the
water rights from the land or transfer or sale except for higher
classified uses. Additional investigations and research are
needed to determine the salinity control benefits which may be
derived from land selection.
Canal Lining. Seepage losses from unlined irrigation canals
are frequently large. These seepage losses contribute to the
volume of return flows which pick up salt from groundwater aqui-
fers. Reducing seepage would reduce the salt load of return
flows in such cases.
Seepage losses also occur from farm ditches and distribution
systems. In some areas canals are kept full during the non-
irrigation season to provide livestock water. Providing enclosed
or pipe distribution systems would reduce farm seepage losses.
A pipeline system for winter livestock water supply would
eliminate the need for maintaining flow in the canals year around.
Except for some areas where high value crops are grown,
relatively little canal lining or use of pipe distribution sys-
tems has been accomplished in the Upper Basin. Thus, a high
potential exists for large reductions in return flows as achieved
by these types of systems.
Improved Irrigation Efficiency. Low irrigation efficiencies
result in excess return flows. Improvement of irrigation effi-
ciencies, as discussed in a preceding section on water conser-
vation, would reduce the volume of return flows and reduce salt
loads in the same manner as reducing canal seepage losses.
-------
543
42
Drainage. Open surface drains and underground tile drains
have been installed in a number of irrigated areas. These
drains were usually provided to lower existing high water tables
or to prevent water logging by irrigation. To reduce costs,
drains were usually constructed as deep and as far apart as
soil conditions would allow. Such practices result in long flow
paths for return flows.
By installing closely spaced, shallow tile drains, salt
loads may possibly be reduced by shortening the flow paths of
return flows. Also, shallow drains may reduce the deep dis-
placement of saline groundwater. Surface drains to intercept
surface runoff and irrigation tailwater could also reduce the
pickup of salt from non-irrigated lands.
Interception of Return Flows. Irrigation return flows
reach the river system by a variety of routes. Much of the flow
may occur as increased groundwater discharge spread over a wide
area. In such cases interception of return flows may be difficult.
In some cases, however, return flows may be collected by drains
or small tributaries and concentrated into a single stream that
may be easily intercepted and conveyed to a treatment or disposal
facility.
Once collected, irrigation return flows may be controlled
in the same manner as mineral spr ngs discharges. Evaporation,
desalination, and subsurface injection into geologically closed
formations are technically feasible control measures. The
practicality of utilizing these control measures for return
-------
43
flows is limited however, by the same factors as discussed in
the section on mineral springs.
-------
545
44
CHAPTER IV. STATUS OF SALINITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES
A number of research, demonstration and technical investi-
gation activities related to salinity control have been completed
or are underway in the Colorado River Basin. These activities
have substantially added to the knowledge of the Basin's salinity
problem and have developed improved salinity control technology.
In addition, research and technical investigations in other
geographical areas have provided technology applicable to the
Basin. In spite of this additional information and knowledge,
present salinity control technology is still limited and additional
research and technical investigations will be required before
an effective salinity control program can be implemented. In-
formation developed by these activities is sufficient, however,
to provide a basis for preliminary estimates of the potential
for salinity control presented in the following chapter. The
following sections outline the current status of salinity
control activities in the Basin and discuss some of the recent
developments and their application to formulation of a salinity
control program.
TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Technical investigations of the salinity problem have
been conducted by the Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control
Project of FWQA (Project) since 1963. An intensive water quality
-------
5*6
45
sampling survey was conducted in 1963 and 1964 in the Lower Basin.
A similar survey was.made in the Upper Basin in 1965 and 1966.
These surveys were designed to define the location and magnitude
of all significant salt sources. In the Lower Basin, available
water quality data was limited in a number of areas and an
accurate evaluation of salt sources was not possible. Thus,
the 1963-1964 investigation was the first attempt to accurately
quantify Lower Basin salt sources.
The Geological Survey made an analysis of existing water
quality data for the Upper Basin which was published in 1965. '
Their report contained the first summary of the location and
magnitude of salt sources in the Upper Basin and a comprehensive
compilation of available data, and provided valuable information
concerning hydrological and geological conditions contributing
to high salt loadings. The 1965-1966 Project investigation
supplemented the Geological Survey analysis by conducting more
intensive quality sampling in a number of areas to better define
specific locations of salt sources and by furnishing an additional
check on Geological Survey estimates of the magnitude of those
salt sources for which only limited data was available.
Data developed by the various investigations discussed above
and by other short term survevs of specific salt sources provided
the basis for estimates of the potential salt load reductions
discussed in a later chapter. A detailed evaluation of the
water quality data collected by the Project is presented in
Appendix A.
-------
46
Preliminary feasibility studies of several potential salinity
control projects and control methods were made by the Project
during 1964-1965. These studies provided an indication of the
potential physical features and estimated costs of a limited
salinity program. Since an evaluation of the economic impact of
changes in salinity concentrations was not yet available, the
economic feasibility of such a program could not be determined.
Recently, available information and changing water resource
development plans have invalidated some of the results of the
feasibility studies. However, data developed by these studies
were useful for estimating the potential for control of several
salt sources. Study results were available in open file reports
located in the Project office in Denver.
Early in FY 1968, the FWQA and. the Bureau of Reclamation
initiated a cooperative salinity control reconnaissance study
in the Upper Basin to identify controllable sources of salinity,
determine technically feasible control measures and estimate
their costs. The first year of this study was financed by a
transfer of funds from FWQA to the Bureau, and the second year
was financed by the Bureau. A shortage of funds forced dis-
continuance of the study at the beginning of FY 1970. A report
entitled "Cooperative Salinity Control Reconnaissance Study,
Upper Colorado River Basin," presenting the results of the study
is scheduled for release during 1970.
Reconnaissance level preliminary plans were developed by the
cooperative study for two salinity control projects and cost
-------
47
estimates prepared for a number of control measures. A pre-
liminary Project plan was developed which would eliminate the
heavy pickup of salt by the Dolores River as it crosses a salt
anticline in Paradox Valley in western Colorado. A detention
dam to reduce peak flood flows and a concrete channel to flume
the stream through the valley would be utilized to control this
source. Details of the project are discussed in Chapter V.
Average annual costs of the project were estimated to total about
four dollars per ton of salt removed from the river system.
By way of comparison, salinity control benefits are estimated
to range from about five dollars per ton of salt removed in 1970
to twelve dollars per ton in the year 2010. This project would
thus appear to be economically feasible.
A preliminary plan was also prepared for a project to control
the salt load from Crystal Geyser, an abandoned oil test well
which periodically discharges highly mineralized water in much
the same manner as a geyser. Control would be achieved by
collecting the geyser discharge and pumping it to a lined impound-
ment for evaporation. Average annual costs were estimated to
total about five dollars per ton of salt removed. A project
of this type would be potentially applicable to control of some
of the more concentrated mineral springs if suitable land areas
for evaporation ponds can be found and evaporation rates are
high enough.
For control of irrigation return flows, the costs of im-
pounding and evaporating the flows at two topographically different
-------
48
sites were estimated. Annual costs of such controls would
appear to be in the range of $7 - $15 per ton of salt removed .
Deep well injection of relatively small quantities of the more
concentrated return flows was estimated to cost about $10 - 15
per ton of salt removed. The feasibility of controlling irri-
gation return flows by evaporation or deep well injection would
appear to be marginal on the basis of salinity control benefits
alone .
The cost of lining canals and distribution systems in several
existing irrigation projects as a salinity control measure was
also investigated. Construction costs of such lining was
estimated to range from $200 - $550 per acre, depending upon
the complexity of the conveyance system. These costs are not
readily convertible into a cost per ton of salt removed as the
effectiveness of this control measure has not yet been fullv
evaluated. A canal lining demonstration project to provide the
basis for such an evaluation is currently underway and is
discussed in the following section.
Following a discontinuance of the cooperative study at the
start of FY 1970, the Project initiated a preliminary study of
a project to control the salt load from, several large mineral
spring areas in the vicinity of Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
This study has been completed and an open file report is in
preparation. Details and feasibility of this project are dis-
cussed in Chapter V.
A preliminary study of control measures for LaVerkin Springs,
a large thermal spring discharging significant quantities of
-------
550
49
radium-226 and mineral salts to the Virgin River in Southern
Utah, was initiated by the Project in March 1970.
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES
A number of research and demonstration projects are pre-
sently underway which are expected to contribute significantly
to the development and/or evaluation of various salinity control
measures. Three projects are directed toward the development
of techniques for minimizing salinity contributions from irri-
gated agriculture including a demonstration of the salinity con-
trol potential of lining irrigation canals and distribution
systems. Another research project just completed has demonstrated
the application of the analog computer to the simulation of the
salt flow system in the Upper Basin. A fifth project recently
initiated will evaluate the movement of salts in a groundwater
system. These five projects were financially supported by the
FWPCA. Additional research sponsored by various universities
in the western states is expected to contribute improved salinity
management technology. Various research projects have been
proposed which, if funded and carried to completion, would
substantially increase the store of salinity control technology.
The following paragraphs outline the status of current activities,
discuss significant research results and their application, and
outline the areas of greatest need for additional salinity con-
trol research.
A research project entitled "Quality of Irrigation Return
-------
551
50
Flow" was initiated during FY 1969 by Utah. State University
at Logan, Utah, under a FWQA research, grant. This project has
the dual objectives of increasing the knowledge of basic pro-
cesses controlling the movement of salts in solids and the
application of this knowledge to the development of salinity con-
trol measures. Research to date has been conducted on a small
scale in the laboratory and in greenhouse lysimeters. A digital
simulation model is being developed to accurately predict the
movement of salts and changes in the quality of applied irrigation
water within the soil and root zone. This model will be utilized
to design on-farm irrigation practices, such as rate and timing
of irrigation applications, so as to manage the salinity con-
centration of soil moisture in the root zone within acceptable
limits for the specific crop being grown while minimizing the
salt load contributed by the farm. This model will be refined
in the future to optimize the on-farm irrigation practices of
an entire irrigated area in such a manner that high irrigation
efficiencies would be obtained, a salt balance would be main-
tained in the root zone and the pickup of additional salts from
the soil profile would be minimized.
Preliminary research results indicate that it may be
feasible to seasonally store salts contained in the applied irri-
gation water in the lower soil zone during low streamflow periods
and then leach these salts out during normal or high streamflow
periods. Such salt storage would help reduce the wide seasonal
variations in stream salinity concentrations presently occurring
in much of the Upper Basin.
-------
552
51
The University has established a 40-acre test farm in
Ashley Valley near Vernal, Utah, to provide full scale field
testing of laboratory results. Field tests will be conducted
during 1970 and 1971. Establishment o± the test farm in this
location will demonstrate salinity control measures under con-
ditions similar to those found in many Upper Basin irrigated
areas.
In response to a request from the FWPCA, a large scale
research project entitled "Prediction of Mineral Quality of Return
Flow Water from Irrigated Land" was initiated by the Bureau of
Reclamation in the latter part of FY 1969 with financial support
provided by a transfer of funds from the FWPCA. (11) The primary
objective of this project is to develop a digital simulation
model which will accurately predict the quantity and quality of
irrigation return flows from an entire irrigation project with
known soil groundwater, geologic and hydrologic characteristics.
Such a model would have several applications. The water quality
impact of a proposed irrigation development could be more
accurately assessed than by any presently available techniques.
More importantly, the model could be utilized to evaluate the
water quality effects of alternative project designs thus allowing
selection of the optimal design of proposed project features in
order to minimize any adverse effects on mineral quality. Another
application would be the evaluation of improvements of irrigation
facilities and practices in established irrigated areas aimed at
reducing present high salt contributions.
-------
553
52
Field studies will be conducted in a number of locations
with various soil and geologic conditions to verify prediction
techniques under a wide range of conditions. Ashley Valley,
surrounding Vernal, Utah, was selected as the initial study
area. Characterization studies of this area are currently under-
way. Initial runs of an elementary simulation model will be
made during 1970 using present data. The model will be refined
and additional data collected during the next three years.
Field studies at other locations will be initiated at some future
date.
The Utah State University and Bureau research projects
are being closely coordinated. Although aimed at different
objectives, these projects are complementary and data collected
by each project, theoretical results and other information are
being exchanged. Establishment of the Vernal test farm by the
University will aid in this coordination. The simulation models
being developed by the two projects differ substantially in
purpose and scope. The University model is limited to on-farm
irrigation practices and movement of salts within the soil
zone only. It can thus optimize irrigation practices to mini-
mize salt pickup from the soil zone of the farm only. Salt
pickup from the groundwater system and the effects of off-farm
water losses, such as canal seepage, on the total salt load
contributed by an irrigated area are not evaluated. This model
is primarily a design and farm management tool. In contrast,
the Bureau of Reclamation model will simulate all water and salt
-------
554
53
movement occurring in an entire irrigation project including
the groundwater system. This will provide an evaluation of the
salt pickup in the groundwater system and at other off-farm
locations as well as the on-farm pickup. The salinity effects
of alternative designs for conveyance systems, surface and
subsurface drains, etc., can thus be evaluated.
The Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration Project
at Grand Junction, Colorado, was initiated in FY 1969 under a
FWPCA demonstration grant. The objective of this project is to
demonstrate the salinity control potential of lining irrigation
canals and laterals. The Grand Valley is underlain by an aauifer
containing highly saline groundwater. Seepage from canals and
laterals contributes to the recharge of this aquifer. This
recharge displaces the saline groundwater into the Colorado River,
increasing its salt load. Reduction of such recharge by reducing
seepage from conveyance systems is thus expected to reduce the
salt load discharged to the river.
A major portion of the canals and some of the lateral s
serving a study area of about 4,600 acres were lined with concrete
during the 1969-1970 winter season. Additional canal and lateral
lining will be done during the 1970-1971 winter season. Most
of the lining is being accomplished by a corporation of local
irrigation and drainage districts which directs the demonstration
project. Colorado State University is conducting the data
collection activities and evaluation of salinity control effects
under contract from the corporation. A simulation model is
-------
555
54
being developed which will evaluate the effects of changes in
irrigation efficiency on salt load contributions as well as
changes in seepage losses from the conveyance systeir. This
model will allow the results of the demonstration project to be
projected valley-wide upon completion of the study to form the
basis for future salinity control activities in this location.
Completion of the demonstration project, including all post-
construction studies, is scheduled for mid-1972.
Only limited research efforts are presently directed toward
defining processes controlling salt loading from natural sources.
The FWPCA is providing financial support for one such effort
entitled, "Electric Analog Simulation of the Salinity Flow
System within the Upper Colorado River Basin", which is nearing
completion at Utah State University. The results of this
research will provide new information concerning the distribution
of salt sources in the Upper Basin and will provide an analytical
tool for evaluating the water quality effects of various
salinity control measures. The final research report is
scheduled for publication during 1970.
A research project entitled "Effect of Water Management
on Quality of Groundwater and Surface Recharge in Las Vegas
Valley", was initiated by Desert Research Institute in late 1969
under a FWPCA research grant. This project will evaluate, among
other things, the movement of salts in the groundwater system
and the exchange of salts between the groundwater and surface
waters of Las Vegas Wash. Research results will help define the
optimum approach to control of this salt source. Completion
-------
556
55
of the research effort is scheduled for mid-1973.
A cooperative regional research effort, "Project W-107,
Management of Salt Load in Irrigation Agriculture", was initiated
in 1969 by seven western universities and the Agricultural
Research Service's U. S. Salinity Laboratory. Work underway or
planned covers a wide range of salinity management aspects and
should provide a number of results of applicable to Basin
salinity problems. The FWPCA is participating in the coordination
of this research effort.
Completion of the various research and demonstration projects
currently underway will provide much new information which will
be useful in the formulation of a basinwide salinity control
program. However, additional research and demonstration
activities are needed to develop control measures for those salt
sources for which no practical control measures exist and to
insure that those control measures selected for implementation
in a basinwide program will be the most effective and economical.
A practical means of controlling small mineral springs needs to
be developed and demonstrated. Application of desalination
techniques to control of salt sources in mountainous areas is
severely limited by the lack of a suitable method of brine dis-
posal. Thus, a need exists for development of brine disposal
roethos which can be applied in areas with high precipitation and
low evaporation rates. Additional methods of controlling diffuse
natural sources, the major contributor of salt loads, are needed.
Significant reductions in salt loads can be achieved by im-
proving irrigation facilities and practices only if the economic
-------
56 557
advantages of implementing such improvements can be demonstrated
to the individual irrigator. A number of demonstration projects
of this type are needed. Additional control measures applicable
to irrigated agriculture need to be developed and demonstrated.
Thus, the scope and magnitude of research and demonstration
needs is large.
A number of research proposals related to salinity control
have been submitted by various universities in the Colorado
River Basin region. Subjects of these proposals include
demonstrating the relationships that exist between irrigation
practices, crop yields and the salinity of return flows-
evaluation of the salinity effects, of drainage system operations
in the Yuma area, and determination of the relative magnitude
of natural and man-made salt contributions in an irrigated area.
The range of research objectives shown by projects proposed or
underway demonstrate the wide range of research expertise avail-
able in the area of salinity control. Thus, the expertise
required to carry out needed research efforts is available at
institutions in the Colorado River Basin region.
SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS
During the latter part of FY 1968, the FWQA made funds
available and requested the Bureau of Reclamation to select a
pilot project to test and demonstrate control methods for
reducing salinity concentrations and salt loads in the Colorado
River system. The plugging of two flowing wells, the Meeker
-------
558
57
and Piceance Creek wells near Meeker, Colorado, was selected
as the pilot demonstration project. The Bureau of Reclamation
contractor completed plugging the Meeker well on August 3, 1968,
and the Piceance Creek well on August 9, 1968. Closing of
the Meeker well reduced the sodium and chloride concentrations
of the White River by over 50 and 75 percent, respectively, at
the Geological Survey gage below Meeker. Plugging the Piceance
Creek well decreased the sodium, bicarbonate, and chloride
concentrations over 10 percent at the mouth of Piceance Creek,
13 miles downstream from the well. The salinity load of the
White River and the Colorado River system was reduced by about
62,500 tons annually. This is about 19 percent of the average
annual salinity load in the White River near Watson, Utah.
Plugging the Meeker and Piceance Creek wells initially decreased
the annual flow of the White River by about 2,380 acre-feet.
It is the opinion of the Bureau's regional geologist that the
flow formerly discharged from the wells will reappear through
natural springs nearer the discharge area at an improved quality,
and that plugging the wells will not cause a decrease of the
annual flow in the White River.
Costs for plugging the two wells totaled $40,000. It is
estimated that the present worth of total benefits which will
accrue to Colorado River water users is approximately $7 million.
This project demonstrated the economic feasibility of plugging
similar flowing saline wells in addition to demonstrating
significant local water quality improvement. The high
-------
559
58
benefit-cost ratio for this project would indicate that plugging
wells discharging considerably lesser amounts of salt would be
economically feasible.
Another flowing well near Rock Springs, Wyoming, which
contributed approximately 5,000 tons of salt annually, was
plugged in November 1968, under the direction of the Wyoming
State Engineer. The effects of eliminating this salt source have
not been evaluated.
In late 1969, the Utah Oil and Gas Commission plugged seven
abandoned oil test wells near Moab, Utah. This action eliminated
a salt load of approximately 33,000 tons per year which was
formerly contributed by two of the wells. The other five wells
were not flowing. Costs of plugging the wells totaled about
$35,000.
It is estimated that plugging the five flowing wells in
Colorado, Wyoming and Utah will reduce the average annual salt
load passing Hoover Dam by 100,000 tons or 0.93 percent. This
salt load reduction would reduce average salinity concentrations
by about 6 mg/1 under present conditions. Although this change
in salinity concentrations is small with respect to present
salinity levels, the resulting economic benefits are significant.
These benefits are estimated to range from $0.4 million annually
in 1970 to $1.0 million annually in the year 2010 and have a
present worth of more than $10 million. Thus, a modest but
significant start has been made toward reducing the economic
impact of rising salinity concentrations.
-------
560
59
CHAPTER V. ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF SALINITY
Three basic approaches, or a combination of-these approaches
might be used to achieve a solution to the salinity problem: do
nothing, limit development or implement salinity controls. The
first approach would achieve no management of salinity control
works. This approach, in effect, ignores the problem and allows
unrestrained economic development at the expense of an increased
adverse economic impact resulting from rising salinity concen-
trations .
The second approach would limit economic or water resource
development that is expected to produce an increase in salt loads
or streamflow depletions. Such an approach would minimize
future increases in the economic impact of salinity and possibly
eliminate the need for salinity control facilities. This aoproach
has the obvious disadvantage of possibly stagnating growth of
the regional economy.
The third approach, calling for the construction of salinity
control works, would allow water resource development to proceed.
Salinity controls would be implemented to meet a number of
alternative management objectives. At least three possible
management objectives could be considered: (1) salinity controls
could be implemented to maintain specific salinity levels; (2)
salinity could be maintained at a level which would minimize its
total economic impact; and (3) salinity could be maintained at
some low level for which the total economic impact of salinity
-------
561
60
would be equal to the impact that would be produced if no action
were taken at all. These objectives will be discussed in more
detail in later sections. This approach would recmire
substantial expenditures for control works.
The follov/ing sections discuss an evaluation of the costs
and benefits of various levels of salinity control and a
comparison of the relative economics of the three basic salinity
management approaches discussed above.
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE BASINWIDE SALINITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
There are a number of technically feasible salinity control
measures which could be potentially useful for management of
salinity in the Colorado River Basin. Various factors, including
economic feasibility, and legal and institutional constraints,
limit the present practicality of many measures, and reduce the
potential means of managing salinity to a few basic approaches.
The most practical means of achieving reductions in salt
loads include impoundment and evaporation of point source dis-
charges, diversion of streams around areas of salt pick-up,
improvement of irrigation practices and facilities to reduce
return flow volumes, desalination of saline discharges from
natural and man-made sources, and desalination of water supplies
at the point of use. Augmentation of streamflow can be achieved
by importation of water from other basins, by importation of
demineralized sea water, and by increasing precipitation and
runoff in the basin utilizing weather modification techniques.
