PROCEEDINGS
COLORADO
eventh Session
February 15-17,1972
Vegas, Nevada
e 2
NEW MEXICO
CONFIiRENCI
j
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
-------
SEVENTH SESSION
OP 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
held at
Las Vegas, Nevada
February 15-17, 1972
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME II
-------
708-fl
R. Freeman
MR. FREEMAN: The Colorado River Basin Water Quality
!
Control Project was established as a result of recommendations j
made at the first session of the joint State-Federal Conference j
|
in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colo-!
rado River and its Tributaries, This session was held in
January I960 under authority of Section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as the Chairman has already explained.
The 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 con-
ference and provides the conferees with detailed information on
water uses, the nature and extent of pollution problems and
their effects on water uses, and with recommended measures to
control pollution in the Colorado River Basin.
The Environmental Protection Agency was established
by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 and became operative on
December 2, 1970. EPA consolidates in one agency Federal con-
trol programs Involving air and water pollution, solid waste
management, pesticides, radiation and noise. This report was
prepared over a period of 8 years by water program components
of EPA and their predecessor agencies, those being the Federal
Water Quality Administration of the U. S. Department of the
-------
: 709
R, Freeman
Interior, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
of the U. S. Department of the Interior, and the Division of
Water Supply and Pollution Control of the U. S. Public Health
Service. Throughout the report one or more of these agencies
may be mentioned and these should be considered as part of a
single agency in evolution*
MR. STEIN: Say, Russ, will you slow up a little?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. FREEMAN: The project has carried out extensive
field investigations along with detailed engineering and economljc
studies to accomplish the following objectives.
For those who wish to follow in the report, I am
reading now from the introduction.
The first objective: to determine the location,
magnitude, and causes of interstate pollution of the Colorado
River and its tributaries. The findings with regard to this
part of the report will be presented by Mr. Blackman later.
The second objective was to determine and evaluate
the nature and magnitude of damages to water users caused by
various types of pollution. And these findings will be pre-
sented by Mr. Jim Russell.
The third objective was to develop, evaluate, and
-------
1110,
R. Freeman
recommend measures and programs for controlling or minimising
interstate water pollution problems* And our recommendations
here will be discussed by Hr. Jim Vincent.
In 1963* based upon recommendations of the conferees,
the project began detailed studies of the mineral quality prob-
lem. Mineral quality, which is commonly known as salinity, is
a complex baslnwlde problem and it is becoming increasingly
Important to users of Colorado River water. Due to the nature,
extent, and impact of the salinity problem, the project has
extended its activities over the entire Colorado River Basin
and the southern California water service area.
The basin, for those of you not familiar with it, is
shown on. the map and the outlines of the seven basin States are
included.
The more significant findings and data from the
project's salinity studies and related pertinent information
are summarized in the report which we are presenting this
morning. This report consists of a summary document and four
appendices. The first appendix describes natural and manmade
conditions affecting mineral quality* Appendix B describes
the physical and economic impacts. Appendix C describes
salinity control and management aspects. And Appendix D con-
tains the comments of various State agencies upon a draft
-------
111
B. Freeman
report which was submitted for their review.
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, Its river basin covers an area of 244,000
square miles or 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 1 percent of the basin drain?lands
in Mexico.
The Colorado River rises on the east slope of Mount
Richthofen, a peak on the Continental Divide having an alti-
tude of 13,000 feet, and it 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 this
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. *»ee Ferry is located about 1 mile below the confluence
-------
712
R. Freeman
of the Paria River and approximately 17 miles downstream from
Glen Canyon Dam* The {fpper Basin encompasses about MS percent
of the drainage area of the basin and the Lower the remaining
55 percent.
In addition to the Colorado River Basin, the projects
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 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 the mountain ranges. At low eleva-
tions, or in the rain shadow of coastal mountain ranges, desert
areas may receive as little as 6 inches ef precipitation
annually, while high mountain areas may receive more than 60
inches.
Again, for those of you who wish to follow, I am now
reading from page 11 of the Summary Report document.
Basin temperatures 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 Yuma
-------
. ZI2
R, Freeman
and Phoenix. On a given day, both the low and high temperature
extremes for the Continental United States frequently occur at
points 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,
The Colorado River Basin is sparsely populated. In
1965 the estimated population was nearly two and a quarter
million. The average density was about 9 persons per square
mile as compared with the 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 metropolitan
areas, those at Las Vegas, Nevada, Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona
The population of the Colorado River Basin will be—it
is estimated that the population of the Colorado River Basin
will triple by 2010.
The southern California water service area contained
an estimated 11 million people in 1965* Most of the population
was concentrated in the highly urbanized Los Angeles-San Diego
metropolitan complex*
The economy of the basin Is based on manufacturing,
Irrigated agriculture, mining, forestry, oil and gas production,
-------
. 714
R, Freeman
livestock and tourism. The present economy of the Upper Basin
Is still largely resource oriented.
In the last two decades, however, the economy of the
lower basin has experienced a significant transition from an
agricultural and mining base to a manufacturing and 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 manufacturing and parts, primary metals industries,
food and kindred products, printing and publishing, and chemi-
cals. However, agriculture continues to play an important role
admidst the fast-growing industrial and commercial activity of
the lower basin.
Turning our attention to water resources, an average
of about 200 million acre-feet of water a year is provided by
precipitation within the Colorado River Basin. All but about
18 million acre-feet of this is returned to the atmosphere by
evapotranspiratlon. Most of the stream flows originate in the
high forest areas where heavy snow packs accumulate and evapo-
transpiration is low, A small amount of runoff originates at
lower altitudes, primarily from Infrequent storms. Approxi-
mately two-thirds of the runoff is produced from about 6 percent
of the Upper Basin area.
-------
: 715
R. Freeman
Stream flows fluctuate widely from year to year and
season to season because of variations in precipitation and
i
i numerous reservoirs have been constructed to make water avail-
i
!
| able for local needs, for exports, and for downstream obliga-
|tlons. The usable capacity of basin reservoirs is about 62
i
!
million acre-feet.
In addition to State laws which provide for intra-
i
I state 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 19^4, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact signed in 19*8,
and the Supreme Court decree of 196* in the case of Arizona
versus California.
Among other provisions, the Colorado River Compact
apportions to each of the Upper and Lower Basins in perpetuity
the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,5 million acre-
feet of water from the Colorado River system each year. It
further establishes the obligation of the upper division not
to cause the flow of the river at Lees Ferry to be depleted
below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet for the period of
any 10 consecutive years.
The Mexican Water Treaty defines the rights of Mexico
to use of water from the Colorado River system. It guarantees
-------
.716
R, Freeman
the delivery of 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water
annually from the United States to Mexico.
The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact guarantees
Arizona 50,000 acre-feet of water and apportions the remaining
7.5 million acre-feet among the Upper Basin States on a per-
centage basis.
In 1965 about 0.5 million acre-feet of water was
exported out of the tipper 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 River area in California totaled about 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 and
surface water sources serves irrigated agriculture within the
basin. The remaining portion is used principally for municipal
and Industrial use. Approximately three-fourths or 7 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 produc-
tion, recreation, fish and wildlife, and other such uses. In
the urban areas of the basin, municipal and industrial uses are
-------
•- 717
R, Freeman
increasing significantly due to the rapid rate of population
!growth.
One of the largest causes of stream flow depletion in
i
the basin is surface evaporation from storage reservoirs. Over
2.0 million acre-feet of water are estimated to evaporate
;
annually from the lakes and reservoirs in the basin. Most of
i
|this evaporation is from major storage reservoirs on the main
stem of the Colorado River.
With this brief discussion of the setting and con-
ditions of the river, at this point I would like to turn to Mr.
Blackman for a presentation of the project studies of salinity
problems within the basin.
WILLIAM C. BLACKMAN !
REGION VIII
i
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY j
i
DENVER, COLORADO I
MR. BLACKMAN: Mr. Chairman, conferees. I am William j
j
C. Blackman. During the period of the field engineering I
studies which I am about to describe I was Chief, Pollution
Source Evaluation Section, Colorado River Basin Water Quality
Control Project.
There are two basic causes of salinity increases in
-------
: 718
W. C. Blackman
streams. These are the salt loading effect and the salt con-
centrating effect. The salt loading effect is the addition of
minerals to streams by dissolution of mineral matter and addi-
tion of the solutes to streams* The salt concentrating effects
are those such as evapotranspiration which abstract water from
the stream system, leaving the salt burden in the watershed. A
more detailed explanation of these effects is provided in
Chapter II of Appendix A.
As part of its overall study of the mineral quality
problem, the Colorado project carried out a thorough review and |
I
i
statistical analysis of past water quality data and made j
i
i
detailed field investigations of present conditions. The )
i
i
statistical studies were designed to identify significant
changes in mineral quality with respect to time and distance,
to define the relationships of natural and manmade hydro-
geological factors, and to assist in the selection of points
or reaches of stream where additional sampling was needed.
In order to analyze the changes in quality with
respect to time, we selected the total dissolved solids or TDS
data as the input statistic, TDS is a broad analytical proce-
dure which is generally indicative of mineral quality. More-
over, TDS was the only parameter other than pH or specific
conductance which has been reported continuously throughout the
-------
719
W, C, Blackmail
period of record at each sampling station.
It Is necessary that Input data for use In statistical
analyses be suitable for the particular analysis being used. We
Initially attempted to apply the standard analytical technique
known as analysis of variance using yearly average TDS concen-
trations. In order for the analysis of variance to be valid,
it is necessary—can we dim the lights?---it is necessary that
the data occur in a normal distribution. In other words, 95
percent of all observed values should fall within two standard
deviations of the mean,
...Slides,..
This figure Illustrates the normal distribution
wherein frequency of observation is plotted vertically and the
measured values are plotted horizontally, giving the familiar
bell-shaped curve of a normal distribution.
Our initial examination of the data for unregulated
streams of the Colorado River Basin revealed a bl-modal distri-
bution of TDS concentrations. Those of you who have Appendix A
will recognize this slide as Figure 1 in the Appendix, Bl-modal
distributions such as those Illustrated Indicate that two
different populations were sampled. Most of the low TDS con-
centrations are associated with the high spring runoff flows,
whereas TDS values associated with the second peak on the plots
-------
720
W. C. Blackmail
are for the low stream flow months.
We discovered that by separating the data for the
runoff months and the base flow months the frequency of
occurrences of TDS concentrations at most stations were
normally distributed or sufficiently so that analysis of
variance could be used.
In Figure M in Appendix A you see the distribution
of monthly mean TDS concentrations for base flow months for the
Eagle River near Gypsum, Colorado.
During runoff months, as shown in Figure 7 of the
appendix, the distribution also approximates a normal distribu-
tion curve except that the curve is skewed slightly toward the
lower values.
Downstream of the major impoundments, as might be
expected, the frequencies of occurrences of TDS concentrations
are distributed normally due to the mixing effect of the major
reservoirs. This is the distribution curve for the Colorado
River at Parker Dam,
The analysis of variance compares the variance in
means for periods of time in which apparent changes took place.
These periods were identified by the use of mass curve tech-
niques such, as illustrated here. This is Figure 9 in your
appendix. The break which you see occurred here in water year
-------
721
W, C. Blackman
defined the two periods which were selected for testing at
this particular station. Test of this apparent increase by
analysis of variance showed the change to be significant and
the cause for the increase was found to be reduced stream flow.
Now, the foregoing is an explanation of the statisti-
cal methods whereby we reached conclusions concerning changes
in salinity with respect to time in the Colorado River and these
are the conclusions:
During base flow months, that is August through
March, four stations located above Hoover Dam exhibited
Increases in TDS concentrations, four show 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 significant
decreases in salinity during the runoff months at these
stations. It is significant that only Increases in TDS occurred
during the runoff months*
It is during these runoff months that most of the
yield or water supply of the Colorado Basin flows into the
reservoirs for use by irrigators, industries, and municipalities
of the basin and its adjacent water service areas.
The analyses of changes in mineral quality with
respect to distance were carried out in essentially the same
-------
___ 722
W. C. Blackraan
manner and the results were entirely predictable. Proceeding
in the downstream direction, there were statistically signifi-
cant Increases in TDS concentrations between each pair of
upstream and downstream stations. For example, on the Colorado
River during base flow months, yearly mean TDS concentrations
Increased from 9* mg/1 at Hot Sulpher Springs to 402 mg/1 at
Glenwood Springs to 732 mg/1 at Cameo, and so on downstream.
During runoff months at the same time TDS concentrations
increased from 77 mg/1 at Hot Sulpher Springs to 208 mg/1 at
Qlenwood Springs to 265 mg/1 at Cameo, and again so on down-
stream.
I will now describe for you briefly and summarize the
field surveys which were carried out to define stream reaches in
which major changes in salinity and mineral composition occur
and to identify those sources which might be amenable to control
This map, which is Figure 14 in Appendix A, shows the
network of sampling stations operated by project personnel and
the U. S. Geological Survey at key locations en principal
streams in the upper basin. Those stations where just a half
circle is shewn are the long-term USGS stations that were
incorporated into this work. These stations were selected to
provide measurement of salt loads entering and leaving sig-
nificant watersheds and to define the magnitude ef change* in
-------
123.
W« C. Blackmail
mineral composition within critical reaches of streams*
Here are the sampling locations in the Lower Basin,
Once again we incorporated the USGS stations and also two
stations operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California.
We subdivided the basin Into a number of hydrologlc
units, which were usually watersheds, which we refer to in the
report as study areas. Within each study area we measured the
salt yields attributable to discrete or point sources such as
springs, seeps, abandoned oil test wells, municipal and Indus-
trial discharges, cooling water, surface return flows from
irrigated areas, producing oil fields, and coal and metal
mining operations* With this information we then developed
water and salt load budgets for each area.
A budget in water quality terms is an accounting of
the amount of salt and water entering, originating in, and
leaving an area* From these budgets the contributions from
diffuse sources such as leaching and seepage associated with
Irrigation and direct overland runoff to streams were calcu-
lated. This technique is described in a general way in Appendix
A and more fully by Vaughn Irons and his associates in U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Papers MMl and 442.
I have singled out a typiftal study area to Illustrate
-------
724
W, C. Blackmail
the type of Information which was developed for each study area.
This example, which is referred to in the report as Study Area
23, includes the entire drainage area of the Dolores and San
Miguel Rivers as seen in this slide. This is Figure 36 in
Appendix A. The study area covers 45,000 square miles in
Montezuma, Dolores, San Miguel, Montrose and Mesa Counties in
Colorado and Grand and San Juan Counties in Utah, As you can
see In this illustration, TDS increased from 137 mg/1 in the
headwaters of the Dolores to 966 mg/1 below Bedrock, This
Increase Is primarily attributable to salt accretions from the
Paradox formation.
On the San Miguel River, TDS concentrations increased
from 130 mg/1 in the headwaters to 462 mg/1 at the mouth.
The salt.budget developed for this area--next slide,
please—the salt budget developed for this area is as shown in
this slide. As you can see, irrigation contributed 46 tons/day
or 2.8 percent of the total load, industrial effluent and seep-
age from industrial ponds contributed 119 tons/day or 7.2
percent of the total load, springs and salt seeps contributed
695 tons/day or 41.8 percent of the total load, mine drainage
contributed 20 tons/day or 1.2 percent, and runoff contributed
780 tons/day or 47 percent.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I wish to enter into the
-------
725
W. C. Blackman
record a correction on page 119 of Appendix A. The percentages
which I have Just enumerated should be substituted for those
which are tabulated on page 119 of the report.
MR. STEIN: That will be done.
MR. BLACKMAN: The water and salt budget method
utilized in these studies is well suited to headwaters areas
where stream flow and quality are sensitive to small Inputs
of water and salt. The method is less suitable for downstream
reaches where errors in flow measurement or laboratories analyse
can mask or distort the calculated response to salt Inputs.
Owing to the very large diversions and highly developed systems
of irrigation drains, the Lower Colorado River Basin studies
were treated in terms of the effects of salt load inputs and
stream diversions. The data developed regarding each source
was then evaluated to determine possibilities and benefits to
be derived from control. Mr. Vincent will summarize the control
aspects of this work following this presentation*
During the period June 1965 through May 1966 the mean
flow from the Upper Colorado Basin was 19,263 CFS. The salt
load discharged into Lake Powell during the same period
averaged 26,160 tons/day. The relative magnitudes of salt loads
contributed by various types of sources in the Colorado Basin
are summarised graphically In this slide, which Is Figure 45 in
-------
_.: :_ _ __ _...._ 126,
W. C, Blackman
I the appendix. As you can see, in the tipper Basin 52 percent of
!the salt load was contributed by runoff, 37 percent by irri-
i
'gated agriculture, 9 percent by natural point sources in wells,
!
1
| and 2 percent by municipal and industrial sources. In the
i
i Lower Colorado River Basin 72 percent of the entire salt load
! - !
'• I
jwas contributed by the sources we have Just talked about in the j
i Upper Colorado Basin. Natural point sources contributed 15 j
I percent, runoff contributed 4 percent, irrigated agriculture i
i 9 percent,and municipal and industrial sources less than 1
i
i percent.
i
J This next slide, which is Figure 47 in Appendix A,
illustrates graphically the relative salt loads from Irrigated
areas throughout the Colorado River Basin. The area contributing
the largest amount of salt load—the irrigated area contributing
the largest amount of salt load is the Gunnlson River Basin in
the Upper Basin, which contributed 29 percent* This is mostly
from irrigated areas in the Delta-Montrose area, the Grand
Valley area, which contributed 18 percent* These irrigated
areas are mainly in the Grand Junction area* Other areas in the
upper main stem contributed 5 percent.
In the Green River subbasin the irrigated areas in
the Duchesne River, that is in eastern Utah, contributed 13
percent; those in the Price River Basin contributed 5 percent;
-------
_ _ 727
- -- -.- - -j
W. C. Blackman !
i
the Lyraan area in southwestern Wyoming contributed 4 percent; |
other irrigated areas in the Green subbasin contributed 10
percent.
Of the salt loads contributed by irrigated areas,
those in the San Juan River subbasin contributed 5 percent and
in the lower main stem subbasin 11 percent.
Now, this next slide, which is Figure 48, shows the
actual salt yields in tons/acre per year from various irrigated
areas in the basin. These range from almost 0 for the irri-
gated areas of the Green River above the New Pork River to
approximately 8.5 tons per acre per year for the irrigated
areas on the Price River. I think it is noteworthy that the
Colorado River Indian reservation yield was approximately 0.5
ton per acre per year while the Palo Verde irrigation district
Just across the river, situated on the same alluvial structure
and Irrigating the same type of soil, yielded more than 2.0
tons per acre per year. This difference is attributable to the
fact that the irrigated areas on the Indian reservation were
nearly all tile drained and well leached, while drains in the
Palo Verde district were being deepened and additional leaching
was taking place during the period of the investigation* These
kinds of considerations bear heavily upon salinity control
feasibility decisions.
-------
728
W. C, Blackman
This figure, which Is Figure 49 In the appendix,
compares the relative magnitude of some of the major springs
and point sources of salt In the Colorado Basin* As you can
see, the largest single point source In the whole basin Is
Blue Spring, which Is situated at the mouth of the Little
Colorado In the Lower Basin* The load contributed there is
approximately 1,500 tons/day, and to get some perspective of
this, If you were to evaporate the water from this discharge
you would have a train of about 30 hopper cars full of dry salt
per day issuing from this spring. The Paradox Valley formation
contributes 15 percent—let' s continue the Lower Basin. In the
Lower Basin La Verkln Spring contributes 6 percent and other
point sources 5 percent. In the Upper Basin the largest natural
point source is Glenwood Spring contributing 23 percent, the
Paradox Valley contributing 15 percent, Dotsero Spring 10 percenf,
and other sources 7 percent.
In the San Juan subbasin the Mancos shale of the La
Plata and McElmo Creeks cause the waters of the San Juan, to
become predominantly calcium sodium sulfate type. In the Green
River subbasin irrigation return flows and runoff from Eocene
lake beds causes similar changes in the predominant ions. In
the upper main stem of the Colorado, runoff and.irrigation
return flows in.the Uncompahgre and the highly saline formations
-------
. 123,
W. C. Blackman
of the Dolores River cause the upper main stem to become
predominantly calcium sodium sulfate type waters. Increasing
concentrations of these constltutente cause higher treatment
costs for use by a wide range of industries and increased
leaching requirement for irrigated crops, and,in fact,damage
to some crops. In the lower main stem this predominance con-
tinues down to the intensely irrigated areas of the Colorado
River Indian reservation, the Palo Verde Irrigation district
and the Gila project where the irrigation returns cause the
river to become predominantly sodium chloride type* In addi-
tion to the effects described earlier, waters high in sodium
and chloride are directly toxic to sensitive plants. Now,
there is a much more detailed description of these effects in
Appendix B of your report*
Ionic diagrams are provided in Figures 50 through
53 of Appendix A, which also will give you a rundown on the
changes in mineral composition which take place throughout the
basin,
May we have the next slide, please?
This summary brings up to date the salinity data for
key stations in the basin. In the upstream stations, Cameo and
Qreen River, you can see that between I960 and 1970 there were
the usual fluctuations in total dissolved solids concentration,
-------
: : 130
W. C, Blackman
most of these attributable to differences in yield in that
particular—that is, runoff in that particular basin. Leeb
Ferry and Grand Canyon, Arizona, some increase can be seen
between I960 and 1970. It is important to note that the large
value 1,030 mg/1 at Grand Canyon in 1963 is associated with
the closure of Glen Canyon Dam and should not be considered a
normal value.
Proceeding on downstream, we really don't need a
statistical analysis to see that at Parker Dam and at Imperial
Dam there have been substantial Increases between I960 and
1970, at Parker Dam from 631 mg/1 to 764 mg/1 and at Imperial
Dam from 777 mg/1 to 927 mg/1.
We do not show earlier data for the northerly inter-
national boundary there because salinity is greatly affected by
the Weldon-Mohawk bypass channel which was constructed about
the middle of the period,
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jim Russell.will, now present the
physical and economic impacts of these salt sources which I
halve described.
-------
731
J, D. Russell
JAMES D. RUSSELL
REGION IX
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, conferees.
