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

-------