The control measures could be implemented in a variety of
-------
562
61
locations and combinations to achieve basin wide management of
salinity. An optimal management program would probably include
each of these methods in some combination as well as other
salinity control measures such as water conservation.
The following sections discuss the physical features,
estimated costs, and water quality effects of eight potential
alternative programs incorporating these two major management
approaches. These programs included three salt load reduction
programs, four flow augmentation programs, and one program to
treat water supplies at the point of use. A comparison of these
alternative programs indicates that a large-scale salt load
reduction program would be the most economical means of achieving
basinwide management of salinity. This salt load reduction
program was thus selected to establish the potential scope and
costs of a basinwide program designed to meet various alternative
salinity management objectives discussed in a later section.
Salt Load Reduction Programs
Reduction of salt loads at their source appears to be the
most practical approach to management of salinity. By preventing
highly mineralized waters from reaching the stream system or by
reducing the pickup of salts by high quality water, substantial
reductions in salinity concentrations may be achieved at costs
relatively low in comparison with most other measures. A variety
of control measures would be employed by a low cost salt load
reduction program. The major features of two such programs are
outlined in the following paragraphs. A salt load reduction
-------
563
62
program employing desalination techniques only (resulting in
higher program costs) is discussed in a later section on
desalination.
Full Scale Salt Load Reduction Program—One potential basin-
wide salt load reduction program was formulated which would seek
to control a major fraction of the salt load contributed by five
large natural sources and 12 irrigated areas. The major features
of this program are listed in Table 2 with potential control
project locations shown in Figure 3. The selection of salt
sources to be controlled, physical features of each project, and
estimates of potential costs and salt load reductions were based
on the latest information available from various research,
demonstration and technical investigation activities. Present
salinity control knowledge is still limited, however, and a
number of assumptions were required to formulate the details of
the program. The cost and effectiveness of estimates assigned
to each project should, therefore, be considered representative
of the approximate magnitude of expected costs and salt load
reductions rather than detailed estimates of actual results to
be achieved. Additional research and feasibility investigations
would be required to refine these estimate and verify assumptions.
For a given project, construction costs and the actual salt
load reductions achieved may vary over a wide range. Bayesian
statistical decision theory was utilized, as outlined in a later
section on salinity management costs, to estimate the expected
(mean) value of possible costs and salt load reductions for each
-------
Table 2. Potential Full Scale Salt Load Reduction Program
Project Description
Average Annual Values
No. Location
1. Paradox Valley, Colo.
2. Grand Valley, Colo.
3. Lower Stem Gunnison
River Colorado
4. Price River, Utah
5. Las Vegas Wash, Nev.
6. Uncompahgre River,
Colorado
7. Big Sandy Creek, Wyo.
8. LaVerkin Springs, Utah
9. Roaring Fork River,
Colorado
10. Upper Stem Colorado
River, Colorado
11. Henry's Fork River,
Utah
12. Dirty Devil River,
Utah
13. Duchesne River,
Utah
14. San Rafael River,
Utah
15. Ashley Creek, Utah
16. Glenwood Springs,
Colorado
17. Blue Springs,
Ariz.
Features
Stream Diversion
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Export & Evaporation
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Impoundment & Evap
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Irrig. Improvements
Desalination
Export & Desalination
Program Totals
Total
Project Costs
($1000/Yr)
700
i 3,140
s 3,600
i 1,000
>n 600
s 4,000
j 490
600
; 880
5 1,420
5 710
; 710
3 5,660
s 1,360
3 830
5,000
Lon 16,000
Salinity
Control Costs
($1000/Yr)
700
1,570
1,800
500
600
2,000
245
600
440
710
355
355
2,830
680
415
5,000
16,000
Salt Load
Reduction
(1000/Yr)
180
312
334
89
100
320
39
80
52
80
40
40
273
65
36
370
500
Cost
Index
($/T)
3.89
5.04
5.40
5.65
6.00
6.25
6.28
7.50
8.47
8.88
8.88
8.88
10.37
10.48
11.55
13.50
32.00
46,700
34,800
2,910
vn
-------
565
LEGEND
A SALT LOAD REDUCTION PROJECT
IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS
BIG SANDY CREEK
ISDN
FORK
AREA
JPAHGRE
AREA
Figure 3. Location of Potential Salt Load Reduction Projects
-------
566
65
project. The costs and salt load reductions shown in Table 2
are thus the expected values of a range of possible values for
each project. The total estimated project costs shown are in
terms of average annual costs which include amortized construction
costs, operation costs and maintenance costs. A five percent
discount rate was used for all cost estimated discussed in this
chapter.
The Paradox Valley, Las Vegas Wash, LaVerkin Springs and
Glenwood Springs salt load reduction projects would be single
purpose only. For these facilities, all project costs were
considered to be salinity control costs as shown in Table 2.
The Blue Springs project would be a multiple purpose facility.
However since only the costs of the salinity control portions
of the project were estimated, the total project costs shown in
Table 2 are all salinity control costs. Improvment of irrigation
practices and facilities in the 12 irrigated areas selected would
produce a number of benefits in addition to salinity control
benefits. These benefits are estimated to be of about the same
economic magnitude as salinity control benefits. For this
reason, only half of total improvement costs were designated as
salinity control costs.
Five salt load reduction projects utilizing various salinity
control measures were selected for control of large natural
discrete and diffuse sources. The sources selected represent
those for which control appears to be most practical and
economical at this time. It is possible that additional techni-
-------
56?
66
cal investigations and feasibility studies could result in
the formulation of other more economical control projects for
other sources. Details of the five projects selected are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
The Dolores River picks up a large salt load as it crosses
Paradox Valley in western Colorado. This salt pickup is believed
to be the result of the recharge during periods of high stream-
flow of a groundwater aquifer in contact with the highly saline
Paradox formation. Elimination of the salt load produced by such
recharge conditions may be achieved by construction of a
detention dam on the Dolores River upstream from Paradox Valley
for reducing peak flood flows and by construction of a concrete-
lined channel four miles long to convey streamflow through
Paradox Valley. A preliminary plan for this project was developed
by the Bureau of Reclamation as part of the Cooperative Salinity
Control Reconnaissance Study.^^)
Interception of the outflow from Las Vegas Wash in Nevada
and export to a dry lakebed in a closed basin was selected as
the control project for this tributary. Export of the volume
of flow currently leaving Las Vegas Valley would probably not
be practical. However, future conditions may be significantly
different. A comprehensive water pollution control plan is being
developed for the Las Vegas metropolitan area.* Current
waste disposal proposal call for tertiary treatment of all
municipal and industrial wastes with the high quality effluent
piped to the Colorado River below Hoover Dam.'* ' Desalination
-------
568
67
of the treated effluent might also be provided to allow a high
degree of water reuse in the valley. Implementation of either
a waste export or water reuse scheme would probably reduce the
volume of flow in the Wash to an amount that could be economi-
cally exported. The project listed in Table 2 is based on the
assumption that one of these schemes will be implemented. A
research project was recently initiated by Desert Research
Institute under an FWQA grant to define groundwater conditions
in lower Las Vegas Valley. The final plan selected for regional
waste disposal facilities and the results of the groundwater
research will probably determine the final design of a control
project for this salt source.
LaVerkin Springs are located in the Virgin River Basin in
southern Utah. In addition to being a large salt source, these
springs also discharges significant quantities of radioactive
radium salts. Control of a major portion of the springs
discharge could potentially be achieved by gravity conveyance
to a large, lined pond for evaporation and storage. Concentration
of the radium salts through evaporation could pose a potential
radioactivity hazard- Commercial recovery of the radium may be
potentially feasible, eliminating this hazard. Control of this
salt source would produce significant local benefits as a result
of reduced salinity in the irrigation supply for the Bureau of
Reclamation's proposed Dixie Project and other local irrigation
areas.
A number of large mineral springs and seeps, including
Dotsero Springs, Yampa Springs, and Glenwood Springs, are
-------
569
68
located along a 20-mile-long reach of the Colorado River near
Glenwood Springs, Colorado. A reconnaissance study of this
large salt source recently completed by the Project, shoved
that a large fraction of the combined spring flow could
potentially be intercepted and conveyed to a central location. *15)
A 16-mgd desalination plant could then be utilized to deird neralize
the collected flow with' pure water returned to the river system.
The concentrated brine could be disposed of by deep-well
injection into a salt formation. No local market for the
demineralized water now exists. However, should development of
the oil shale deposits in the area materialize, the demineralized
water could possibly be sold for municipal or industrial use
to provide a source of income to offset part of the project
costs. Sale of the concentrated brine for industrial use is
another potential source of income.
Control of the major salt load contributed by the Little
Colorado River, including the discharge of Blue Springs, would
require the construction of a complex facility. The control
works envisioned would be multiple-purpose and would include
such major project features as a multi-stage, underground
pumped storage hydroelectric plant located near the mouth of
the Little Colorado River, a 250 cfs pumping plant located
near the upper reservoir of the hydroelectric plant located near
Flagstaff, a large-scale nuclear power plant including a 200-irgd
desalination facility, and brine disposal facilities. Such a
project would capitalize upon the expanding demands for electric
-------
570
69
power in the Southwest and the water needs as a result of
multiple use of facilities. A major portion of project pumping
could be achieved during off-peak at low power costs. Sale of
demineralized water to municipal and industrial water users in
Central Arizona by discharge to the Verde River system would
offset about half of the estimated desalination costs, thus
reducing salinity control costs. The costs shown in Table 2 for
this project include estimates for the aaueduct, pumping plant,
desalination facility, and brine disposal facilities only. Costs
were not estimated for the major hydroelectric and nuclear power
facilities as these would not be directly related to salinity
control.
Several factors control the feasibility of constructing a
project of this magnitude. Perhaps the most serious potential
limitation would be the relationship of this project and the
Central Arizona Project with regard to Arizona's allotment of
Colorado River water. If Colorado River flow is not augmented,
delivery of 150,000 acre-feet annually from the Little Colorado
River would require reducing the delivery of the Central Arizona
Project by a like amount. Thus, that project's financing would
be affected.
A second major factor is the need to sell the entire project
concept to a major power company or consortium. The need for
both base and peaking power production in this area has been
shown by proposals for large-scale peaking power production at
the Bridge Canyon Dam and proposals for large-scale fossil fuel
-------
70 571
power facilities near Four Corners and other nearby locations.
A potential demand for large power projects thus appears to exist.
A major portion of the salt load reduction effected by
a full-scale basinwide program would be achieved by control of
salt loads contributed by irrigated agriculture. Twelve
large irrigated areas contributing the highest salt loads in
the basin (three to six tons per acre per year) were selected
for implementation of control measures. The total irrigated
area of about 600,000 acres included in these 1? areas is only
about 20 percent of the irrigated acreage in the basin but
contributes more than 70 percent of the saDt load attributed
to irrigation sources.
Most of the irrigated areas selected have siirilar soil and
geological conditions. The soils contain relatively high amounts
of soluble salts and are generally underlain by moderately
saline, shallow groundwater systems and highly saline shales or
lacustrine formations. Under such conditions, excessive
applications of irrigation water, poor irrigation efficiencies,
conveyance system losses and other water losses result in large
volumes of return flows which pick up salts from the soils and
underlying formations. Control measures would be directed
toward reducing such return flows. Due to slight variations
in soil and geological conditions, the present condition of
irrigation facilities, present levels of irrigation efficiencv,
and other variation between areas, the magnitude and scope of
control measures would differ from area to area.
-------
572
71
Estimates of the costs and salinity control effectiveness
of the irrigation improvements selected for control measures
were based on preliminary results of various research efforts
currently underway. Installation of varying amounts of canal
lining and distribution system improvements, closer control on
water deliveries, modification of irrigation practices to
substantially improve irrigation efficiencies, installation
practices to substantially improve irrigation efficiencies,
installation of some sub-surface drains, and other irrigation
improvements would be required to achieve estimated levels of
salt load reduction. These improvements would also produce a
number of direct benefits to water users and irrigation districts
in the form of water conservation, reduced maintenance costs,
increased crop yields, and reduced fertilizer costs. These
benefits are estimated to be of about the same magnitude as
salinity control benefits. For this reason, only 50 percent of
the total costs of irrigation improvements were designated as
salinity control costs as shown in Table 2. Improvement of
irrigation facilities and practices as proposed would require
a great deal of local cooperation and a substantial local
investment. Local educational programs would need to be expanded
to teach irrigators how to improve their practices. More
importantly, demonstrations of the economic feasibility of such
improvements would be required to induce the irrigators to make
the necessary local investment in facility improvements.
-------
573
72
When completely implemented, it is estimated that the full-
scale program outlined in the previous paragraphs and tabulated
in Table 2 would achieve a total potential salt load reduction
of 2.9 million tons annually at Hoover Dam. This represents a
27 percent reduction in the average annual salt load passing
Hoover Dam for the 1942-1961 period of record adjusted to 1960
conditions of water use. Implementation of the full program
in the period from 1975 to 1980 would result in reductions in
predicted average salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam from
876 mg/1 to 623 mg/1 in 1980, and from 990 mg/1 to 715/1 in 2010.
Average annual program costs, including amortized construction
costs, operation costs and maintenance costs, are estimated to
total $34.8 million. The 1970 present worth of total salinity
control costs for this program for the period from 1975 to 2fUO
is estimated to be $375 million assuming a five percent discount
rate.
Incremental Salt Load Reduction Program—Since the full scale
program previously discussed is made up of a number of independent
control projects, a number of alternative programs could be
formulated by varying the time scale for implementing the
individual projects. One such alternative program is discussed
in the following paragraphs.
Implementation of the full-scale program by 1980 would reduce
salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam below average concentrations
for 1960 conditions of water use (697 mg/1) until beyond the
year 2000. Achieving this degree of water quality enhancement
-------
574
73
would require a heavy expenditure of construction funds over a
short time period. An alternative plan to lengthen the
implementation period could be formulated which would also
achieve significant water quality enhancement. By phased or
incremental implementation of the full scale program, a constant
salinity level of 700 mg/1 to approximate 1960 conditions could
be maintained. A salt load reduction of 2.1 million tons per
year in 1980 and 3.2 million tons per year in 2010 would be
required to maintain this salinity level. Implementation of
the first 13 projects listed in Table 2 would be required by
1980 to achieve this salt load reduction in 1980. Gradual
implementation of the remaining four projects in the period
1980-2000 would be required to maintain the constant salinity
level. A salt load reduction of 0.3 million tons per year
would be required in 2010 in addition to implementation of the
full scale program in order to maintain the 700 mg/1 salinity
level. In order to estimate program costs, it was assumed that
additional control projects could be formulated in the future
to achieve the added reduction for unit costs comparable to
average program unit costs.
Average annual salinity control costs of the 13 projects
to be implemented by 1980 were estimated to total $12.7 million,
Average annual costs would increase with time as additional
control measures are implemented reaching an estimated $39.4
million in 2010. The 1970 present worth of total salinity
control costs for this phased implementation of a salt load
-------
575
74
reduction program over the period from 1975 to 2010 is estimated
to be $230 million. Total costs of a program imp 1 ernented in
increments as discussed are thus substantially less than for
immediate implementation of a full scale program.
Flow Augmentation Programs
A second means of effectively reducing salinity concentrations
would be to dilute existing streamflow with high quality water.
For the Colorado River Basin, such flow augmentation could
potentially be obtained from three sources - weather modifications,
interbasin transfer, and desalination of sea water. .A number
of schemes have been proposed which would utilize these sources
to provide varying amounts of flow augmentation. The costs
and salinity control potential of three such schemes are discussed
in the following sections. A fourth scheme utilizing deminera] -
ized sea water as a flow augmentation source is discussed in a
later section entitled desalination programs.
Weather Modification Program—Increasing the runoff in the
Basin by stimulating precipitation through utilization of weather
modification technigues is one potential means of augmenting
streamflow. The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that as
much as 1.87 million acre-feet of additional streamflow could
be made available in the Upper Basin by a full-scale weather
modification program at an annual cost of $2.65 million.(6)
The salinity control effects of such a program will vary
depending upon the locations at which the supplemental supply
would be utilized. If the additional supply was consumptively
-------
576
75
used in the Upper Basin, the salt load in the Lov/er Basin would
be increased without accompanying dilution and the salinity
problem would be compounded. If the entire supplemental supply
was consumptively used in the Lower Basin however, it would
result in substantial reductions in salinity concentrations.
The United States is required by the Mexican Treaty to
deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to Mexico
annually. Meeting this treaty requirement has been declared a
national obligation. The estimated volume of flow potentially
available from a weather modification program is about equal to
the amount that would be required to offset a proportionate
amount of reservoir evaporation arid, river system losses and
deliver 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico annually. Thus, a
potential use for the increased supply would be to provide the
required Mexican deliveries. Utilization of the water in this
manner would significantly reduce salinity concentrations through-
out the lower river system.
Weather modification activities would be aimed primarily at
augmenting snow accumulations in high mountains areas. The
resulting increases in runoff would be primarily in the form of
high quality Spring snowmelt. This Spring runoff would normally
reach Lake Mead with a salinity concentration of about 300 mg/1.
This concentration was used to estimate the increase in salt
burden that would accompany the additional streamflow.
Assuming that the additional streamflow passing Hoover Dam
vould average 1.7 million acre-feet annually, flow augmentation
-------
577
76
from this source would reduce predicted average salinity
concentrations at Hoover Dam from 876 mg/1 to 783 mg/1 in
1980 and from 990 mg/1 to 870 mg/1 in 2010. At an average
annual cost of $2.65 million, the present worth of weather
modification program costs from 1975 to 2010 was estimated to
be $32 million.
Augmenting streamflow would produce substantial direct
benefits in addition to salinity control benefits. These benefits,
such as increased power production, increased water supply, etc.,
were not evaluated but are known to have a large economic
value. If program costs were allocated in proportion to
resulting benefits, as was done for irrigation improvements as
discussed in a previous section, the costs assigned to salinity
control would probably be less than half of total costs. VTeather
modification may therefore be the most economical means of
achieving salinity control. The magnitude of control that can
be achieved in this manner is limited, and the practicality of
weather modification has not been demonstrated. If weather
modification becomes practical, a combination of flow augmentation
from this source and the more economical elements of the salt
load reduction program could achieve a high degree of salinity
control for moderate costs.
Limited Interbasin Transfer—It is possible that augmenting
streamflow with larger volumes of water than the estimated
volumes available from weather modification could eventually be
achieved by interbasin transfer of high quality water. A number
-------
578
77
of schemes have been proposed by public and private interests
which would import varying volumes of high quality water from
a variety of different sources.(l9* The salinity control effects
of these various schemes are dependent upon the quality of the
import water, the point of importation into the Basin, and the
locations of ultimate consumptive use as discussed in the
previous section on weather modification. Since a significant
salt load will also be imported into the Basin, the point of
ultimate use becomes a very important factor in the degree of
salinity control that can be achieved.
Several of the proposed transfer schemes would import water
directly to Lake Mead. If an annual volume of 2.5 million
acre-feet were imported to Lake Mead at a salinity concentration
of 300 mg/1 (representative of the quality of proposed sources
when transmission loss effects are considered) and this increased
supply was utilized in the Lower Basin, predicted average salinity
concentrations at Hoover Dam would be reduced from 876 mg/1 to
749 mg/1 in 1980 and from 990 mg/1 to 827 mg/1 in 2010.
No detailed cost estimates are available from which the
average annual costs of a limited interbasin transfer program
could be determined. If a cost of $30 per acre-foot of water
imported is assumed, average annual program costs would total
$75 million. Assuming that the necessary facilities could be
constructed between 1975 and 1980 (a very optimistic assumption),
the present worth of program costs from 1975 to 2010 was
estimated to be $800 million.
-------
579
78
Augmenting streamflow by interbasin transfer would also
produce substantial benefits in addition to salinity control
benefits as discussed in the previous section on weather
modification. Evaluation of these benefits is beyond the scope
of the investigations undertaken by the Project. These benefits
are known to have a large economic value and would probably
reduce the fraction of program costs which would be allocated
to salinity control to less than half.
Large-Scale Interbasin Transfer—Projections of future
water demands in the Lower Basin indicate that an increase in
water supply of more than 2.5 million acre-feet annually could
be utilized. Several of the proposed transfer schemes would
seek to meet this larger water demand. Large quantities of
water would be available from these schemes for achieving
substantial dilution and salinity control. Various levels of
salinity control could thus be achieved by supplying larger
volumes of flow augmentation.
For purposes of comparison with the salt load reduction
program previously discussed, the volume of flow augmentation
required to maintain a constant salinity level of 700 mg/1 at
Hoover Dam was determined. Assuming the imported water would
have a salinity concentration of 300 mg/1, it is estimated that
flow at Hoover Dam would need to be augmented by 3.9 and 5.9
million acre-feet annually in 1980 and 2010 respectively, to
maintain a constant salinity level of 700 mg/1.
Again, assuming a cost of $30 per acre-foot, the average
-------
580
79
annual costs of such an importation program are estimated to
total $117 million and $177 million in 1980 and 2010, respectively.
With an optimistic implementation period of 1975 to 1980, the
present worth of total program costs from 1975 to 2010 was
estimated to be $1,470 million.
This flow augmentation scheme would also produce substantial
benefits which would reduce costs allocated to salinity control
as discussed in the previous section^
Other alternative flow augmentation program of the type just
discussed could be formulated to meet other water quality goals.
The volume of flow augmentation required and total program costs
would vary inversely with the target salinity concentration
,at Hoover Dam.
A third possible source of flow augmentation is demineralized
sea water. Desalination plants located near the Gulf of
California or the Pacific Ocean could provide a supply of high
quality water for direct use in southern California or Mexico,
or for augmentation of the Lower Colorado River. The Bureau of
Reclamation has conducted a feasibility study of one such
augmentation scheme. The results of the study are discussed in
the following section on desalination.
Desalination Programs
Desalination installations could potentially be utilized to
remove salt loads at their source, to reduce the salinity of a
water supply at the point of water use, and to provide a source
of high quality water for flow augmentation. Three alternative
-------
581
80
programs which utilize desalination technology are discussed
in the following sections.