My name is James D. Russell and during the period of
investigations of the salinity problem of the Colorado River
Basin I was Chief of the Planning Branch of the Colorado River
Basin Office,
Long-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
various 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 I will discuss in
the next few minutes.
Historical salinity and stream flow data for the 19*12
through 1961 period of hydrologic record were used as the basis
for estimating average salinity concentrations under various
-------
J, D, Russell
conditions of water development and use. This historical data
was modified to reflect the effects that water uses existing in
I960 would have 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 I960 base conditions.
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 were based on the assumption i
that water resource development would proceed as planned in
1967 and that the 19*2 through 1961 hydrologic record would be
repeated. 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 stream flow and other hydrologlcal factors*
Figure 5, which is found in Appendix B, from .which
most of my presentation will be taken, displays those projected
concentrations at nine stations in the basin. It is particu-
larly Important, I think, to note the concentrations at Hoover
Dam and Imperial Dam, because for our analysis these became
rather critical points in the system.
I960 base concentrations were 697 mg/1 at Hoover Dam
-------
Z33
J. D. Russell
and 759 mg/1 at Imperial Dam,
On the basis of the assumptions I just described, these
concentrations were calculated to rise to 876 mg/1 at Hoover Dam
in 19&0 and 1,056 mg/1 at Imperial Dam in 198.0•
For the year 2010, which was the last target year of
our analysis, the concentrations were calculated to be 990
mg/1 at Hoover Dam and 1,223 mg/1 at Imperial Dam.
It Is Important to recognize that salinity concentra-
tions projected for the Colorado River depend heavily upon many
factors, among which are assumptions of the base period of
record and the assumed pattern of future development. For
example, the Colorado River Board of California estimated a
concentration of 1,070 mg/1 at Imperial Dam for 1980, which
compares quite favorably to our estimate of 1,056 mg/1 at that
location.
On the other hand, the Water Resources Council, using
projections of economic development prepared by the Office of
Business Economics and the Economic Research Service of the
Department of Agriculture, predicted a concentration of 1,260
mg/1 at Imperial Dam in 1980,
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
-------
Dl
J. 0, Russell
concentrations were computed to the nearest mg/1 in making the
projections shown in Figure 5. However, it is not intended that
a high degree of accuracy be implied by these numbers.
It is significant that in the past, salt loading was
the dominant factor affecting salinity concentrations, con-
tributing about three-fourths of average salinity concentrations
at Hoover Dam under I960 conditions* In contrast, future
Increases in salinity levels will result primarily from flow
depletions caused by out-of-basin exports, reservoir evapora-
tion, and consumptive use of water for municipal, Industrial,
and agricultural purposes.
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 I960 and the year 2010
will be the result of increases in reservoir evaporation brought
about by the filling of major storage reservoirs completed since
I960 and of increases in consumptive use brought about by the
expansion of irrigated agriculture.
Water uses exhibit an increasing sensitivity to
rising salinity concentrations. As concentrations of salinity
-------
735
J. D. Russell
rise, water use is progressively impaired until at some critical
level, defined as a threshold level, utilization of the supply
becomes restricted. In the Colorado River Basin, future salinit
concentrations will be below threshold levels for instream
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, however, present salinity
concentrations are above threshold levels for municipal, indus-
trial and agricultural uses. Some impairment of these uses is
now occurring and future increases in salinity will increase
this adverse impact*
The project investigated these progressive impairments
of water uses and developed methods to quantify the resulting
economic impact on both water users and on 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
-------
J. D. Russell
main study areas: the lower main stem and Glla areas In the
Lower Basin and the southern California area encompassing the
southern California water service area. The boundaries of
these study areas follow political rather than hydrological
boundaries and are shown in Figure 3 of Appendix B,
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* The southern
California water service area includes Santa Barbara, Ventura,
Los Angeles, San Bernardino,Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and
Imperial Counties in California,
The Gila study area includes Cochise, Qila, Graham,
Greenlee, Marieopa, Pima, Final, Santa Cruz and Yavapai Counties
in Arizona and Catron County in New Mexico*
Irrigated agriculture accounts for most of the water
use in these areas, amounting to over 70 percent of the river
water used in the lower main stem and southern California areas*
For the Gila study area there will be very little impact until
1980, when water deliveries to the central Arizona project were
assumed to begin.
Hay we have the lights back on?
Initial evaluations of possible salinity effects on
basin water uses indicated that adverse physical effects would
-------
J. D, Russell
13.7
i
essentially be limited to municipal, industrial, and agricul-
tural uses.
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 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, which may force a com-
munity or a group of citizens, at any rate, to go to a bottled
water supply* By most hardness measures, raw water supplies
derived from the Colorado River at or below Lake Mead would be |
!
classified as very hard. :
I
Boiler feed and cooling water comprise a major portlonj
i
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 affected by
mineral quality. The required mineral quality levels are main-
tained in boiler and cooling systems by periodically adding an
amount of relatively good quality water, termed makeup water,
-------
738
J. D. Russell
and discharging from the system an equal volume of the poorer
quality water, termed 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. Truck crops such as
carrots, onions, melons, lettuce, sweet corn, and tomatoes, as
well as citrus crops such as oranges, lemons, and grapefruit,
have already been detrimentally affected by the application of
Colorado River water*
The primary means of combatting detrimental salinity
concentrations in the soil are to switch to salt-tolerant crops
such as sorghum, barley or oats, or to apply more irrigation
water and leach out excess salts from the soil.
-------
739
J. D. Russell
The physical impacts which I have Just described 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 deter-
gents or purchase home softening units; 2) they could build a
central water softening plant; or 3) they could develop a new
less mineralized water supply.
Industrial users could combine more extensive treat-
ment of their water supply with the purchase of additional make-
up water based upon the economics of prevailing conditions.
The alternatives available to irrigation water users
are governed by the availability of additional water. 1) The
Irrigator could, if he does nothing, suffer economic loss from
reduced crop yleQds. 2) If additional water is available, root
zone salinity may be reduced by increasing leaching water
application. The irrigator in this case would incur increased
costs for the purchase of water, for additional labor for water
application, and for Increased application of fertilizer to
replace the fertilizer leached out. Or 3) if no additional
water is available, the irrigator can Increase the leaching of
salts from the soil by applying the same amount of water to a
lesser acreage. This, of course, results in an economic loss,
-------
J. D, Russell
since fewer crops can be grown* 4) The last alternative is to
plant salt-tolerant crops, such as sorghum, in which case an
economic loss will usually occur, since the 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 analysis. The yield-decrement method, which
measures reductions in crop yield resulting from salinity
Increases, was selected to evaluate the direct economic Impact
on irrigated agriculture. For industrial uses, an estimate of
required makeup water associated with salinity increases was
selected to calculate the direct economic cost. Direct
municipal costs were estimated by calculating the required
additional soap and detergents needed.
In addition to the direct economic costs Incurred by
the users of Colorado River water, there are indirect effects on
the regional economy because of the interdependence of numerous
economic activities. These effects, termed indirect costs, can
be determined if the interdependence of economic activities are
known.
The projects economic base study investigated the
interdependence of various categories of economic activity or
sectors. These were quantified for I960 conditions and were
-------
741
J. D, Russell
projected for the target years 1980 and 2010, A digital com-
puter program was developed to follow changes affecting any
given industry through a chain of transactions in order to identify
secondary or indirect economic costs of salinity.
The sum of direct user costs and indirect costs
suffered by the regional economy are termed total salinity
detriments. The detailed economic analysis used to derive
total salinity.detriments is discussed in detail in Appendix B,
For the purposes of this presentation, we will discuss results
of that analysis as applied to expected salinity levels at Hoover
Dam,
Hoover Dam is a.key point on the Colorado River
system. Water quality at mostcpolnts 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.
The table now displayed shows that under I960 con-
ditions the annual-economic impact of salinity was estimated to
total $.9.5 million. Although not shown on this table, we have
-------
J. D. Russell
estimated that present salinity detriments, those occurring in
1970, 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 would increase to $27*7 million annually in
1980 and $50.5 million in the year 2010.
May we have the lights, please«
It should be noted that the majority of salinity
detriments or nearly 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 southern California.
Also Important is that we found that over three-
fourths of the salinity detriments 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.
Salinity detriments in the Sila study area will be
minor and will not occur until after 1980 when water deliveries
to the central Arizona project were assumed to begin*
It must be remembered that the methodology employed
by the project staff was intentionally conservative. All costs
-------
J. D. Russell
developed by this report to describe the impact of salinity
must be considered minimal values. Comments received from
California bear out this fact. In his letter of June 4, 1971,
Mr, Jerome Gilbert concluded that, and I quote:
We believe that the penalty costs
developed in the report show the severity of
the problem but must be considered minimum values.
Our reasons for this conclusion are as follows:
In the report, the cost impact
on urban uses is related almost
entirely to the cost of softening
hard water in central system soften-
ing plants, A number of recent
technical 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 the
water purveyor facilities, on distri-
bution systems, on the water pipes and
appliances within and on user premises,
and on horticultural effects in residential
-------
J. D. Russell
and urban areas. The cost impact from
these causes has been variously esti-
mated by investigators to be no less
than $5 per acre foot of water used per
100 ppm increase In salinity. In addi-
tion 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
adverse effects of poor taste of high
salinity water supplies.
The second point which Mr. Gilbert made was that:
The agricultural impacts of high
salinity water are also understated in
that they are predicated upon the yield-
decrement method of analyzing cost Impacts.
IrrsLgators In California have not been accepting
lower yields In accordance with the yleld-r
decrement method, but have been spending
millions of dollars attempting to main-
tain yields through Installation of sub-
terranean tile drains, increasing water
-------
: 745
J. 0. Russell
applications, and changing to expensive
methods of irrigation. End quote.
That concludes this portion of the EPA presentation.
At this point 1 would like to introduce--
MR. STEIN: Just a moment. We are going to recess
for lunch.
Because of commitments that some people have, we will
|reconvene promptly at 1:30.
(Whereupon, at 12:10 o'clock a noon recess was
taken.)
-------
AFTERNOON SESSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1972
1:30 o'clock
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene, j
i
i
Mr, Dickstein. i
I
MR. DICKSTEIN: Mr. Vincent, please. [
JAMES VINCENT
REGION VIII
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. VINCENT: Mr, Chairman, and conferees.
My name is James Vincent. During the salinity studies
conducted by the Colorado River Basin Project which we are dis-
cussing here today I was Senior Engineer in the Water Quality
Management Unit.
A dilemma confronts the Colorado River Basin States.
If no action is taken to manage present salinity levels, future
economic development that results in further increases in
salinity levels will in turn produce adverse economic effects
on the basin economy. Implementation of controls to minimize
salinity increases would require a major expenditure of funds.
Regardless of the action taken by the States, a substantial
economic effect will result*
-------
J. Vincent j
| A number of alternative approaches to solution of this
I
t
idilemma are available to the States. An awareness of the water
!quality and related economic effects associated with these
alternative approaches is essential before a rational decision
can be made regarding the course of action best suited to meet-
ing State and Federal objectives for enhancement of water
quality and wise utilization of the basin's resources.
In my presentation, I will discuss the various
alternative approaches available, the technical possibilities
for salinity control, control measures considered most prac-
tical, potential salinity control programs, and the economic
impact of various levels of salinity control* Detailed dis-
cussions of the various salinity control and management aspects
i
are contained in Appendix C, to which I will be referring
throughout my presentation. j
i
i
Three basic approaches, or a combination of these !
i
approaches, might be used to achieve a solution to the salinity j
problem: 1) we could do nothing; 2) limit development; or 3) i
i
i
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
-------
748
J. Vincent
works. This approach, in effect, ignores the problem and allows
unrestrained economic development at the expense of an increased!
i
i
adverse economic impact resulting from rising salinity concen- j
i
trations. Mr, Russell just before lunch discussed increases in |
future salinity levels and economic impact associated with this j
i
i
approach* i
The second approach would limit economic or water ;
resource development that is expected to produce an increase in i
salt loads or stream flow depletions. Such an approach would !
|
minimize future increases and economic Impact of salinity and i
possibly might eliminate the need for salinity control facil- j
|
ities. It has the obvious disadvantage, however, of possibly
stagnating growth of the regional economy.
p
The third approach, calling for construction of |
salinity control works, would allow water resource development
to proceed. Salinity controls could be implemented to meet
a number of possible objectives such as maintaining specific
salinity levels or minimizing the economic impact of salinity
increases.
A wide range of technical possibilities for mini-
mizing and controlling salinity exists. These may be divided
Into two categories: water-phase and salt-phase control measures
Water-phase measures seek to reduce salinity concentrations by
-------
719
J, Vincent
augmenting the water supply, while salt-phase measures seek to
reduce salt input into the river system.
In the course of the salinity investigations carried
out by EPA and its predecessor agencies, the potential feas-
ibility of applying each technical possibility to the Colorado
River was evaluated and the most practical approaches selected
for further study* The various technical possibilities which
may be applicable to the Colorado River Basin are listed in
Table I on page 13 of Appendix C.
Various factors, such as economic feasibility and
legal and institutional constraints, limit the present applica-
tion of most control measures.
Water conservation measures, which are listed under
Item 1A of the table, are limited in their practicality as
means of increasing the water supply available for dilution of
salinity concentrations. The most practical means of Increasing
the water supply are listed under Item IB of the table. These
include importing water from other basins, importing demineral-
ized sea water, and the use of weather modification techniques
to Increase precipitation and runoff.
As you can see from Table 1, a large number of techni-
cal possibilities exist for reduction of salt loads contributed
by natural and manmade sources. Only a few of these methods are
-------
750
J, Vincent
considered practical. These Include impoundment and evaporation
of point source discharges, diversion of runoff in streams
around areas of high salt pickup, improvement of irrigation and
drainage practices, improvement of irrigation conveyance facil-
ities, desalination of saline discharges from natural and man-
made sources, and desalination of water supplies at point of
use.
Eight potential salinity control programs incorporat-
ing the most practical control measures were formulated as a
means of evaluating the magnitude, scope and economic feasi-
bility of a potential basinwide control program. These
alternatives included three salt load reduction programs, four
flow augmentation programs, and one program to demineralize
water supplies at the point of use. A comparison of the costs
and effects of these alternatives is presented in Table 3 on
page 84 of Appendix C.
The three salt load reduction programs utilize
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 achieve estimated salt load reductions of up to
3 million tons annually and would reduce average annual salinity
-------
. Z51
J. Vincent
concentrations at Hoover Dam by about 200 to 300 rag/1.
The four flow augmentation programs evaluated were
based on three potential sources of water: increased precipi-
tation 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 Cali-
fornia as a means of minimizing the adverse* Impact of salinity
on the southern California water surface area.
Estimated average annual program costs ranged from
$3 million to $177 million. The present worth of the total
program costs for each alternative from 1975 to 2010 ranged
from $30 million to $1,570 million.
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,
-------
752
J. Vincent
the Implementation time period, salinity control benefits, and
other benefits such as increased water supply, the phased
implementation of a salt load reduction program was selected as
the least cost alternative for achieving basinwlde management
and control of salinity* Should the practicality of flow aug-
mentation by weather modification be demonstrated by current
pilot studies, however, the combination of such flow augmenta-
tion with a salt load reduction program would be a more optimal
approach.
...Slides..«
The salt load reduction program selected was designed
to reduce the salt load contributed by five large natural source|s
and 12 irrigated areas totaling 600,000 acres. Locations
of potential projects are shown in this slide, which is Figure
3 in Appendix C. Together the five natural sources contribute
about 14 percent of the basin salt load. All of the irrigated
areas selected exhibited high salt pickup by return flows of
about 3 to 6 tons per acre per year* Although this acreage
comprises only about 20 percent of the basin's Irrigated area,
the 12 areas contribute about 70 percent of the salt load from
irrigation sources above Hoover Dam.
Here in the LastVegas area a potential project was
designed to eliminate the salt load carried by Las Vegas wash.
-------
— — ___^ 753
J. Vincent
Waste disposal practices proposed for municipal and industrial waste
sources in Las Vegas Valley by the Environmental Protection Agency"
in a recent water quality standards enforcement action when
implemented will essentially eliminate the Las Vegas wash salt
concentration. This will result in a decrease of about 10 mg/1
in average annual salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam. Pro-
posed practices Include impoundment and evaporation of industrial.
wastes and export of municipal wastes to a closed basin.
Potential projects at la Verkin, Blue and Glenwood Springs would
reduce the salt load contributed by these large mineral springs.
Impoundment and evaporation of spring flow would be used for
control of Ia<
-------
: 75**
J, Vincent
impact on reducing return flows and accompanying salt loads.
Improvement of water conveyance systems by lining canals and
i
laterals and Installation of more automatic controls and j
measuring devices would also substantially reduce return flows*
If salinity concentrations are reduced by the imple-
mentation of control measures, certain costs known as salinity
management costs will be incurred. The form and magnitude of
these costs depend upon a number of factors including the con-
trol measures utilized and the degree of salinity control
achieved«
Probable costs, salt load reductions, and changes in
consumptive water use were estimated for each of the 17 projects
in the selected salt load reduction program. The projects were
then ranked on the basis of the unit cost of salt load reduc-
tion. Incremental reductions in average salinity levels at
Hoover Dam were estimated using the predicted salt load and flow
changes,
This slide shows the salinity management cost function^
developed from the individual project data. This is Figure 11
in Appendix C. The functions relate cumulative management cost
to cumulative salinity reductions. From the curves it is pos-
sible to evaluate the probable average annual cost of achieving
a specffic level of salinity control. The slightly higher
-------
755
J. Vincent
salinity reductions which can be achieved at 2010 relative to
i1980 for the same cost result from the fact that the flow passing
I Hoover Dam in 2010 will be less than in 1980. A constant salt
j
load reduction will thus produce a larger salinity reduction In
the smaller flow.
It should be noted that salinity management costs
increase rapidly for salinity reductions greater than 200 mg/1.
In 2010 doubling the salinity reduction at Hoover Dam from 135
to 270 mg/1 would result in a fourfold increase in management
costs.
For a given salinity level there is an economic cost
associated with water use, and this was discussed earlier when
we defined it as salinity detriments, and a second economic cost
associated with maintaining salinity concentrations at that
level* These are salinity management costs there on the screen,
The sum of these costs, defined as total salinity costs, is the
economic indicator of most significance when considering the
overall effects of any specific salinity management approach.
Total salinity cost functions can be developed by the
addition of salinity detriment functions and salinity manage-
ment cost functions.
Total salinity cost functions for each decade from
1970 to 2010 are shown in this slide. This is Figure 14 in
-------
756
J. Vincent
Appendix C. The right end of each curve corresponds to the pre-
dicted salinity level for that year if no controls are imple-
mented. If controls are implemented,- salinity levels would de-
crease, producing a displacement to the left along the cost
curve. For low flow levels of salinity control, corresponding
to short displacements leftward on the cost curves, total salin-
ity costs are decreased over the no control situation. Total
costs continue to decrease as higher levels of salinity control
are implemented until some minimum cost is reached. Beyond this
point, total salinity costs are increased by implementing addi-
tional salinity control measures. This particular characteris-
tic of total cost functions results from the fact that the incre
mental costs of salinity reductions increase rapidly for high
degrees of control, as was shown in the previous slide. It
should be noted that total costs will Increase substantially witfi
time regardless of the degree of controls Implemented. As a
minimum, total salinity costs will double between 1970 and 2010.
As discussed earlier, the three basic approaches to
solution of the salinity problem are to do nothing, limit
development, or implement salinity controls. The total salinity
cost functions provide the tools for evaluating the economic
and water quality effects associated with these approaches.
Salinity controls could be implemented to meet a
-------
: I5Z,
J. Vincent
{variety of management objectives which include both water qual- ''
ity and economic objectives. Three such objectives were j
I
selected for evaluation. These are: I
I
1) Maintain salinity at a level which would minimize !
its total economic impact and achieve economic efficiency. We i
j
define this as a minimum cost objective, \
2) Maintain salinity concentrations at some specified
level. We call this the constant salinity objective. And
3) Maintain salinity at some low level for which the |
total economic impact would be equal to the economic Inpact that would
be produced If no action were taken at all. And we call this j
I
the equal cost objective, j
In addition to these three objectives, the no control
and limited development alternatives were evaluated.
Predicted variations in total salinity cost versus
time for the five alternatives evaluated are shown in the next
slide, which Is Figure 17 of Appendix C.
Total salinity costs would be minimized by the limited
development alternative, which Is the lowest curve on this
graph. 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
-------
758
J. Vincent
that 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
foregone if the limited development approach were utilized was
!
!
beyond the scope of the project's investigations* It is j
apparent, however, that if the annual net benefits foregone !
exceed $3 million in I960 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 a minimum
cost objective would minimize total salinity costs. This is the
second curve from the bottom on the graph. The no-control and
equal cost alternatives produce, the Identical highest average
costs and most rapid increase with time of all the alternatives
evaluated, and that is the top curve. Total costs associated
with a constant salinity objective will fall somewhere between
extremes established by the other alternatives with the exact
cost dependent upon the target salinity level.
In our example we used a target level of 700 mg/1
and for this case total costs approximate minimum costs until
-------
... .. . 759,
J. Vincent \
around 1990, then increase rapidly, eventually exceeding the
no-control costs. That is the curve that extends up above the
top curve at the end*
Selection of a higher target salinity concentration
for the years 2000 and 2010 would reduce the total cost of this
alternative. Maintaining a constant salinity of 800 mg/1 after
1990 would produce costs comparable to the minimum cost alterna-
tive.
One important observation can be made. Regardless of
the alternatives selected, the future economic impact of salinity
will be great. Although implementing salinity controls will
result in availability of better water quality 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 double between 1970
and 2010. Selection of the limited development alternative
would reduce total annual costs by only *10 percent below the
no-control alternative in the year 2010.