Source Control Program—In contrast to the salt load
reduction programs previously discussed which utilize a variety
of control measures, a comparable source control program could
be formulated which would utilize desalination plants only as
the control measure. The plants would function to remove the
salt load from such concentrated sources as mineral spring
discharges, saline tributaries and irrigation return flows. Due
to the scattered locations and relatively small magnitude of the
various salt sources suitable for demineralization, a large
number of small desalination plants would be required to achieve
any substantial reduction in salt loads. The unit costs of
operating such small plants are high.
Another factor affecting the economy of such a program is
the lack of highly saline sources for demineralization. Some
mineral springs in the Basin discharge water with salinity
concentrations exceeding 20,000 mg/1, but the volumes of such
highly saline flows are small. Much of the Basin's salt load
is contributed by irrigation return flows and other discharges
with concentrations below 4,000 mg/1. A detailed evaluation
has not been made of the locations, magnitudes and salinity
concentrations of sources suitable for desalination. Thus, an
accurate determination cannot be made at this time of the volume
and average concentration of the flow that would need to be
demineralized to achieve a given salinity control objective.
-------
582
81
However, utilizing several assumptions, it is possible to
evaluate the approximate magnitude of a desalination program.
Supply Treatment Program—A major portion of the economic
impact of future salinity increases could be eliminated by
reducing salinity levels in the water supply diverted to southern
California through the Colorado River Aqueduct and All American
Canal. Desalination plants at Parker and Imperial Dams could
be utilized to remove a portion of the diverted salt load and
maintain desired salinity levels. These plants would be large
scale and could operate more economically than the small scale
plants utilized in the source control program. Also, brine
disposal would be less of a problem at these desert locations.
Due to the low concentration of the supply water (less than
1,500 mg/1) the volumes of flow demineralized would be large
and total costs would be high.
To maintain a salinity concentration of 700 mg/1 in the
diverted flow would require the desalination of an estimated
1.4 and 1.6 million acre-feet annually in 1980 and 2010
respectively. At an estimated unit cost of $100 per acre-foot
($0.30 per 1,000 gallons), average annual program costs would
total $140 million in 1980 and $160 million in 2010. Assuming
a 1975 to 1980 implementation period, the present worth of
program costs from 1975 to 2010 was estimated to total $1,570
million.
A supply treatment program would be single purpose and
all costs would be allocated to salinity control.
-------
583
82
Flow Augmentation Program—Demineralized sea water is
another potential source for augmenting streamflow in the Lower
Colorado River. The Bureau of Reclamation has conducted a
reconnaissance study of one scheme to import demineralized sea
water. (4) The source would be a large scale nuclear power and
desalination facility located on the Pacific Ocean between
Los Angeles and San Diego. A large aqueduct would convey the
demineralized water overland to Hoover Dam. As investigated by
the Bureau, this scheme would be constructed in stages and would
provide 1 million acre-feet of flow augmentation in 1990,
increasing to 2 million acre-feet in 2010. Average annual
program costs were estimated to total $131 million.
If the full 2 million acre-feet of flow augmentation were
made available in 1980, average salinity concentrations at
Hoover Dam would be reduced to 710 mg/1 and 740 mg/1 in 1980
and 2010, respectively. On the basis of implementation between
1975 and 1980, the present worth of total program costs from
1975 to 2010 was estimated to be $1,400 million.
Such a flow augmentation scheme would increase the available
water supply for salinity control and provide substantial
multiple purpose benefits. Other flow augmentation schemes
involving demineralization would also provide multiple purpose
benefits; however, the extent to which these benefits would
reduce the costs allocated to salinity control was not evaluated.
-------
584
83
Comparison of Alternatives
The eight alternative salinity control programs discussed
in the previous sections are not directly comparable. Variations
in the magnitude and scope of the alternatives result in
differences in the level of salinity control achieved. Also,
some of the programs are single-purpose with all costs
assignable to salinity control while other programs are multiple-
purpose with substantial benefits from other than salinity
control to offset part of the program costs. It is possible to
make comparisons between similar alternatives and to select the
alternative which appears to be the most economical for achieving
basinwide management of salinity.
The estimated costs and salinity control effects of the
eight alternative programs are summarized in Table 3. Salinity
concentrations expected, if no controls are implemented, are
also shown in the table for comparison purposes. Comparisons
of similar alternatives and the basis for selection of the
phased implementation of a salt load reduction program as the
least cost alternative salinity control program are presented
in the remainder of this section.
The first two alternatives programs listed in Table 3 are
composed of identical salt load reduction measures and differ
only in the timing of implementation. Alternative number one
would implement the full program by 1980 while the second
alternative would delay full implementation until about 2000.
Salinity control and other benefits produced by early
-------
Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives Salinity Control Programs
00
No.
1.
2.
3.
Alternative Salinity Average Salinity Concen-
Control Program trations at Hoover Dam
Salt Load Reduction
(Full scale implementation)
Salt Load Reduction
(Phased Implementation)
Flow Augmentation
1980
(mg/1)
620
700
780
2010
(mg/1)
720
700
870
Average Amount
Program Cost
1980
($ Million/Yr)
47
23
3
2010
($ Million/Yr)
47
52
3
Present
Worth
($ Million)
510
350
30
(Weather Modification)
(1.7 MAF/Yr)
4. Flow Augmentation
(Interbasin Transfer)
(2.5 MAF/Yr)
5. Flow Augmentation
(Interbasin Transfer)
(3.9-5.9 MAF/Yr)
6. Desalination
(Source Control)
7. Desalination
(Supply Treatment)
8. Desalination
(Flow Augmentation)
(2.0 MAF/Yr)
9. No Salinity Control
750
700
700
830
700
700
710
876
740
990
75
118
41
140
131
75
177
62
160
131
800
1,470
510
1,570
1,400
00
Ul
-------
586
85
implementation do not justify the substantial difference in
program costs. Therefore, alternative number two, phased
implementation of a salt load reduction program, would be the
most economical program.
Alternative number six, a source control program utilizing
desalination techniques, is a single-purpose alternative which
would produce salinity control effects identical to alternative
number two. Since resulting program benefits would be less
(no benefits in addition to salinity control) and program
costs higher than alternative number two, the latter remains
the least cost alternative.
The supply treatment program (alternative number seven)
would not control salinity levels in all water supplies in the
Lower Basin. This alternative would thus produce fewer benefits
than alternative number six which is similar. Alternative
number seven has a higher ^ost than number six and is therefore
inferior economically.
The remaining four alternatives, numbers 3,4,5, and 8, all
would increase the Basin in water supply to some degree and would
produce substantital benefits in addition to salinity control
benefits. These additional benefits have not been qualified,
as such an evaluation was beyond the scope of Project investi-
gations. These four alternatives are thus not directly
comparable to the four previously discussed. A comparison
can be made between the four flow augmentation programs, and
the less economical programs eliminated.
-------
587
86
A desalination program and a limited interbasin transfer
program would provide about the same amounts of flow augmentation.
Water supply benefits would be comparable for both programs.
Salinity control achieved by importation of demineralized water
would be greater than for importation of normal fresh water,
however, the resulting difference in salinity control benefits
would not justify the differences in program costs. Alternative
number 4, the limited interbasin transfer program would thus
appear to be superior to alternative number 8, the desalination
program.
Alternative numbers 4 and 5 differ both in the amount of
flow augmentation provided and in the degree of salinity control
achieved. If it is assumed that water supply benefits are
proportional to the amount of flow augmentation provided, the
large scale program should produce about double the benefits
of a limited program. The salinity control benefits of the
large scale program would also be greater than for a limited
program. Since the costs of a full scale program average less
than half of those for a limited program, the large scale
program, alternative number 5 should produce a greater net
economic return and would be superior to alternative number 4.
A large scale flow augmentation program (alternative
number 5) would produce the same level of salinity control, hence
the same salinity control benefits, as the phased salt load
reduction program (alternative number 2). These two alternatives
are thus directly comparable with regard to salinity control.
-------
588
87
However, program costs and the magnitude of additional benefits
associated with the two programs are vastly different. Selection
of the most economical alternative with respect to salinity
control is therefore dependent upon the relative magnitude of
other program benefits and resulting allocation of costs to
salinity control. For the salt load reduction program, the
present worth of salinity control costs was estimated to be
$230 million. This amount is about 15 percent of the present
worth of total program costs for large scale flow augmentation.
Non-salinity control benefits would have to exceed 85 percent
of total benefits before flow augmentation would become more
economical. Because of the large difference in total program
costs and a low probability that the necessary benefits ratio
would be achieved, the salt load reduction program was selected
as the least cost alternative.
The time required for implementation of control measures
is another factor that supports the selection of the salt load
reduction program. For purposed of comparison, an implementation
period of 1975 to 1980 was assumed for all alternatives. With
optimum progression of necessary studies, fund appropriations,
etc., the initial phases of the salt load reduction program
could be implemented by 1980. Such optimism is not realistic
for large scale public works as envisioned for the flow
augmentation program. A date of 1990, or 2000 would be more
realistic for delivery of large volumes of water from another
basin. Substantial increases in salinity levels and attendant
economic impact would thus occur before control of salinity
-------
589
88
by flow augmentation could be achieved.
A flow augmentation program utilizing weather modification
techniques (alternative number 3) is not directly comparable
to any other alternative. The salinity control that could
be achieved by such a program is limited as are the salinity
control benefits. For the level of control achieved, however,
weather modification has the lowest unit costs. Substantial
water supply benefits would also accrue to the program reducing
costs allocated to salinity control. The practicability
of basinwide weather modification has not been demonstrated.
For this reason and because of the limited degree of control
that could be achieved, weather modification was not con-
sidered a practical alternative. Should the practicality
of this approach be demonstrated in the future, a combination
of a weather modification program and the more economical
elements of a salt load reduction program would result in the
minimum cost for achieving moderate levels of salinity control.
Utilizing this combination to maintain a constant salinity
level of 700 mg/1 at Hoover Dam would result in a reduction
of about one-third in total salinity control costs for the
salt load reduction program alone.
In summary, on the basis of present knowledge of the
technical feasibility, costs and practicality of various salinity
control measures, the phased implementation of a salt load
reduction program (alternative number two) appears to be the
roost economical and practical means of achieving basinwide
-------
590
89
management of salinity. This alternative was therefore utilized
as the basis for estimates of salinity management and total
salinity costs discussed in a later section on economic aspects.
The following section discusses several other factors that
should receive consideration in the final formulation of an
optimal basin-wide salinity management program.
Other Considerations
Diurnal, seasonal, and other short-term cyclical
fluctuations in salinity concentrations occur throughout the
basin. The fluctuations are the result of a number of natural
and man-made factors including seasonal variations in streamflow,
droughts, reservoir operations, irrigation system operations, etc.
Present peak salinity concentrations occurring during such
fluctuations in the Lower Colorado River are approaching critical
levels for some types of salt-sensitive crops. Should these
high concentrations be maintained for longer periods of time
than at present as the result of severe drought or other factors,
significant damage to such crops could occur. Some types of
crops are most sensitive to high salinity levels during the
germination period. The occurrence of short-term high peak
concentrations during the period when seed beds are being irrigated
could result in heavy damage to that crop even though average
salinity concentrations during the irrigation season were lower.
The salinity control measures incorporated in the salt
load reduction program previously selected as the best alter-
native for basinwide salinity control are designed primarily
-------
591
90
to reduce long-term average salinity concentrations. By
reducing the salt burden carried by the river system during
low flow periods, partial control of peak concentrations would
also be achieved. In view of the potential economic impact
on water users, however, more positive means of controlling
short-term fluctuations should be sought.
One potential means of minimizing short-term salinity
fluctuations would appear to be the manipulation of reservoir
storage and releases. Prior to the construction of Hoover Dam,
salinity concentrations in the Lower Colorado River fluctuated
widely from season to season and from year to year. The large
volume of storage in Lake Mead has substantially dampened out
these fluctuations. Lake Powell is expected to produce a simi-
lar dampening action. These large reservoirs do not produce a
complete mixing of low and high quality inflow however, due
to their long, narrow configurations. Consequently, Lake Mead
has historically exhibited a tendency to pass higher salinity
inflows, resulting from low runoff years, through the reservoir
with relatively small reductions in peak concentrations. Reduced
outflow from Lake Powell during periods of low inflow, in
combination with large salt loads contributed by sources located
between Lake Powell and Lake Mead, could result in short-term
fluctuations in the salinity of Hcover Dam releases similar to
those occurring prior to closure of Glen Canyon Dam. The
potential for utilizing storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead
and coordinating releases from these reservoirs to minimize
short-term salinity fluctuations should be investigated.
-------
592
91
The fluctuating streamflow inherent in the operation of
the various power plant, irrigation diversions, irrigation
projects, etc., located along the Lower Colorado River in com-
bination with the relatively uniform contribution of saline
irrigation return flows are believed to be the source of
significant short-term flucutations in salinity concentrations
at Imperial Dam. Close coordination of all water operations,
such as computer scheduling of on-farm irrigation deliveries
and computer control of automatic flow controls, should be
investigated as a potentially feasible means of eliminating such
fluctuation.
Manipulation of reservoir storage and close coordination
of water movements would appear to show substantial promise
for minimizing fluctuations in the Lower Basin. In the Upper
Basin, a lack of adequate storage for regulation of water
movements on many tributaries would preclude control of
fluctuations in this manner. One method which may be applicable
in the Upper Basin is the seasonal storage of salt within the
soil column in irrigated areas. The volume of salt reaching
the river system during low flow periods could be reduced by
this method thus reducing peak salinity concetrations. Salt
balance would be maintained by leaching out the stored salt
during periods of high runoff. This control method is
currently under investigation at Utah State University as
discussed in Chapter IV.
-------
593
92
There are no water quality simulation models presently
available which could be utilized to accurately predict the
magnitude and timing of salinity fluctuations. Present methods
of evaluating the economic impact of salinity on water users
utilize long-term salinity concentrations and cannot evaluate
the economic impact of short-term fluctuations. This
analytical capability needs to be developed before the economic
feasibility of controlling fluctuations can be assessed.
There are also a number of long-term salinity control
measures which have not been evaluated for economic feasibility.
Such measures as water conservation, cessation of irrigation of
highly saline soils, etc., may have a definite place in an
optimal salinity management program. Development of such a
program should give careful consideration to all potential
control measures.
One other area that should be investigated is the
exchange of water at locations both in and out of the basin.
For example, it might be possible to provide demineralized sea
water to southern California in exchange for water presently
diverted from the Colorado River. The water supply and water
quality effects of such an exchange should be evaluated as
a basis for comparison with other alternatives previously
discussed.
ECONOMIC ASPECTS
There are various economic costs associated with the use
-------
93
of a degraded water supply. Direct costs are incurred by water
users. In addition, the regional economy suffers economic
losses stemming from these direct costs. There are also costs
associated with the control and management of salinity.
Together, these costs constitute the total economic impact of
salinity variations in terms of total costs corresponding to
changes in salinity concentrations and thereby provide the
basis for determining the economic feasibility of salinity
control. The main components of salinity costs are discussed
in the following sections.
Salinity Detriments
Salinity detriments are the costs associated with use of
a water supply of a given salinity concentration and consist
of two major components, direct detriments and indirect detri-
ments. Direct detriments are the costs incurred directly by
the water users and may take such forms as .descreased crop
yields, increased municipal and industrial water treatment
costs, pipe corrosion, increased consumption of soaps and
laundry additives, etc. Indirect detriments are the economic
losses suffered by the regional economy which stem from the
direct detriments. Different methods of analysis must be
employed to determine these two component costs. Determination
of the magnitude of direct and indirect detriments is discussed
in the following sections.
nomination of ^ct Detriments- A detailed study of
water use in the Lower Colorado River Basin and southern Cali-
fornia water service area for present and future conditions
-------
595
94
provided the basis for determination of direct detriments. The
Southern California water service area includes Imperial and
Coachella Valleys and those portions of the Los Angeles and
San Diego metropolitan areas receiving Colorado River water.
Estimated costs of using water of a given salinity concentration,
predicted future average salinity concentrations and predicted
future water ratio of use were utilized to estimate direct
detriments. Detriment curves were prepared for 1960, 1980,
2010 conditions of water use and the salinity range expected
during that time period. A detailed discussion of analytical
techniques employed and a breakdown of the component costs are
contained in Appendix B.
Determination of Penalty Costs—Differences in direct
detriments associated with the use of water with different
salinity concentrations are known as direct penalty costs.
These penalty costs represent the marginal costs of using a
degraded water supply.
The major emphasis of the economic studies conducted by
the Project has been directed toward the determination of penalty
costs as a means of assessing the economic impact of future
increases in salinity concentrations. The results of Project
economic studies in terms of penalty costs are presented in
Appendix B. The analytical techniques employed to evaluate
direct detriments (indirect penalty costs) utilize direct
penalty costs as basic input. A determination of direct
penalty costs is thus an interim step in the determination of
total salinity detriments.
-------
596
95
The relationship between direct detriments and direct
penalty costs can be illustrated by the following example:
Direct detriment curves for 1960, 1980, and 2010 conditions
of water use are shown schematically in Figure 4. The direct
detriments associated with use of water supplies with salinity
concentrations of 700 mg/1 and 900 mg/1 in 1980 are shown by
points "A" and "B" respectively. The difference between
these detriments is a direct penalty cost for 1980 conditions
associated with an increase in salinity levels from 700 to
900 mg/1.
To facilitate the determination of direct penalty costs,
the water use and economic conditions existing in 1960 were
selected as base conditions. For other time periods, increases
in direct detriments resulting from increases in salinity con-
centrations above 1960 levels (697 mg/1 at Hoover Dam) were
calculated and designated as direct penalty costs. Direct
penalty costs were determined separately for the Lower Colorado
River subbasin and the southern California water service area.
Determination of Indirect Detriments—Input-Output
analyses of the Lower Colorado River Basin and southern California
economies were utilized as the basis for determination of in-
direct detriments or penalty costs. The analytical techniques
utilized are discussed in Appendix B. Indirect detriments
were determined separately for the Lower Colorado River sub-
basin, the Gila River subbasin and the southern California
water service area. The combined totals of predicted
direct and indirect penalty costs for the three areas for the
-------
VJO
*>»
__.— Direct Penalty Cost
I
700 800 900
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN M6/L
Figure 4. Illustration of Penalty Cost Evaluation
Ul
V£>
-------
598
97
years 1980 and 2010 are summarized in Table 4. These costs are
in terms of 1960 dollars.
A graphical summary of penalty costs is shown in Figure
5. It should be noted that penalty costs are related to
salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam. Salinity concentrations
at points of water use in the Lower Basin and Southern Cali-
fornia can be directly related to salinity levels at Hoover
Dam. Modifications of water volumes or salt loads in the
drainage area of Lake Mead directly affect the salinity of
Hoover Dam releases. Thus, the salinity concentration
at Hoover Dam was selected as a convenient index of changes
in Basin salinity levels.
Determination of Total Detriments .—To facilitate the
evaluation of the economic feasibility of various salinity con-
trol measures, it was desirable to develop a series of detriment
curves representing total costs to the economy of using a
water supply with salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam varying
from 600 to 1,000 mg/1 and variations in the economy anticipated
between 1970 and 2010 at 10-year intervals. Direct detriment
curves developed for the evaluation of penalty costs discussed
in the previous section provided the basis for development of
the desired curves. These detriments has been computed for 1960,
1980, and 2010 conditions of water use and economic development
and for salinity concentrations of 697, 876, and 990 mg/1.
These nine points were utilized to develop detriment curves
for 1960, 1980 and 2010. Straight-line interpolation was
-------
98
Table 4. Direct and Indirect Penalty Costs
Lower Colorado River Basin and
Southern California Water Service Area
599
Penalty Costs
1980
2010
Type of Penalty Costs
Agrigultural
Direct
Indirect
Total
Industrial
Direct
Indirect
Total
Municipal
Direct
Indirect
Total
Total Direct
Total Indirect
TOTAL
($1,000 Annually)*
5,713
3,212
8,925
163
7
170
12,741
8,557
21,298
513
20
533
1,622
318
1,940
7,498
3,537
11,035
3,018
546
3,564
16,272
9,123
25,395
* 1960 Dollars
-------
2010
99Omg/l
TOTAL PENALTY COST
Direct Penalty Costs
675 TOO 725
750
775 800 825
850
875
900
925 95O 975 1OOO
TOTAL D.SSOLVED SOL.DS CO NC ENTR AT ,ON (M0/L) AT HOOVE
Fig-re 5 Direel & I.direcl Penally Cosls Lower Colorado River B.sin
& California Water Service Area
Cf\
>o
•o
-------
601
100
utilized to develop curves for 1970, 1990, and 2000. The
salinity range of the curves was then extended to the desired
limits by extrapolation of indicated trends.
Direct penalty costs were computed at 10-year intervals
from the newly developed curves using 1960 conditions of water
use for base conditions. Indirect penalty costs were then
derived from the direct penalty costs utilizing the assumptions
that the ratios of indirect to direct costs computed from Table 4
for 1980 and 2010 conditions would hold over the full salinity
range and that similar ratios for other years could be inter-
polated. The utilization of these assumptions eliminated sub-
stantial input-output analysis.
The summation of the indirect penalty costs derived in
this manner and direct detriment costs resulted in the develop-
ment of total detriment curves expressed in Terms of 1960 dollars.
To update these curves to present conditions, they were adjusted
for changes in the value of the dollar from 1960 to 1970.
One popular index of the average change in the purchasing
power of the dollar is the Consumer Price Index. This index
increased from 103 in 1960 to 131 in early 1970. (16) This
change would indicate that a 1960 dollar was equivalent to 1.27
1970 dollars. The detriment curves were adjusted upward on this
basis. The use of a single index was considered adequate for •
this adjustment since other appropriate indexes, such as the
agricultural price index, which could be applied have increased
in essentially the same proportions as the CPI.
-------
602
101
The final total detriment curves which represent the total
impact on the economy of using saline waters in terms of 1970
dollars are shown in Figure 6. These detriments curves can be
utilized to determine the salinity control benefits that would
accrue to a specific salinity control project. Such benefits are
the differences in detriments associated with salinity
concentrations which would occur with or without implementation
of the control project.
Sensitivity Analysis.—To provide a basis for evaluating
future salinity penalty costs, a detailed evaluation was made
of present and future salinity levels at various points through-
out the basin. The details of this evaluation are discussed in
Appendix B. Such factors as the period of hydrological record
and the rate of increase in consumptive use resulting from water
resource development may produce significant variations in
projections of future salinity levels. These variations in
turn may affect predictions of the future economic impact
of salinity increases. The sensitivity of salinity and economic
projections to variations in mean annual virgin streamflow and
future depletions of steamflow are discussed in this section.
The basic salinity projections utilized for the detailed
economic analysis were based on the 1942-1961 period of record
adjusted for 1960 conditions of water use. The mean annual
virgin flow at Lees Ferry, Arizona, for this period was estimated
to be 13.8 million acre-feet. <*> There is a probability of about
0.78 that this value will be exceeded by any 20-year mean virgin
-------
102
603
700 800 900 1000
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION M6/L AT HOOVEI DAM
Figure 6. Saliaitv Detriment-.
-------
604
103
flow. The rationale behind selection of this period of
record is summarized in Appendix B and will not be discrussed
here.
To test the sensitivity of salinity projections to variations
in the base flow utilized in the analysis, three additional base
flows with different probabilities of occurrence were evaluated.
The flows evaluated were a 50-year mean flow with a probability
of being exceeded of 0.50 and two 20-year mean flows with
probabilities of being exceeded in 20-year period of 0.125 and
0.875.(17^ These latter two flows are the upper and lower limits
of a probable 75 percent of all 20-year mean flows. The virgin
flow volumes for the four base flows evaluated are listed in
Table 5. Salinity projections were made on the basis of identical
present and future depletions of these virgin flows for all flow
levels. Salt loads for the three additional base flows were
estimated by adjusting the 1942-1961 mean salt load using the
assumption that incremental changes in virgin flow would have a
salinity concentration of 300 mg/1. This salinity concentration
was selected from comparisons of salinity concentrations vs run-
(9)
off relationship for low and high flow years.
Table 5. Range of Virgin Flows at Lees Ferry
Probability of Being Ex-
Designation Virgin Flow needed in a 20-year Period
(Million Acre-Feet)
Upper Limit 1|.J 0«5
Mean Flow 1:>** n ^nn
Base Flow 13-8 0°;™°
Lower Limit J-J.^
Projections of present and future salinity concentrations for
the four base flows evaluated are shown in Figure 7. Projected
-------
104
605
11OO
1000
« 900
** 800
700
«00
1OOO 1O7O 198O 199O 2OOO 2O1O
YEAI
Figure 7. Sfititmtv of Salinity Projections !• Base Flow Variations
-------
increases in salinity concentrations between 1960 and 2010 range
from 180 to 330 mg/1. The bas/tc analysis base flow of 13.8
million acre-feet predicted an increase of 293 mg/1.
The detriment curves in Figure 6 and the salinity projections
in Figure 7 were utilized to formulate projections of future
increases in salinity detriments. These projections are shown in
Figure 8. Predicted increases in total annual detriments (total
penalty costs) between 1960 and 2010 range from $23 million to
$46 million. The basic analysis predicted an increase of $40
million. This wide range of predicted penalty costs indicates
that the economic analysis is highly sensitive to variations
in mean streamflow. However, the base analysis deviated only
20 percent from predicted changes under mean flow conditions.
Selection of a more critical low-flow condition, a common
practice in water pollution analysis, did not substantially
alter the determination of penalty costs.
Considerable differences of opinion efcist over the rate at
which Upper Basin water resource development and increased
depletion of streamflow will proceed. For the basic analysis, a
depletion schedule based primarily on 1966 Bureau of Reclamation
estimates was used.<18> Some authorities predict that develop-
ment will proceed at a more rapid rate than the schedule selected.
Actual development to date has been slightly slower due to
fiscal constraints. If such constraints continue they could
further delay future development. Three additional depletion
schedules were evaluated to test the sensitivity of salinity
and penalty cost projections to variations in depletions.
-------
106
607
I960 1970
1980 1990
YEAI
2000 2010
Fignre 8. Sensitivity of Detriment Projections to Base Flow Variations
-------
608
107
An accelerated schedule was utilized to evaluate optimistic
projections, a mean schedule was utilized to represent, present
trends and a reduced schedule was utilized to reflect possible
future delays. Figure 9 and 10 present the salinity and detri-
ment projections resulting from this sensitivity analysis.
The smaller range between upper and lower limits on these pro-
jections would indicate a lower degree of sensitivity than that
exhibited by variations in base flow. The convergence of the
accelerated depletion and base analysis curves is the result
of constraints imposed by the Colorado River Compact on maximum
depletions.
Salinity Management Costs
If salinity concentrations are reduced by the implementation
of control measures, certain costs will be incurred. These costs
are known as salinity management costs and are the second major
component of total salinity costs. The form and magnitude of
salinity management costs are dependent upon a number of factors
including the control measures utilized, the degree of salinity
control achieved, etc. In a previous section on alternative
salinity control management programs, the phased implementation
of a salt load reduction program was selected as the least cost
alternative for achieving basinwide management of salinity.
The probable costs and effects of this least cost alternative
program were evaluated as a means of estimating salinity
management costs and are discussed in their section.
Available information on the costs and effects of salinity
control measures from the latest technical investigation, research
-------
108
609
11OO
1OOO
S 9OO
o 8OO
•st
700
e -
- g e
2O1O
Figire 9
ef S.liiily Pr.jeeli^.s to Depletio. Seked.le V.ri.tio.s
-------
6010
109
I960
1970
1980 1990
YEAI
2000 2010
FignrelO. Sensitivity of Detriment Projections
to Depletion Schedule Variations
-------
611
110
and demnonstration activities was not sufficient to permit
development of detailed estimates of project costs and salt-
load reductions. To overcome this deficiency, Bayesian statis-
tical decision theory, a statistical technique applicable to
cases involving limited basic data, was utilized to provide
estimates of the expected value of costs and salt load reduction
for each individual project or irrigated area included in the
selected program. Bayesian techniques differ from classical
statistical techniques in that mean or expected values of a
parameter may be derived by subjective assignment of probabilities
of occurrence to each data point rather than by application of
computational formulas to all data points in the classical
manner. In cases of limited data, the appropriate application
of Bayesian techniques may result in better estimates of the
expected value of a parameter for a specific case than could be
derived by averaging available data or extrapolating from one
case to another.
The approach used to estimate costs and salt load reductions
for each type of control measure differed slightly. For irrigation
improvements, the costs of various types of improvements are
relatively well defined. Two areas of uncertainty arise, however.
The magnitude of improvements which a given irrigated area can
economically support has not been evaluated. It was therefore
necessary to estimate the range of improvements possible and the
probability of each level of improvement occurring. Also, the
average salt contribution of a given area was known but the extent
-------
612
111
to which this salt load could be reduced by specific improvements
has not yet been defined with certainty. Estimates of the
possible range of salt load reductions and the probability of
occurrence of each level of reduction were made based on recent
research results and observed variations in annual salt contribu-
tions of the areas evaluated. The estimates of probable salt load
reductions were also keyed to levels of improvement. A low level
of salt load reduction was assigned to minimum improvements, a
higher reduction to more extensive improvements, etc. In this
manner, an upper and lower limit and an expected (mean) value of
both salt load reductions and annual costs were derived for each
irrigated area.
For the five salt load reduction projects formulated for
control of natural sources, the magnitude of the salt loads to
be controlled are relatively well defined. Since structural
designs or geological site data were not available, however,
detailed cost estimates could not be prepared. Thus, for these
control projects, probable construction costs were the primary
area of uncertainty. Possible ranges of costs were estimated
and Bayesian techniques utilized as for the irrigation improve-
ments to estimate upper and lower limits and expected values of
salt load reductions and average annual costs.
The estimated expected values of both average annual costs
and salt load reductions for the selected salt load reduction
program are presented in Table 6. This table is an expansion of
-------
to
Table 6. Salinity Management Project Date
I — ~~~~
. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 '
17
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location
Paradox Valley, Colorado
Grand Valley, Colorado
Lower Stem Gunnison
Ri ver , Colorado
Price River, Utah
Las Vegas Wash, Nevada
Uncompahgre River, Colo.
Big Sandy Creek, Wyoming
La Verkin Springs, Utah
Roaring Fork River, Colo.
Upper Stem Colorado
River, Colorado
Henry's Fork River, Utah
Dirty Devil River, Utah
Duchesne River, Utah
San Rafael River, Utah
Ashley Creek, Utah
Glenwood Springs, Colo.
Blue Springs, Arizona
Totals
Features
Stream Diversion
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Export 6 Evaporation
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Impoundment & Evap .
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Irrigation Improvement
Desalination
Export t Desalination
AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS
Total
Proj. Cost
($1000)
700
3,140
3,600
1,000
600
4,000
490
600
880
1,420
710
710
5,660
1,360
830
5,000
16,000
46,700
Salinity
Control Costs
($1000)
700
1,570
1,800
i
500
600
2,000
245
600
440
710
355
355
2,830
680
415
5000
16,000
34,800
Plow Change
(1000 AF/Yr)
0
38
45
13
- 10
50
7
- 7
13
20
! - 10
10
65
18
10
- 5
- 150
127
EFFECTS AT
Salt Load
Reduction
1000 T/Yr)
180
312
334
89
100
320
39
80
52
80
40
40
273
65
36
370
500
HOOVER DAM
TDS Reduction
_ in ma/1
1980
15
29
32
9
7
31
4
6
6
9
4
4
29
7
4
30
27
2,910 : 253
2010
16
33
35
9
8
35
4
6
6
9
5
5
32
8
4
33
27
275
Cost
Index
(S/T)
3.89
5.04
5.40
5.65
6.00
6.25
6.28
7.50
8.47
8.88
8.88
8.88
10.37
10.48
11.55
13.50
32.00
~
a\
H
to
-------
113
Table 2 presented in a previous section of alternative salinity
management programs. The physical features of the seventeen
component projects are discussed in that section.
Two costs, total project costs and salinity control costs,
are shown for each project in Table 6. These costs are in the
form of average annual costs which include amortized construction,
operation and maintenance costs. Total project costs, as the name
indicates, consist of the total costs required to build, operate
and maintain the specific project. Salinity control costs represent
the portion of total costs allocated to salinity control. For the
five single-purpose salt load reduction projects, all cost were
allocated to salinity control. The irrigation improvements will
produce other benefits of significant economic value in addition
to salinity control benefits. Estimates of benefits produced by
similar improvements which have been made by other agencies would
indiciate that these benefits are of about the same economic value
as salinity control benefits. Thus, allocation of costs in
proportion to benefits resulted in assignment of onehalf of total
irrigation improvement costs to salinity control.
Except for the Paradox Valley project, the various salinity
control projects will produce a change in consumptive use of water.
The entire flow from LaVerkin Springs and from Las Vegas Wash
would be evaporated. For Glenwood Springs, the majority of the
springs' discharge would be returned to the river system but some
-------
615
114
consumptive use would result from disposal of brine. Control
of Blue Springs would remove this discharge from the Colorado
River system. The majority of the flow diverted would be
available for consumptive use in central Arizona. The various
irrigation improvements would result in water conservation.
Reductions in consumptive use by phreatophytes, evaporation, etc.
were estimated to average about one-half acre foot per irrigated
acre when an entire irrigated area is improved. The estimated
changes in flow at Hoover Dam for specific projects are shown
in Table 6.
Utilizing the estimated changes in consumptive use and
expected values of salt load reductions, the estimated reductions
in average salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam were computed.
Salinity reductions for each project for the years 1980 and 2010
are shown in Table 6. The effectiveness of a given salinity
management project in reducing average salinity concentrations
at Hoover Dam is dependent upon the volume and salinity of the
average streamflow at Hoover Dam. Since future water resource
development will reduce streamflow at Hoover Dam, a given salt-load
reduction will produce a greater reduction in salinity concentrations
in the future than a present. This fact is reflected in the
differences between potential salinity reductions for 1980 and
2010.
The final parameter shown in Table 6 for each project is a
cost index. This index is the ratio of average annual salinity
-------
616
115
control costs to annual salt load reductions. The index is an
indicator of the cost effectiveness of each project and was
utilized to rank the projects in an order of increasing unit
costs.
Utilizing the cost and salinity reduction data from Table
6, it was possible to construct a graph relating cumulative
salinity management costs to cumulative reductions in salinity
concentrations. Salinity management cost curves of this type
for 1960, 1980, and 2010 conditions of water use are shown in
Figure 11. By ranking projects in order of increasing unit
costs, a curve that is concave upward results. The slope of the
curve is related to the unit costs of salinity reduction.
In view of the elements of uncertainty that entered into
the determination of the costs and salt load reductions of
individual projects, it was desirable to test the sensitivity
of the salinity management cost curve to variations in the costs
and effects of individual project. This test was accomplished
by plotting two additional salinity management cost curves
utilizing the estimated upper and lower limits of costs and
salt load reductions for each project. A comparison of the
three curves for 1980 conditions of water use is shown in
Figure 12. Although the range of possible costs and effects for
a given project is large, the costs of achieving a given level
of salinity reduction fall within a reasonable range for
moderate levels of salinity control. This would indicate that
cumulative salinity management costs have a relatively low
sensitivity to errors in estimates for individual projects.
-------
617
116
100 200 300 400
CUMULATIVE TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS REDUCTIONS [M6/L]
Figure If. Salinity Management Costs
-------
618
117
Ex o acted Value
10
100 200 300 400
CUMULATIVE TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS REDUCTIONS (MG/L)
Fig»rel2. Salinity Management Cost Variations
-------
619
118
Total Economic Impact
The total economic impact'of salinity (total salinity
costs) is the sum of salinity detriments plus salinity manage-
ment costs. For a given salinity concentration and point in
time, there are certain detriments associated with the use of
water of that salinity and certain salinity management costs
incurred in maintaining that salinity level. The sum of these
two component costs is thus the total economic impact of
salinity for the given time and salinity conditions.
Generalized total salinity cost curves can be developed by
the proper manipulation and addition of the detriment curves
presented in Figure 6 and the salinity management cost curve
of Figure 11. An example of the determination of total
salinity costs for 1980 conditions is shown in Figure 13.
The 1980 detriment curve is identical to the one shown in
Figure 6. Salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam are predicted
to average 876 mg/1 in 1980. This salinity level than becomes
the origin of the salinity management cost curves. As salinity
reductions increase, salinity concentrations decrease. The
salinity management cost curve must therefore be plotted in the
reverse direction of Figure 11 as shown on Figure 13. These
two curves can then be summed vertically to yield the total cost
curve.
In a similar manner, total cost curves were obtained for
each decade from 1970 to 2010. These curves are shown in Figure
14. The component salinity detriment and salinity management
-------
620
119
4O
led icted Sa
h No C ont
S a I in ity D et r im
n t Costs
500 60O 70O 800 9OO 1OOO
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS MG/L AT HOOVER DAM
Figure 13. Determination of Total Salinity Costs (1980 Conditions)
-------
621
120
10
600 700 800 900 1000
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS MG/L AT HOOVER DAM
Figure 14. Total Salinilv Costs
-------
622
121
cost curves were not shown in this figure to avoid cluttering the
drawing but may be obtained from Figure 6 and 11. It should be
noted that the full lengths of the total cost curves are not
shown in Figure 14 as the left end of each curve was truncated
at a total cost equal to that at the right end of the curve.
The segments of the curve shown were utilized for the evaluation
alternative salinity management objectives discussed in the
following section.
In view of the range of salinity management costs exhibited
by the sensitivity analysis shown pictorially in Figure 12, it was
desirable to check the sensitivity of the total cost curves to
this range of management costs. The range of 1980 total costs
obtained by using the three 1980 salinity management curves is
shown in Figure 15. For 1980 conditions, total costs deviated
only + 10 percent from the expected value within the range
of practical salinity management (700 to 876 mg/1). Salinity
concentrations corresponding to minium total cost points varied
less than 30 mg/1 from the expected value. Similar results
were obtained for other time periods. Total costs thus appear
to be relatively insensitive to errors in deriving salinity
management costs within the range of practical salinity
management.
ECONOMIC AND WATER QUALITY EFFECTS
Salinity controls could be implemented to meet a variety
of salinity management objectives which include both water
quality and economic objectives. Since salinity levels and
-------
122
500 600 700 800 900 1000
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION M6/L AT HOOVER DAM
Figure 15. Total Salinity Cost Sensitivity Analysis
( 1980 Conditions )
-------
total salinity costs are interrelated, the selection of a
water quality objective will result in the indirect selection
of associated economic effects; conversely, the selection of
an economic objective will result in the selection of associated
salinity levels. A knowledge of the interrelationships
between economic and water quality effects is thus useful in
the rational selection of salinity management objectives.
By utilizing the total cost functions shown in Figure 7,
the economic and water quality effects associated with three
salinity management objectives were determined. The objectives
evaluated were: (1) Maintain salinity at a level which minimize
its total economic impact and achieve economic efficiency
(minimum cost objective); (2) Maintain salinity concentrations
at some specified level (constant salinity objective) ; and (3)
Maintain salinity at some low level for which the total economic
impact would be equal to the economic impact that would be
produced if no action were taken at all (equal cost objective)
A comparison of the economic and water quality effects associated
with these three objectives, in the form of variations in
salinity costs with time, are shown in Figure 16 for 1980
conditions of water use. The economic and water quality effects
associated with allowing unlimited water resource development
in the absence of salinity control works (no control approach)
and associated with the limited development approach are shown
in Figure 16.
in Figure 16, the right end of the total cost curve
-------
625
124
dieted S
ith No C,
876 mg/l
D • v • lo pm
500 600 700 800 900
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTIATION MG/L AT HOOVEI DAM
Figire 16. Co»p«risoi of Alternative Objectives ( 1980 Co«dilio«s )
-------
626
125
corresponds to the projected salinity level at Hoover Dam if
no controls are implemented (876 mg/1) and thus determines the
total cost associated with the no control alternative. The
salinity level associated with limited development intersects
the salinity detriment curve to show that costs associated with
the limited development alternative would be about $21 million
annually and are obtained from salinity detriments alone. It
should be noted that there are no control costs associated with
the $21 million dollar total costs. In a very real sense, however,
there are additional costs associated with this alternative in
the form of benefits foregone. In fact, from Figure 16 one can
observe that if benefits foregone exceed $4 million annually
($25 million - $21 million), this alternate would have total
costs exceeding the total costs for alternates which include
salinity control costs while allowing development to proceed
beyond 1980.
All points on the total cost curve to the left of the no
control point correspond to come level of salinity control. At
the low point in the total cost curve, the total costs of salinity
are at a minimum for the given conditions of water use and
unconstrained development. Implementing salinity controls to
reduce average salinity concentrations to this level would achieve
the minimum cost objective.
At the left end of the total cost curve, total salinity costs
are equal to total costs associated with the no control alter-
native. The left end of the curve thus corresponds to the
equal cost alternative.
-------
627
126
Total costs associated with a constant salinity objective
are dependent upon the target salinity level selected and are
determined by finding the intersection of the target level with
the total cost curve. For this evaluation, a target salinity
concentration of 700 mg/1 was selected which corresponds closely
to the average salinity level for 1960 conditions of water use.
The relative effects of the five alternatives were determined
for other target years from Figure 14 in the same manner as shown
by Figure 16. The economic effects associated with the five
alternatives, in the form of variations in salinity costs with
time, are shown in Figure 17.
Total salinity costs would be minimized by the limited
development alternative but one must recognize the absence of
cost associated with benefits foregone. If unrestricted water
resource development is permitted, implementing salinity controls
to achieve the minimim cost objective would minimize total salinity
costs. The no control and equal cost alternatives produce the
identical highest average costs and most rapid increase with
time of all the alternatives evaluated. Total costs associated
with a constant salinity objective will fall somewhere between
the extremes established by the other alternatives with the exact
cost dependent upon the target salinity level. For a target
level of 700 mg/1, total costs approximate minimum costs until
1990, then increase rapidly, eventually exceeding the no control
costs. Beyond the year 2000, the rapidly increasing costs reduce
the practicality of maintaining this salinity level. Selection
-------
628
127
No| Salinity C
Equal Co
1970
1980 1990
YEAI
2000 2010
Figare 17. Saliiily Cosls TS Ti»e
-------
629
128
of a higher target salinity concentration for the years 2000
and 2010 would reduce the total cost of this alternative.
One important observation can be made from Figure 17.
Regardless of the alternative selected, the future economic
impact of salinity will be great. Although implementing salinity
controls will result in the availability of better quality water
for various uses and some of the economic impact will be shifted
from salinity detriments to salinity management costs, the total
economic impact of salinity will not be substantially reduced.
As a minimum, average annual total salinity costs will increase
threefold between 1960 and 2010. Selection of the limited
development alternative would reduce total annual costs by only
about 40 percent below the no control alternative in the year 2010
Variations with time of the predicted salinity levels
associated with the five alternatives evaluated are shown in
Figure 18. With no controls implemented, average annual salinity
concentrations at Hoover Dam are predicted to increase between
1960 and 2010 by about 42 percent or 293 mg/1. Selection of any
of the other alternatives evaluated would substantially reduce
future salinity concentrations below the no control levels.
Except for the limited development alternative, these reductions
would result in the maintenance of average salinity concentrations
at or below present (1970) levels for more than 25 years.