This slide shows the variations with time of the pre-
dicted salinity levels associated with the five alternatives
evaluated. With no controls Implemented, average annual
salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam are predicted to increase
-------
, 760
J» Vincent
between I960 and 2010 by about 42 percent or 293 mg/1. This is
shown by the top curve« Selection of any of the other alterna-
tives evaluated would substantially reduce future salinity
levels or 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 levels for more than 25
years. Resulting water quality, therefore, would be consistent
with nondegradation 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,
The least cost alternative program, used as a basis
for the evaluation of the economic feasibility of salinity con-
trol, was directed toward the objective of minimizing salinity
concentrations on a baslnwide 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 concentrations 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
-------
161
J. Vincent
measures along the lower Colorado River could offset or mini-
mize these salinity increases. Such measures have a higher unit
cost for salinity reductions at Imperial Dam than those
measures selected for the least cost alternative program and
were omitted from consideration for this reason. Salinity controjl
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 stream flow and water
use occur throughout the basin. Peak concentrations reached
during such fluctuations may exert adverse effects on water use
far exceeding the effects predicted on the basis of average
salinity conditions. By reducing average salinity levels, a
salt load reduction program would provide a moderating effect
on such peak concentrations. The possible magnitude of such
fluctuations and their adverse Impact, however, would indicate
the need for more positive means of minimizing peak concentra-
tions. 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.
-------
762
J, Vincent
In conclusion, alternative approaches to solution of
the Colorado River Basin salinity problem differ greatly in
their impact on both basinwide salinity levels and the regional
economy. It is clear, however, that regardless of the approach
used, the future economic impact of salinity will be great.
By timely implementation of salinity controls, it will be pos-
sible to minimize this economic impact while holding future
increases in salinity levels to a minimum.
Mr. Chairman, at this time Mr. Freeman will conclude
the EPA presentation.
MR. STEIN: We are going to have a little change.
Let's have some lights.
I think we are going to call on Mr. Ellis Armstrong
now. Mr. Freeman will come later. And there will be one
change in the program. Since Mr. Armstrong has to leave, we
will open this to questions to him after he concludes.
-------
• Z63
E. L. Armstrong
ELLIS L. ARMSTRONG, COMMISSIONER
BUREAU OP RECLAMATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr, Chairman and members of the water
quality enforcement conference.
I am delighted to be here today as the representative
of the Secretary of the Interior to present the Department's
interests and responsibilities in the development and operation
of the Colorado River and its position regarding standards for tjotal
dissolved solids or salinity, a general term, of course, that we
have been using here this morning.
The dissolved solids concentration of the Colorado
River is the most difficult water quality jproblera in the basin
and has been for many years. The condition existed before the
appearance of man, although it has been accentuated by man's
land and water use practices.
Reduction of the TDS concentrations involves complex
water resources planning, management, and developmental Inter-
relationships with economic consequences of uncertain magnitude
and effect. We believe that numerical dissolved solids stand-
ards must be equitable and enforceable, compatible with present
and anticipated uses, and based on sound scientific and engineer
-------
76H
E, L, Armstrong
ing and cost effectiveness considerations. There must be
thorough and positive public participation in the establishment
of such standards and in the choice of water quality goals.
And in the context of current and projected conditions
within the basin, standards must reflect quality goals as a
basis for a practical improvement program aimed at achieving
needed salinity control within a reasonable time framework.
However and moreover, water quality standards must be adjusted
from time to time as improvement programs demonstrate the
practicability of dealing with salinity in an economic and
beneficial manner.
This Department accepts the need for numerical stand-
ards. However, we believe that it would be a premature and
poorly defined course of action to apply such standards within
a year. It is essential that the available technical knowledge
of the physical and social factors Involved and their inter-
relationships and the probable consequences of proposed changes
be fully understood before applying numerical standards• There-
fore, account should be taken of the salinity control and allied
programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Office of Saline
Water and other agencies in the Department of the Interior and
with the States involved in the establishment of these standards.
We are developing a mathematical simulation model and have relate d
-------
765
£. L, Armstrong
economic studies and several feasibility investigations to
assist in the selection process under way. A Federal-State task
force should be appointed to provide guidance and to participate
in the effort. The task force should be allowed 3 years to
complete the work, to complete its findings, and to make recom-
mendations to another session of this conference.
This recommendation is based on these considerations:
1) Historical records at Imperial Dam show that the
average salinity concentration for January 1957 was 1,000 ppm
and for December 1967 it was 992 ppm or mg/1. Six other months
in the period 19^1 to 1968 have had average concentrations above
960 ppm. However, it is not possible to predict future salinity
concentrations for any particular month, nor can it be assumed
that past flow and concentration cycles will probably be repeated
in the future*
With Lake Powell and Lake Mead regulating the Colorado
River, it would require several consecutive low-flow, that is
drought, years to produce an annual salinity concentration of
1,000 ppm,or higher, at Imperial Dam* However, with present
depletions, it is probable that the average concentrations for
the 8 months referred to above would, have exceeded 1,000 ppm*
Furthermore, with present depletions, the 1,000 ppm mean monthly
concentration at Imperial Dam would have been exceeded in 40
-------
: 766
E, L, Armstrong
months during the period 19^1 to 1968.
2) A number of projects, particularly those involving
transmountain diversions, have recently been completed or are
now under construction, which will increase the consumptive
use of Colorado River water and cause a reduction in dilution
flows, which will increase the salinity concentration* Other
projects will be undertaken in the near future. These include
both Federal projects and those contemplated by municipalities
and private industry. Many of these projects could be affected
by numerical standards.
The estimated depletions from these projects are
listed in the Bureau of Reclamation's report entitled, "Quality
of Water-Colorado River Basin-Progress Report No. 5, January
1969." And that summary table is attached to this statement.
If a numerical standard of 1,000 ppm maximum monthly
average is established at Imperial Dam, it will probably be
necessary to maintain—.
MR. STEIN: Mr* Armstrong, do you mean 1969 or 1971?
MR. TABOR: The text says 1971.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Excuse me. Oh, the report?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. ARMSTRONG: It is 1971. Excuse me.
MR. STEIN: 0. K. Go on.
-------
_ 767
E. L, Armstrong
MR. ARMSTRONG: I am sorry.
If a numerical standard of 1,000 ppm maximum monthly
average Is established at Imperial Dam, It will probably be
necessary to maintain the 28-year average annual salinity con-
centration at Imperial Dam for present development, and that is
i
;865 ppm. In order to maintain this concentration with the
I expected depletions from future projects, a reduction of 2.55
I
! million to 3.0 million tons of salt per year at Hoover Dam will
|
be necessary. If the salinity control projects, described
later in my statement, achieve an estimated potential reduction
of 1.9 million tons per year at Hoover Dam, and allowing for
the depletions by future projects, the 28-year average annual
and peak monthly concentrations at Imperial Dam for three levels
of reduction would be as shown in Table 1.
And that shows that the annual salt reduction at
Hoover Dam for 1.9 million tons, the 28-year average annual
concentration at Imperial Dam would be l,040,or 1 million and
40 tons, and the probable peak concentration would be greater
than about 1,160. And then going down with no reduction, for
Instance, you see that it increases in the annual concentration,
the peak monthly concentration at Imperial Dam out In the lower
right-hand corner would be 1,360 (sic).
Lights, please.
-------
. 768
E. L. Armstrong
3)An adequate system of salinity improvement projects
will require considerable time—this is the third point—con-
siderable time for formulation and construction. Additional
time would then be required before salinity control effects
were achieved. In the meantime, the depletions of water men-
tioned previously will be taking place.
*0 Present estimates of the effectiveness of control
measures may be optimistic and may have to be scaled down,
5) Numerical standards at points in the system other
than at Imperial Dam (assuming smaller numerical limits would be
established at upstream points) should be established so as to
recognize the physical and hydrological interrelationships of th
entire river system.
The Department of the Interior is pledged to pursue a
program of salinity control for the benefit of all citizens to
whom the Colorado River is a lifeline.
The Secretary has broad as well as specific respon-
sibilities under applicable laws to manage the water resources
of the Colorado River Basin to (1) apportion the water flows
according to the Colorado River Compact of 1922, (2) meet
commitments to Mexico under the International Water Treaty of
19^, (3) conform to the requirements of the Supreme Court
Decree of 1964, (4) meet specific contractual obligations with
water users in the United States, (5) develop and manage water
-------
= . . 769
E. L. Armstrong
resources In accordance with specific authorizing legislation
and in the public interest, (6) protect the recreation, fish and
wildlife, and environmental values, and (7) assist in imple-
menting the provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965 and
amendments relating thereto.
MR. STEIN: You know, after reading those seven, Com-
missioner Armstrong, I am never going to say we have troubles
again. (Laughter.)
MR. ARMSTRONG: You have got a good point.
There are many documents that river operations must
conform to, including the Colorado River Basin Project Act of
1968. The"Criteria for Coordinated Long-flange Operation of
Colorado River Reservoirs, 1970, these were developed in
accordance with this act.
Within the context of these responsibilities and legal
requirements there are certain considerations that are para-
mount, and they include: (1) There can be wide fluctuations in
the concentration of dissolved solids in the river as a result
of annual variations in precipitation and the management of the
available water resources, (2) the total available water
resources of the river are allocated by interstate compacts and
the International treaty, (3) the treaties and decrees have
apportioned water quantitatively but are silent on water qualitj
-------
. no
E. L. Armstrong
and (M) studies made by this Department, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Colorado River Board of California,
and the Water Resources Council project Increases in salinity
unless control measures are taken concurrent with development
for use of the presently allocated water.
In recognition of the effects of the proposed
developments on the salinity of the river, the Congress
specifically directed the Secretary of the Interior to make
water quality studies and to devise plans for Improvement.
This is provided for in three public laws:
1) Section 15 of the authorizing legislation for the
Colorado River Storage Project and Participating Projects
states and I quote,
The Secretary of the Interior is
directed to continue studies and make reports
to the Congress and to the States of the Colo-
rado River Basin on the quality of water of
the Colorado River*
2) Section 15 of the authorizing legislation of the
San Juan-Chama Project and the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project
states:
The Secretary of the Interior is
directed to continue his studies of the quality
-------
III
E. L. Armstrong
of the water of the Colorado River system, to
appraise its suitability for municipal, domestic,
and industrial use, and for irrigation in various
areas of the United States in which it is pro-
posed to be used, to estimate the effect of
additional developments involving its storage
and use (whether heretofore authorized or con-
templated for authorization) on the remaining
water available for use in the United States, to
study all possible means of improving the quality
of such water, and of alleviating the ill effects
of water of poor quality, and to report the
results of his studies and estimates to the 87th
Congress and every 2 years thereafter.
We have thus far made five reports and this one is the fifth
one, dated January 1971* and I think all of you folks have a
copy of that report. If not, we will be glad to provide you
with one.
3) Authorizing legislation for the Pryingpan-
Arkansas—here is another requirement—Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project contains similar language pertaining to water quality
reports and stipulated that the first report should be provided
by January 3, 1962, to be followed by submission of reports
-------
E. L. Armstrong
every 2 years thereafter.
These acts provide authority to this Department for
basinwide planning of a salinity control program. Implementa-
tion of feasible and justifiable salinity control projects
will require congressional authorizations. The responsibility
to plan and implement the control programs has been entrusted
to the Bureau of Reclamation, with the function to be coordi-
nated with other agencies of the Department of the Interior,
such as the Office of Saline Water, the Office of Water
Resources Research, the Geological Survey, Bureau of Land
Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the
Bureau of Mines* As planning and implementation progress it
is expected that particular contributions can be made by each
of these agencies to the successful conduct of the compre-
hensive program for salinity control.
The Office of Saline Water will be deeply Involved in
implementing the program. The OSW is currently testing a con-
cept of using a large-scale ion. exchange desalting system to
control the salinity level of the Colorado River, If this con-
cept proves feasible, OSW, in conjunction with the Bureau of
Reclamation, proposes to plan and site a large-scale research
and development facility for the purpose of identifying the
-------
___ 773
E« L. Armstrong
costs Involved in desalting point sources•
The Office of Water Resources Research will assist In
the solution of problems that are beyond current technology.
The physical and institutional complexities encountered in con-
trolling salinity in the Colorado River appear, from current
studies, to be much greater than experienced elsewhere. This
will require a push into new technical areas that will require
supporting research. In conjunction with the Office of Water
Resources Research,requisite technology is being identified and
arrangements will be made for prosecution of such research.
And these will be subsequently described in greater detail.
The Bureau of Land Management will be involved in
programs aimed at increasing water yield, decreasing erosion,
subjecting springs and other natural water sources which are
unusually high in salinity to control measures, and managing
the Lower Colorado Recreation Area to protect the water
resources.
Working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Indian tribes, all of whom have a direct concern in the Impact
of increased salinity levels, means will be explored for reduc-
ing salinity contributions from irrigable lands under their
jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bureau of Indian Affairs will con-
tinue programs for improving the vegetative cover and watershed
-------
: 111
E. L. Armstrong
management to reduce erosion and transmission of sediment In
the runoff water from their lands. Here again, cooperation with
Indian landowners will be actively sought, since they must
determine the measures possible and the rate of accomplishment
within available funding.
The Geological Survey has made contributions to the
definition of the problem. Its extensive water quality data
information system and network in the Colorado River Basin is
providing a log of information upon which design and evaluation
of water quality programs must be based. Its research into
geochemlcal relationships within the basin should yield
important facts useful in planning for and implementing control
measures.
Implementation plans will be coordinated with the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation. It is quite possible that beneficial use of saline
resources could be accomplished through development of fish and
wildlife or recreational areas*
The Bureau of Mines may be called upon to provide
assistance in the extraction of mineral of commercial value
from the saline waters removed from the river. This could
involve studies of processing and use of the minerals and
related economic evaluations. Also it has a role In identifying
-------
77.5
E. L. Armstrong
potential sources of salinity increase that may result from
mineral extraction processes.
At its headwaters the Colorado River has a total
dissolved solids concentration of about 50 ppm or less. As
the water moves downstream, as has been described, through this
vast arid region, there is a gradual increase in the salinity
until at the lower reach at Imperial Dam the long-term average
annual values resulting from present development are at a level
of about 865 ppm. Much of this increase in salinity occurs as
a result of natural solute erosion. This process embraces the
geochemical reactions that take place as water moves through
the cycle. The process has been active over geologic time.
Even with the extensive developments by man, the natural
processes are still the principal source of the salinity in the
river.
Development of the water resources in the Upper
Colorado River Basin took place gradually from the beginning of
settlement around i860 and has been continuing. The principal
water use was for irrigation, and by 1905 about 800,000 acres
were irrigated. Between 1905 and 1920 the development of irri-
gated land continued and by 1920 1.4 million acres were
Irrigated. Development then leveled off and the
increase since that time has been slow. In 1965 there were 1,6
-------
: 716
E. L. Armstrong
million acres under irrigation In the Upper Basin. The slow
growth of the irrigated acreage in the Upper Basin in the last
45 years is ascribed to both the physical and economic
limitations on the availability of water. By 1920 most of the
lower cost and more easily constructed developments were in
operation, and although some new developments have taken place
since that time, they have been partially offset by other
acreages going out of production.
Irrigation development in the Lower Basin also began
around i860. Here the development was slow because of diffi-
cult diversions from the Colorado River with its widely
fluctuating flow. Development of the Gila area began in 1875
and in the Palo Verde area in 1879, increased in the period
1900 to 1910 with construction of the Yuma Project, the Palo
Verde Canal, and other irrigation projects along the river.
Completion of the Boulder Canyon Project in the 1930's
and construction of other downstream projects since that
time have brought about 1,300,000 acres under irrigation.
In this regard, the Colorado River now provides 75 percent
of the water to southern California where more than half of
that State's 20 million people live.
Recognition of the potential water quality problems
was made as early as 1903, when the initial work to identify
-------
111
E. L. Armstrong
desirable salinity levels for maintenance of crop production
under irrigation was undertaken. At that time a limited amount •
of water sampling and analysis of the river was being performed,
primarily by the Geological Survey. The main purpose of early j
tests was to evaluate the suitability of the water supply for
irrigation and other uses. In time it became quite clear that
there had been a gradual increase in the salinity as a result
of development of the resources.
Salt-concentrating effects were produced by evapora-
tion, transpiration, and diversion of high quality water out of
the basin. Also, salt-loading effects occurred through the
addition of dissolved solids to the river system from both
natural and manmade sources. Because of the wide fluctuations
in concentration from natural causes, the developments on the
river, particularly the larger reservoirs, produced offsetting
beneficial effects by stabilizing the quality of water.
Prior to the passage of the Colorado River Storage
Project and Participating Projects, the San Juan-Chama Project
and the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, and the Pryingpan-
Arkansas Project, it was evident that these major actions would
result in Increased consumptive use of the water in the Upper
Colorado River Basin as well as water diversion from the basin ahd
thus significant increases in salinity levels could be expected.
-------
778
E. L. Armstrong
I Congress directed that specific studies be made of the water
quality problem and that control plans be developed in deference
I to the concern of the people of the basin and the users of the
Colorado River water.
As a result of the legislative requirements, a basic
network of water quality stations was established at principal
points throughout the Colorado River Basin. Analyses and
i
] studies were begun for the entire basin, biennial reports were
started in 1963 and have continued since, and I mentioned the
Report No. 5 which was published in 1971. This report is sub-
mitted as a part of this testimony and it covers the basic ;
studies and evaluations of existing salinity conditions, the
anticipated effects of additional developments, the effect of
salinity on water use, the potentials for salinity control, |
and other related water quality aspects.
The Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project
was established in I960 by the U. S. Public Health Service.
These functions were later transferred to the Federal Water
Quality Administration within the Department of the Interior
and subsequently transferred to the Environmental Protection
Agency. The early project investigations assisted in identify-
ing many of the water quality problems of the Basin. In 1963
efforts were directed towards evaluating the salinity problems.
-------
. _779
r
i E, L, Armstrong
i In 1968 the FWQA and the Bureau of Reclamation
i
I initiated a Joint reconnaissance salinity control study in the
!
|Upper Basin to identify potential controllable sources of
I
salinity, make preliminary assessments of the technical feas-
ibility of the control measures, and derive initial cost
estimates for installation and operation of such measures. The
first year of the study was financed by the FWQA, which trans-
ferred funds to the Bureau of Reclamation, and the second year
of work was financed by the Bureau, Upon completion of the
reconnaissance studies, FWQA proposed to finance feasibility
studies; however, budget limitations In Fiscal year 1970 pre-
vented funding of these studies.
Also in 1968, the' two agencies cooperated to develop
a proposed salinity control plan of study for the Colorado
River Basin. This initial program had an Investigation phase
spread over a 6-year period, with costs averaging about $1,75
million a year. The second phase was to Involve implement at io|i
of a basinwide salinity control plan. During the Federal
reorganization activities which transferred the responsibilities
of FWQA of the Department to the newly established Environmental
Protection Agency,the program became Inactive,
Subsequently, the Colorado River Board of California
undertook studies of the salinity problem and issued a report
-------
780
E. L. Armstrong
in 1970 entitled "Need for Controlling the Salinity of the Colo-
rado River." The Environmental Protection Agency recently com-
pleted a report that has been discussed here today. It was this
report, entitled "The Mineral Quality Problems in the Colorado
Basin/11 dated 1971, which set the stage for this conference.
Under the direction of the Water Resources Council, a
State-Federal interagency group prepared a framework program
for the development and management of the water and related
land resources of the Lower Colorado River Region. This report
recognized the salinity problem in the basin and recommended
continuing studies of the Region's increasingly complex water
quality problems. Concurrently, the Bureau of Reclamation, with
the assistance of the several States involved, developed a
program for investigating methods of controlling the salinity of
the river. The funding of this work was accomplished during the
current fiscal year. It is currently under way and details will
be discussed.
Now, the progress reports by the Bureau of Reclamation
the Salinity Report by the Colorado River Board of California,
the Lower Coloradc Region Comprehensive Framework Study by the
Water Resources Council, and the EPA report, have served to
identify and better define the problems involved. The important
fact emerging is that salinity is projected to increase with
-------
: 781
E. L. Armstrong
development unless a comprehensive, basinwide water quality >
management plan Is implemented and supported by the instal- i
lation of structural and nonstructural measures to control j
i
salinity increases. Projected estimates of salinity levels at j
!
Imperial Dam are presented in Table 2. j
May we have the lights, please. J
i
The projected salinity levels in all studies are con- j
i
i
siderably above the annual average mean for the present develop-!
ment of 865* !
Notice the first one is the EPA estimate, 1980—1,060,1
and 2010—1,220.
The Colorado River Board of California, 1980—1,070,
and 2000—1,3*0,and 2030—1,390.
The Water Resources Council, 1080—1,260, 2000—1,290,
2020—1,350.
And the Bureau of Reclamation study with full develop-
ment of the authorized projects would be from 1,150 to 1,250.
Now, the difference in these is concerned primarily
with the basic assumptions on which the studies were made,
that is the rate in which the developments would occur, and
while there are some differences in the totals, they all indi-
cate that we do have a problem, as of course we are all aware.
Lights, piLease,
-------
7_82
E, L. Armstrong
It is significant that all the studies of the
agencies predicted the proposed development will cause a
considerable increase. We should also remember that with the
present qualities some irrigators are resorting to special
practices in order to use the water to grow salt-sensitive
crops. Some areas have drainage problems which could be
magnified if higher salinity water were used. Municipal and
industrial users are now faced with considerable expense in
treating water. It is clear that allowing the salinity of
the river to increase will result in considerable economic
injury. Thus, the salinity problem is primarily an economic
issue.
No detrimental effects on the environment along the
Colorado River are envisioned due to increased salinity con-
centrations, that is within the limits expected. Most of the
natural vegetation has a salinity tolerance higher than the
projected salinity concentrations.
The Department concurs in the EPAfs findings
that future salinity concentrations will be below threshold
levels for instream uses such as recreation, hydroelectric
power, fish life.
The prior studies of water quality problems
in the Colorado River by the Bureau, the EPA, and the
-------
J 783
E« L, Armstrong
Colorado River Board of California have served to define the
problem and outline potential control measures. They are not,
however, sufficient to undertake Immediate construction of con-
trol measures. Cost effectiveness analyses have been prepared,
but these, it must be recognized, are based on reconnaissance
studies and reconnaissance data.
For example, point sources of salinity have been
geographically identified, salinity concentrations measured, and
output of salt load estimated. Neither the feasibility of cap-
turing these flows has been verified by requisite field geo- j
i»u.rj.iig unesc i.j.uws 110.0 ueeii ve.rj.JLJ.eu uy z~cquj.sj.ue J.JLCXU gew—
i
logical explorations nor the consequence of such proposed actionls
assessed. Similarly, diffuse sources of salinity have been
located but reliable measures of salt loading could not be made
because of inadequate records. However, practical methods for
controlling the salt loading from such sources still need to be
developed.