Resulting water quality therefore would be consistent with non-
degradation provisions of the water quality standards adopted
-------
630
129
1000
900
800
700
1O80 1»»O
YEAI
2OOO 2O1O
Fif«rfl8. Saliiily
Ti«e
-------
Table 7 Comparison of Salinity Cost Distribution
Alternative
Objective
No Control
Limited
Development
Minimum Cost
Constant
Salinity
(700 mg/1)
Equal Cost
Salinity Management
Date
1980
2010
1980
2010
1980
2010
1980
2010
1980
2010
Salinity
Detriments
($l,QOO/Yr)
27,700
50,500
21,000
29,000
17,000
28,500
13,500
19,000
9,200
21,000
Salt Load
Reduction
Projects
($l,000/Yr)
0
0
0
0
1,300
1,900
1,900
25,000
6,900
17,600
Salinity
Control
Costs
($l,000/Yr)
0
0
0
0
5,900
10,800
10,000
13,500
11,600
11,900
Costs
Total
Salinity
Management
Costs
($l,000/Yr)
0
0
0
0
7,200
12,700
11,900
38,500
18,500
29,500
Total
Salinity
Costs
($l,000/Yr)
27,700
50,500
21,000
29,000
24,200
41,200
25,300
57,500
27,700
50,500
U)
-------
632
131
by the seven Basin States. The limited development alternative
would result in slight increases in average salinity concentra-
tions .
COST DISTRIBUTIONS AND EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS
Although the total economic impact of salinity associated
with each of the alternatives evaluated varies over a limited
range, the distribution of salinity costs related to each
alternative differs greatly. Distribution of costs may there-
fore be an important factor in the selection of alternatives.
Associated with cost distributions are various equity considera-
tions. These, too, influence the selection of alternatives.
Salinity cost distributions for the five alternatives evaluated
for both 1980 and 2010 conditions of water use are compared in
Table 7. A further breakdown of salinity management costs, by
individual projects, is shown in Table 6.
The no control and equal cost alternatives produced the
extremes in the range of cost distributions evaluated. Total
costs for these two alternatives, by definition, are equal, but
the distributions of costs are vastly different. For the no
control alternative, all costs are in the form of detriments.
For the equal cost alternative, however, salinity detriments
are reduced by an average of 60 percent. This cost reduction
is offset by a corresponding increase in salinity management
costs.
-------
633
132
The extremes in the range of cost distribution point out
the basis for equity considerations which may enter into the
selection of management objectives. If the no control alternative
is selected, all salinity costs would essentially be borne by
water users and by the regional economy in the Lower Basin and
southern California water service area. In contrast, selection
of the equal cost alternative would redistribute a majority of
the costs to investments in salinity control facilities in the
drainage area upstream from Hoover Dam. Much of this investment
would be for irrigation improvements in the Upper Basin, improve-
ments that would produce substantial economic benefits in addition
to salinity control benefits. The equity of these two extremes
in cost distributions is vastly different.
Salinity detriments for the other three alternatives evaluated
fall between the extremes established by the no control and equal
cost alternatives. Salinity management costs are less than for
the equal cost alternative. The equity of these cost distributions
may also be an important factor in selection of the most desirable
alternative. The cost distribution shown in Table 7 can be used
to evaluate the relative costs and benefits of a given alternative.
For example, a salinity control program designed to meet the
minimum cost objective would have an estimated average annual
cost of $7.2 million in 1980 and $12.7 million in 2010. The
benefits associated with a given alternative would be the
difference between salinity detriments expected if no controls
are implemented and if the control program associated with that
-------
634
133
alternative is implemented. For the minimum cost alternative,
average annual salinity control benefits would total $10.7
million in 1980 and $22.0 million in 2010.
-------
63$
134
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX C
1. U.S. Congress, "Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public
Law 84-660," as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1961 - "(PL 87-88) , the Water Quality Act of
1965 - (PL 89-234), Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966 -
(PL 89-753) , and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 -
(PL 91-224).
2. Technical Water Quality Standards Committee, Colorado River
Basin State Conferees', "Guidelines for Formulating Water
Quality Standards for the Interstate Waters of the Colorado
River Systems," adopted in Phoenix, Arizona, January 13, 1967.
3. Colorado River Basin Conferees', "Resolution Relative to
Numerical Standards for Salinity of the Colorado River
System," adopted in Denver, Colorado, November 15, 1967.
4. U.S. Congress, Howe Commit ,ee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
based on hearings before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and
Reclamation, "Colorado River Basin Project, Part II," 90th
Congress, 2d Session, Document No. 5, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., 1968, pp. 705-706.
5. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
District Conservationist Project File Correspondence, Vernal
Work Unit Soil Conservation Service Office, Area 3, Vernal,
Utah, 1963.
6. Hurley, Patrick A., "Augmenting Upper Colorado River Basin
Water Supply by Weather Modification," Chief Engineer's
Office, Bureau of Reclamation, paper presented at American
Society of Civil Engineers Water Resource Engineering
Conference, New York City, New York, October 1967, 36 pp.
7. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior, "Augmentation
of the Colorado River by Desalting of Sea Water," Reconnaissance
Report, Washington, D.C., January 1968.
8. Atomic Energy Commission and Department of the Interior,
"Nuclear Power and Water Desalting Plants for Southwest
United States and Northwest Mexico," a preliminary
assessment conducted by a joint United States - Mexico -
Internation Atomic Energy Agency Team, September 1968.
9. lorns, W. V., Hembree, C. 11., and Oakland, G. L., "Water
Resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin - Technical
Report," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 441, 1965.
-------
10. lorns, W. V., Hembree, C. H., Phoenix, D. A., and Oakland,
G. L. , "Water Resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin -
Basic Data Report," U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 442, 1964.
11. Bureau of Reclamation and Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, "A Joint
Research Proposal on the Prediction of Mineral Quality of
Return Flow Water from Irrigated Land," Office of Chief
Engineer, Denver, Colorado, 1968.
12. U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration and Bureau of Reclamtion, "Cooperative
Salinity Control Reconnaissance Study of Upper Colorado
River Basin," Final Review Draft, FWPCA Southwest Region,
San Francisco, California, and USER, Region 4, Salt Lake City,
Utah, February 1970.
13. Boyle - Cornell, Rowland, Hayes, and Merryfield Engineering,
"A Comprehensive Water Quality Program for the Las Vegas
Drainage Basin - Phase I," Las Vegas, Nevada, February 1969.
14. Boyle - Cornell, Rowland, Hayes, and Merryfield Engineering,
"A Comprehensive Water Quality Control Program for the
Las Vegas Drainage Basin - Phase II," Las Vegas, Nevada,
December 1969.
15 Federal Water Pollution Control Federation, U.S. Department
' of Interior, "Salinity Control Project Proposal for Dotsero
and Glenwood Springs," Open File Report, Colorado River-
Bonneville Basins Office, Pacific Southwest Region, Denver,
Colorado, February 1970.
Printing Office, 1969.
17 Mosk Stanley, Department of Justice, State of California,
"Sat^r Supply of ?he Lower Colorado River Basin," extracts
conclusions
"atr Suppy o e o
from brief and proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law submitted by the California defendants, and excerpts
rrom the evidence of Arizona v. California No.- 9 orxginal,
1959.
18 U S Department of the Interior, "Quality of Water Colorado
River Basin?" Progress Report No. 4, Washington, D.C..
January 1969.
Council, Salt Lake City, Utah, June
-------
637
THE MINERAL QUALITY PROBLEM
IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
APPENDIX D
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONS VIII AND IX
1971
-------
638
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency was
established by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
and became operative on December 2, 1970. The
EPA consolidates in one agency Federal control
programs involving air and water pollution, solid
waste management, pesticides, radiation and noise.
This report was prepared over a period of eight
years by water program components of EPA and their
predecessor agencies — the Federal Water Quality
Administration, U.S. Department of Interior, April
1970 to December 1970; the Division of Water Supply
and Pollution Control, U.S; Public Health Service,
prior to October 1965. Throughout the report one
or more of these agencies will be mentioned and
should be considered as a part of a single agency -
- in evolution.
-------
639
PREFACE
The Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project was
established as a result of recommendations made at the first
session of a joint Federal-State "Conference in the Matter of
Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and its
Tributaries," held in January of 1960 under the authority of
Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
466 et seg.). This conference was called at the request of the
States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and
Utah to consider all types of water pollution in the Colorado
River Basin. The Project serves as the technical arm of the
conference and provides the conferees with detailed information
on water uses, the nature and extent of pollution problems and
their effects on water users, and recommended measures for control
of pollution in the Colorado River Basin.
The Project has carried out extensive field investigations
along with detailed engineering and economic studies to accomplish
the following objectives:
(1) Determine the location, magnitude, and causes of inter-
state pollution of the Colorado River and its tributaries
(2) Determine and evaluate the nature and magnitude of the
damages to water users caused by various types of
pollution.
(3) Develop, evaluate, and recommend measures and programs
for controlling or minimizing interstate water pollution
problems.
-------
640
In 1963, based upon recommendations of the conferees, the
Project began detailed studies of the mineral quality problem in
the Colorado River Basin. Mineral quality, commonly known as
salinity, is a complex Basin-wide problem that is becoming
increasingly important to users of Colorado River water. Due to
the nature, extent, and impact of the salinity problem, the
Project extended certain of its activities over the entire Colorado
River Basin and the Southern California water service area.
The more significant findings and data from the Project's
salinity studies and related pertinent information are summarized
in the report entitled, "The Mineral Quality Problem in the
Colorado River Basin." Detailed information pertaining to the
methodology and findings of the Project's salinity studies are
presented in three appendices to that report — Appendix A,
"Natural and Man-Made Conditions Affecting Mineral Quality,"
Appendix B, "Physical and Economic Impacts," and Appendix C,
"Salinity Control and Management Aspects."
Copies of the draft report, including the three appendices,
were distributed to state and Federal government agencies in
April. Comments, received in response to that distribution, are
included in this appendix. The comments are organized alphabeti-
cally by state. Within each state heading, comments from the
appropriate Conferee are placed first, followed by comments from
other state agencies. Comments from other recipients of the
-------
641
distribution conclude the appendix.
Due to minor editorial changes, page numbers in the draft
report as referenced in various state comments may not always
correspond to page numbers in the final report.
-------
642
ARIZONA
-------
643
JVrtzima J&ate
ARIZONA STATE OFFICE BUILDING
1624 WEST ADAMS STREET REPLY TO:
...... r .««HTU ....... PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85OO7 EMVWOWIBJTAl HEALTH SERVICES
" * MVISNN or WATER POLLUTO* CONTROL
June 23, 1971 H*k» Pte
Mr, Paul DeFalco, Director
Water Quality Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 9M02
Dear Mr. DeFalco:
This letter is in regard to the November 1970 draft entitled "The Mineral
Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin". Copies of this document
were reviewed by various persons in the State having an interest in
water quality control. Our review of the document indicated that
there was very little material that related to the State water pollution
control program except in the area of mineral quality. Since the sub-
ject matter was principally mineral quality and this subject may have
considerable impact on Arizona's existing and planned water resources
utilization of Colorado River waters, we requested the Arizona Water
Commission to make a thorough review of the material contained therein
for possible impact on Arizona.
We have received their comments and a copy of their letter is enclosed.
We concur with their comments in their entirety and ask that they be
considered as Arizona*s official comments on this document.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel
free to contact us or Mr. Steiner of the Arizona Water Commission.
Sincerely,
// ^^-y^^/ * - s_- - -~
Sseph^E. Dbr, M.S.E., Director
rivision of Water Pollution Control
JEO:jd
Enclosure
cc: Wesley E. Steiner, Arizona Water Commission
Cliff Tabor, Ariz. Water Quality Control Council
Edmund C. Garthe
-------
jEORGE E. LEONARD
CHAIRMAN
OHN S. HOOPES
VICE-CHAIRMAN
RSLEY E. STEINER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AND
STATE WATER ENGINEER
nter (Eammissuui
34 WEST MONROE STREET . 7TH FLOOrt
phoenix, Arizona 85003
TELEPHONE (SO2) 233.7561
MEMBERS
PETER BIANCO
LINTON CLARIDGE
DAVID R. GIPE
DOUGLAS J. WALL
WILLIAM H. WHEELER
XOFFICIO MEMBERS
ANDREW L. BETTWY
IARSHALL HUMPHREY
June 9, 1971
Mr. Edmund C. Garthe, Arizona Conferee
Colorado River Basin Water Quality Conference
Environmental Health Services
State Department of Health
MD19 North 33rd Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
Dear Mr. Garthe:
This is to present our review comments on the November 1970 draft
entitled "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin"
published by the Federal Water Quality Administration of the U. S.
Department of the Interior. Observations submitted herein are
confined to the substantive issues involved with specific emphasis
on the final recommendations which are presented on page 7 in the
summary report.
Comments on the Summary Recommendations
No. 1. We strongly support this recommendation. A coordinated
state-federal basin-wide salinity improvement program could
then be developed under a realistic broad base policy
objective.
No. 2,3. These recommendations should be deleted and no effort should
be made to adopt numerical salinity criteria until such time
as the feasibility and effectiveness of a Colorado River
salinity control program can be determined and realistic
criteria can be advanced.
No. ^f. This recommendation seems unnecessary as qualified existing
governmental agencies already have the necessary capabilities
and authorities. There is no need to form another agency.
The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation has already commenced feasi-
bility studies on some salinity control projects. Because
of its role as water master on the CoHoradr and the inter-
relationship between salinity and water resources develop-
ment, we believe the Bureau should assume the primary role
in salinity control planning for the Colorado. A recommend-
ation to this effect is in order. It should also be stressed
-------
Mr. Edmund C. Garthe, Arizona Conferee
645
June 9, 1971
Page 2
No. 5.
that the development of policy in the comprehensive basin-
wide salinity control program should be the joint responsi-
bility of the affected federal and state agencies.
We strongly support this recommendation and urge that it be
given the highest possible priority.
General Comments on text of Summary Report
Page IV & 15, The hydrologic period used in these studies is not
(Table I) necessarily representative of the average annual
flows and conditions for the Colorado River. The
period of record of river flows employed in the
salinity analysis provides flows lower than those
used by most other investigators on the Colorado
River. This tends to provide lower predictions of
future salinity conditions than would be the case
with higher flows and uses. This fact should be
recognized in the report.
Page 29,
(para. I,item3) The assumption that all of the Central Arizona
Project water will be used for agricultural purposes
is erroneous. The more realistic assumption would
be that most of this project water will be utilized
by municipal, industrial and other higher value
uses by the year 2020.
Page 56 & 57,
(para. *f and
following)
There would appear to be no basis or justification
for expending valuable time, funds, and energies in
attempting to establish numerical limits or standards
on salinity concentrations until more is known about
the optimum quality levels that can'be feasibly
achieved. Rather maximum effort should first be exerted
to determine the feasibility of salinity control
programs and their effects on salinity levels.
If you have any further questions regarding these comments or believe
that a different position should be presented on these issues, please
contact Bob Farrer or myself.
Sincerely,
WesleyJS. Steiner
Executive Director
WES:REFe
cc: Cliff Tabor, Chairman
Arizona Water Quality Control Council
-------
646
CALIFORNIA
-------
STATE OF CAIIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ROOM 1140, RESOURCES BUILDING
1416 NINTH STREET • SACRAMENTO 95814
K. '. . ' W. MULLIGAN, Chairman
E. f. DIBBLE, Vic* Chairman
N. B. HUME, Member
RONALD B. ROB1E, Member
W. W. ADAMS, Member
JEROME B. GILBERT, Executive Officer
Phone 445-3993
JUN 4-1971
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr., Regional Director
water Quality Office, Region IX
Environmental Protection Agency
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. De Falco:
In accordance with your letter of April 5, 1971, the State of
California has the following comments on your agency's draft
report, "Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin",
dated November 1970. As the State's conferee the State water
Resources Control Board, in cooperation with the Department of
Water Resources and the Colorado River Board, has analyzed the
draft report and has coordinated the State's reply. In addition,
we have solicited the views of the major California agencies
receiving water from the Colorado River, and their views are
also incorporated herein.
Our comments are divided into three general groupings:
1. Comments on the report's Recommendations and
Summary of Findings.
2. General comments on specific subjects.
3. Specific comments on items identified by refer-
ence to particular pages.
Our comments on the Recommendations and Summary of Findings are
as follows, and the other comments are attached to this letter.
COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation No. 1
We strongly endorse this recommendation. However, the term
"levels presently found" needs definition. We suggest those be
defined as the average of the five-year period from 1963-67.
-------
648
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr. -2- JUN4-1971
Recommendation No. 2
This recommendation should be deleted. The adoption of numerical
criteria should be deferred until the potential effectiveness of
Colorado River salinity control programs are better known.
Salinity control will be achieved most rapidly by following
through with the program outlined in your Recommendation No. 5.
Recommendation No. 3
We see no value in establishing a federal-state task force on
numerical salinity criteria at this time. Such a task force
should be deferred until more is known about the proposed salinity
control measures.
Recommendation No. 4
Existing governmental agencies have the capabilities to carry out
the necessary work and there is no need to form another agency.
The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USER) has commenced feasibility
level studies on some salinity control projects in this fiscal
year. Because of the interrelationship between salinity and water
resources development and the USSR's long record of activity in
the Colorado River Basin, it is the logical agency to assume the
primary role in this work. We believe that your recommendation
should support the USBR in this role and further recommend that
the USBR elevate Colorado River salinity control to the status
of a major action program.
Work on the program needs to be expedited. The USBR should be
requested to establish a Colorado River Salinity Control Program
with a director reporting to the USBR policy level authority in
Washington. The director should be able to handle all aspects
of the salinity problem including planning, implementation and
institutional problems. There is precedent for this approach in
handling a major program, inasmuch as the USBR recently established
a Director of the Western United States Water Plan Study in a
similar instance where a major program involved more than one
region.
As the major federal water quality agency, EPA should assist the
Salinity Control Program in a consulting and guidance capacity.
Recommendation No. 5
We strongly support this recommendation and suggest that it
replace your Recommendation No. 2. The report should outline
specifically how your agency would assist in implementing this
-------
649
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr. -3- .f"*M-1971
recommendation. The means of implementation that should be
covered in recommendations to this report include: (1) the
completion of ongoing research projects funded by EPA, (2) the
initiation of additional research projects that would be funded
by EPA that may be necessary to prove out the various salinity
control measures proposed in the report, and (3) a statement as
to the participation by your agency's competent Colorado River
Basin water Quality Office personnel in the feasibility study
stage of analysis of the project.
COMMENTS ON SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Mexico - Colorado River Salinity Problem
The report does not discuss the effect of increased Colorado
River salinity on the relations between the United States and
Mexico. Mexican officials have stated that the River's salinity
is the outstanding problem between the two countries, and dis-
cussions have been held by the presidents of both countries on
several occasions. It is not necessary to compute what the
salinity would be at the Northerly International Boundary without
salinity control projects. However, there should be a general
discussion of the Mexican salinity problem in the text and a
statement in the Summary of Findings that "Major international
benefits would accrue to the United States by the implementation
of a salinity control program to prevent increased salinity in
the Colorado River water to be delivered to Mexico".
Other U. S. Salinity Control Programs
The report makes no mention of the precedent-sett ing work on
salinity control programs in the Arkansas and Red River Basins
in Texas and Oklahoma. In order to develop a perspective on the
proposed program for the Colorado River Basin, it would be of
great value if the report briefly mentioned the work that has
been ongoing in that area for over ten years, the projects that
have been authorized and the fact that the projects have been
wholly federally funded. This item should be included in the
Summary of Findings.
It is very important that your final report be released as soon
as possible. We do not expect you to make any additional tech-
nical analyses because of our comments. It will be adequate to
have the text of the report include discussions of our comments
in sufficient detail so that a reader would understand the limi-
tations on the data contained in the report and the general
effect of other reasonable assumptions.
-------
650
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr. -4- JUN4-1971
California appreciates the opportunity of reviewing this report.
Our recommendations and comments are offered in the spirit of
improving a basically sound document and making it more usable
and widely accepted. Prompt issuance of the final report will
make a valuable contribution to moving in the direction of
preventing damaging salinity conditions on the Colorado River.
We hope that the necessary changes will be effected so that the
final report can be issued shortly.
Sincerely,
jrome B. Gilbert
Executive Officer
(California Conferee on Pollution
of the Interstate Waters of the
Colorado River and its Tributaries)
Attachment
-------
651
GENSPxAL COMMENTS
Upper Basin Depletions
The rate of future Upper Basin depletions is speculative. Esti-
mates have been made by various agencies, including the Bureau of
Reclamation in its 1969-70 Mead-Powell Operating Criteria studies, the
Upper Colorado River Commission in its 1969-70 studies, the Federal-
State 1970 Type I Framework studies for the Upper Colorado Region, and
the Colorado River Board in its August 1970 report entitled "Need for
Controlling Salinity of the Colorado River." Your projections are
lower than those made in all of the above analyses. Your report pro-
jects new Upper Basin depletions, including transbasin diversions but
excluding evaporation losses of 1,980,000 acre-feet by the year 2010.
We believe that more probable projections, taking into account the
analyses performed by other agencies, would be for new Upper Basin
depletions exclusive of reservoir evaporation of 2,210,000 acre-feet
by the year 2000 and 2,400,000 acre-feet by the year 2020.
Increased Upper Basin depletions will result in increased salin-
ity in the Lower Basin. We do not suggest any additional technical
analyses. It is recommended that the report state that other responsi
ble agencies have projected higher Upper Basin depletions which would
result in higher salinity concentrations.
Effect of Hydrologie Period
The hydrologic period used in your report, 1942-61, results in
an estimated average annual virgin flow at Lee Ferry of about 13.4
million acre-feet (raaf). This is lower than that used by other in-
vestigators on the Colorado River and tends to understate the severity
of the salinity problem.
-------
652
Use of the 1942-61 period understates the potential increase in
salinity in the Lower Colorado River Basin for the following reasons:
a. The river's total salt load at Lee Ferry would be smaller
under the runoff figures used, in comparison to higher
estimates of the river's long-time water supply.
b. With the lower water supply, the Upper Basin is not able
to develop to the extent that most other agencies have
projected, thereby reducing the salinity effect of such
developments.
c. Under conditions of complete Upper Basin use of its water
supply, a fixed quantity of water would leave Lee Ferry.
The smaller salt load obtained by use of the 1942-61 period
carried in a fixed quantity of water will result in lower
salinity concentrations than the higher salt load obtained
by a larger long-term water supply and carried in the same
quantity of water.
California, Arizona, and Nevada, in joint testimony before
Congress on the Colorado River Basin Project Act in 1965, stated that
the dependable yield of the river's virgin flow at Lee Ferry was about
13.7 to 14 maf/yr, and that there was a 50 percent chance of 14.9 maf/
yr at Lee Ferry. At the same congressional hearings, the Upper Colo-
rado River Commission's consulting engineers estimated a virgin water
supply of 14.6 to 15 maf/yr. There are substantial spills associated
with these volumes of runoff, indicating a dependable supply of about
13.7 maf/yr at Lee Ferry. At the same hearings, the U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation used an average annual virgin flow of 15.05 maf/yr.
-2-
-------
653
The August 1970 report of the Colorado River Board of California
used 14 tnaf/yr annual virgin flow at Lee Ferry to determine salinity
concentrations. This, combined with more recent estimates of Upper
Basin depletions, resulted in a projected salinity at Imperial Dam of
1340 parts per million (ppm) for year 2000, assuming no salinity con-
trol projects. Your report projects 1223 ppm for year 2010.
We do not suggest that you change the hydrologic period at this
late date or make any additional technical analyses. It is recommended
that you state that use of higher water supply figures and higher Up-
per Basin depletions would result in salinity concentrations that are
about 10 percent higher than reported.
Salinity Penalty Costs
Analysis of salinity penalty costs is a difficult and complex
problem involving many factors and judgments. We reviewed the factors
used in your analysis and compared them with other available material.
We believe that the penalty costs developed in the report shoxj the
severity of the problem but must be considered minimum values. Our
reasons for these conclusions are es follows:
a. In the report, the cost impact on urban uses is related
almost entirely to the cost of softening hard water in
central system softening plants. A number of recent tech-
nical articles and reports have stated that softening costs
are only one aspect of the total cost impact in urban areas.
A major cost impact is the deleterious effect of water high
in salinity and in hardness on water purveyor facilities,
on distribution systems, on the water pipes and appliances
-3-
-------
within and on user premises, and on horticultural effects
in residential and urban areas. The cost impact from these
causes has been variously estimated by investigators to be
no less than $5 per acre-foot of water used per 100 ppm in-
crease in salinity. In addition to these costs discussed
in various technical papers and reports, there are the costs
resulting from increased use of bottled water,, costs of
maintaining private swimming pools, and the generally ad-
verse effects of poor taste of high salinity water supplies.
b. The agricultural impacts of high salinity water are also
understated in that they are predicated upon the yield-
decrement method of analyzing cost impacts. Irrigators in
California have not been accepting lower yields in accord-
ance with the yield-decrement method, but have been spending
millions of dollars attempting to maintain yields through
installation of subterranean tile drains, increasing water
applications, and changing to expensive methods of irriga-
tion.
Reconnaissance Investigations
This section (page 63) should be rewritten to bring it up to
date. It is our understanding that, since your report was drafted,
the Bureau of Reclamation and the former Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration completed a joint reconnaissance report on salinity control
projects. Based on the joint report and other work that has been
done since its completion, there is sufficient reconnaissance informa-
tion available to allow the commencement of feasibility studies on
-4-
-------
655
more than just two of the seventeen projects. More research is needed
on the behavior of return flows in agricultural salinity control proj-
rects, but this would not hamper the commencement of feasibility studies
of salinity control on agricultural projects.
-5-
-------
656
SPECIFIC CCT'MENTS--SUMMARY REPORT
Page 4, Item 1
The report states that salinity affects 800,000 irrigated acres
located in the Lower Colorado Rivei Basin and the Southern California
service area. The latest published information (largely 1969 data)
shows the following for irrigated acreage, including fallow land in
some cases. Thus, the acres affected would be over 900,000.
California
Imperial Irrigation District 475,700
Coachella Valley County Water District 06,700
Palo Verde Irrigation District 91,400
Bard Irrigation District 12,000
Miscellaneous /o ™'r
The Metropolitan Water District (estimate) __SL*Lx2HSL
Subtotal 694,800
Arizona
rilfl Proipcf 98,300
Uiia rrojecu ,ft _~~
Yuma Valley 3 300
Yuma Auxiliary si
Colorado River Indian Reservation /
Mojave Valley
Miscellaneous
Subtotal 217,500
Total 912,300
Page 4, Items 3 and__4
The resulting salinity is based upon "repetition" of the 19^-6
period and postulated rates of future water use. As previously men-
tioned, larger water supply quantities have been used to reflect th«
probable future flow of the river and with related increased deple-
tions. It should be acknowledged that the salinity would be higher
-1-
-------
657
with a larger water supply and increased Upper Basin use.
Page. 5_? Item 7
Since the methods used in the report to determine agricultural,
municipal and industrial economic penalty costs excluded certain
items, this finding should state that the costs are considered to be
minimum values.
Pap:e 5, Item 9a
It should be mentioned that a portion of an imported supply would
have to be assigned to salinity control in order to achieve signifi-
cant long-term improvement at Imperial Dam.
Page G, It era 9b
The following phrase should be added in the first sentence after
the word "pickup,": "reduction of volume of groundwater flow through
saline formations by. . . ."
Page 8, Paragraph 3
The Colorado Paver Compact was signed by the negotiators on
November 24, 1922; however, it did not become effective until the
President's proclamation of June 25, 1929. Accordingly, we suggest
adding the words "which went into effect in 1929," after the year
"1922."
Pages 11 and 12
The writeup under "Water Compacts" should be corrected and ex-
panded. Page 11, first paragraph, third line, replace "three" with
"four"; fourth line, strike out "signed in 1922"; fifth line, strike
out "and"; and in the sixth line, add the following: ", and by the
Supreme Court Decree of 1964 in Arizona v. California."
-2-
-------
658
Pap,e 11
Fifth paragraph, s5.xth line, capitalize "Upper Division."
Pa^e 11
Fifth paragraph, after the last line add "Any water committed to
Mexico . . . shall be supplied first from the waters which are sur-
plus . . ."; and ". . . if such surplus shall prove insufficient for
this purpose, then the burden of such deficiency shall be equally
borne by the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin . . . ."
Page 12, Paragraph1
Delete the last line and substitute the following: "The Lower
Division apportionment was divided among the Lower Basin states-
Arizona, California, and Nevada—by the decree of the United States
Supreme Court in 1954 which states that apportionment was accomplished
by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1929. If Colorado River mainstein
water is available in sufficient quantity to satisfy 7,500,000 acre-
feet of annual consumptive use in the three Lower Basin states, Ari-
zona, Nevada, and California are apportioned 2,000,000, 300,000, and
4,400,000 acre-feet, respectively."
Page 12. Paragraph 2
The 1965 gross California diversions of 5.35 million acre-feet
from the Colorado River were for use in both the Colorado Basin and
Southern California service area portions not just the "Southern
California service area." The diversions less measured returns to
the river which approximate the Supreme Court Decree definition of
consumptive use were 4.90 million acre-feet. The latter value should
be used and the description changed to include the California areas
-3-
-------
in the Lower Colorado area. 59
Page 12, Paragraph 3
Inasmuch as the report earlier separated water uses in the
Southern California service area from inbasin uses, this distinction
should be maintained. The discussion in this paragraph apparently
makes no such distinction and should be revised accordingly. We
also suggest striking out the first sentence, as it is redundant.
Page ,17. Second Paragraph
In this and subsequent paragraphs, it should be clearly stated
that the salt load data shown for Lake Mead or the "above Hoover Dam"
point include the salt loads shown for the Upper Basin.
Pages 17 and 18, Section Headed "Present and Future Salinity
Concentrations'
Our prior comments pertaining to the use of the 1942-61 hydro-
logic period should be applied to this section. It should be revised
to include a brief discussion of the impact on Lower Basin salinities
of higher runoff and resulting increases in Upper Basin depletions.
Page 20, Paragraph 2
It appears that, through examination of Appendix B, the irrigated
agricultural expansion now under way on the Colorado River Indian
Reservation was not taken into account for the conditions of limited
development postulated in this paragraph. The full expansion planned
on this reservation will result in a significant increase in salinity
at Imperial Dam and should be acknowledged in the report.
Page 20, Last Paragraph
The statement in the first sentence regarding a relatively con-
stant salt load for the next 40 years and the statement in the last
-4-
-------
660
sentence pointing out increases in salt loading appear to be in
conflict.
Page 23, Paragraph One
The term "threshold level of sensitivity" should be explained
in more detail.
Pages 23 through 27
The discussion of the effects of salinity on beneficial uses of
water and direct economic effects upon water users should be expanded
along the lines discussed earlier. Uhile we do not believe that it
is necessary to develop revised numerical results, it should be men-
tioned that the results are considered to be minimum values.
Table 7. Page 41
The salinity control programs shown in Table 7 that are based on
flow augmentation should not be considered alternatives and compared
on an equal basis with the other possibilities listed in the table.
At this time, these flow augmentation alternatives are subject to
such great uncertainties that their inclusion in the table is more
likely to cause confusion and result in misleading conclusions as to
the be«t course of action. For example, weather modification is now
only in the research phase. Accordingly, we recommend that costs
associated therewith be omitted, together with explanatory footnotes.
We also recommend that augmentation by geothermal sources be included
in the table and briefly discussed in the text.
Page 85
The report states that irrigation in the San Rafael River area
-5-
-------
661
contributed 100 tons of salt per day to the Price River. This should
be corrected.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS—APPENDIX B
Page 6
The discussion of the effects of salinity on domestic uses of
water should acknowledge bottled water costs, additional costs of
maintaining private swimming pools, and costs related to horticultural
use of softened water as a result of high sodium concentration, even
though not evaluated in your determination of penalty costs.
Page 18
The second full paragraph,concludes that soils in the southwest
will generally accept an increase in the amount of irrigation water
applied for leaching. This conclusion is questionable since there are
major irrigated areas in the southwest requiring elaborate drainage
systems.
Papte 26
The statement on groundwater in the last sentence of the second
full paragraph should be deleted since it is not accurate for the
entire basin.
Page 45
The first full sentence states the mean annual virgin flow at
Lees Ferry for the period 1942-61 to be 13.8 maf. Records published
by the USER show the virgin flow for that period to be 13.35 maf.
Pages 48 and 49
The projected future depletions in the Colorado River Basin, which
are shown in Table 12, appear low. Projections of future Upper Basin
-6-
-------
662
use made by the USBR indicate higher levels than shown in Table 12.
The irrigated agricultural expansion on the Colorado River Indian
Reservation is not shown.
Pages 53 and 54
The projections of future salinity presented in Table 13 and
Figure 5 are low in comparison with projections developed for the
Type I Framework Studies and by the Colorado River Board of California
in its August 1970 salinity report.
Page 61
The first two sentences of the first paragraph indicate that
water users in the Lower Basin have recently begun to recognize that
degradation of Colorado River water is having an adverse effect on
their economic welfare and that, although individual users have not
felt the impact to a significant degree, there is a general awareness
of the problem. These sentences are misleading. Large numbers of
Lower Basin domestic, industrial, and irrigation users of the Colorado
River have been keenly aware of the river's salinity on their economic
welfare for a number of years.
Page 67
It is not clear how the quantity of applied water required for
a crop at a given salinity can be obtained from the formula.
Page 70
The formula for leaching requirement is not as described in
Handbook 60 published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The
formula and its description need clarification.
-7-
-------
Page 77
The discussion of the methods used to evaluate additional labor
costs and fertilizer losses is not understandable and needs clarifica- .
tion.
The last paragraph states that drainage facilities were assessed
no penalty costs because (1) irrigation districts build facilities
as they are needed, (2) additional leaching water required because of
water quality degradation can easily be carried by the existing closed
systems. With regard to the first reason, irrigation districts must
build facilities or expand existing facilities to accommodate addi-
tional leaching water. Reason (2) is incorrect in many cases.
Pap,e 78
It should be mentioned that the yield-decrement method for irri-
gated agriculture gives minimum penalty costs. Large expenditures
have been and are being made to expand and improve drainage systems
in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys among other areas using Colo-
rado River water.
Pages 78 and 80
Industrial penalty costs were evaluated for only cooling and
boiler feed. Even though the report indicates that industrial penalty
costs are somewhat understated, the report should acknowledge in gen-
eral terms all other penalty costs not included in.the industrial uses
Page 93
The effects of softening should mention two important factors:
a. When home regenerated softeners are used, only about one-
half of the delivered water is softened. The remaining
-8-
-------
664
one-half is used for irrigation of lawns, etc., and is not
ordinarily softened.
b. Central softening by the Metropolitan Water District raises
the sodium percentage to about 75 percent which removes
about two-thirds of the hardness. Hardness is not reduced
further because of (1) cost, (2) deleterious effects of
high sodium water on existing chemical deposits in pipelines
of many member agencies, and (3) deleterious effects of high
sodium water for irrigation.
Pages 93 and 95
Penalty costs associated with municipal use of water in the
Southern California water service area were calculated as being the
costs associated with large central softening plants for the Metro-
politan Water District service area and the City of Calexico. Soap
wastage costs were used as penalty costs for the remaining areas of
California. A number of reports prepared by private engineering
firms and public agencies concerning the value of the quality of
Colorado River water in Southern California are available and indicate
that penalty costs developed in this report vxmld be minimum values.
When plumbing and appliance replacement costs, bottled water costs,
household water softening costs, etc., are considered, penalty costs
will be significantly greater than those projected by this report.
Pages 100T 103 and 104
It is realized that the assumptions in the report regarding
quantities of water from the Colorado River and the State Water
Project and their blending may have been reasonable several years ago
when the report was in preparation. However, we now have better
.9-
-------
665
knowledge of the limitations of existing distribution systems and
estimated quantities of water planned for importation and use from
available sources. The information on quality of water to be expected
by blending is oversimplified and misleading. In addition, if timing
for construction of the Peripheral Canal of the State Water Project
is not adhered to for any reason, deliveries from that source could
have significantly higher salinities than shown in your report after
1980. We therefore recommend that Figure 15 be removed from the
report.
-10-
-------
STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
666
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
IOOM 1140, RESOURCES BUILDING
1416 NINTH STREET • SACRAMENTO 95814
Phono 445-3993
' W. MULLIGAN, Chairman
t f. DIBBLE, Vie* Chairman
M. B. HUME, Member
BNALD B. ROBIE, Member
W. W. ADAMS, Member
00ME B. GILBERT, Executive Officer
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Director
Water Quality Office, Region IX
Environmental Protection Agency
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 9^102
Dear Mr. De Falco:
This letter is in further response to your letter of April 5, 1971* regarding
your agency's draft of the report "Mineral Quality Problem in .the Colorado
River Basin" dated November 1970. We should like to amend one statement made
in our specific comments on items identified by reference to particular pages
that was appended to our letter of June b, 1971* regarding this subject.
Pages 9 and 10 of our specific comments referred to pages 100, 10J, and iOk of
Appendix B and recommended that Figure 15 be removed from that appendix. We
should like to amend that statement by substituting the following discussion:
The report discusses the blending of water from the State Water
Project with that from the Colorado River. In order to make the
discussion more current and accurate, we suggest inclusion of
the following points. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California has given this matter extensive consideration during
the past year and is continuing to study the relationships involved.
Because of the limitations of existing distribution systems and
facilities now scheduled for construction during the period covered
by the discussion on these pages, complete blending to the extent
shown in the report will not be possible. In addition, reduction
of imports of Colorado River water due to the effects of diversions
by the Central Arizona Project will probably not occur as early as
shown in the report. As a result, improvement of quality wouldbe
delayed somewhat. In addition, if timing for construction of the
Peripheral Canal of the State Water Project is not adhered to for
any reas^, deliveries from that source could have significantly
higher salinities than shown in the report after 19»0.
uvon thoueh FiKure 15 and the analysis it depicts are not com-
SSeS c^renfand accurate, we believe that they are satisfactory
?or the purposes of the report and should be included.
-------
66?
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr. -2-
Again, California expresses its appreciation for the opportunity of reviewing
this report. We trust that this change in our original comments will be
acceptable and will not unduly inconvenience you.
Sincerely,
*-^-
-------
668
COLORADO
-------
669
STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 388-6111
R. L. CUBERB, M. D.. M.P.H., DIRECTOR
June 2, 1971
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
EPA WQO
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Review of Preliminary Draft "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado
River Basin"; Summary Report, Appendices "A", "B", and "C"
There has been no attempt by this Division to evaluate the input data used
in the preparation of this report. Lack of manpower and the time allot-
ment imposed for comments have precluded an evaluation of all but the
general recommendations and conclusions as presented in the Summary Report.
It is difficult to follow the various estimated costs for salinity control
throughout this report. Nomenclature and terminology changes and different
salinity levels tend to confuse and obscure the various estimated costs.
If phased implementation as the minimum cost objective (with a target level
of 800 mg/1 at Hoover Dam) is to be the recommendation, then this alterna-
tive should be developed in a straight forward manner with total costs,
benefits, detriments, and methods of implementing controls clearly stated.
Page 6 of the Summary Report states: "A basinwide salt load reduction pro-
gram designed to minimize total salinity costs (detriments plus control
costs) would have an estimated average annual cost of $7 million in 1980
and $13 million in 2010 (1970 dollars)." This is in general agreement with
total salinity management costs from Table 9, Summary Report, page 53;
however, total annual salinity management costs in Table 9 indicate only
$5.9 million in 1980 and $10.8 million in 2010 as the cost of irrigation
improvements. This does not appear to be compatible with Table 8, Summary
Report, page 42, which estimates average annual total project costs of
$46.7 million and average annual salinity control costs of $34.8 million.
Estimated costs in Table 8 are apparently based on 700 mg/1 at Hoover Dam
rather than 800 mg/1.
Implementing the first 13 projects in Table 8 as the phased implementation
alternative for salinity control, would have average annual costs of $12.7
million with $10.8 being for irrigation improvement. This agrees with the
estimated average annual cost in 2010 for irrigation improvements in Table 9.
However, the text in Appendix C indicates the implementation of these 13
-------
670
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
June 2, 1971
Page 2
projects by 1980 (Appendix C p.v-14 and v-24). This raises the question of the
estimated annual irrigation improvements cost in 1980, is it to be $5.9 or $10.8?
Table 9, page 53, Summary Report, is also misleading in the fact that for irriga-
tion improvements only one half the project costs are listed for salinity control
costs. Total local investment cost per year to achieve the control desired would
be $13.1 million in 1980 and $23.5 million in 2010 instead of $7.2 million and
$12.7 million as listed. Even though the differences are for benefits other than
salinity control, the total project costs should be incorporated into Table 9 to
give a true picture of the expenditures necessary to accomplish the recommenda-
tions. Table 9 also would give the impression that local investment costs are
only one half the irrigation improvement costs whereas all the irrigation improve-
ment costs are to be local investment and comprise 82 percent (1980) and 85 per-
cent (2010) of the total salinity management costs. It is recommended that
Table 9 be omitted from the report and be replaced with a similar Table which
lists T.D.S. objective, total irrigation project costs, and indicate that all salin-
ity management costs for irrigation improvements are by local investment.
In the comparison of alternative salinity control programs (Summary Report page
41) there is no alternative developed for phased implementation with salinity
concentration of 800 mg/1 at Hoover Dam as the objective. If this is to be the
recommendation (S.R. page 7) then this alternative should be developed. Inci-
dentally, the estimates in Table 7 do not appear to agree with estimates in Table
9 for a constant salinity level of 700 mg/1. What is the difference between
"Average Annual Program Cost" (Table 7) and "Total Salinity Management Costs per
year (Table 9)? The average annual program costs as developed in Table 7 are
much higher than the total annual salinity management costs as estimated in
Table 9. In fact, the average annual program costs for all but two of the alter-
natives developed in Table 7 exceed the total economic detriments with no
salinity controls and unlimited development.
Item 8 on page 5 of the Summary Report states: "More than 80 percent of the total
future economic detriments caused by salinity will be incurred by irrigated
agriculture located in the Lower Basin and the Southern California service area. .
It would follow then that more than 80 percent of the benefits j of a salinity
manaaement oroaram will accrue to these same areas. These benefits are stated to
Se $11 m?n?on9in 1980 and $22 million in 2010 (S.R. p.6). The phased implemen-
tation program requires the construction of the first 13 projects in Table 8
(S R D 43) all of which are located in the Upper Basin. Average annual local
States .
-------
671
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
June 2, 1971
Page 3
Page 55 of the Summary Report concludes that salinity concentrations increase sub-
stantially between Hoover Dam and Imperial Dam due to water use in the Lower Basin
and exports to Southern California. Implementation of salinity control measures
in the Lower Colorado River could effect or minimize the salinity increases below
Hoover Dam; however, since the unit costs were higher than for the minimum cost
program, these measures were omitted from consideration. The cost index for the
minimum cost objective program range from $3.89 per ton to $32.00 per ton of salt
removed (Table 8 p. 43). It would be interesting to know the cost index for control
projects below Hoover Dam. It could be that implementation of salinity control
measures in the Lower Basin would result in a more equitable cost distribution than
the minimum cost objective as recommended. The report further states on page 55
that: "Salinity control below Hoover Dam,however, is a possible, practical approach
toward minimizing the economic impact of salinity and should receive further con-
sideration in the formulation of a basinwide salinity control program." Investi-
gation and consideration of these measures should be made before adoption of final
recommendations by the conferees.
"Existing legal and institutional arrangements are not adequate to provide the
basis for implementing a largescale salinity control program." (S.R. p.60) "Detailed
evaluation of existing legal and institutional constraints which may affect the
basinwide salinity control program should be conducted." (S.R. p.64) These state-
ments reflect the crux of a basin wide salinity control program and raise some
interesting questions. If a salt load reduction program removed 172,000 acre feet
of water above Hoover Dam (S.R. p.42) would this water have to be replaced by the
Upper Basin States to meet requirements of the Colorado River Compact? If irriga-
tion improvements reduced consumptive use by 299,000 acre feet annually in the
Upper Basin, would this flow be available for flow augmentation or could this flow
be captured and used by owners of downstream water rights? A determination of the
modifications needed in existing legal and institutional constraints and means to
accomplish these modifications should be made prior to an attempt to implement
salinity controls. We reject the recommendation on page 60 that congressional auth-
orization be sought at an early date so that implementation of the salinity control
program can proceed. Attempting to modify existing legal constraints by congres-
sional action may not be politically expedient and could jeopardize any and all
salinity control programs.