With respect to the salt loading from irrigated lands,
it is anticipated that improvement in management and use of water
on the irrigated farms will result in improved quality of
return flow. Such action, buttressed by improvements in water
conveyance systems, involving seepage reduction through canal
lining, and Improvement in operational techniques, also is
expected to contribute towards reduced salt loadings in the
-------
784
E. L. Armstrong
river.
Complex Interrelationships of human activities and
physical field conditions must be analyzed to determine the
amount of salt load reduction that could be achieved* Coopera-
tive research on this problem is under way by the Bureau of
Reclamation with the Environmental Protection Agency financing.
This work involves the development of a mathematical model for
predicting quality of return flows.
Studies by the Bureau of Reclamation have shown that
the average annual salt output from irrigation in the basin will
occur within the range 0 to 2 tons per irrigated acre. Local
Irrigated areas overlying marine shales containing large quan-
tities of soluble salts may have annual outputs exceeding 2 tons
per irrigated acre, while areas covered with a salt-free loessla1
mantle overlying the glaciofluvlo deposits have practically no
salt pickup.
In view of the foregoing, it is essential that feas-
ibility studies be pursued on point, diffuse, and irrigation
sources to disclose the maximum Improvement in water quality
that can be achieved with present technology. These studies must
develop the full costs Involved, identify the control means, the
trade-offs, and specify the time required to achieve specific
degrees of control for particular reaches of the river. The
comprehensive salinity control plan, therefore, must be
-------
. . 785
E. L. Armstrong
engineeringly feasible, politically acceptable, and administrat-
ively viable through appropriate institutions.
The program for improvement of water quality that we
have under way. Studies recently completed by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency and its prede-
cessors, and the Colorado River Board of California have set
the stage for these detailed investigations. Working with
several of the States involved, a comprehensive program was
launched this fiscal year by the Bureau of Reclamation. The
goal of the program is to control salinity of the river at
a level compatible with the uses to which that water is and
will be put. However, the implementation will be dependent
upon the development of economically and environmentally
feasible plans and related financing.
The details relating to this program are contained
in the February 1972 report of the Bureau entitled "Colorado
River Water Quality Improvement Program." This report will be
submitted as part of the testimony of this Department. So I am
just going to give a brief overview of the program.
Currently the program is funded for this year at
$455>000 with a proposed expansion next year of a little over
$1 million. The planning activities as scheduled in Fiscal
5fear 1972 through 1981 total approximately $18 million.
-------
786,
E. L. Armstrong i
Construction activities which may be initiated within this time
:frame could involve costs of $300 million or more. Such fund-
ing would be requested following a demonstration of economic
feasibility of specific salinity control projects. The most
promising prospects for achieving salinity control have been ;
.screened and therefore effort will be concentrated on feasi- :
bility investigations to expedite movement of salinity control i
projects through the congressional authorization processes,
i In the evaluation of this program, a mathematical |
'model of the Colorado River will be developed, and is under
! |
'development, to analyze the economic costs of salinity versus j
the cost of salinity control measures. And in this study we i
will build on the mathematical model work that has been done |
j i
iby the EPA. A study will be conducted to analyze existing !
i
;institutional and legal requirements. These would form the
!basis for applying systems analysis to evaluate and select
control measures by measuring their physical and economic
Impacts and assisting in evaluating water management procedures.
In addition, a special study is being made of the
i
potential application of the ion exchange process for desalting
the river flows. This will provide assessment of alternative
salinity control concepts which have not heretofore been con-
templated—that is, controlling salinity on a large scale at
-------
787
i E. L. Armstrong
i
I diversion points rather than control at the sources. Other
i
| supporting studies will be conducted to evaluate still other
i potential control procedures,
i
i _
j Decision points will be utilized in the program to
i determine direction as feasibility studies are completed.
r
I
| Salinity control on the scale contemplated represents a pio-
i
i
i
neering effort in which alternative solutions will need to be
I assessed for effectiveness, environmental consequences,
j
i
economic impact, and equitability to the States involved. Also
it should be recognized that studies in the reach from Hoover
Dam to Imperial Dam have heretofore been insufficient to com-
pletely identify the comparatively large increases in salinity
occurring within that reach. In the water years 1961 through
1965, the mean concentration below Hoover Dam was 71^ ppm
while at Imperial Dam for the same period the mean value was
82M, an increase of 110. It is essential, therefore, that the
salinity problems in this reach be identified. Such additional
studies could significantly alter the course of the study.
The point source control program involves evaluation
of the control projects at La Verkin Springs, Paradox Valley—
these were discussed in the EPA discussion—Crystal Geyser,Glen-
wood Springs, Blue Springs, and Littlefleld Springs. Feasi-
bility studies of point sources are under way at La Verkin
-------
788
E. L, Armstrong
Springs and Crystal Geyser in Utah, Paradox Valley and Glenwood
Springs in Colorado. And the Blue Springs in Arizona that I
have on my statement will not start until next year, that is the
feasibility of that study. Reports are scheduled to be completed
for La VerkinSprings and Crystal Geyser in Fiscal year 1973 and
for Paradox Valley and Glenwood-Dotsero Springs in Fiscal years
1975 and 1976. The physical setting of Blue Springs suggests
that development of a control plan may be very difficult,
because this is a very complex area and we need additional
detailed information, and these studies from the feasibility
grade are not scheduled for completion until Fiscal year
1978 because of the need of additional time to assemble
additional basic data. A feasibility study for Littlefield
Springs is scheduled for the period 197^ through 1976.
Authorization and funding of the feasible projects
are estimated to take 12 to 18 months under the most favor-
able conditions. With this optimistic assumption, La Verkin
Springs and Crystal Geyser could be under construction in
1975. Construction starts on Paradox Valley and Littlefield
Springs could begin in 1977 and on the Glenwood Springs
in Fiscal Year 1978, and construction on Blue Springs perhaps
in 1980.
Of these various point sources, it appears that early
-------
789
E. L. Armstrong
results in salinity control could be attained at Crystal Geyser
andLaVerkin Springs. It is for this reason that these are
being pushed early in the program.
Now, the diffuse control projects which provide most
favorable prospects for salinity control include the Price
River, San Rafael River, Dirty Devil River, McElmo Creek, and
Big Sandy Creek. These projects have not as yet been sufficient
ly studied to formulate more than tentative plans for which
costs have not been estimated. The basic concept to be
employed is to selectively remove more saline flows from the
stream and then to desalt or perhaps some method of evaporation,
or partial evaporation. The irrigated areas on these streams
would also be investigated to'determine if water system improve-
ment and management programs or irrigation scheduling might
contribute towards reduction of the salt load.
Basic data collection for diffuse source control
projects under way on the Price and San Rafuel Rivers in
Utah and Big Sandy Creek in Wyoming. In 1973 basic data
collection is scheduled to start on Dirty Devil River in Utah
and McElmo Creek in Colorado. Feasibility studies are
scheduled to begin in 197** on the Price River and Big Sandy
Creek and on the San Rafael River in Fiscal year 1975. Similar
studies on Dirty Devil River and McElmo Creek are scheduled for
-------
E. L, Armstrong
initiation in Fiscal Year 1976. These studies are programmed
i
i
jto be completed In a period of about 3 or M years.
Now, from the standpoint of the irrigation source
control projects. The principal irrigated areas contributing
salt are the Grand Valley and Lower Gunnison basins in Colo-
rado, Ulntah Basin in Utah, the Colorado River Indian Reserva-
tion and the Palo Verde Irrigation District lands in Arizona.
The program contemplates conducting on-farm irrigation sched-
i
uling and water management, coordinated with water systems
improvement and management programs within each of the areas.
The on-farm activities would be aimed at reducing
the volume of deep percolation to the groundwater regime
through—that is where these saline geological formations are
present. It is expected that such a reduction would reduce the
salt load being introduced into the Colorado River and no doubt
some water savings would result. It would also provide increased
net returns to the irrigators through greater yields, improved
crop quality and lower production costs. The primary technique
to be employed is to schedule times and amounts of water to be
applied to crops by utilizing some type of a computer program.
By developing an accurate water budget and giving operational
considerations to the root zone reservoir, a basis is provided
for attaining much higher Irrigation efficiencies.
-------
791
E. L, Armstrong
Research completed Indicates that Improved on-farm
management of water is likely to be among the least expensive
methods of reducing salinity levels. Therefore, work on irri-
gation scheduling and management is beginning in the Grand
Valley Basin this year and will be continued through Fiscal
Year 1978. Critical problems are involved in selling the
program to irrigators, training personnel, and adapting com-
puter programs for operation in the various areas. Therefore,
preparatory activities will be conducted this year and next
year for all other areas, with programs then scheduled to be
Instituted in Fiscal year 1971* and conducted through fiscal
year 1978.
Ongoing Bureau of Reclamation research on these
procedures suggests that irrigators will Immediately benefit
from these programs,and, therefore, will be willing to adopt
and carry them forward after they have been placed in opera-
tion. Beyond Fiscal year 1978, it is contemplated that the
various Irrigation districts will continue the programs.
An important corollary to on-farm management of water
involves Improvement of the water conveyance systems to reduce
losses and increase operating efficiency. Under certain con-
ditions, this would further curtail salt loading into the river.
Engineering studies will be made of the irrigation systems in
-------
792
E. L. Armstrong
each of the aforementioned areas to identify the structural
measures that will be needed.
Feasibility studies for Improvement of water convey-
ance systems will be under way in the Grand Valley Basin and
the Colorado River Indian Reservation in Fiscal year 1972.
The latter study is scheduled for completion in 1971* and the
former in 1975. Feasibility studies on improvements of irri-
gation in the Lower Gunnison Basin are scheduled to begin
early in Fiscal Year 1973 and completed by 1976. In the
Uintah Basin, this activity will encompass fiscal years 1971*
through 1976, and in the Palo Verdo District from Fiscal years
1971* through 1976. After demonstration of feasibility, con-
gressional authorizations could be sought to instigate construc-
tion of the improvements that will be required.
The supporting activities will include the development
of a mathematical simulation model of the Colorado River System,
further development of economic evaluation methods for water
quality, an in-depth study of the institutional and legal prob-
lems involved, and the potential application of salinity reduc-
tion processes which have not yet been investigated.
Work on the mathematical simulation model is under
way and is expected to be completed in Fiscal ^ear 1973. This
will simulate both the quantity and quality conditions of the
-------
793
£. L. Armstrong
entire river system. It will become the primary tool for
defining operations for salinity control, evaluating impacts of j
the salinity control projects, and measuring impacts of new i
i
irrigation developments on the salinity of the river. j
i
An adjunct to the model will be the economic studies j
i
which will provide a base for better deriving economic evalua- j
i
tion procedures for salinity control. In view of the many j
complexities involved in the assessment of the salinity prob-
lem, the development of these tools is regarded as an essential
to guide the requirements for prosecution of the program.
Moreover, when developed, the application and results
derived from use of these tools must be thoroughly understood by
the States and other entities involved with this problem. Once
developed, these procedures ought to be utilized and tested by
the States involved as an essential prerequisite to the estab-
lishment Of numerical standards for salinity.
Another study will be conducted of the preliminary
feasibility and cost of utilizing large-scale ion exchange
systems to control salinity levels on the Colorado River at
various points such as Parker or Davis Dam. Salinity reduc-
tions would be studied in 100 ppm increments down to a lower
limit of 500 ppm. The study Involves installation of a small
pilot test of applicable ion exchange demineralizatlon processes
-------
79**
- _—f
E, L. Armstrong
i
jto the water at Parker Dam. This work is now getting under way
by the Office of Saline Water and is scheduled for completion
in Fiscal year 1974. It will provide a test of an alternative
concept to the control of salinity at the source.
Based upon the studies accomplished to date, estimates
have been made of the potential reductions that could be attaine
if the point, diffuse, and irrigation source control projects
are found to be feasible and are placed into operation. And
these are summarized in this table.
The point source control, let's Just look at the
last two columns, the effect at Hoover Dam in reduction will
reduce it 55 ppm, the Imperial Dam 65 ppm.
The diffuse source control would be 30—that is
reduce it 30 at Hoover, 35 at Imperial.
Irrigation scheduling would reduce it 50 at Hoover
Dam and 65 at Imperial Dam.
For a total reduction of 135 ppm at Hoover, 165 at
Imperial.
Lights, please.
In preparing these estimates, potential reductions
from improvement of water conveyance systems was not Included
because effects of such Improvement works on salinity reduction
have not as yet been sufficiently defined. These estimates are
-------
795
E. L. Armstrong
based on reconnaissance studies and will therefore require more
detailed information for verification.
The salinity control works could have a major effect
in reducing salinity; however, additional elements and concepts
will need to be developed and applied if further reductions are
to be achieved.
It should be noted that there would be a time lag
involved before the influence of the reduction is reflected at
points such as Imperial Dam. The large impoundments at Lake
Mead and Lake Powell greatly increase the time required for
water to travel from the inlet point to discharge at the dam.
There are also thermal, density and chemical stratifications
that take place in the reservoirs. As a result, periods of
3 to 10 years may be involved before the influence of the
control works can be observed at the lower reaches. It
follows that the farther downstream the control works are
located, the more quickly their impact will be felt.
The investigation program will be financed by the
Federal Government under the authority of the laws that I have
cited. As feasibility of specific control projects is demon-
strated, repayment plans will be developed. It is expected
that these will follow established laws and policies relating
to the implementation of water resource development projects.
-------
E. L. Armstrong
Beneficiaries will need to be identified and cost-sharing form-
ulas worked out. This may require new institutional arrange-
ments not only as they relate to repayment but also to operation
and maintenance of the constructed facilities.
The identification of the program components is
presented in Figure 1 which is attached to your statement. And
then—do we have it? Well, anyway, it is a detailed program,
but demonstrates the scheduling of this work that I am going to
discuss—excuse me—that I have discussed.
The water quality improvement program may be regarded,
of course, as only one facet of the overall development program
! of the basin. We in the Department believe that water resource
j
management and salinity control are Inseparable elements in
i
j fostering continued economic growth and development of the
i
!resources of the Colorado River Basin,
|
Salinity control adds another dimension in the
preparation of the Western U, S. Water Plan and must be viewed
i
In context with programs for augmentation such as weather j
I
modification, geothermal resources, and desalting. From such
studies, coordinated through the alternative planning approach, j
a basinwlde management plan for optimum use of the water
resources will be evolved.
The basin management system will need to deal squarely
-------
797
E. L. Armstrong
with the legal and Institutional constraints governing operation
of the river, and these are facts of life that must be squarely
faced up to. In this regard, It Is well to note the recent
adoption of "Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of
the Colorado River Reservoirs," that has been adopted. These
provide for the storage of water in reservoirs of the Colorado
River Storage Project and releases of water from Lake Powell
within such constraints and according to certain priorities.
Studies prepared as a basis for formulating these
criteria, as well as experience from operating thereunder for
i
more than a year, indicate that such purposes as water quality '
control, recreation, enhancement of fish and wildlife, other j
I
environmental factors, and flood control can be served to some
degree without significant detrimental effect on power produc-
tion and irrigation uses. In particular, such studies indicate
that operation for river regulation associated with consumptive
uses and power production provide some Incidental water quality
control and other multiple benefits and allow flexibility for
specific short-term operational patterns lasting only a few days
for such specific purposes*
Now, the Western U. S. Water Plan. The results from
all study activities relating to ongoing Federal and State watei
resources programs are expected to be utilized in the developmer.t
-------
798
E. L. Armstrong
that is all of these we have been talking about in connection
with the salinity and the program—will be utilized in the
development of the Western U. S, Water Plan, One of the
major efforts of this study is to develop a recommended action
program for further comprehensive development of the water
resources of the Colorado River Basin and for the provision
of additional and adequate water supplies for use in the Upper
as well as in the Lower Basin.
Accordingly, these studies will pull together into
a basin management system results from ongoing study programs
such as weather modification to increase spring runoff in the
Colorado River, desalting sea water and brackish water, extrac-
tion and desalting of geothermal water, reuse of wastewater,
water conservation and salvage, and watershed management. We
see that such an augmentation and management program is having
an Important input towards alleviating future water quality
problems.
To demonstrate the application of reverse osmosis
technology to the reduction of salinity at point sources in the
Colorado River drainage, it is planned to design, construct,
and operate a multi-modular plant at a site to be determined by
reconnaissance investigations which are scheduled for completion
In Fiscal year 1973. The design of this prototype plant will be
-------
: . . 799
E. L. Armstrong
based on the best reverse osmosis desalting technology avail-
able. Design and construction of the prototype plant could be
undertaken during Fiscal years 1974 and 1975. In subsequent
years, Studies would be made of the application of the technology
to specific point source salinity locations within the Colorado
River Basin.
The prototype plant would be sized for 15 million
gallons per day and is planned to be on stream in Fiscal year
1976. The reverse osmosis process lends itself to the con-
struction of added modular units to fit the demonstrated need.
In the area of weather modification, given an applied
research and engineering effort to refine and confirm present
cloud-seeding techniques and provide analysis of parameters in
storms pertinent to a fully identified seeding criteria,
a continuous operation could be initiated in the Upper Colorado
River Basin conservatively within 10 years. And on the basis
of the results of the first 2 years of operating the pilot study
In the San Juan Mountains, this could be stepped up perhaps to
6 years. This would Involve seeding within well-defined and
localized target areas by remote-controlled ground-based
generators using silver iodide, and seeding susceptible winter
storms at high elevations to Increase the winter snowpack.
In a limited area, such as the Colorado River Basin,
-------
800
£. L. Armstrong
jthe production of about 2 million acre-feet of usable new water
jannually could be a significant contribution towards our salinity
| improvement problem.
i
The flexibility of use, largely with existing water
| and power systems, and the opportunity for obtaining an even
j i
greater new water yield with advanced technology point to |
i
weather modification as a very desirable tool for water j
resources management. The Upper Colorado River Basin would be ,
i
one of the first regions where a reliable optimized capability \
to Increase precipitation would be developed on a reglonwide j
I
basis. It is believed that firm acceptable answers and workablej
i
systems could be successfully achieved within 10 years, and as j
I indicated, on the basis of continued favorable results from
our pilot project we could probably lop 3 or 4 years off of
that.
The potential of geothermal resources is currently
under investigation by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Office
of Saline Water. Successful development will provide energy
and an additional source of water supply. The geothermal supply
and water could be meshed into the overall water management
system to assist in achieving salinity control, particularly
in the lower reaches of the system.
The joint Bureau of Reclamation and Office of Saline
-------
801
E. L. Armstrong
Water Geothermal Resource Investigation Program in the Imperial
Valley will enter a new phase in this year. Following more than
3 years of geophysical prospecting, coupled with shallow
exploratory drilling, the first deep well capable of producing
hot steam will be drilled starting in April, It will be locate*
In the East Mesa area of Imperial Valley and drilled to a depth
of 4,000 to 8,000 feet. A portable pilot desalting plant will
be moved to the well site and test operations for desalting geo-
thermal brines and also a test disposal well is anticipated for
late in 1972 to determine the feasibility of reinjecting the
byproduct fluids from the geothermal development.
Preliminary studies Indicate the Imperial Valley
geothermal resources would be capable of producing 2.5 million
acre-feet of freshwater • per year on a sustaining basis as well
as large quantities of electric energy with possible mineral
byproduct recovery.
And we have just completed a development concept
report on the geothermal resources in the valley, and we will
supply each of you with a copy of this report.
Various aspects of the Bureau of Reclamation's opera-
tion and maintenance activities deal directly with the salinity
problems in the Colorado River. Water quality studies are con-
tinuing in the basin as required under various public laws, and
-------
802
E. L. Armstrong
biennial reports are made to Congress. These are prepared in
cooperation with the Geological Survey. The reports include
data regarding historical, present, modified, and anticipated
future chemical quality of water conditions at 17 key stations
in the Colorado River Basin. Also presented are discussions of
State standards, quality control, sources of salinity, sources
of other forms of pollution, and other aspects of water quality
in the basin. In Fiscal year 1973* $90,000 will be used in
prosecution of this program.
Consumptive use studies are being undertaken as
required by Section 601 of the Colorado River Basin Project
Act. These will provide useful input to prosecution of the
salinity control program.
In the area of research, considerable work will be
required to support the water quality improvement program in
the basin. Ongoing and scheduled research which is expected
to find application in the salinity control effort now under
way or scheduled by the Bureau of Reclamation Include:
1) Prediction of the quality of return flows (in
cooperation with EPA);
2) Mathematical model for predicting nutrient and
salt loadings;
3) Ecological considerations in project planning;
-------
803
E. L. Armstrong
M) Wastewater reclamation opportunities; j
i
5) Case studies of desalting for salinity control; |
i
6) Management of saline waters; and
7) Testing advanced irrigation systems,
In addition, considerable additional research ought to
be performed to assist in implementing a viable salinity control
program. As I mentioned, the Office of Water Resources Research is
sup-
porting activities in this area, and it is strongly recommended
that the Environmental Protection Agency join in financing such
efforts. The land grant universities and the Agricultural Re-
search Service of the Department of Agriculture should also have
important inputs, and they have today.
Some of the kinds of work needed are: field trials of
water harvesting techniques; developing special uses for water
of inferior quality; reducing costs for attaining high irriga-
tion efficiencies; identifying field relationships for irrigation
efficiency to return flow quality; studies of water flow through
large impoundments, including the chemical reactions and velocity
of throughput of the dissolved constituents; vegetative manage-
ment techniques, particularly as related to phreatophytes, with
the aim of reducing water use and protecting the breeding areas
of birds and other wildlife; identification of watershed manage-
ment and salinity output relationships; further studies into
-------
- 804
£• L, Armstrong
the economics of water quality; ecological considerations
Involving salinity effects on aquatic life and other biological
systems; recovery and extraction of minerals from brines;
development of better Inland brine disposal techniques;
Identifying opportunities for using reclaimed wastewater to
satisfy outdoor recreation needs; and Identifying opportunities
for using heated water from desalting Installations to extend
the recreation season for swimming and other activities.