A broad water quality objective to minimize the future economic impact of salinity
in the Colorado River Basin is desirable and should be adopted by the conferees. A
statement endorsing this objective should be qualitative rather than quantitative
however. Until such time as the research and demonstration projects have actually
demonstrated the practical methods of salinity control, the adoption of interim
numerical standards would serve no useful purpose at this time.
We agree with the statement in the first paragraph on page 57 of the Summary Report
which states: "Although additional information will be required before it will be
possible to establish detailed basinwide criteria which are equitable, workable,
and enforceable", we disagree with the remainder of the statement, "present informa-
tion is considered adequate to form the basis for the establishment of interim
salinity standards which will set an upper limit on salinity increases in the Lower
Colorado River".
-------
672
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
June 2, 1971
Page 4
The adoption of interim numerical criteria by the Upper Basin States that for any
given month the average concentrations of total dissolved solids be maintained below
800 mg/1 at Hoover Dam and 1000 mg/1 at Imperial Dam would require the Upper Basin
States to adopt water quality standards and stream classifications limiting salinity
concentration considerably below the present levels. Since much of the salt load
and concentrating effects are from irrigation return flow and other diffuse sources
the surveillance and monitoring of these salt sources would be extremely difficult
and enforcement next to impossible under existing legal constraints. The adoption
by the States of interim numerical standards which are impossible to enforce will
in no way contribute to the solution of the water quality problem of the Colorado
River Basin. In Colorado a special classification for the Colorado River and its
tributaries would be necessary as the salinity concentration in the Colorado River
is much less than the salinity concentration of the South Platte and Arkansas
Rivers. Although this would be possible, the implementation of a double set of
standards for the same use would probably result in extreme criticism and possible
legal action by the local interest affected.
For the present we would favor the continuation of the present Task Group to develop
policy and plan a basinwide salinity control program. As mentioned in the Summary
Report no new legislation would be required for this approach. The creation of
a State/Federal River Basin Commission with arbitary authority over all activities
necessary for basinwide management and control of salinity is not favored at this
time. We would need to know much more about the method of funding and details
of the plan of implementation before abrogating the powers and duties of the
Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission in the Western half of the State.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this preliminary report.
FOR DIRECTOR, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION
^^cj L Jt
Kenneth W. Webb, P.E.
Public Health Engineer
KWW:mgc
-------
673
HNJAHINF. STAFLETON
H. O. BBHHBLMN
LABBNCE & BURR
FELIX L. SPARKS
Director
LAREN D. MORRILL
Deputy Director
QUINCY C. CORNELIUS
Hooper
LEEB.POBD
HDOH B. FICKRBL
KadqrFeid
HERBERT H. VANDEMOER
RICHARD B. WILLIAMS
JOHN A. LOVE
Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
102 COLUMBINE BUILDING 1845 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER. COLORADO 80203
Telephone
892-3441
RCC^'VED
J UN 1-
May 28, 1971
Mr. Frank Rozich, Director
Water Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Dear Frank:
Enclosed are the comments of the Colorado Water Conservation Board
in the Summary Report of The Mineral Quality Problem In The Colorado River
Basin dated November, 1970. As you know this Summary Report was issued by
the Federal Water Quality Administration and they are asking that all Colorado
comments be channeled through you as the Colorado conferee. They are also ask-
ing for the comments by June 7, 1971.
I have reviewed the draft of the prepared comments of your office and
it appears that we are both thinking along the same lines.
Sincerely,
L. D.\torVi 11
Deputy Director
LDM/ac
Enc.
-------
674
The Mineral Quality Problem In The
Colorado River Basin Dated November 1970
Federal Water Quality Administration
General Comments:
The use of the 1942-1961 period of hydrologic record for estimating
average salinity conditions for future years makes projected values too high.
For example, present concentrations below Hoover Dam are about 725 mg/1, but
projection shown for 1970 is 760 mg/1. The report should be updated using a
more typical period of record. A report that is ten years out of date and
that uses a period of record that is not average is of questionable value.
While the report states that it does not recommend curtailment of
future water resources development as a means of salinity control, it mentions
this possibility in several places. The state of Colorado completely rejects
this concept of restricting development in the upper basin for the benefit of
the lower basin California and Mexico simply because they developed or are
developing their water resources ahead of the upper basin. One of the primary
reasons for the Colorado River Compact was to insure that the upper basin
states would have water for this future development even though they didn't
use their full allocation for many years.
Since the major benefits of any major salinity control measures
would accrue to water uses in the lower basin, California and Mexico the
costs should not be borne by the upper basin. It is recommended that since
it would be extremely difficult to apportion the costs in an equitable manner,
and still more difficult to collect the money from the beneficiaries in ac-
cordance with the benefits received, that such control measures be a federal
cost. This would be similar to the present flood control projects of the Corps
of Engineers.
It would also seem unrealistic and quite futile to establish salinity
standards until a salinity control program complete with a practical method of
financing such a program has been established.
-------
675
Specific Comments
Page Paragraph
4 3 As previously stated, the 1942-1961 period is not typical and
projection and conclusions based on the use of this period are
misleading.
Delete reference to limiting to development of water resources
as a means of salinity control.
4 & 5 4 This paragraph is highly conjectural and argumentive and adds
little to the value of the report. It should be deleted.
5 5 The 1960 data should be updated to 1970.
5 6 The first sentence of this paragraph may not be accurate.
5 7 This paragraph may be based on questionable assumptions. Ap-
parently no consideration is given to offsetting benefits due
to water development. The last part of the paragraph again
dwells on limiting future water resource development and should
be deleted.
6 C This paragraph again dwells on limiting water resource develop-
ment and should be deleted. Would recommend concentrating on
the concept as expressed in paragraph a and b.
6 11 The fourth and part of the fifth line are repetitive and should
be eliminated.
7 1 This may not be possible to achieve. A realistic program should
be set up ahead of such recommendations.
7 2 Same comment as for paragraph 1
7 3 Same comment as for paragraph 1
7 5 Shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to implement a basin-wide
salt load reduction program. A comprehensive and realistic
approach to this problem is needed.
11 2 The accuracy of the last sentence of this paragraph should be
checked.
12 1 The apportionment mentioned in the last two sentences was by
the supreme court, not by the Upper Basin Compact.
13 1 The third from the last sentence states that "No comprehensive
evaluation of present or future mineral quality had been made."
What about USGS Professional Paper 441 from which much of the
data on salt loads was obtained?
-------
- 3 - 676
Specific Comments
Page Paragraph
14 & 15 1 This table should be adjusted to 1970 conditions and should
use a. more typical period of record.
17 2 In table 2 a figure of 5,760 is shown under the salt load lead-
ing. This figure is 5,408 in table 1, page 14.
18 3 In the third from last line, the word by_ should be changed to
be.
In figure 2 following page 18, date should be revised to reflect
a modification to 1970 conditions.
20 1 & 2 Reference to limited development conditions in these paragraphs
and table 3 should be deleted.
23 1 Who determines the threshold limits and how authentic are they?
Also, the salinity of the Salton Sea will continue to increase
even with present water quality because of salt concentration
by evaporation. What is the marine fishery worth?
28
The values in table 5 should be converted to 1970 dollars.
09 The statement at the top of the page says "It was assumed that
all Central Arizona Project water would be used for agricultural
purposes." This assumption is erroneous.
Figure 4 following page 29 doesn't state what dollars were used.
1960?
oo B_2 It is questionable that treatment or disposal of return flows
from irrigation to cut down salinity is physically or econo-
mically practical.
oQ 2 This paragraph makes the statement that limiting water resource
•jy *• _r . . . _ *.~j *-« nv<-./4,i^o an increase in salt
of
practically aio. resuun-^ m.v*.*.~t—
proach would stop further economic development.
41 What year dollars were used in table 7?
-X is there any good backup basis for the assumption that only
42 3 half the St! of irrigation improvement were allocated to
salinity control? It might be nearer 75% to 80%.
What year dollars used in table 8 following page 42?
-------
677
- 4 -
Specific Comments
Page Paragraph
56
56 & 57
What year dollars used in figures 6 and 7 following page 45?
What year dollars in figures 8 and 9 following page 49?
What year dollars in table 9 following page 53?
This paragraph states "the feasibility of maintaining salinity
concentrations at a below present levels in the Colorado River
below Hoover Dam has been shown." This is not true. Nowhere
has it been shown that anybody is willing to pay for this.
Requiring salinity concentrations to be maintained at or below
present levels in the Lower Colorado River would be an exercise
in futility without a practical method of financing such a
requirement.
Setting salinity standards is futile without some economically
and politically practical method of achieving these standards.
-------
678
NEVADA
-------
679
7 ROT
STATE OP NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. WELFARE. AND REHABILITATION
DIVISION OF HEALTH
CARSON CITY. NEVADA 897O1
June k, 1971
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 9^102
Attn: R. L. O'Connell
Acting Interim Regional Coordinator
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
Concerned State agencies have reviewed the draft report of the Mineral
Quality Problems in the Colorado River Basin dated November, -1970, and have the
following comments;
There are several technical errors in the report which are apparently
in part a result of the length of time involved in preparation of the report. The
errors in quantity, and salinity determinations as well as in the cost estimates will
require considerable revisions but do not have significant impact on the findings and
recommendations in the report. These errors can be more specifically spoken to if
the Environmental Protection Agency determines to rewrite the report before recon-
vening the enforcement conference.
We concur with the findings that a basinwide salt load reduction
program at present appears to be the most feasible approach for maintaining salinity
concentrations at acceptable levels but cannot agree with all the recommendations
for implementing the program.
We concur with Recommendation 1 for adoption of a broad policy objec-
tive for the entire basin to maintain salinity concentrations at or below present
levels in the lower Colorado and with Recommendation 5 that measures be taken immed-
iately to obtain authorization and funding to implement the policy objective.
We do not agree that total dissolved solids numerical standards should
be adopted at this time as suggested in Recommendation 2. Until there is assurance
authorization and funding will be available to implement a control plan this would
appear to be an exercise in futility. The broad policy objective can be oriented
towards specific quality to provide interim goals.
-------
680
Environmental Protection Agency
June U, 1971
Page 2
We do not agree to the establishment of a federal/state task group for
development of additional salinity control criteria at key points as suggested in
Recommendation 3. Such additional criteria in keeping with the broad policy objec-
tives could be more readily established by the individual states and appropriate
federal agencies.
We do not agree with Recommendation ^ which suggests establishing a
state/federal or river basin commission to plan, formulate policy, direct and implement
a basinwide salinity program. Formulation of policy and direction should be the joint
responsibility of the concerned state and federal agencies. Implement at ion could
appropriately be extended to an existing agency such as the Bureau of Reclamation
which has a competency in program development, design and construction. River basin
or regional planning in various programs as is being required under federal law and
regulations must consider all elements such as water pollution control, water resources
and use, fish and wildlife, recreation, land use and management, watershed management,
population concentration, transportation habits and pattern, etc., if comprehensive
plans are to be developed for any single element. To isolate a portion of an element,
such as salt loading in water pollution, with disregard for its relationship to the
total water pollution problem and in turn this relationship to the other essential
elements will only add to the confusion and duplication existing in all levels of
government in planning efforts. State and local agencies engaged in planning activi-
ties must have an input into program policy for all elements if planning is to be
effectively implemented. The Colorado River Basin states must assist in establishing
basin-wide salinity control program policy as affects their areas of concern and kept
informed on all aspects of program development to relate this program to their other
planning elements.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and will await your decision as
to whether or not the report is to be rewritten before the conference is reconvened.
Sincerely,
E. G. Gregory, Chief
Bureau of Environmental Health
EGG:ve
cc: Roland Westergard
Don Paff
-------
681
NEW MEXICO
-------
.Of V-/3-7/
682
STOT-E QC
I ENVIROIMSNTAL IMPROVEMENT AGENCY
P. O. BOX 2348. SANTA FE. NEW MEXICO 875O1
Phone No. 827-2373
tEflim-
'OCIflL
department
July 6, 1971
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr., Director
Environmental Protection Agency
94102
Water Quality Office
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California
Re: Comments on Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River
Basin Summary Report -
Preliminary Draft Dated
November, 1970 - Prepared by
Colorado River Basin Water
Quality Control Project
Dear Mr. De Falco:
You transmitted the above referenced reports to this office for review
in April, 1971, and requested that comments be submitted no later than
May 3, 1971. This time frame was an Impossible one for our Department
to comply with, and your office graciously approved an extension of time
for us to reply. The scope and complexity of the problem, and the man-
power available to review and comment on the documents, made it impossible
to comment until now.
I wish to thank the people associated with the Colorado River Basin
Quality Control Project for their efforts in developing these
comprehensive reports and, as you are well aware, it would have been
impossible for the individual states to undertake such a complex study.
I would like to discuss the recommendations which were outlined on page 7
of the Summary Report.
1. "A broad policy objective to be adopted for the
entire Colorado River System which would result in
salinity concentrations being maintained at or
below levels presently found in the Lower Colorado
River."
ReccnBBndation #1 appears to be a good basic policy for the control of salinity
in the Colorado. However, one basic problem with the broad objective is
tbatit does not take into consideration the rights to water development under
existing water laws. For that reason, I would suggest that the recommendation
be amended to read:
-------
683
Mr. Paul De Falco
July 6, 1971
Page 2
A broad policy objective to be adopted for the entire
Colorado River System which would result in salinity
concentrations being maintained at or below levels
presently found in tbs Colorado River wfthnnt
lter^ anv sftr0 lg r'ff*1*- to water development under
water laws.
Emphasis added to portion requested for addition to the recommendation.
2. "Criteria for salinity concentrations to be adopted by
appropriate Colorado River Basin States in accordance with
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
As a ".-trvtmnm, these criteria should require that for any
given month the average concentrations of total dissolved
solids be maintained below 800 mgA at Hoover Dam and
1000 mgA at Imperial Dam."
The first portion of this recommendation was discussed by the Conferees'
Resolution of November 15, 1967. At that time, the Conferees did not believe
it appropriate to develop a numerical standard and specifically stated "that
the Conferees do not believe it is appropriate that a standard of 1000 mg/1
or any other definite number for IDS at Imperial Dam be set by the Basin
States or the Secretary of the Interior at this time." The Conferees further
urged the completion of water quality reports and urged FWPCA to consider
approval of water quality criteria standards of the seven Colorado River
Basin States contingent upon ultimate establishment of acceptable numberical
salinity standards. The development of these reports, among other things,
was intended to provide basin states with information needed for the develop-
ment of numerical water quality standards. There is not sufficient
information in the report to permit the development, at this time, of numerical
standards as recommended in Recommendation #2. For this reason, I would
to recommend that Recommendation #2 be rewritten to read:
Criteria for salinity in the Colorado River be retained as
now adopted. When sufficient salinity control projects are
in operation and have been evaluated, and other necessary
information is available, salinity criteria could then be
adopted. The criteria should provide under full development
of the water and completion of salt load reduction programs
that for any given year the average concentrations of total
dissolved solids be maintained at or below present levels.
3. "A State/federal Task Group immediately be established to
develop additional salinity control criteria at key points
throughout the Basin which win accomplish the objective of
Recommendation #1. These criteria should be adopted on or
-------
Mr. Paul De Falco
July 6, 1971
Page 3
before January 1, 1973, by the appropriate Colorado River
Basin States in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended."
This recommendation appears to be superfluous because there presently exists
a State/Federal Task Group. The group is the Office of Water Quality, in
cooperation with the Conferees. Only with the information in this report,
evaluation of completed salinity control projects, evaluation of completed
development projects, and with additional studies will it be possible to
establish meaningful salinity objectives at key points -throughout the Basin.
It would be impossible to complete such an undertaking by January 1, 1973.
For these reasons, I would respectfully recommend that the following new
language be substituted for Recommendation #3 :
The State/Federal Task Group presently established,
consisting of the Office of Water Quality and the Colorado
River Basin Conferees, should work toward the establishment
of salinity objectives at key points throughout the Basin.
4. "The possibility be explored of extending the authority of
one or more existing agencies to assume the responsibility
to plan, formulate policy, direct, and implement a
comprehensive basinwide salinity control program. In the
event existing authority is lacking or inappropriate,
legislation should be sought to establish a permanent
Federal/State agency or River Basin Commission which could
assume such responsibility."
Heoomnendation #4 has far-reaching implications and could be construed as
recommending interstate compacts on quality. It is realised that a State/
or River Basin Co-ission could 1. •?**££«%£a3
^^
r-rss
«ter.s The
consuptive usejms, ^. T«t of beneficial consumptive use of
'^oTated to t^ividual stetes. For these reasons, 1 suggest
that Recommendation #4 be deleted.
5 "Early measures be sought to authorize, fund, and *•&•"**
a basinwide salt load reduction program that would lead to
achieving Recommendation #1."
-------
685
Mr. Paul De Falco
July 6, 1971
Page 4
Recommendation #5 should definitely be included in the report and actively
supported by the Water Quality Office and the Basin States. I particularly
support Recommendation #5 in order that salinity control measures can be
implemented at the earliest possible time to maintain the water quality of
the Colorado River in the best condition possible.
I would lite to make some additional editorial comments on the proposed
draft of the Summary Report:
Recommendations! It is noted that out-of-basin export is included with the
salt concentrating effect consideration. I believe that the full
ramifications of out-of-basin export should be discussed in paragraph 2. The
full ramifications of out-of-basin export are explained in detail in other
areas of the report. However, for someone reading only the Summary, the wrong
inference could be drawn.
Page 6t "paragraph Cf discusses the unreasonable, unlawful, and totally
unacceptable concept of curtailment of future water resources development in
order to achieve salinity control. Paragraph 10 on page 6 further mentions
that partial implementation of the other two alternatives (one of which would
be curtailment of uses) would increase the effectiveness of the salt load
reduction program. I cannot support the limitation of further development
of water allocated New Mexico under present water law.
The Secretary of the Interior in a letter dated February 2, 1968, stated that
"After consideration of all the factors involved, I have decided that salinity
standards should not be established until such time as we have sufficient
information to be reasonably certain that such standards will be equitable,
workable, and enforceable. Arriving at this decision at this time does not
and will not preclude initiating of programs to study and demonstrate the
feasibility of controlling and alleviating the Basin's salinity problem."
In a letter dated February 12, the Assistant Secretary for Water Pollution Control,
made the following statement: "It is the intention of the Secretary that the
Department of the Interior and States pursue active programs to lay the foundation
for setting numerical criteria at some futu^-e time. These programs should focus
on devising and demonstrating salinity control measures and finding ways to
revise the legal and institutional constraints that could impede the
implementation and enforcement of salinity standards."
It is unfortunate, but a fact of life, that information is not available in
sufficient detail and scope to permit the development of salinity standards at
this time. I recognize the need for and endorse a program of salt reduction
-------
686
Mr. Paul De Falco
July 6, 1971
Page 5
projects and believe they should be considered in the total scheme of river
development. I also believe we should be striving for a river quality
objective which permits beneficial use of the river for generations to come.
It mist be perfectly clear when developing objectives that nothing be
included that will preclude any state from her rightful share of Colorado
River water under present water law. For these reasons, I recommend that
criteria for dissolved ionic constituents be framed as objectives to be
achieved.
I recommend that the project be continued with the specific understanding that
working in cooperation with the Basin States and other Federal agencies, the
project will develop information for establishing objectives at strategic
points throughout the Basin.
In summary, I recommend that feasibility studies of salinity control programs
be undertaken at the earliest possible time and the project be continued whereby
objectives can be developed as guides and framework for establishment of criteria
that will be equitable, workable, and enforceable. Until such time as criteria
can be set, the objectives can be used for Basin planning and the basis for
decisions in developing salinity control projects and ancillary State
standards and regulations.
Please note the change of address and be advised that there has been a change
in agency responsibility. As of July 1, 1971, this office will be the
Water Quality Section of the Environmental Improvement Agency.
Transmitted herewith are comments prepared by the New Mexico Interstate Stream
Commission. This office is in basic agreement with the Interstate Stream
Commission's position. However, I recommend that the project be continued
with the responsibility to develop tributary by tributary objectives to be
used as guides and framework for the Basin States' consideration when
ultimately developing criteria.
JKW:fl y/7 John R. Wright, P.?./Chief
Water Quality Section Conferee
-------
Mr. Paul De Falco
July 6, 1971
Page 6
687
cc: Director
Water Pollution Control Division
Arizona State Dept. of Health
Division of Environmental Health
Hayden Plaza West
4019 N. 33rd Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
Chairman
Water Resources Control Board
Room 1140, Resources Building
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Technical Secretary
Water Pollution Control Commission
Colorado State Dept. of Public Health
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Director
Bureau of Environmental Health
State Department of Health
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Executive Secretary, Water Pollution Committee
Utah Water Pollution Control Board
44 Medical Drive
Salt Late City, Utah 84113
Director, Region 4
Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 11568
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office
Colorado River/Bonneville Basins
Office
Denver Federal Center
Building 22, Room 415
Denver, Colorado 80225
Executive Director
Upper Colorado River Commission
355 South Fourth East Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
iinnronme
sntal Sanitation
Director, E
Wyoming Health Dept.
State Office Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
Commissioner, International Boundary & Water Commission
U.S. Section - P.O. Box 1859, El Paso, Texas 79950
Director, Region 3
Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 427
Boulder City, Nevada 89005
-------
688
NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION
BATAAN MEMORIAL BUILDING
STATE CAPITOL
SANTA FE. NEW MEXICO 87601
COMMISSIONERS
I. J. COURY, Chairman. Farmlngton
8. B. REYNOLDS, Sacratary. Santo F.
J. P. WHITE. JR., RowraH
DRAPER BRANTLEY, Carhbad
ALVIN M. STOCKTON. Raton
BENJAMIN M. SHERMAN, Owning
WALTER BAMERT, L«*Cruc*t
EDWARD J. APODACA, Albuquvrqua
RICHARD P. COOK, Eapanola
LEGAL ADVISER
CLAUD «. MANN.