And these, then, are some of the things that we have
under way and have planned, and It Is for this reason that the
Department takes the position that they have.
That, Mr. Chairman, Is my statement.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Without objection, this will be Included with the
appendices.
Commissioner Armstrong, you have given us a treasure
trove of information. Now, I know you have expanded and I think
that this part should be in. But there is some material that yoji
went over rather rapidly. With your permission, I would like to
put your full statement in the record as if read.
MR. ARMSTRONG: All right. Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
(The statement and appendices referred to follow:)
-------
805
For release to PM's newspapers, Tuesday, February 15, 1972
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR POSITION STATEMENT
PROCEEDINGS OF THE WATER QUALITY ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Presented by Ellis L. Armstrong, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation
Las Vegas, Nevada
February 15-17, 1972
Introduction
As the representative of the Secretary of the Interior, I am pleased
to present the Department's interest and responsibilities in the
development and operation of the Colorado River and its position
regarding standards for total dissolved solids, or "salinity," a
general term commonly used for this water quality characteristic.
The total dissolved solids concentration of the Colorado River is
the most difficult water quality problem in the Basin and has been
for many years. The condition existed even before the appearance of
man, though it has been accentuated by man's land and water-use
practices.
Reduction of the TDS concentrations involves complex water resource
planning, management, and developmental interrelations with economic
consequences of uncertain magnitude and effect.
-------
806
This Department states that numerical dissolved solids standards
must be equitable and enforceable, compatible with present and
anticipated uses and based on sound scientific and engineering
and cost effectiveness considerations. There must be thorough and
positive public participation in the establishment of such standards
and in the choice of water quality goals.
In the context of current and projected conditions within the Basin,
standards must reflect water quality goals as a basis for a practical
improvement program aimed at achieving the needed salinity control
within a reasonable time framework. Moreover, water quality standards
must be adjusted from time to time as improvement programs demonstrate
the practicality of dealing with salinity in an economic and
beneficial manner.
Towards Establishment of Numerical Standards
This Department accepts the need for numerical standards. However,
it would be a premature and poorly defined course of action to
apply such standards within a year. It is essential that the avail-
able technical knowledge of the physical and social factors involved
and their interrelationships and the probable consequences of
proposed changes be fully understood before applying numerical
standards. Therefore, account should be taken of the salinity
-------
807
control and allied programs of 'the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Office of Saline Water and other agencies in this Department and with
the States involved in the establishment of the standards. We are
developing a mathematical simulation model and have related economic
studies, and several feasibility investigations to assist in the
selection process underway. A Federal-State Task Force should be
appointed to provide guidance and to participate in the effort. The
Task Force should be allowed three years to complete the work, to
complete its findings, and to make recommendations to another
session of this conference.
This recommendation is based on the following considerations:
1) Historical records at Imperial Dam show that the average
(parts per million of dissolved solids)
salinity concentration for January 1957 was 1,000 mg/1 and
for December 1967 it was 992 mg/1. Six other months in the
period 1941-68 have had average concentrations above 960 mg/1.
However, it is not possible to predict future salinity
concentrations for any particular month, nor can it be
assumed that past flow and concentration cycles will
probably be repeated in the future.
With Lakes Powell and Mead regulating the Colorado River,
it would require several consecutive low-flow (drought)
years to produce an annual salinity concentration of
1,000 mg/1, or higher, at Imperial Dam. However, with
-------
present depletions, it is probable that the average
concentrations for the 8 months referred to above would
have exceeded 1,000 mg/1. Furthermore, with present
depletions, the 1,000 mg/1 mean monthly concentration at
Imperial Dam would have been exceeded in 40 months during
the period 1941-68.
2) A number of projects, particularly those involving trans-
mountain diversions, have recently been completed or are
now under construction which will increase the consumptive
use of Colorado River water and cause a reduction in dilu-
tion flows which will increase the salinity concentration.
Other projects will be undertaken in the near future. These
include both Federal projects and those contemplated by
municipalities and private industry. Many of these projects
could be affected by numerical standards.
The estimated depletions from these projects are listed in
the Bureau of Reclamation's report entitled "Quality of
Water-Colorado River Basin-Progress Report No. 5, January
1971."
If a numerical standard of 1,000 mg/1 maximum monthly average
is established at Imperial Dam, it will probably be necessary
to maintain the 28-year average annual salinity concentration
-------
809
at Imperial Dam for present development (865 mg/1). In
order to maintain this concentration with the expected
depletions from future projects, a reduction of 2,550,000
to 3,000,000 tons of salt per year at Hoover Dam will be
necessary. If the salinity control projects, described
later in this statement, achieve an estimated potential
reduction of 1,900,000 tons per year at Hoover Dam, and
allowing for the depletions by future projects, the
28-year average annual and peak monthly concentrations
at Imperial Dam for three levels of reduction would be
as shown in Table 1.
Annual Salt
Reduction at
Hoover Dam
1.000 tons
1,900
1,550
1,000
No Reduction
TABLE 1
28-Year Average
Annual Concentration
at Imperial Dam
mg/1
Probable Peak
Monthly Concentration
at Imperial Dam
mg/1
1,040
1,075
1,135
1,250
1,160
1,200
1,260
1,370
-------
810
3) An adequate system of salinity improvement projects will
require considerable time for formulation and construc-
tion. Additional time would then be required before
salinity control effects were achieved. In the mean-
time, the depletions of water mentioned previously
would be taking place.
4) Present estimates of the effectiveness of control
measures may be optimistic and may have to be scaled
down.
5) Numerical standards at points in the system other
than at Imperial Dam (assuming smaller numerical
limits would be established at upstream points)
should be established so as to recognize the physical
and hydrological interrelationships of the entire
river system.
The Department is pledged to pursue a program of salinity control
for the benefit of all citizens to whom the Colorado River is a
lifeline.
-------
811
Departmental Responsibilities
The Secretary has broad as well as specific responsibilities under
applicable laws to manage the water resources of the Colorado River
Basin to (1) apportion the water flows according to the Colorado
River Compact of 1922, (2) meet commitments to Mexico under the
International Water Treaty of 1944 with that nation, (3) conform to
the requirements of the Supreme Court Decree of 1964, (4) meet specific
contractual obligations with water users in the United States,
(5) develop and manage water resources in accordance with specific
authorizing legislation and in the public interest, (6) protect the
recreation, fish and wildlife, and environmental values, and
(7) assist in implementing the provisions of the Water Quality Act
of 1965 and amendments relating thereto.
There are many documents that river operations must conform to,
including the Colorado River Basin Project Act, September 30, 1968.
Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River
Reservoirs, June 10, 1970, were developed in accordance with this
act.
Within the context of these responsibilities and legal requirements
certain considerations are paramount: (1) There can be wide fluctua-
tions in the- concentration of dissolved solids in the river as a
result of annual variations in precipitation and the management of
the available water resources, (2) the total available water resources
of the river are allocated by interstate compacts and the inter-
national treaty, (3) the treaties and decrees have apportioned water
-------
812
quantity but are silent on water quality, and (4) studies made by
this Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Colorado
River Board of California, and the Water Resources Council project
increases in salinity unless control measures are taken concurrent
with development for use of presently allocated water.
In recognition of the effects of the proposed developments on the
salinity of the river, the Congress specifically directed the Secretary
of the Interior to make water quality studies and to devise plans for
improvement. This is provided for in three public laws:
1. Section 15 of the authorizing legislation for the Colorado
River Stroage Project and Participating Projects states: "The
Secretary of the Interior is directed to continue studies and make
reports to the Congress and to the States of the Colorado River Basin
on the quality of water of the Colorado River."
2. Section 15 of the authorizing legislation of the San Juan-
Chama Project and the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project states: "The
Secretary of the Interior is directed to continue his studies of the
quality of the water of the Colorado River system, to appraise its
suitability for municipal, domestic, and industrial use, and for irriga-
tion in various areas of the United States in which it is proposed to
be used, to estimate the effect of additional developments involving
its storage and use (whether heretofore authorized or contemplated
for authorization) on the remaining water available for use in the
United States, to study all possible means of improving the quality
8
-------
813
of such water, and of alleviating the ill effects of water of poor
quality, and to report the results of his studies and estimates to the
87th Congress and every 2 years thereafter."
3. Authorizing legislation for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
contains similar language pertaining to water quality reports and
stipulated that the first report should be provided by January 3, 1962,
to be followed by submission of reports every 2 years thereafter.
These acts provide authority to this Department for basinwide planning
of a salinity control program. Implementation of feasible and justi-
fiable salinity control projects will require congressional authoriza-
tions. The responsibility to plan and implement the control programs
has been entrusted to the Bureau of Reclamation, with the function to
be coordinated with other agencies of this Department such as the
Office of Saline Water, the Office of Water Resources Research, the
Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, and the Bureau of Mines. As planning and implementation
progress it is expected that particular contributions can be made by
each of these agencies to the successful conduct of the comprehensive
program for salinity control.
The Office of Saline Water will be deeply involved in implementing
the program. The OSW is currently testing a concept of using a large-
scale ion exchange desalting system to control the salinity level of
-------
the Colorado River. If this concept proves feasible, OSW, in
conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation, proposes to plan and site
a large-scale research and development facility for the purpose of
identifying the costs involved in desalting point sources.
The Office of Water Resources Research will assist in the solution of
problems that are beyond current technology. The physical and institu-
tional complexities encountered in controlling salinity in the Colorado
River appear, from current studies, to be much greater than experienced
elsewhere. This will require a push into new technical areas that will
require supporting research. In conjunction with the Office of Water
Resources Research requisite technology is being.identified and arrange-
ments will be made for prosecution of such research. The research
needs will be subsequently described in greater detail.
The Bureau of Land Management will be involved in programs aimed at
increasing water yield, decreasing erosion, subjecting springs and
other natural water sources which are unusually high in salinity to
control measures, and managing the Lower Colorado Recreation Area to
protect the water resources.
Working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian tribes, all
of whom have a direct concern in the impact of increased salinity
levels, means will be explored for reducing salinity contributions
from irrigable lands under their jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bureau
of Indian Affairs will continue programs for improving the vegetative
10
-------
815
cover and watershed management to reduce erosion and transmission of
sediment in the runoff water. Here again, cooperation with Indian
landowners will be actively sought, since they must determine the
measures possible and the rate of accomplishment within available
funding.
The Geological Survey has made contributions to the definition of
the problem. Its extensive water quality data information system
and network in the Colorado River Basin is providing a log of informa-
tion upon which design and evaluation of water quality programs must
be based. Its research into geochemical relationships within the
Basin should yield important facts useful in planning for and
implementing control measures.
Implementation plans will be coordinated with the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. It is
quite possible that beneficial use of saline resources could be
accomplished through development of fish and wildlife or recreational
areas.
The Bureau of Mines may be called upon to provide assistance in the
extraction of mineral of commercial value from the saline waters
removed from the river. This could involve studies of processing
and use of the minerals and related economic evaluations. Also it
has a role in identifying potential sources of salinity increase that
may result from mineral extraction processes.
11
-------
816
The Movement Toward a Comprehensive Salinity Control Program
At its headwaters the Colorado River has a total dissolved solids
concentration of about 50 rag/1 or less. As the water moves downstream
through this vast arid region, there is a gradual increase in the
salinity until at the lower reach at Imperial Dam the long-term average
annual values resulting from present development are at a level of
about 865 mg/1. Much of this increase in salinity occurs as a result
of natural solute erosion. This process embraces the geochemical
reactions that take place as water moves through the hydrologic cycle.
The process has been active over geologic time. Even with the exten-
sive developments by man, the natural processes are still the principal
source of the salinity in the river.
Development of the water resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin
took place gradually from the beginning of settlement around 1860 and
has been continuing. The principal water use was for irrigation, and
by 1905 about 800,000 acres were irrigated. Between 1905 and 1920
the development of irrigated land continued at a rapid pace, and by
1920 nearly L.4 million acres were irrigated. Development then
leveled o~ff and the increase since that time has been slow. In 1965
there were 1.6 million acres under irrigation in the Upper Basin.
The slow growth of the irrigated acreage in the Upper Basin in the
last 45 years is ascribed to both the physical and economic limita-
tions on the availability of water. By 1920 most of the lower cost
and more easily constructed developments were in operation, and
12
-------
817
although some new developments have taken place since that time,
they have been partially offset by other acreages going out of
production.
Irrigation development in the Lower Basin also began around 1860.
Here the development was slow because of difficult diversions from
the Colorado River with its widely fluctuating flow. Development of
the Gila area began in 1875 and in the Palo Verde area in 1879. The
development increased in the period 1900 to 1910 with construction
of the Yuma Project, the Palo Verde Canal and intake, and other
irrigation projects along the river. Completion of the Boulder
Canyon Project in the 1930's and construction of other downstream
projects since that time have brought about 1,300,000 acres under
irrigation. In this regard, the Colorado River now provides 75
percent of the water to southern California where more than half of
that State's 20,000,000 people live.
Recognition of the potential water quality problems was made as early
as 1903, with the initial work to identify desirable salinity levels
for maintenance of crop production under irrigation. At that time
a limited amount of water sampling and analysis of the river was being
performed, primarily by the Geological Survey. The main purpose of
early tests was to evaluate the suitability of the water supply for
irrigation and other uses. In time it became quite clear that there
had been a gradual increase in the salinity as a result of develop-
ment of the water resources.
13
-------
818
Salt-concentrating effects were produced by evaporation, transpiration,
and diversion of high quality water out of the basin. Also, salt-
loading effects occurred through the addition of dissolved solids to
the river system from both natural and manmade sources. Because of
the wide fluctuations in concentration from natural causes, the
developments on the river, particularly the larger reservoirs, produced
offsetting beneficial effects by stabilizing the quality of water.
Prior to the passage of the Colorado River Storage 'Project and
Participating Projects, the San Juan-Chama Project and the Navajo
Indian Irrigation Project, and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, it
was evident that these major actions would result in increased con-
sumptive use of the water in the Upper Colorado River Basin as well
as water diversion out of the Basin, thereby significant increases
in salinity levels could be expected. Congress directed that specific
studies be made of the water quality problem and that control plans
be developed in deference to the concern of the people of the basin
and the users of the Colorado River water.
As a result of the legislative requirements, a basic network of water
quality stations was established at principal points throughout the
Colorado River Basin. Analyses and studies were begun for the entire
Basin, biennial reports were started in 1963, and have continued
since that time, with Report No. 5 having been published in 1971.
This report is submitted herewith as part of the testimony of this
Department. It covers the basic studies and evaluations of existing
14
-------
819
salinity conditions, the anticipated effects of additional
developments, the effect of salinity on water use, the potentials
for salinity control, and other related water quality aspects.
The Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project was established
in 1960 by the U. S. Public Health Service. These functions were
later transferred to the Federal Water Quality Administration within
the Department of the Interior and, subsequently, transferred to the
Environmental Protection Agency. The early project investigations
assisted in identifying many of the water quality problems of the
Basin. In 1963 efforts were directed towards evaluating the salinity
problems.
In 1968 the FWQA and the Bureau of Reclamation initiated a joint
reconnaissance salinity control study in the Upper Basin to identify
potential controllable sources c?f salinity, make preliminary assess-
ments of the technical feasibility of the control measures, and
derive initial cost estimates for installation and operation of such
measures. The first year of the study was financed by the FWQA,
which transferred funds to the Bureau of Reclamation, and the second
year of work was financed by the Bureau. Upon completion of the recon-
naissance studies, FWQA proposed to finance feasibility studies;
however, budget restrictions in fiscal year 1970 prevented funding
the studies.
Also in 1968, the two agencies cooperated to develop a proposed salinity
control plan of study for the Colorado River Basin. This initial
15
-------
820
program had an investigation phase spread over a 6-year period, with
costs averaging about $1.75 million annually. The second phase was
to involve implementation of a basinwide salinity control plan.
During the Federal reorganization activities which transferred the
responsibilities of FWQA of the Department to the newly established
Environmental Protection Agency the program became inactive.
Subsequently, the Colorado River Board of California undertook studies
of the salinity problem and issued a report in 1970 entitled "Need
for Controlling the Salinity of the Colorado River." The Environmental
Protection Agency (formerly FWQA) recently completed a report on the
studies. It was this report entitled "The Mineral Quality Problems
in the Colorado River Basin," dated 1971, which set the stage for the
enforcement conference. Under the direction of the Water Resources
Council, a State-Federal interagency group prepared a framework program
for the development and management of the water and related land
resources of the Lower Colorado Region. This report recognized the
salinity problem in the Basin and recommended continuing studies of
the Region's increasingly complex water quality problems. Concurrently,
the Bureau of Reclamation, with the assistance of the several States
involved, developed a program for investigating methods of controlling
the salinity of the river. The funding of this work was accomplished
during the current fiscal year. The work is currently underway and
details relating thereto will be subsequently provided.
16
-------
821
The progress reports by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Salinity
Report by the Colorado River Board of California, the Lower Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study by the Water Resources Council,
and the EPA report, have served to identify and better define the
problems involved. The important fact emerging is that salinity is
projected to increase with development unless a comprehensive, basin-
wide water quality management plan is implemented and supported by
the installation of structural and nonstructural measures to control
salinity increases. Projected estimates of salinity levels at Imperial
Dam are presented in Table 2. The projected salinity levels in all
studies is considerably above the average annual mean for the present
development of 865 mg/1.
Table 2
Projected
Concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids
(mg/1) at Imperial Dam
(Average annual values)
Year
Source 1980
EPA 1060
CRBC 1070
WRC 1260
USER
2000 2010 2020 2030 Full Development
1220 -
1340 - - 1390
1290 - 1350
(1150-1250)
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
CRBC: Colorado River Board of California
WRC: Water Resources Council (Lower Colorado Region
Comprehensive Framework Study)
USER: Bureau of Reclamation
In developing the above estimates,each agency with the exception of
the Bureau of Reclamation, made assumptions regarding the time frame
17
-------
822
for installation of new water resources development projects. A
complete listing of the projects Included in the USER study is
attached.
It is significant that all the studies of the various agencies
predicted that proposed development will cause a considerable
increase in the future salinity of the river. We should also
remember,that with the present qualities, some irrigators are
resorting to special practices in order to use the water to grow
salt-sensitive crops. Some areas have drainage problems which
could be magnified if higher salinity water were used. Municipal
and industrial users are now faced with considerable expense in
treating water. It is clear that allowing the salinity of the
river to increase will result in considerable economic injury.
Thus, the salinity problem in the Colorado River is primarily
an economic issue.
No detrimental effects on the environment along the Colorado River
are envisioned due to increased salinity concentration. Most of the
natural vegetation has a salinity tolerance higher than the projected
salinity concentrations.
The Department concurs in the Environmental Protection Agency's
findings that future salinity concentrations in the Colorado River
will be below threshold levels for in-stream uses such as recreation,
hydroelectric power generation, and propagation of aquatic life.
18
-------
823
The prior studies of water quality problems in the Colorado River by
the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA, and the Colorado River Board of
California have served to define the problem and outline potential
control measures. They are not, however, sufficient to undertake
immediate construction of control measures. Cost effectiveness
analyses have been prepared, but these, it must be recognized, are
based on reconnaissance studies.
For example, point sources of salinity have been geographically
identified, salinity concentrations measured, and output of salt
load estimated. Neither the feasibility of capturing these flows has
been verified by requisite field geological explorations nor the
consequence of such proposed actions assessed. Similarly, diffuse
sources of salinity have been located but reliable measures of salt
loading could not be made because adequate records were not available.
Moreover, practical methods for controlling the salt loading from
such sources still needs to be developed.
With respect to the salt loading from irrigated lands, it is anticipated
that improvement in management and use of water on the irrigated
farms will result in improved quality of return flow. Such action,
buttressed by improvements in water conveyance systems, involving
seepage reduction through canal lining, and improvement in operational
techniques, also is expected to contribute towards reduced salt
loadings in the river.
19
-------
Complex interrelationships of human activities and physical field
conditions must be analyzed to determine the amount of salt load
reduction that could be achieved. Cooperative research on this problem
is underway by the Bureau of Reclamation with the Environmental
Protection Agency financing. This work involves the development of
a mathematical model for predicting quality of return flows.
Studies by the Bureau of Reclamation have shown that the average
annual salt output from irrigation in the basin will occur within
the range zero to 2 tons per irrigated acre. Local irrigated areas
overlying marine shales containing large quantities of soluble salts
may have annual outputs exceeding 2 tons per- irrigated acre, while
areas covered with a salt-free loessial mantle overlying glacio-
fluvial deposits have practically no salt pickup.
In view of the foregoing, it is essential that feasibility studies
be pursued on point, diffuse, and irrigation sources to disclose the
maximum improvement in water quality that can be achieved with
present technology. These studies must develop the full costs
involved, identify the control means, and trade-offs and specify the
time required to achieve specific degrees of control for particular
reaches of the river. The comprehensive salinity control plan,
20
-------
825
therefore, must be engineeringly feasible, politically acceptable,
and administratively viable through appropriate institutions.
21
-------
826
The Program for Improvement of Water Quality
Studies recently completed by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental
Protection Agency and its predecessors, and the Colorado River Board of
California have set the stage for more detailed investigations that
should_lead to early installation of control measures. Working with
several of the States involved, a comprehensive program was launched
this fiscal year by the Bureau of Reclamation. The goal of the program
is to control salinity of Colorado River at a level compatible with the
uses to which that water is and will be put. However, the implementation
of the program will be dependent upon the development of economically and
environmentally feasible plans and related financing.
The details relating to this program are contained in the Bureau of Reclama-
tion February 1972 report entitled "Colorado River Water Quality Improve-
ment Program." This report will be submitted as part of the testimony
of this Department. Accordingly, only a brief overview of the program
will be discussed here.
Currently the program is funded at a level of $455,000, with a proposed
expansion of the program to $1,005,000 in fiscal year 1973. The planning
activities as scheduled in fiscal year 1972 through 1981 total approxi-
mately $18 million. Construction activities which may be required within
this time frame could involve costs of $300 million or more. Such
funding would be requested following a demonstration of economic feasi-
bility of specific salinity control projects. The most promising pros-
pects for achieving salinity control have been screened and therefore
effort will be concentrated on feasibility investigations to expedite
movement of salinity control projects through the congressional authori-
zation processes.
22
-------
827
In the evaluation of this program, a mathematical model of the
Colorado River will be developed to analyze the economic costs of
salinity versus the cost of salinity control measures. A study
will be conducted to analyze existing institutional and legal
requirements. These would form the basis for applying systems
analysis to evaluate and select control measures by measuring
their physical and economic impacts, and assisting in evaluating
water management procedures.
In addition, a special study is being made of the potential
application of the ion exchange process for desalting the river
flows. This will provide assessment of alternative salinity control
concepts which have not heretofore been contemplated...controlling
salinity on a large scale at diversion points rather than control at
the sources. Other supporting studies will be conducted to evaluate
still other potential control procedures.
Decision points would be utilized in the program to determine direction
as feasibility studies are completed. Salinity control on the scale
contemplated represents a pioneering effort in which alternative
solutions will need to be assessed for effectiveness, environmental
consequences, economic impact, and equitability to the States
involved. Also it should be recognized that studies in the reach
from Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam have heretofore been insufficient
to completely identify the comparatively large increases in salinity
occurring within that reach. In the water years 1961 through 1965,
23
-------
828
the mean concentration below Hoover Dam was 714 mg/1 while at Imperial
Dam for the same period the mean value was 824 mg/1, an increase of
110 mg/1. It is essential, therefore, that the salinity problems
in this reach of the river be identified. Such additional studies
and testing of new concepts could significantly alter the course of
the program.
Point Source Control
The investigation program includes evaluation of point source control
projects at LaVerkin Springs, Paradox Valley, Crystal Geyser, Glenwood-
Dotsero Springs, Blue Springs, and Little Field Springs. Feasibility
studies of point sources are underway at LaVerkin Springs and Crystal
Geyser in Utah, Paradox Valley and Glenwood-Dotsero Springs in
Colorado, and Blue Springs in Arizona. Reports are scheduled to be
completed for LaVerkin Springs and Crystal Geyser in fiscal year
1973 and for Paradox Valley and Glenwood-Dotsero Springs in fiscal
years 1975 and 1976, respectively. The physical setting of Blue
Springs suggests that development of a control plan may be very
difficult. Therefore, these studies are not scheduled for completion
until fiscal year 1978. A feasibility study for Littlefield Springs,
Arizona is scheduled for the period FY 1974 through FY 1976.
Authorization and funding of the feasible projects are estimated to
take 12 to 18 months under the most favorable conditions. With this
optimistic assumption, LaVerkin Springs and Crystal Geyser could be
under construction in fiscal year 1975. Construction starts on
24
-------
829
Paradox Valley and Littlefield Springs could begin in fiscal year
1977 and on Glenwood-Dotsero Springs in fiscal year 1978. Construc-
tion on Blue Springs could not begin until 1980.
Of these various point sources, it appears that early results in
salinity control could be attained at Crystal Geyser and LaVerkin
Springs. It is for this reason that these feasibility studies be
completed as rapidly as possible so,if feasible, construction could
begin.
Diffuse Source Control
The diffuse source control projects which provide most favorable
prospects for salinity control include the Price River, San Rafael
River, Dirty Devil River, McElmo Creek, and Big Sandy Creek. These
projects have not as yet been sufficiently studied to formulate more
than tentative plans for which costs have not been estimated. The
basic concept to be employed is to selectively remove the saline
(over 1500 mg/1) flows from the stream and then to desalt and/or
evaporate the water. The irrigated areas on these streams would also
be investigated to determine if water system improvement and manage-
ment programs or irrigation scheduling might contribute towards
reduction of the salt load sufficiently to justify feasibility studies.
Basic data collection for diffuse source control projects is under-
way on the Price and San Rafael Rivers in Utah and Big Sandy Creek
in Wyoming. In fiscal year 1973, basic data collection is scheduled
25
-------
830
to start on Dirty Devil River in Utah and McElmo Creek in Colorado.
Feasibility studies are then scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1974
on the Price River and Big Sandy Creek and on the San Rafael River
in fiscal year 1975. Similar studies on Dirty Devil River and
McElmo Creek are scheduled for initiation in fiscal year 1976. These
studies are programed to be completed in a period of about 3 or 4
years. At this time, it appears that the earliest construction could
begin for such projects is fiscal year 1979.
Irrigation Source Control Projects
The principal irrigated areas contributing salt are the Grand Valley
and Lower Gunnison basins in Colorado and Uintah basin in Utah; the
Colorado River Indian Reservation, and the Palo Verde Irrigation
District lands in Arizona. The program contemplates conducting
on-farm irrigation scheduling and water management, coordinated with
water systems improvement and management programs within each of the
areas.
The on-farm activities would be aimed at reducing the volume of deep
percolation to the ground-water regime through the saline geologic
formations* It is expected that such a reduction in deep percolation
would reduce the salt load being introduced into the Colorado River
under present conditions. The water savings achieved would become
available for other uses. The program would also provide increased
net returns to the irrigators through greater yields, improved crop
quality and lower production costs. The primary technique to be
26
-------
831
employed is to schedule times and amounts of water to be applied
to crops by utilizing a computer program. By developing an
accurate water budget and giving operational considerations to the
root zone reservoir, a basis is provided for attaining high irrigation
efficiencies.
Research completed indicates that improved on-farm management of
water is likely to be amoung the least expensive methods of reducing
salinity levels. Therefore, work on irrigation scheduling and
management is beginning in the Grand Valley Basin this fiscal year,
and would be continued through fiscal year 1978. Critical problems
are involved in selling the program to irrigators, training personnel,
and adapting computer programs for operation in the various areas.
Therefore, preparatory activities will be conducted in fiscal years
1972 and 1973 for all other areas, with programs then scheduled to
be instituted in fiscal year 1974 and conducted through fiscal year
1978.
Ongoing Bureau of Reclamation research on these procedures suggests
that irrigators will immediately benefit from these programs and
therefore will be willing to adopt and carry them forward after they
have been placed in operation. Beyond fiscal year 1978, it is
contemplated that the various irrigation districts would continue
the programs.
27
-------
832
An important corollary to on-farm management of water involves
improvement of the water conveyance systems to reduce losses and
increase operating efficiency. Under certain conditions, this
would further curtail salt loading into the river. Engineering
studies will be made of the irrigation systems in each of the
aforementioned areas to identify the structural measures needed.
Feasibility studies for improvement of water conveyance systems
will be underway in the Grand Valley Basin and the Colorado River
Indian Reservation in fiscal year 1972. The latter study is
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1974 and the former in
fiscal year 1975. Feasibility studies on improvements of
irrigation systems in the Lower Gunnison Basin are scheduled to
begin in fiscal year 1973 and completed in fiscal year 1976. In
the Uintah Basin, this activity would encompass fiscal years
1974 through 1976, and in the Palo Ve,rde District from fiscal years
1974 through 1976. After demonstration of feasibility,congressional
authorizations could be sought to initiate construction of the improve-
ment works.
Support Activities
The supporting activities will include the development of a math-
ematical simulation model of the Colorado River System, further
development of economic evaluation methods for water quality, an
in-depth study of the institutional and legal problems involved,
and the potential application of salinity reduction processes which
28
-------
833
have not been previously investigated.
Work on the mathematical model is currently underway and is
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1973. The model will simulate
both the quantity and quality conditions of the river system. It
will become the primary tool for defining operations for salinity
control, evaluating impacts of the salinity control projects and
measuring impacts of new irrigation developments on the salinity of
the river.
An adjunct to the model will be the economic studies which will
provide a basis for better deriving economic evaluation procedures
for salinity control. In view of the many complexities involved
in the assessment of the salinity problem, the development of these
tools is regarded as an essential guiding requirement for prosecution
of the salinity control program.
Moreover, when developed, the application and results derived from
use of these tools must be thoroughly understood by the States and
other entities involved with this problem. Once developed, these
procedures ought to be utilized and tested by the States involved
as an essential prerequisite to the establishment of numerical
standards for salinity.
A parametric study will be conducted of the preliminary feasibility
29
-------
834
and cost of utilizing large-scale ion exchange systems to control
salinity levels on the Colorado River at various points such as
Parker or Davis Dam. Salinity reductions would be studied in
100 mg/1 increments down to a lower limit of 500 mg/1. The study
involves installation of a small pilot test of applicable ion
exchange demineralization processes to the water at Parker Dam.
This work is now getting underway by the Office of Saline Water and
is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1974. It will provide a
test of an alternative concept to the control of salinity at the
source.
Program Impacts
Based upon the studies accomplished to date, estimates have been made
of the potential reductions that could be attained if the point,
diffuse, and irrigation source control projects are found to be
feasible and are placed into operation. The results are summarized
in Table 3.
Table 3
Summary
Water Quality Improvements
Practive
Present
Associated
mineral
load
(lOOO's tons/yr)
Estimated
Reduction
(1000's tons/yr)
Effect at Effect at
Hoover Dam Imperial Dam
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Point Source
Control
Diffuse Source
Control
Irrigation Scheduling
Scheduling
1,385
945
2,370
745
390
680
-55
-30
-50
-65
-35
-65
Totals
4,700
1,815
-135
-165
30
-------
835
In preparing these estimates, potential reductions from improvement
of water conveyance systems was not included because effects of such
improvement works on salinity reduction have not as yet been suffi-
ciently-defined. These estimates are based on reconnaissance studies
and will therefore require more detailed study for verificatbn.
The salinity control works could have a major effect in reducing
salinity; however, additional elements and concepts will need to be
developed and applied if further reductions are to be achieved.
It should be noted that there would be a time lag involved before the
influence of the reduction is reflected at points such as Imperial
Dam. The large impoundments such as Lake Mead and Lake Powell greatly
increase the time required for water to travel the distance from the
inlet plint to discharge at the dam. Also, thermal, density and
chemical stratification take place. As a result, periods of 3 to 10
years may be involved before the influence of the control works can
be observed at the lower reaches. It follows that the farther down-
stream the control works are located, the more quickly their impact
will be felt.
Program Financing and Repayment
The investigation program will be financed by the Federal Government
under the authority of laws previously cited herein. As feasibility
of specific control projects is demonstrated,repayment plans will
31
-------
836
be developed. It is expected that these will follow established laws
and policies relating to the implementation of water resource develop-
ment projects. Beneficiaries will need to be identified and cost-
sharing formulas worked out. This may require new institutional
arrangements not only as they relate to repayment but also to
operation and maintenance of the constructed facilities.
Program Schedule
The identification of the program components is presented on
Figure I attached.
Allied Programs
The water quality improvement program as described above may be
regarded as one facet of the overall development program of the
basin. This Department believes that water resource management and
salinity control are inseparable elements in fostering continued
economic growth and development of the resources of the Colorado
River Basin.
Salinity control adds another dimension to the preparation of the
Western U. S. Water Plan and must be viewed in context with
programs for augmentation such as weather modification, geothermal
resources, and desalting. From such studies, coordinated through
the alternative planning approach, a basin-wide management plan for
optimum use of the water resources will be evolved.
32
-------
837
The basin management system will need to deal squarely with the legal
and institutional constraints governing operation of the river. In
this regard, it is well to note the recent adoption of "Criteria for
Coordinated Long-Range Operation of the Colorado River Reservoirs."
These criteria provide for the storage of water in reservoirs of the
Colorado River Storage Project and releases of water from Lake Powell
within such constraints, and according to certain priorities.
Studies prepared as a basis for formulating these criteria, as well
as experience from operating thereunder for more than a year, indicate
that such purposes as water quality control, recreation, enhancement
of fish and wildlife, other environmental factors, and flood control
can be served to some degree without significant detrimental effect
to power production and irrigation uses. In particular, such studies
indicate that operation for river regulation associated with con-
sumptive uses and power production provide some incidental water
quality control and other multiple benefits, and allow flexibility
for specific short-term operational patterns lasting only a few days
for such purposes.
Western U. S. Water Plan
The results from all study activities relating to ongoing Federal
and State water resources programs are expected to be utilized in the
development of the Western U. S. Water Plan. One of the major efforts
33
-------
838
of this Westwide Study is to develop a recommended action program
for further comprehensive development of the water resources of the
Colorado River Basin and for the provision of additional and
adequate water supplies for use in the Upper as well as the Lower Basin.
Accordingly, these studies will pull together into a basin management
system results from ongoing study programs such as weather modification
to increase spring runoff in the Colorado River, desalting sea water
and brackish water, extraction and desalting of geothermal water,
reuse of wastewaters, water conservation and salvage, and watershed
management. We see that such an augmentation and management program
as having important inputs towards alleviating future water quality
problems.
Desalting
To demonstrate the application of reverse osmosis technology to the
reduction of salinity at point sources in the Colorado River drainage
basin, it is planned to design, construct, and operate a multi-modular
plant at a site to be determined by reconnaissance investigations
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1973. The design of this
prototype plant will be based on the best reverse osmosis desalting
technology available. Design and construction of the prototype plant
could be undertaken during fiscal years 1974 and 1975. In subsequent
years, studies would be made of the application of the technology to
specific point source salinity locations within the Colorado River Basin.
34
-------
839
The prototype plant would be sized for li> million gallons per day
(MGD). This 15-MGD plant is planned to be on stream in fiscal year
1976. The reverse osmosis process lends itself to the construction
of added modular units to fit the demonstrated need.
Weather Modification
Given an applied research and engineering effort to refine and
confirm present cloud-seeding techniques and provide analysis of
parameters in storms pertinent to a more fully identified seeding
criteria, a continuous operation could be initiated in the Upper
Colorado River Basin within 10 years. This would involve (1)
seeding within well-defined and localized target areas by remote-
controlled ground-based generators using silver iodide, and (2)
seeding susceptible winter storms at high elevations to increase
winter snowpack.
In a limited area, such as the Colorado River Basin, the production
of about 2 million acre-feet of usable new water annually could be a
significant contribution towards salinity improvement.
The flexibility of use, largely with existing water and power systems,
and the opportunity for obtaining an even greater new water yield with
advanced technology point to weather modification as a very desirable
tool for water resources management. The Upper Colorado River Basin
would be one of the first regions where a reliable optimized capability
35
-------
840
to increase precipitation would be developed on a region-wide basis.
It is believed that firm acceptable answers and workable systems could
be successfully achieved within 10 years.
Geothermal Resources
The potential of geothermal resources is currently under investigation
by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Office of Saline Water. Success-
ful development will provide energy and an additional source of water
supply. The geothermal energy and water could be meshed into the
overall water management system to assist in achieving salinity
control, particularly in the Lower reaches of the system.
The joint Bureau of Reclamation and Office of Saline Water Geothermal
Resource Investigation Program in the Imperial Valley, California,
will enter a new phase in 1972. Following more than 3 years of
geophysical prospecting, coupled with shallow exploratory drilling
(to 1,500 feet), the first deep well capable of producing hot steam
and brine will be drilled in April. The well will be located in the
East Mesa area of Imperial Valley and drilled to a depth of 4,000-
8,000 feet. A portable pilot desalting plant will be moved to the
well site and test operations for desalting geothermal brines will
start. Also, a test disposal well is anticipated for late in 1972 to
determine the feasibility of reinjecting the byproduct fluids from
geothermal development.
36
-------
Preliminary studies indicate the Imperial Valley geothermal resources
might be capable of producing 2,500,000 acre-feet of fresh water per
year on a sustained basis as well as large quantities of electric
energy with possible mineral byproduct recovery.
Operation and Maintenance Activities
Various facets of the Bureau of Reclamation's operation and maintenance
activities deal directly with salinity problems in the Colorado River.
Water quality studies are continuing in the basin as required under
various public laws, and biennial reports are made to Congress.
These reports are prepared in cooperation with the Geological Survey.
The reports include data regarding historical, present, modified,
and anticipated future chemical quality of water conditions at 17 key
stations in the Colorado River Basin. Also presented are discussions
of State standards, quality control, sources of salinity, sources
of other forms of pollution, and other aspects of water quality in
the basin. In fiscal year 1972, $90,000 will be used in prosecution
of this program.
Consumptive use studies are being undertaken as required by Section 601
of the Colorado River Basin Project Act. These studies will provide
useful input to prosecution of the salinity control program. In
fiscal year 1972, $100,000 is being expended for this activity.
37
-------
842
Research
Considerable research will be required to support the water quality
improvement program in the basin. Ongoing and scheduled research
which is expected to find application in the salinity control effort
now underway or scheduled by the Bureau of Reclamation include:
(1) Prediction of the quality of return flows (in cooperation with EPA),
(2) mathematical model for predicting nutrient and salt loadings,
(3) ecological considerations in project planning, (4) wastewater
reclamation opportunities, (5) case studies of desalting for salinity
control, (6) management of saline waters, and (7) testing advanced
irrigation systems.
In addition to the foregoing research, considerable additional
research ought to be performed to assist in implementing a viable
salinity control program. As previously indicated, the Office of
Water Resources Research is supporting activities in this area, and
it is strongly recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency
join in financing such research efforts. The land grant universities
and the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture
should also have important inputs.
Some of the kinds of work needed are field trials of water harvesting
techniques, developing special uses for water of inferior quality;
reducing costs for attaining high irrigation efficiencies; identifying
field relationships of irrigation efficiency to return flow quality;
38
-------
843
studies of water flow through large impoundments including the
chemical reactions and velocity of throughput of the dissolved
constituents; vegetative management techniques particularly as related
to phreatophytes with the aim of reducing water use and protecting the
breeding areas of birds and other wildlife; identification of water-
shed management and salinity output relationships; further studies
into the economics of water quality; and ecologic considerations
involving salinity effects on aquatic life and other biological
systems; recovery and extraction of minerals from brines; development
of better inland brine disposal techniques; identifying opportunities
for using reclaimed waste water to satisfy outdoor recreation needs;
and identifying opportunities for using heated water from desalting
installations to extend the recreation season for swimming and other
activities.
39
-------
FIGURE 1
COLOIADO RIVER
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECTS
POINT SOURCE CONTROL PROJECTS
La Verkin Springs
Paradox Valley
Crystal Geyser
Glenwood-Dotsero Springs
Blue Springs
Littlefield Springs
DIFFUSE SOURCE CONTROL PROJECTS
Price River
San Rafael River
Dirty Devil River
M£Elmo Creek
Big Sandy Creek
IRRIGATION SOURCE CONTROL
IRRIGATION SCHEDULING 8 MANAGEMENT
Grand Valley Basin
Lower Gunnison Basin
Uiniah Basin
Colo. River Indian Reservation
Palo Verde Irrigation District
WATER SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT a MGT
Grand Valley Basin
Lower Gunnison Basin
Uintah Basin
Colo. River Indian Reservation
Palo Verde Irrigation District
SUPPORT STUDIES
Mathematical Model of Colorado River
Economic Evaluation of WaterQuality
Institutional & Legal Analysis
Ion Exchange Process Systems
DATA COLLECTION
FEASIBILITY
1972
73
74
75
7
-------
ProJaets depleting Colorado River water
845
NewHew irrlga-
. . , . depletion tion land
Project and state (ac.-ft.) facresl
Above the gage Green River at Green River, Wyoming — ' '' ' '
Seedskadee, Wyoming l4<5 OOO 58 ooo
Westvaco and others, Wyoming !!!!!.!!!! 86*000 I/
Between the above gage and the gage Green River near Greendale, Utah '
Lymn, Wyoming lO.QOO 0
Utah Power & Light and others, Wyoming 8 000 I/
Above the gage Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah '
Central Utah Project, Utah
Bonneville Unit 166,000 2/
Ulntah Unit • i i 1 !!!!!!!.'!!!!!!''* 30*000 7°800
Between the gages Green River near Greendale, Utah, and Duchesne River neei Randiett', Utah! ' ' '
and the gage Green River at Green River, Utah
Pour County, Colorado 40,000 2/
Hayden Steamplant, Colorado 12 OOO T/
Cheyenne-Laramie, Wyoming * . . ! 24*OOO 27
Savery-Pot Rook, Colorado-Wyoming 57*000 17~o?o
Central Utah Project '' l>y
Jensen Unit 15,000 440
Above the gage San Rafael near. Green River, Utah
Utah Power & Light, B»ery County, Utah 5 000 i/
Above the gage Colorado River near Glenwood Springs, Colorado ~
Denver- filglewood, Colorado 216 000 2/
Green Mountain MM, Colorado ! . . 12*000 I/
Honestake Project, Colorado !!!!!!! 49*,000 2/
Between the above gage and gage Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado '
Independence Pass Expansion, Colorado i^ QQQ 2/
Eryingpan-Arkansas, Colorado ! ! I 70*,000 2/
Rued! Mil, Colorado 38JOOO T/
West Divide, Colorado 76*,000 197ooo
Above the gage Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado
Ftultland Mesa, Colorado 28,000 15,870
Bostwick Park, Colorado lt)000 1,610
Dallas Creek, Colorado 37 OOO 15,000
Between the gages Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado, and Gunnison River near Grand
Junction, Colorado, and the gage Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
Dolores, Colorado . 1/140,000 32,000
San Miguel, Colorado 85,000 26,000
Above the gage San Juan River near Archuleta, Hew Mexico
San Juan-Ghana, Hew Mexico J.10,OOO 2/
Hstvajo Indian Irrigation, New Mexico -/5O8,000 Ilo7d00
Between the above gage and the gage San Juan River near Bluff, Utah
Animas-La Plata, Colorado-New Mexico 146,000 46,500
Expansion Hogback, New Mexico 10,000 0
Utah Construction Co., New Mexico 25,000 I/
Return flow—Dolores and Navajo Indian Irrigation, Colorado and Hew Mexico -3H,OOO 1/~V
Between the gages Green River at Green River, Utah; San Rafael River near Green River, Utah;
Colorado River near Cisco, Utah; and San Juan River near Bluff, Utah; and the gage
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona
Resources, Inc., Utah 102,000 I/
Arizona M&I, Arizona 35,000 I/
Salvage -80,000 ~
Subtotal Upper Basin 1,892,000 350,l4o
Between the above gage and the gage Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona 0 0
Above the gage Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona
Dixie Project, Utah 1/48,000 6,900
Between the gages Colorado Siver near Grand Canyon, Arizona, "^ Virgin River at Little-
field, Arizona, and the gage Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada ,,
Southern Nevada Water Project, Nevada £'240,000 I/
Between the above gage and the gage Colorado River below Parker Dam, Arizona-California
Fort Mohave and Chemehuevi Indian, Arizona, California, and Nevada 83,000 20,900
Central Arizona, Arizonal/ ^ 433,000
Reduced Metropolitan Water District Diversions!/ -433,000
Klngman, Arizona ,, 18,000 I/
Mohave Valley I&D District, Arizona 6,000 I/
Lake Havasu LVD District, Arizona 7,OOO I/
Salvage -87,000
Reduced Metropolitan Water District Diversions!/ -199,000
Between the above gage and the gage Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Arizona-Colorado
Colorado River Indian, Arizona-California 243,000 60,840
Salvage -104,000
Subtotal Lower Basin 255,000 BB,64O
Total Colorado River i 2.147.000 438,780
I/ In-basln depletion without Irrigated lands.