Charles M. Tanaey
Farmington
June 24, 1971
Mr. John Wright, Chief
Water & Liquid Waste Section
Health & Social Services Department
PERA Building
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Dear Mr. Wright:
By letter dated April 5, 1971, Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr., Direc-
tor of the Water Quality Office of Region IX of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency transmitted to the New Mexico Inter-
state Stream Commission a copy of a draft report on "The
Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin". He
requested that the Commission furnish its comments on the
report through you by May 3, 1971. By letter dated April 19,
you requested that the time allowed for the state to furnish
its comments be extended to July 1, 1971. The time allowed
was extended to June 7 and on about that date you advised
Mr. DeFalco by telephone that an additional 10 to 20 days
would be required for the state to complete its review and
comment on the report.
The comments of the Interstate Stream Commission are set out
below. It is requested that you furnish a copy of this
letter to Mr. DeFalco.
Each of the five "RECOMMENDATIONS" set forth at page 7 of
the report is quoted below and followed by a discussion
of the recommendation.
1. A broad policy objective be adopted for the
entire Colorado River System which would
result in salinity concentrations being
maintained at or below levels presently
found in the lower Colorado River.
-------
689
Mr. John Wright
Page Two
June 24, 1971
It is suggested that this recommendation be made a part of
Recommendation 5 and modified as will be discussed below.
2. Criteria for salinity concentrations be
adopted by appropriate Colorado River
Basin States in accordance with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended. As a minimum, these criteria
should require that for any given month
the average concentrations of total
dissolved solids be maintained below
800 rag/1 at Hoover Dam and 1,000 mg/1
at Imperial Dam.
The Interstate Stream Commission does not concur in this
recommendation and urges that it be deleted.
While the data given in the report do not so indicate, a
review of the records reveals that the monthly average
criterion of 1,000 mg/1 at Imperial Dam as proposed was
equaled in January of 1957 and has been closely approached
a number of times in recent years. The monthly average
criterion of 800 mg/1 proposed for the Colorado River
below Hoover Dam has been equaled or exceeded on many
occasions, including some occurring in recent years.
Since virtually any beneficial consumptive use of water
causes some increase in the concentration of dissolved
solids in the remaining supply, the adoption of the pro-
posed criteria would have the effect of precluding any new
use of water above Hoover Dam, as well as some uses recently
initiated. Some proposed new uses below Hoover Dam also
would be precluded.
On January 30, 1968, then Secretary of the Interior Stuart
Udall made the following remarks in a statement to the House
Subcommittee on irrigation and Reclamation (House Document
90-5, Colorado River Basin Project, Part II, pp. 705-706):
"The Colorado River is the only major river of the
world that is virtually completely controlled. With
-------
690
Mr. John Wright
Page Three
June 24, 1971
the existing system of large storage reservoirs it
is possible to plan, for all practical purposes,
on complete utilization of the river's runoff with
no utilizable water escaping to the sea. This means
that the limited water supply in the Colorado River
Basin must be used and reused and then used again
for a wide variety of purposes. In this complete
utilization of runoff, the Colorado Basin is unique.
The River is unique also with respect to the number
and extent of the institutional constraints on the
division and use of the Basin's water which include
an international treaty, two interstate water com-
pacts. Supreme Court decisions, Indian water rights,
State water laws, and Federal law.
These two aspects, in turn, make the problem of
setting numerical mineral quality standards for
the Colorado River not only unique but extremely
complicated. Before discussing this problem
further, I would like to state that salinity
standards will not be established until we have
sufficient information to assure that such standards
will be equitable, workable, and enforceable.
The principal water .uses in the Basin include irri-
gated agriculture, municipal and industrial water
supply, fish and aquatic life, and recreation.
Salinity in the Colorado River has nd significant
effect on instream or nonconsumptive water uses
such as hydroelectric power generation and water-
oriented recreation. However, ever-increasing
levels of salinity do have an adverse impact on the
consumptive uses of water for both irrigated agri-
culture and municipal and industrial water supply.
Further development and depletion of water ^located
to the Upper Basin States will raise the salinity of
water downstream.
Salinity standards must be so framed that they will
not impede the growing economy of the Colorado River
Basin and yet not permit unwarranted degradation of
-------
691
Mr. John Wright
Page Four
June 24, 1971
water quality. This is the hard dilemma which is the
core of the problem of establishing equitable salinity
standards.
A decision not to set salinity standards at this time
does not and will not preclude getting started with
programs to study and demonstrate the feasibility of
controlling and alleviating the Basin's salinity
problem...."
The adoption of the recommendation would be thoroughly incon-
sistent with the statement quoted.
The Colorado River compacts apportion among the seven states
of the river basin the beneficial concumptive use of the
waters of the Colorado River system. "Beneficial consumptive
use" is defined as the amount of water diverted from the
stream less the return flow thereto. This is a fair paraphrase
of the definition used by the United States Supreme Court in
its decision in Arizona v» California, et al.
When water is diverted from a stream for irrigation, for
example, a part of the water is evaporated or taken up in the
plants and the remainder returns to the stream. About two-
thirds of the water applied to the land for the irrigation of
crops is consumed by evaporation and moves off on the wind;
the balance returns to the stream. That part of the water
diverted that is consumed, or evaporated, is pure H2O and that
part which returns to the stream carries all of the dissolved
minerals, or salinity, that was in the water diverted. This
aspect of irrigation is also true for most other consumptive
uses of water in the Basin. Some uses, particularly new
irrigation projects and municipal use will necessarily, under
any reasonable practice, return to the stream a tonnage of
salt somewhat greater than the amount diverted? However, as
the report reflects the preponderance of the projected increase
in concentration of salts will result from the concentrating
effect rather than from such additions of salt.
Thus, an inescapable consequence of the beneficial consumptive
use of water is the degradation of water quality by an increase
-------
692
Mr. John Wright
Page Five
June 24, 1971
in the concentration of dissolved solids in the remaining
water. Even though the tonnage of dissolved solids remains
the same, the amount of water in which it is carried is
less and the concentration is increased.
This simple principle of physics was as well known in 1922,
when it was agreed to apportion 7% million acre-feet of
beneficial consumptive use to the Upper Basin, as it is
today. Therefore, the Compact must be construed to contain
an agreement that less water containing a greater concentra-
tion of dissolved solids will flow to the Lower Basin as
the Upper Basin develops and uses the amount of water that
it is entitled to.
The Colorado River Compact specifically provides for trans-
mountain diversion of waters of the Colorado River System
to which the state making such a diversion is entitled.
Diversion of the relatively fresh headwaters of a stream to
another basin will, of course, increase the concentration of
dissolved solids in the supply remaining in the basin. This
increase in concentration will not be as great as the increase
that would result from the consumptive use of an equal amount
within the basin.
Adoption and enforcement of the criteria proposed would pre-
clude operation of the San Juan-Chama transmountain diversion
project which will divert 110,000 acre-feet annually from the
headwaters of the San Juan River into the Rio Grande Basin.
The federal government has invested $57 million in the San
Juan-Chama project to date; the project was put in operation
this spring.
Operation of the 110,000 acre Navajo Indian Irrigation Project
would also be precluded. The federal government has thus far
invested $38 million in the construction of this project.
The principal function of the Navajo Dam and Reservoir .Project
is to store water for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project and
for municipal and industrial use. Operation of this project,
whLh was completed in 1963 at a cost of $41.6 million, for
those purposes would be precluded.
-------
693
Mr. John Wright
Page Six
June 24, 1971
Construction of the Animas-La Plata Project in Colorado and
New Mexico to furnish water for irrigation, municipal,
industrial and recreation purposes was authorized in 1968.
Operation of that project likewise would be precluded.
If the proposed criteria are adopted and enforced. New Mexico
will be unable to make beneficial consumptive use of at least
500,000 acre-feet of the estimated 770,000 acre-feet that the
state is entitled to under the Colorado River compacts. Sim-
ilar, possibly even more severe effects, would be brought
about in other states.
It might be argued that new uses of water such as those out-
lined above would be precluded only until the salinity con-
trol projects described in the report can be implemented. The
feasibility, effectiveness and timing of those projects is,
and may remain for some time, uncertain. It is not reasonable
to propose that the upstream states terminate recently initiated
water uses and defer activity for the development of new uses
until salinity control projects such as those outlined in the
report can be put into operation.
The report recognizes (page 48, second paragraph) that to
maintain the concentration of dissolved solids in the Colorado
River at present levels by limiting development in the Upper
Basin would not be economic.
The adoption and enforcement of the proposed salinity criteria
would effectively limit Upper Basin development and would be
not only uneconomic, but also unrealistic and inequitable.
3. A State/Federal task group immediately be
established to develop additional salinity
control criteria at key points throughout
the Basin which will accomplish the objectives
of Recommendation 1. These criteria should be
adopted on or before January 1, 1973 by the
appropriate Colorado River Basin states in
accordance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended.
This recommendation should be deleted for the reasons set out
in the discussion of Recommendation 2.
-------
Mr. John Wright
Page Seven
June 24, 1971
4. The possibility be explored of extending the
authority of one or more existing agencies to
assume the responsibility to plan, formulate
policy, direct, and implement a comprehensive
basinwide salinity control program. In the
event existing authority is lacking or inappro-
priate, legislation should be sought to establish
a permanent State /Federal agency or river basin
commission which could assume such responsibility.
No extension of the authority of existing agencies or creation
of new agencies or commissions is needed to "implement a com-
prehensive basinwide salinity- control program". The U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation's record of experience and achievement
in the development and management of the Colorado River makes
it the logical agency to assume the primary role in the pro-
gram The Bureau of Reclamation has been studying the salin-
ity of the Colorado River under Congressional directive for
a number of years.
Each of the states of the Colorado River Basin has recently
urged committees of the Congress to appropriate money to the
Bureau of Reclamation to carry out feasibility investigations
of salinity control projects on the Colorado River.
consultation and guidance from the Environmental Protection
Agency should be valuable to the Bureau of Reclamation in its
studies.
salinity control projects.
* Early measures be sought to authorize, fund and
5- implement a basinwide salt load reduction program
that would lead to achieving Recommendation 1.
The interstate Stream Commission supports this ^co^endation
and suggests that the ™~"«2J^£ ^feasibility investi
of Re clamatio n *
eas
of funds to the Bureau of Re clamatio n £* al Protection
^accelerating its ongoing
-------
695
Mr. John Wright
Page Eight
June 24, 1971
research efforts and initiating new research projects that
might contribute to conceiving or evaluating salinity control
projects.
In consideration of the extensive federal land ownership and
numerous federal water projects in the Basin, the international
character of the Colorado River, the fact that salinity is a
basinwide problem and the fact that salinity control benefici-
aries will be very difficult to identify, it is recommended
that the economic analyses of the feasibility investigations
treat the construction, operation and maintenance cost of
salinity control projects as an all-federal expense.
A number of the salinity control projects identified in the
report, and other such projects that may be identified, will
cause a depletion of streamflow. These depletions will occur
in upstream states while the bulk of the benefits from the
reduction in salinity will be realized in downstream states.
This circumstance, because of the scarcity of water in the
Colorado River System, will give rise to institutional pro-
blems. Such institutional problems are not seen- as insur-
mountable and will be more readily resolved when all of the
facts concerning a particular salinity alleviation project
are available in the form of a feasibility report.
The thought of Recommendation 1 might better be made a part
of Recommendation 5 with language added to recognize that
it is almost inevitable that the concentration of dissolved
solids in the Colorado River will increase somewhat above
present levels before practicable salinity control measures
can be put into effect.
There are several points at which the assumptions and economic
analyses of the report are subject to question. We have fore-
gone discussion of technical aspects of the report for the
reason that we believe that the report adequately justifies
the undertaking of feasibility investigations; that such inves-
tigations should and will be made; and that the technical aspects
will be reviewed and modified as necessary in the course of
those investigations.
-------
696
Mr. John Wright
Page Nine
June 24, 1971
The Interstate Stream Commission appreciates the opportunity
given by the Environmental Protection Agency to review the
report and your courtesy in forwarding these comments.
/s.
Secretary
:retary j /
SERxre
-------
697
UTAH
-------
698
CALVIN L. HAMPTON
Governor
LTMAN I. OLSIN, M.D., M.F.H.
Mnetoi of RMHh
STATE OF UTAH-DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF HEALTH
44 MEDICAL DRIVE
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84113
AREA CODE 801
328-6121
September 14, 1971
Air Conwnratlon Committee
Health Facllitiei Council
Medical Examiner Committee
Nuninc Home Adviaory Council
Water Pollution Committee
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
72 Eut4th South
Salt Uk« City, Uuh
Mr. R. L. O'Connell
Acting Interim Regional Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
The following comments relate to our review of the draft report of
"The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin .
as is inevitable from any beneficial use.
standards at a later date.
We do «. believe 1,
IMT:cc
Sincerely yours,
(.^^.tc (i-
, Lynn M. Thatcher
Deputy Director of Health
Conferee"™ Pollution * *l*£g££^
of the Colorado River and its Tributaries
cc- State Division of Water Resources
Dallin Jensen, Asst. Attorney General
-------
699
WYOMING
-------
700
THE STATE ^j^ OF WYOMING
STATE OFFICE BUILDING CHEYENNE. WYOMING 82OOI
June 1, 1971
Mr. R. L. O'Connell
Acting Interim Regional Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 9^102
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
The draft reports on the Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River
Basin have been reviewed by several state agencies. At this point in time,
we feel it is not necessary to argue methodology or economic theory.
Certainly competent personnel has been involved from the start. It is
obvious that certain assumptions had to be made in conducting the study,
and while we may not agree with all of these assumptions, the need for making
them and the competence of the people involved in the study is unquestioned.
In the final analysis of this problem, it is realized that a general
approach was necessary. I tern 9 c. in the summary of the findings could be
a valid alternate in a generalized approach. However, it has to be acknow-
ledged at the start of any action program that such a limitation would not
be acceptable to the State of Wyoming and probably other Basin States with
undeveloped water resources. It must be firmly understood, at the start,
that water quality standards will not be a means of circumventing the
Colorado River Compact on water allocation.
Under Recommendations, Item k may be questionable, depending upon the
powers granted. Certainly the State of Wyoming would not relinquish their
authority concerning how and where water might be utilized within the State.
Attached are comments that are being submitted by the State Engineer's
office.
Very truly yours,
Arthur E. Williamson, M.S..P.E.
Director
Sanitary Engineering Services
AEW:cw
Attachment
cc: Floyd Bishdp, State Engineer, Cheyenne
-------
701
TUB *TATK
OF WYOMING
STATE OFFICE BUILDING
CHKYKNNE. WYOMING MOO1
June 1, 1971
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:
Dear Sir:
Interim Regional Coordinator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Floyd A. Bishop,
Wyoming State Engineer
Arthur Williamson, Conferee
Joint Federal-State "conference in the
matter of Pollution of the Interstate
Waters of the Colorado River and its
Tributaries."
Comments on the report entitled
Mineral Quality Problems in the Colorado
River Basin, dated November, 1970.
We have carefully reviewed the draft report on the Mineral
Quality Problems in the Colorado River Basin, and our comments on
that report are submitted herewith.
Throughout the report there are numerous statements to the
effect that one of the alternatives for accomplishing a reduction
of future salinity concentrations was limiting further use of water
in certain areas of the river basin. This approach would be patent-
ly unfair to those states that are not yet using their full Colo-
rado River Compact allocations, primarily the Upper Basin states.
-------
702
MEMORANDUM
Interim Regional Coordinator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2 June 1, 1971
The Upper Basin states ratified the Colorado River Compact
permitting the Lower Basin states to develop under the assumption
that the Upper Basin states were also entitled to develop at their
own rate and use their allocation of water, thereby reducing the
flow to the Lower Basin. In addition, since Upper Basin develop-
ment has not been as rapid as that of the Lower Basin, the Lower
Basin has been able to use a water supply which is better in both
quantity and quality that it is ultimately entitled to. There-
fore, it would be extremely inequitable to inhibit federal assis-
tance to, or limit in any way, the continued development of, the
Upper Colorado River Basin. It would in fact, be a circumvention
of the provisions of the treaties and compacts which make up the
"Law of the River."
The most equitable solution to the salinity problem is a
basin-wide salinity reduction program, with its costs assigned
to the beneficiaries of the improved quality water. This would
hold true regardless of the physical location of the individual
salinity control projects, or whether they be structures to im-
prove irrigation efficiency or ponds to evaporate saline springs.
AdmittedlyT the task of identifying all the beneficiaries of im-
proved water quality would be a formidable one. The costs assigned
£ those beneficiaries who could not be readily identified should
be absorbed by the Federal Government. The Federal Government has
an inherent interest and responsibility, since it owns 7
-------
703
MEMORANDUM
Interim Regional Coordinator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Page 3 June 1, 1971
The report recommended that a State/Federal agency should
carry on feasibility studies and otherwise administer basin-wide
salinity control programs. We agree with that proposal and fur-
ther suggest that the Bureau of Reclamation be given initial re-
sponsibility for carrying out the studies with close cooperation
from the Basin States. We agree that the planning phase should
be directed toward the objectives of providing sufficient infor-
mation for developing an implementation plan, of providing the
feasibility reports on which requests for construction funds for
necessary control works can be based, and of identifying construc-
tion, operation and related costs which would be properly assigned
to the beneficiaries and to other entities.
We appreciate the opportunity of commenting on the draft re-
ports on the Mineral Quality Program in the Colorado River Basin.
Your courtesy in extending the time for submitting comments to
June 7 has been helpful.
This matter is of great significance to all of the states of
the Colorado River Basin. We are anxious to be involved in the
activities which may stem from this report and hereby request that
you continue to keep us informed of progress made and actions taken
on this subject.
FAB/TB/mt
cc: Governor Stanley K. Hathaway
A. E. Williamson
-------
704
OTHER AGENCIES
-------
705
UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION
35 J South Fourth East Street
Salt La^e City. Utah 84111
July 2, 1971
Hon. William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1626 K Street
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus:
In April, 1971 the Environmental Protection Agency transmitted
for review by the seven Colorado River Basin States and other interested
entities a draft summary report (with three appendices) entitled "The
Mineral Quality Problem In The Colorado River Basin. " This report was
prepared by the Federal Water Quality Administration .
Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the Upper Colorado
River Commission at its Adjourned Regular Meeting held in Denver, Colo-
rado on June 30, 1971. This resolution expresses the basic elements of
the position of the Commission's four member States on the mineral quality
report.
The Upper Colorado River Commission is an administrative agency
created by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. The Commission
represents the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming in
matters pertaining to the development, utilization, and conservation of
the waters of the Upper Colorado River Basin .
Sincerely yours ,
Ival V. Goslin
Executive Director
IVGthiw
Enclosure
-------
706
CERTIFICATE
I, IVAL V. GOSLIN, Executive Director of the Upper Colorado River Com-
mission, do hereby certify that the above Resolution was unanimously adopted
by the Upper Colorado River Commission at an Adjourned Regular Meeting held
at Denver, Colorado on June 30, 1971.
WITNESS my hand this 2nd day of July, 1971.
Ival V. Goslin
Executive Director
-------
707
Re solution
by
Upper Colorado River Commission
re:
Draft Report Entitled, The Mineral Quality Problem In The Colorado River Basin
by Federal Water Quality Administration
June 30, 1971
WHEREAS, on August 8, 1962, the Upper Colorado River Commission
unanimously adopted a resolution favoring "a study of any and all measures for
the reduction of the salinity of Colorado River waters delivered for use in the
Republic of Mexico"; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1967, said Commission, after having been
informed that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration had proposed
that quantitative criteria for total dissolved solids be set at various points in
the Colorado River system based on an upper limit of 1000 mg/1 at Imperial Dam,
unanimously adopted another resolution stating that: "water quality criteria on
the Colorado River should not preclude or interfere with the reasonable use of
water in the Upper Basin within the terms of the Colorado River Compact"; and
WHEREAS, in April 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency transmitted
to the States of the Colorado River Basin a preliminary draft of Summary Report
on "The Mineral Quality Problem In The Colorado River Basin" prepared under
the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Quality Administration of the Department
of the Interior, and requested comments thereon; and
WHEREAS, said Summary Report constitutes only_a reconnais.s_ance_step
toward the solution of the mineraiquality. problem of the Colorado River system,
and lacks sufficient information to assure that numerical salinity control stand -
ards._would be equitable, workable, and enforceable; and
WHEREAS, said Summary Report contains certain recommendations includ-
ing a recommendation that numerical salinity criteria of 1000 mg/1 monthly average
at Imperial Dam and 800 mg/1 monthly average at Hoover Dam be implemented at
this time. This recommendation is dj^mejrically o£E9-Sed to previously stated
policies of the Upper Colorado. JUver_J5pjmni_ssion and the major purpose of the
Upper Colorado River Basin Compact "to secure the expeditious agricultural and
industrial development nf the Upper Basin. . . . ":
-------
708
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Upper Colorado River Com-
mission that:
(1) any broad policy objective pertaining to salinity_cpntrol for the
entire Colorado River System must treat the~saj,inity problem as
a basinwide_problem that needs to be solved to maintain Lower
Basin water quality reasonably near present levels while the
Upper Basin continues to develop its compact-apportioned water
and must recognize that water quality may be degraded until
control measures become operable; "
(2) numerical salinity control criteria should not be established
until salt load reduction projects have been constructed and
their operation proved practicable;
(3) the consumptive use of water in salinity control projects must
be charged to the beneficiaries of those salinity control projects;
(4) the Bureau of Reclamation should be assigned the primary re-
sponsibility for feasibility investigations , planning, and imple-
menting a basinwide salt load reduction program at Federal
expense in recognition cf the major responsibilities of the United
States with respect to the Colorado River as an interstate and
international stream; and
(5) the member States of the Upper Colorado River Commission should
cooperate with the three lower Colorado River Basin States and
the Federal government in the resolution of the mineral quality
problem of the Colorado River System.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Environmental Protection Agency be
commended for making available copies of the Summary Report on "The Mineral
Quality Problem In The Colorado River Basin" for review by interested agencies
of the seven Colorado River Basin States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be transmitted
to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary of the
Interior, Governors and Members of the Congress of the Colorado River Basin
States, Commissioner of Reclamation, and other interested entities.
, U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 722-874/461
------- |