2/ Xransoountain diversion.
3_/ In-basin transfer from Dolores River drainage to the San Juan River drainage—estimated 53 ,OOO- acre- foot re-
turn flow to the San Juan River.
4/ Diversions at Navajo Reservoir, estimated 258,OOO-acre-foot return flow to the San Juan River below the
gage near Archuleta, Hew Mexico.
5/ includes a transmountaln diversion to Great Basin.
6/ Pending full development, the Mohave Thermal Plant will use part of this water which will be diverted below
Hoover Dam.
2/ The Central Arizona Project diversions will vary, depending on the depletions by other projects on the
river. Under present modified conditions i~irimn« diversions to Central Arizona could he 2,172,000 acre-feet but
vith full depletions by the projects tabulated, the •uri™™ diversions would be 433,000 acre-feet. Also with full
depletions by the projects tabulated, the diversions to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California would
be reduced to an annual 550,000 acre-feet from its present diversions of 1,162,000 acre-feet. This will provide
199,000 acre-feet needed to develop the other tabulated projects in the Lover Basin in addition to the 433,000
acre-feet delivered to the Central Arizona Project.
taterioi.RecUnutioo, B.C.Nev. 2-72
-------
8*46
E, L. Armstrong
MR. STEIN: Are there any questions or comments?
MR. THATCHER: Mr. Chairman,
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. THATCHER: He mentioned a February 1972 report of
the Bureau. Will the conferees get copies of this?
MR. ARMSTRONG: We will have that for you—
How soon will—
MR. STEIN: Is that Report No. 5? I had that noted too
MR. ARMSTRONG: No, no. The Report No. 5 is the Janu-
ary 1971 report, which you have. The report that you are refer-
ring to is now in the process of being put together, and we will
have it to you within 30 days, and as soon as we can get it to
you. It is in the final stages of being put together.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Thatcher?
MR. THATCHER: Yes.
MR. STEIN: What do you think we should do about it,
put it in the record?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir, I would like it Included in
the record, if you would, because it Includes the details of
these things that I have been discussing.
MR. STEIN: When will we have that?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Within 30 days and as soon as we can.
MR. STEIN: All right. Without objection we will put
it in the record as if read with—
-------
E, L. Armstrong
Do you think we could have enough copies—
MR. ARMSTRONG: We will furnish you whatever copies
you like.
MR. STEIN: —to provide the States, because I don't
want them to have to wait for the record.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. STEIN: 0. K.?
MR. ARMSTRONG: We will arrange to do that. We will
have our staff work with yours to provide whatever copies you
need.
(Editor's Note: See p. 16, Reconvened Session, April 26-27, 197J2,
i
i
for the above-mentioned report. See Report #5 appended herein.)!
I
i
MR. STEIN: Any other comments?
Mr. Dibble.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr* Chairman, I have a question of
Commissioner Armstrong.
There are two tables in your report—
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. DIBBLE: —that you presented. One is at page 30,
vhich shows the water quality improvements that would probably
be able to be effected from point source controls, both diffuse
source controls, and from irrigation scheduling, and you indi-
cate perhaps that perhaps at Hoover the salinity level could be
-------
E. L, Armstrong
reduced to 135 mg/1. But over on page 5 there Is a table which
shows the probable concentrations at Imperial Dam. And at page
30 I should have used the Imperial Dam figure of possible
reduction of 165•
These figures on Table 1 on page 5 suggest that if
there is no salinity reduction the concentration at Imperial
Dam would be 1,250.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. DIBBLE: But if you took out .1.9 million tons of
salt at Hoover Dam it would be 1,040, which is a greater
salinity reduction.
The figures don't seem to fit together and I was Just
wondering if someone could look into those and see if they could
reconcile them.
MR. ARMSTRONG: They—
MR. DIBBLE: If that is too complicated to try to
explain here, maybe—
MR. ARMSTRONG: All right, we will look into it and
provide you with an explanation for the record* I don't think
there is any problem there. It is a matter of detailed explana-
tion, I think.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, I have one other question?-
MR. STEIN: Yes.
-------
E. L« Armstrong
MR* DIBBLE: --or really a comment about Mr, Arm-
strong's statement*
This is an enforcement conference that is called here
today, and the first thing you had on your agenda was the
Uranium tailings and that is clearly an enforcement problem-
Bat it is very clear, as pointed out not only by the EPA staff
but by Commissioner Armstrong, that this matter of the salinity
problem of the Colorado River is way more than an enforcement
problem, in fact, isn't really an enforcement problem at
all except from some of the waste discharges from the municipal-
ities and Industry.
MR. STEIN: That is what we deal with enforcement
problems from waste discharges9 Mr. Dibble.
MR. DIBBLE: This is a resource management problem
and I am glad to see that the Bureau is now beginning to really
get this thing in focus, I would Just guess that had this
conference been a year ago, the Bureau wouldn't have been able
to make as strong a statement as it did today of how it expects
to be able to move along. I think the Bureau is to be com-
•ended for making such a strong statement here today.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Armstrong, that the Bureau will
get all the support it needs to carry through on a program such
as you are proposing here*
-------
: . 850
E. L. Armstrong
MR. ARMSTRONG: We plan to, yes. Thank you.
MR. DIBBLE: And 1 think the conference report
should do that.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments from the
States?
Mr. O'Connell?
MR. 0*CONNELL: I have a comment and a question.
I note that from your Table 3 you anticipate an
Improvement In Imperial Dam of 165 ppm and comparing that to
the projected degradation In the EPA report by 1980 at Imperial
Dam I note that Is 191 ppm. It would appear that If the program
went In and was completely successful that we would still lose
ground between now and 1980. I Just wish we could be more
optimistic than that.
But then--
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, they are based on conservative
estimates,and we are hoping that they will be better. £at at
the same time«you will note our estimate of what the full
development program is, which is somewhat less than the esti-
mates that you folks made, based on a little different basic
assumptions, and this is where the differences arise. We think
ours are pretty sound, but there are areas where honest dif-
ferences of opinion can occur.
-------
850- A
E, L. Armstrong
MR. O'CONNELL: It would appear on the basis of the
best estimates that we can make projecting increases and
decreases that over the next 10 years we probably can't hold
our own as far as salinity and--
MR. ARMSTRONG: Oh, I am a little more optimistic
than that, I think with the, again, good possibilities of the
weather modification program making a contribution that this
is going to be helpful*
MR. STEIN: Knowing the other conferees, I suspect we
all have the same thought. I think the essential thing is that
this conference first met in 1960. If you take the EPA
statistics as correct, and I assume they are, we have lost
ground since I960. It has gotten progressively worse until
1970. If we are going to roll that back by minus 165* we are
still going to be in not as good shape as we were in I960.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, again it ties in to the con-
sumptive use of water* As I have pointed out, there have been
additional diversions, and this has been the primary problem.
Then, of course, in that period we have had the problem of
filling Glen Canyon and some of these other factors that aren't
repeating themselves.
MR* STEIN: By the way, I understand the problem, but
I think we have to face the public and say we have been here for
-------
851
E. L. Armstrong
10 years—10 years since we had the conference—and salinity
Is Increasing. Yet the kind of program that we have heard
here Isn't going to roll that back to what It was In I960.
It Is going to be over 1,000 at Imperial Dam.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, we are hoping. We are hoping,
Mr. Chairman, that we can with this program get it back down
below that figure. But we think it is premature to say that
now until we get this additional Informatipn put together and
analyzed, because as you well know, there is no magic to this
thing, and it is going to take a lot of good, hard slugging work
MR. STEIN: Darned right.
MR, ARMSTRONG: --on the part of everyone. And as
you mentioned at the start of the meeting, our Job now is to
positively get hold of these problems and get with it and I
think that is where we are.
MR. STEIN: While we are this far on it, I am
reading possibly from the press release—1 think this sum-
marizes your position—where you say that, "It is essential
that the available technical knowledge of the physical and
social factors Involved and their interrelationships and the
probable consequences of proposed changes be fully understood
before applying numerical standards."
Is that correct?
-------
. 852
E, L. Armstrong
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, I think generally that Is it.
MR. STEIN: 0. K. And then you say:
"A Federal-State Task Force should be appointed to
provide guidance and participate in the effort. The task force
should be allowed 3 years to complete the work, to complete its
findings^ and to make recommendations to another session of this
conference."
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: All right. Well, the point is—I think
we are going to have several points. One, the question we are
going to have to ask is why we don't have numerical standards
now. Secondly, why we should have 3 years* And if we do both,
maybe some people want to abolish the conference, and if it is
abolished what are you going to have to report to?
It seems to me what your statement assumes is the
establishment of a Federal-State task force and the continuance
of the conference.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, yes.
MR. STEIN: Unless I misread you.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Yes.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, this is what we suggest.
MR. STEIN: All right.
-------
853
E. L. Armstrong
MR. ARMSTRONG: And again for the reasons that we
pointed out, that the legal problems, the institutional require-
ments, the river compacts, all the rest of these ramifications
of the various laws that I cited, and so on, present a very
complex problem. The Interstate problems that they have, we
think that the States should be Involved and working on this
task force*
MR. STEIN: No, I understand that. But if the whole
thing is going to work, we are going to have to have a con-
ference to report to.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Oh, yes, surely.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Agreed.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Armstrong, I note on page 6 that the
Department is pledged to pursue the program of salinity control,
I could pledge to take the salt out of the river with a tea-
spoon and it wouldn't mean a whole lot. Could you tell me the
amount of effort and the amount of energy that is at the—the
resources that are at the disposal of the Bureau at this point
in time?
MR* ARMSTRONG: Well, I pointed out that we have a
program now planned of study of $18 million here in the next 7
-------
854
£, L. Armstrong
years which indicates certainly a big effort, and from the
standpoint of recognition of this problem by, of course, all
the States in the West, and because of the recognition of our
overall problem on the Colorado, I anticipate that if we have
a good sound case that Congress will appropriate funds to
proceed as we come up with these projects that we can recom-
mend for implementation, construction and implementation.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Stein, I would Just like to echo Mr.
Dibble's comments that it does appear that we have the Bureau's
attention finally. (Laughter.)
MR. ARMSTRONG: You have had it for at least 2-1/2
years, I can assure you that.
MR. WRIGHT: And it does appear that the problem is
mainly a water resources problem, that the individual States
are in the process now and always have been of controlling
salinity from point sources of industrial discharge and
municipal discharge.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: And maybe that is where our resources
should be at this point.
Thank you.
MR. ARMSTRONG: There has been some discussion on
stepping this Fiscal year 1973 program up. In the budget we
-------
:„ .. __ 855
E. L. Armstrong
have a little better than $1 million and we would be able, if
there is that type of support, to step that up and probably
double it*
MR. STEIN: Well, this works both ways, I am glad
we have the Bureau's attention. We were hampered without
i
i
'them. I love these guys. (Laughter.) I hope they have your
attention. The Bureau needs your attention as well as you
need theirs.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Believe me, you have.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or questions?
Yes.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Mr. Commissioner, it seems to me that
there is no question that irrigation is probably one of the
major problems in our salinity control program, and you state in
the document that improved on-farm management is one of the
areas you will be looking at*
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Now, in your contractual arrangements
with the various Irrigation ditches, can the Bureau actually
regulate the amount of water to the given Irrigation ditch where
you actually can use possibly better irrigation practices in
these areas?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Not to the degree I think that you
-------
__ 856
— "* --- - - .„ ^_dT
E. L. Armstrong
are referring to, and these types of things are a continuing
education type program, demonstration type. As I pointed out,
I think it is to everyone's benefit to recognize this and we
are getting recognition in most areas*
There are other means to approach this, of course,
besides our contractual arrangements.
MR. STEIN: Any others?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Comment, Murray,
Some 5 or 6 years ago when we started talking about j
i
possible control projects, always the bugaboo of financing that !
i
came up is who is going to pay for it.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I noticed in a very brief section in
the program financing and repayment that it will follow estab-
lished laws, and as near as I can see there it is probably going
to be a real tough job of who is the beneficiaries of some of
these projects. All we can do as States is probably hope you
don't try to charge them all back to the irrigation project
where they were built because this would put quite a few people
out of business. But this is still an unsolved problem, I
take it, or one that is—
*
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, it is one that is not simple.
It is very complex, as I indicated. And this is one of the
-------
851
E. L, Armstrong
reasons and this is one of the areas that has got to receive
some very detailed analyses and some hard thinking to come up
with something, Item 1, that is equitable and, 2, that is
attainable. In this field a lot of good wishful thinking is
fine, but when you get down to dollars and cents there are
some other problems, and this Is what we want to do is real-
istically approach this from the overall standpoint, from the
standpoint of the local users and the States and the national
interests, to come up with a way of financing it. And this is
why we suggest to take this additional time*
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
MR. O'CONNELL: I have one more.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. O'CONNELL: I notice on your Figure 1, which shows
the timing of various projects, that you don't actually show
much in the way of construction until about Fiscal year 197**.
I wondered if it would be at all possible if you could consider
accelerating some of that by way of, say, demonstration projects
such as the Office of Saline Water project, and so on, to get a
few of these perhaps under way In a limited way*
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. You see, this gives us time to
go ahead and get detailed, and this talks about the actual con-
struction and it takes a little leadtime. We may In one or two
-------
158
E. L. Armstrong
instances, for instance, La Verkin Springs, perhaps step it
up, and we are looking Into that. This is what we think is
reasonably possible to accomplish.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions?
I have a few.
Let me refer to the pages In your statement. Page 18.
You say, "The salinity problem in the Colorado River is pri-
marily an economic issue* No detrimental effects on the environ-
ment along the Colorado River are envisioned due to increased
salinity concentration."
Do you really mean that?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Within the limitations that we are
talking about here, and as I explained further, that is natural
vegetation that we are talking about, because natural vege-
tation has a salinity tolerance higher than the projected
salinity concentration—
MR. STEIN: I understand that. But the problem that
we are getting at here, and I don't know that we had this, but
I suspect we had an economic investigator here in past con-
ferences, Dr. Nathaniel Wollman, who I believe is now Dean of
Arts and Sciences at the University of New Mexico. He pointed
out that if you used the water in gross regional profit for irri
gated agriculture in the States, you were going to get the valu
-------
£• L. Armstrong
of X} if you used it for municipal and industrial use you were
going to get 3S; if you used it for recreational use you were
going to get 7X.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: The point is, if we are talking in terms
of vegetation and we are talking in terms of ?X for recreation,
we are talking in terms of different things. And the question
is if we are talking about .environmental detriment due to
increased salinity, I think we have to take other things into
account other than the growth of~
MR. ARMSTRONG: Oh, there is no question on that. We
are in agreement with that, that this is the—it has to be the
entire environment. And that all of these things, of course,
have a very complex interrelationship, too, that has to be
carefully evaluated and kept in mind.
MR. STElN: All right.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask something?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. DIBBLE: May I follow on the question that Mr.
O'Connell asked about your scheduling of your programs, and you
indicated that perhaps some of these could be expedited* Is
there any way that this conference could identify with your
help, Mr. Armstrong, which of these things could be expedited,*
-------
860
£• L. Armstrong
and perhaps this conference could* before it is concluded, take
some kind of a position on urging either the Bureau or Congress,
I guess Congress, to provide the funding that would be needed to
speed up some of these things? Because as has been pointed out
here, if some of these things are not speeded up the quality of
the river will continue to get worse.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. DIBBLE: And that is the one thing I think we
should pledge ourselves to see does not happen. I think every
State has a water quality policy which is against the further
degradation of water, and I think we should all try to carry out
that policy on the Colorado River.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I think these that we have
identified here on this chart can—for instance, the point
source control projects could be stepped up some. Well, the
whole program. The whole program, it is a massive across-the-
board type of approach; the diverse source control projects.
The problem there again is getting the basic data on which to
come up with some viable method of control.
As I stated, I think on the basis of detailed study,
and John, I think you have it here, that we estimate we could
step it up double what is in the present President's budget.
Do you have those?
-------
861
£, L. Armstrong
MR, MALETIC: Yes, Would you like me to list those,
Mr. Commissioner?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Would you like to give us the details
on that? Do you have them, John?
MR, DIBBLE: Well, I am not sure, Mr. Stein, whether
Mr. Armstrong can just give it off the cuff.
MR, STEIN: Have you got that?
MR. ARMSTRONG: I have the statement here. Let me
give you this.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. ARMSTRONG: It can be accelerated. An evident
drawback, as I mentioned, is lack of sufficient data, particu-
larly for diffuse sources, to allow early preparation of feas-
ibility level designs and estimates for the comptrollers.
Acceleration can be applied to some point source control, some
of the water system improvement and management, the irrigation
scheduling and management, the economic evaluations and an
early start on several of these new activities such as the
dissolving of the return flows from the Palo Verde Irrigation
District, Bryan disposal studies in the lower reaches of the
Colorado, and an overall salinity source identification study
from Hoover to Imperial where I mentioned, you know, that we
have rather a large Increase in the salinity* In addition,
-------
• 862
£• L. Armstrong
data collection for the diffuse sources could be accelerated.
And this was the basis for the additional money that I
mentioned.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
MR. DIBBLE; Thank you.
MR, STEIN: Commissioner Armstrong, I would like to
call your attention to page 20, the last paragraph.
...it is essential that feasibility
studies be pursued on point, diffuse, and
irrigation sources to disclose the maximum
Improvement in water quality that can be
achieved with present technology.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: These studies must develop
the full costs involved, identify the control
means, the trade-offs,and specify the time
required to achieve specific degrees of control
for particular reaches of the river.
We have been dealing with water quality here and we
have argued —and I know you have cost/benefit in the reclama-
tion operation—but where else in pollution control do we deal
with the time with the trade-offs, full costs involved,
etc.? The Judgment we have on water quality
-------
863
£. L. Armstrong
under the.present law, as I understand It—and this is both State
Federal-is those people who are responsible for it have to '
clean It up.
MR. ARMSTRONG: And the problem Is defining who those
folks are in a complex problem as we have here,
MR. STEIN: I don't think we have—
MR. ARMSTRONG: This isn't quite—
MR. STEIN: You have helped us define this.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. STEIN: And the group here, they have indicated
how much came from return flow irrigation and from natural
sources, I think you have done a magnificent Job on that.
But the question here is whether we adopt a different
rule in judging whether these people are going to be responsible
for the cleanup on the costs involved and the trade-offs that we
don't apply usually to cities or industries.
MR. ARMSTRONG: I see your point. But there are some
differences from the pollution in the normal sense, that is
other than the return flows from irrigation, and so on, that
comes in the picture from industry, but—
MR. STEIN: Here, let me give you page 22, it is the
same thing, the same point, last paragraph:
Such funding would be requested
-------
861
E. L. Armstrong
following a demonstration of economic feasi-
bility of specific salinity control projects.
Suppose that salinity was causing pollution. If we
gave that same requirement or same choice to any city or indus-
try we regulate, that they will give us their Job for control
after they demonstrate the economic feasibility of the project,
I wonder how much pollution control we would have had in this
country*
MR. ARMSTRONG: I think, Mr. Chairman, what we are
talking about here is the degree of what is pollution and how
many parts per million added becomes a polluting effect in this
area where there isn't any such thing as a black or white line;.
AAd it depends on what you are going to do with it and where you
are going to use it and where you are on the river and what your
particular problems are. So it doesn't quite lend itself to
this type of rather more black and white decision that you have
in some of the other areas.
MR. STEIN: In other words, what you are suggesting,
for the interest or the sources in the Colorado River is use a
somewhat different technique than we and the States have been
using for other point source discharges?
MR. ARMSTRONG: No, I am not sure that I get your
point.
-------
865
E. L. Armstrong
MR. STEIN: Well, we generally don't ask them for a
demonstration of economic feasibility.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, It would be—you would have to
have some very sound reasons to, for Instance, follow the—
MR. STEIN: I understand your point.
MR. ARMSTRONG: And we have got to determine what
these quality Improvements that we are talking about are
going to cost and whether or not they have some other side
effects from the standpoint of cost that can overbalance, you
see, the decrease In salinity. And this is the part—well,
this was explained quite well with the report of EPA, some of
the complexities of this problem.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, this comes back to the
very point I was trying to make at the very start. In
enforcement—you have been using this kind of conference,
of course, for several years to carry out enforcement--one
does go to the matter of waste discharges and the treatment of
waste discharges, and the first part of the conference today
was about the uranium tailings. And I don't think there is any
question in anybody's mind here that the mill owners are being
required to stabilize those tailings so as to eliminate the dis-
charge to the river, and there is just no question about that.Thjat
is a pollution control measure and there can be enforcement.
-------
: —- 866
E. L. Armstrong
Now, the salinity control, on the other hand, really, !
t
when you get right down to it, is a management of our water |
i
resource and the quality of it separate and apart from enforce- |
ment._ I take that into account by listening to Commissioner Arm-
i
strong and your staff. Maybe we even take salt out of some of tliese
j
i
i
natural sources. You are not going to enjoin those natural i
i
sources through any enforcement action (laughter), you are Just j
i
going to manage it. We have got to spend some money to Implement
i
i
a program to remove'that salinity.
And when you start down that path, there clearly have j
to be some trade-offs, because Congress when it goes to
appropriate the money has to recognize that there are some
benefits to be derived over and above the costs of the project.
And that Is something that I think our conference has to get
clearly Into focus.
MR. STEIN: By the way, I Just wanted to raise the
question. I don't say I disagree. But I think you have put
this into clear focus. What you are suggesting is that we
perhaps have a little different rule here than when we «•• dealing
with any point source like a uranium mill or a city or a steel
mill or a packinghouse.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Certainly.
MR. STEIN: And I think this Is my point in putting
-------
: . 86?
E. L. Armstrong
this forward.
MR, DIBBLE: Yea.
MR. STEIN: If this is the issue here,
MR, ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Now, I have g few more questions that
are largely informative. Let's go to page 23.
You talk about controlling salinity on a large scale
at diversion points rather than controlling the sources.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Does this mean that we figure that we are
going to have a tributary stream or stretch of stream that is
just going to have a high salt and we are Just going to forget
that and wait until it gets to a diversion point to take it up?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Generally speaking, and I think this is
in the Federal Act, we control pollution at the source. What
you are suggesting here is that we have some stretches—and I
recognize there are 1,400 or 1,200 miles of the Colorado River
mala stem and 60 tributaries— what you are suggesting is that
we are just going to let some of these main stretches go either
on the main stem or tributaries and just pick this up at a
diversion source?
MR. ARMSTRONG: No, let me elaborate on that just a
-------
. 868
E. L. Armstrong
bit. What I am saying is this, that all of these things we
have to examine and most of them we have to implement.
And one way that we can, for Instance, reduce some of the
losses—and keep In mind, this problem of pollution, I am not
sure that that Is the right term when you get Into the
utilization and management of your water resources when you
use it for irrigation and for municipal use in the West,
because it isn't really a black and white type of thing as to
where it becomes pollution and where it isn't—.and so what we
are referring to here is a technique that looks to have promise
now that we could, say at Imperial Dam, run the water through
this ion exchange where we could reduce the salts from, say,
1100 ppm to 900 ppm.
MR. STEIN: But until it gets to Imperial Dam we will
Just give up that little stretch?
MR. ARMSTRONG: No, no, no, we are not giving it up
at all. We are talking about the source where you are going to
use it, see, where in that reach, 1,100 ppm is just as good as
900 ppm as far as anything is concerned in that reach* But when
we get down to the point where you are going to utilize it,
where that degree of salinity is needed or is economically
reasonable for that use, then we can run the water through there
and take out, say, a couple hundred parts per million.
-------
869
E. L. Armstrong
MR. STEIN: 1 think you have got to realize that in
our program, Mr. Armstrong, the issue again is whenever we are
dealing with industries and municipalities, we ask them to treat
at the source. What you are suggesting here is that the source
be not necessarily the point of treatment. You are going to
let that quality of water go down to a particular diversion
point which you or we might designate and treat it there, and
from there on we are going to improve it.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. But what I am saying, that is a
different problem. Keep in mind, before we did any management
work on the Colorado, in the late flows, late flows of the
summer got up as high as 4,000, 5,000 ppm, and then during the
other part of the season it was flood flow and it was no good to
anybody. And through management, you see, of a limited renewable
resource we have created this vast southwest economy by reason
of proper utilization of this basic resource of water.
And so this is quite a little different problem than
the one you normally deal with*
MR. STEIN: I understand. And what you are saying is
that this is a different problem and we should treat this dif-
ferently than our ordinary treatment of pollution at the source.
And I think the sooner we understand what we are saying the
better off we are going to be.
-------
870
E. L. Armstrong
MR, DIBBLE: Mr* Chairman, If I may say so, respect-
fully, I think you too have perhaps missed the point, because I
think the EPA staff and the Bureau both have been trying to
Identify the sources and are analyzing the cost and the feasi-
bility of treating some of the sources. Now, for Instance,
Glenwood Springs is an example, way up the river, a big source
of salt, and you are looking into the feasibility of actually
controlling at the source—
MR. STEIN: No, no, wait, that is another point. I
think, sir, what—•
MR. DIBBLE: It is not a great deal of difference.
MR. STEIN: I agree with you on that. I think the
question I was raising here is that the point was made that we
control salinity. I agree, there is no problem, we have no
problem on treating at the source at Qlenwood Springs. And on
page 23 it says we control salinity on a large scale at diversion
points rather than control at the sources. Now, this is what
I was getting at.
I have no problem with treating Glenwood Springs at
the source, but I think I understand what Commissioner Armstrong
!• laying* and that is at certain places he is riot going to treat
at the source—
MR. ARMSTRONG: No, no* No, sir, I am not saying that
-------
871
E. L. Armstrong
at all. What I am saying is that here is another way that we
can approach this,
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. ARMSTRONG; And with these other things, if we
can't get it down to an acceptable salt content, say, for the
municipal use in southern California, then there is this
additional technique that is now developing of ion exchange of
large quantities of water, you see, that may be able at the
point of diversion where it takes off for southern California—
MR, STEIN: I understand that.
MR. ARMSTRONG: —take out to—
MR, STEIN: California may be happy, but how about
the people that are there until It gets to that point in ques-
tion?
MR, ARMSTRONG: What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, I
pointed out the Increase between Hoover Dam and Imperial Dam
where the uses are largely for recreation use, fish and wild-
life, and so on, and where this 200 ppm doesn't make any dif-
ference. You can't measure it as far as those effects are
concerned.
The problem in this area is what the
standard ought to be ', and there isn't any real threshold
that we rather loosely discuss because it varies. It varies
-------
872
E. L. Armstrong
on what you do with it; it varies on where you are; it varies
on what your soil conditions are and the crops and this whole
variety of problems, and where you have to—-there are places
in the United States where they have as much as 2,500 ppm in
their municipal water and they think it is great• Well, they
have some problems, of course. They would like it if the water
wasn't quite so hard, but they live with it,
MR. STEIN: J hav» never heard of anyone who thought
that was great.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Some health addict— (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: Let me get to another point and this is
largely explanatory.
I think you heard the EPA people say that the largest
single source of salinity, natural source, possibly, if we can
use that term, not manmade, is Blue Springs.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. STEIN: —as I read your statement—
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, it is Blue Springs.
MR. STEIN: --you said it is not going to be controlleji
until 1980.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Dirty Devil, McElmo Creek, Price River,
Big Sandy Creek, San Rafael, 1979. In other word*, what your
-------
873,
E, L. Armstrong
program is saying^s that these real high concentrations of salts
EPA talked about, you don't expect to reduce until the
1980«s?
MR* ARMSTRONG: No, sir, I think you miss my point.
What we are doing is concentrating on these high concentrations
where we have a point source, and then as fast as we can
accumulate good sound basic data on these large-scale source
areas—this Is where the big problem is, you know,
MR* STEIN: No, sir, I don't think I miss your point.
Let me refer you to page 25•
MR. ARMSTRONG: All right.
MR. STEIN: "Construction on Blue Springs could not
begin until 1980.h
MR. ARMSTRONG: That is on the basis of Blue Springs.
MR, STEIN: No, I am not arguing with your presump-
tions of statement, I think on the next page you talk Dirty
Devil—
MR, ARMSTRONG: Yes,
HR, STEIN: —the Price River, Sandy River, Dirty
Devil River, McElmo Creek, "At this time, it appears that the
earliest construction could begin for such projects is fiscal
year 1979.n
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes,
-------
E. L. Armstrong
MR. STEIN: I am giving you these statements, this is
from your statement.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Now, the point is EPA indicated that these
were the large natural salt well discharges, point discharges.
You are saying that your program that you are putting forward,
that if we follow this, it is optimistic, rosy, it is rosy hued
as you present it, and the best you put it, it is not going to
start until—we won't see it until the middle of the 1980*8.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir,
MR. STEIN: This is Just an Information question, not
an argumentative one, sir.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, but let me point out, the point
I am trying to make here is that we are concentrating on these
areas where we have Information and basic information where we
can proceed at an early date with the design of the facilities.
In these diffuse sources that are mentioned here, while they are
big contributors to the salt load, they drain vast areas, you
see, and salt is picked up over the whole area and there has to
be a lot of better and sounder specific data that we can base
an approach on, and this is our problem here. It is not a small
Job. We are talking about one-twelfth of the areas of the
United States that is involved in this thing and the basic data
-------
_ 875
E, L. Armstrong
that is needed to—
MR. STEIN: No, I understand what you are saying. I
am not- arguing that. But the point is we can't expect to get
reduction in salt in the Colorado River under your program on
these until the 1980*s, is that correct, sir?
MR. ARMSTRONG: We can start to have an effect with
all of these things as they come into effect, and we are hoping
on the basis of what we have that we can hold our own,
(Off the record,)
MR. DIBBLE: Mr, Chairman, the question I asked Mr,
Armstrong sometime ago really related to the very point you
are making. I said—-I didn't say that this program looks
awfully slow, but what I said, isn't there some way it could be
speeded up and expedited. Commissioner Armstrong said, if I
understood him correctly, yes, it could. And: he started to name
some specific things, but it seemed to me that Mr. Armstrong was
saying specifically, yes, the program can be speeded up so that
we can get some results in an earlier time frame, which I think
are clearly indicated we need,
MR. STEIN: Is that correct, Mr. Armstrong?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes,
MR. STEIN: Will you specify on that the area? Do
you care to respond to that in detail?
-------
. 876
E. L. Armstrong
MR. DIBBLE: Did I misunderstand you?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I gave you, Mr. Chairman, a
fairly good detailed statement on that. If you would like us
to expand it, I would like to do that for the record and we
can give you more specifics and I think maybe I should do that.
MR. STEIN: In other words, you think we can reduce
the salt before 1980?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Sure, we can do things that will have
a reducing effect on the salt from some of these sources.
But I think, again let me emphasize that, gee,
there is no magic solution to any of these problems. It is
going to take a massive approach clear across the board and
all of these are—or probably very few of them are going to
have spectacular results. But in the aggregate, though, they
will begin to have an effect and that is what we are shooting
for. Most promising, I think, in the immediate picture is this :
weather modification program.
MR. STEIN: 0. K. You say that we should have a
Federal-State task force, allowed 3 years to complete the work
and to make recommendations for Federal—before we have numeri-
cal findings?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Then on page 29 you say:
-------
__877
E. L, Armstrong I
Once developed, these procedures
ought to be utilized and tested by the
States involved as an essential prerequisite
to the establishment of numerical standards
for salinity.
Is that included in the 3 years?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. We are talking about these
models, these models that were being given,
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: In other words, you envision this program
with the State testing and everything for 3 years to come up
with numerical requirements?
MR. ARMSTRONG: We anticipate to have these mathe-
matical models developed and perfected to the extent that you
can determine, then, what specific standards set in different
locations, what effect that would have on the overall area.
And hopefully also In the economic model, what effect it has
economically up and down the Colorado Basin. We think this is
quite important. We have a good clear Indication of what these
effects are going to be at the time you adopt the standards,
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions or comments?
If not, thank you very much*
-------
. 878
E. L. Armstrong
MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: You have made a really profound contri-
bution to the conference,
MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: We appreciate this and appreciate the
cooperation we always get from the Department of the Interior.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you,
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Let's stand recessed for 10 minutes.
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
We will continue with the Federal presentation.
Mr. Dickstein.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Mr. Freeman, please.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Stein, may I interrupt just a minute,
please?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: I had several comments during the break
that people in the audience did not know who was at the head
table. Could we have introductions again?
And also, even though Mr. Armstrong's presentation
was very enlightening and quite gutty in terms of this overall
program, I did learn to read about sixth or seventh grade and
-------
871
M. Stein
would like to recommend that we change the procedure to sum-
maries of these statements rather than a complete reading of
the text. There are about 93 people here and most of them are
relatively high salaried people and the cost of such a time-
consuming process is quite high* If I could Just make that
proposal, at any rate.
MR, STEIN: Well, I agree with your proposal* Let me
tell you that psychologically and philosophically I agree with
you, (Laughter.)
However, if you have ever tried to have anyone have
a summary, you know how difficult it is. And I don't think
this is the case with something like Mr. Armstrong's statement,
because really some of the material we got here is information
that I have been waiting to hear for years. But sometimes, and
I really don't mean to say this as a criticism, sir, just as an
experience, I know with citizens groups I have tried over and
over again when the people come in and someone has a statement
to ask them to summarize. When they have prepared their full
statement and you ask them to summarize and they don't do this
professionally, perhaps as you and I mighty you throw them into
a tailspin. I think the fastest way to get these things
through Is let everyone state it in his own manner*
Now, I really do wish that I knew how to do what you
-------
^- 880
R. Freeman
suggest, because I couldn't agree with you more. But I have
never found a way,
Mr, Freeman, did you hear those sound words of
advice? (Laughter.)
MR, FREEMAN: Yes, sir. Does that mean I can speak
at my own rate of speed? (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: No, I tell you this, though, what is the
highest priority of this operation. The thing we are doing is
making a record and without the court stenographer you are not
going to have a record. She is the most precious thing here,
so act accordingly.
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir.
RUSSELL FREEMAN
DIRECTOR, PACIFIC OFFICE
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HONOLULU, HAWAII
MR. FREEMAN: We have just a few more brief comments
to summarize from our presentation and then we will turn to the
findings, conclusions and recommendations of the report.
The preceding speakers for EPA defined present and
expected future physical and economic impacts of salinity.
They also addressed some attention to technical solutions for
-------
881
R. Freeman
the salinity problem. These discussions point out the need to
set objectives for future water quality and to formulate a
basinwide salinity control plan to meet these objectives. Such
a plan was presented and described by Mr. Vincent in one
appendix to the report being presented.
In the Initial process of establishing water quality
standards pursuant to the Federal 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 investigations and related
research and demonstration activities and the studies of others
which have been conducted concurrently have now provided much
needed new 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 at key locations throughout the Colorado River,
Due to the scale and types of control projects
included In the salt load reduction program, an approach
similar to that utilized for authorization and funding of water
-------
882
R. Freeman
resource development has been considered as most appropriate
for this control program. Water resource projects normally
move through three basic steps before they are placed in opera-
tion. 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 then submitted
to Congress and construction funds are requested* The third
step begins when funds are appropriated for construction* Com-
pletion of a construction activity then places the project in
operation.
Frequently a number of related projects are author-
ized by a single legislative act, as was in the case for the
Colorado River Storage Project Act, which authorized several
large reservoirs at one time. It is recommended that this
approach be used for the entire basinwlde salinity control
program.
One other point to consider is the ongoing research
and demonstration activities which have been carried on while
the salinity control program was in operation. A number of
research and demonstration activities are discussed in Chapter
V of this report. These research activities are directed toward
-------
883
R. Freeman
Improvement of salinity control technology. Completion of such
activities will need to be provided--I am sorry, let me start
that statement again. Completion of these activities will be
needed to provide the technology needed for control of all types
of salinity sources. Additional research may also be required
if certain types of salinity sources are to be controlled,
The greatest lack of available technology, as we see
it now, is in the area of controlling natural diffuse sources
of salinity. This means that in order to complete the salinity
control program on a reasonably tight time schedule it will be
necessary to complete research and demonstration activities
which are presently under way in a timely manner. This fact,
coupled with the time span required for completion of most
research efforts, indicates the need for early initiation of
any additional needed research or demonstration activities.
Mr, Chairman, that concludes the summary of information
in our report, and I would turn at this time to a brief summary
of the project/s findings, and then I will present the recommenda-
tions with a brief discussion of each recommendation.
The findings are described on page 5 of the summary
document report, for those of you who would like to follow as
I present them. And again I will be summarizing.
The first finding is that salinity is the most serious
-------
884
R. Freeman
water quality problem presently existing in the Colorado River
Basin. Average annual salinity concentrations in the Colorado
River presently range from less than 50 ppm in the high
mountain headwaters to about 925 ppm 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 tapper Colorado River Basin,
The second finding Is that salinity concentrations in
the Colorado River system are affected by two basic processes,
These are the salt loading or addition of mineral salts from
various natural and manmade sources and the salt concentrating
process. That is the loss of water from the system through
evaporation, transpiration and out-of-basln export.
The third finding is that salinity and stream flow
data used in the 1942 to 1961 period of hydrologic record were
used as a basis for estimating average salinity concentrations
under various conditions of water development and use. Assum-
ing repetition of this hydrologic record, salinity concentration^
at Hoover Dam would average about ?60 mg/1 under 1970 conditions
If development and utilization of the basin's water resources
-------
R. Freeman
j
!
;proceed as proposed and If no salinity controls are Implemented,
average annual salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam would
Increase to about 990 mg/1 in the year 2010,
The present annual economic detriments of salinity
are conservatively estimated to be $16 million. If no salinity
controls are implemented, it is estimated that the average
annual economic detriments measured in 1970 dollars will increas^
to about $51 million by 2010,
Alternatives exist for salinity control in the Colo-
i rado River Basin, Including the alternative of augmenting the
water supply, reducing the salt load or limiting further developf
ment of the basin's water supplies.
Our finding is that a baslnwide 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.
Based on those findings, the EPA report contains three
specific recommendations, I would like to present and discuss
those recommendations briefly.
The first recommendation, which will be found on page
8 of the summary report, is that a salinity policy be adopted
-------
; -.___ ...._ 886
R. Freeman J
for the Colorado River system that would have as its objective i
maintenance of the salinity concentrations at or below levels
presently found in the lower main stem. This recommendation
refers to the lower main stem, but a broader application of the
policy should be inferred. Control of quality in the lower main
stem requires that effective controls be applied throughout the
Colorado River Basin. In this sense, then, the recommendation
is Intended for application throughout the Colorado River
system.
Our second recommendation is that specific water
quality standards criteria be adopted at key points throughout
the basin by appropriate States, in accordance with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. And let me discuss just the first
sentence of that recommendation briefly.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of
1965 called for the establishment of standards in all interstate
waters. The seven States of the Colorado River Basin in 1967
requested that setting of salinity standards on the Colorado
River be deferred pending completion of ongoing studies by the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, The Secretary of the Interior, recognizing the
complexity of the situation, agreed to this request. Since the
studies have now been completed, It is appropriate at this time
-------
881
R. Freeman
to reconsider the question of setting salinity standards for
the Colorado River.
Our second recommendation continues with the follow-
ing sentence:
This recommendation further states that such criteria i
should be consistent with the above salinity policy and should
assure the objective of keeping the maximum mean monthly
salinity concentration at Imperial Dam below 1,000 mg/1.
We recognize that the level of 1,000 mg/1 has already
been exceeded on occasion and under present modified conditions |>f
development and water use this level would be expected to be
exceeded again about 10 percent of the time. It should be
noted that this concentration is a maximum monthly value and
is not, in our opinion, directly comparable to the annual long-
term average values which have been cited from time to time in
the report. Achievement of this level, therefore, would repre-
sent a degree of enhancement of water quality under present
conditions.
Because of the complexity Involved in setting salinity
standards, it is quite probable that the common approach to
development of standards will have to be varied. One possible
approach, for example, would be to obtain continuous records of
flow and salinity at key stations throughout the basin. These
-------
88_8
R. Freeman
records could be analyzed periodically to assure that the
central objective of the salinity policy were met. In other
words, what we are suggesting with this kind of a recommenda-
tion is a nondegradation policy be applied to the Colorado
River as the standard.
Recommendation No* 2 concludes with the statement
that criteria should be adopted by January 1, 1973. It is
recognized that less than 1 year may not be a realistic time
period to accomplish this analysis and that a somewhat longer
tine period may be required.
Recommendation No. 3, as found in the report, is that
Implementation of the recommended policy and criteria be
accomplished by carrying out a basinwlde salinity control pro-
gram concurrently with planned future development of the
basin's water resources.
This recommendation is Intended to permit continued
development of the basin's water resources. However, this
development must be accompanied by a comparable degree of
salinity control in order to maintain concentrations at or
below their present levels if the first policy recommendation
is to be adopted.
That concludes our fornal presentation, Mr. Chairman.
At this time we would stand ready for questions and we also
-------
889
R, Freeman
would note that we would be prepared to offer specific recom-
mendations to the conferees if requested.
MR. STEIN: Before we throw this open for questions,
I Just have one clarifying thing. I think you should ask ques-
tions on the whole EPA report, not just these conclusions.
Essentially the only real difference I find between
you and Commissioner Armstrong's recommendation is the length
of time it would take to do this. You have by January 1973
and he had in 3 years, which would make it February 1975, right?
MR. FREEMAN: That is right.
MR. STEIN: February 1975. Other than that, to get
back to the essential points, and you heard Commissioner Arm-
strong, your recommendations and his are eye to eye as far as
you can see?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Is that correct?
MR. FREEMAN: That is right.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Are there any questions?
MR. MALETIC: Mr. Stein, may I make a clarification
on that?
MR. STEIN: Would you identify yourself.
MR. MALETIC: I am John Maletic, Bureau of Reclamation
-------
. . . 890
R, Freeman
Commissioner Armstrong's statement reads that in 3
years the task force will make recommendations to this confer-
ence, and the conference then could decide how to proceed from
there.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. MALETIC: That was not a direct statement that in
3 years standards shall be set, and this should be understood.
MR. STEIN: All right. I think that is a fair state-
ment. I think I was speaking of the essence. In 3 years I wouL
suggest that the States, as Commissioner Armstrong says, should
evaluate these with them. And if you and EPA made the recom-
mendation to the conference-.-and I am Just putting the two out-
side dates that Mr. Freeman put, 1973 and February 15 and 16,
1975, anywhere there or between those dates—if you read those
recommendations to the conference, I don't like to make pre-
dictions, but I bet it wouldn't take the conference very long
to back that.
Are there any others?
Mr. Thatcher.
MR. THATCHER: I assume that it will be appropriate
for us to react to this when we make our formal statements—
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. THATCHER: —which will have a bearing on these
-------
821
R. Freeman
things,
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. THATCHER: And passing this now doesn't neces-
sarily mean acquiescence to all these,
I have one specific question, because Russ didn't
follow the exact wording of the summary report. He mentioned
925 ppm at Imperial Dam in this Point 1, That is different
than in my copy.
MR. STEIN: Yes, that should be clarified. Do you
want to do that, Russ?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir, we did change the number in
the report in view of the updated information presented by Mr*
Blackman in his presentation that has been made available and
provided since the report was drafted. It did have a higher
value indicated.
MR. THATCHER: So your statement is a correction to
the summary report?
MR. FREEMAN: Is a correction to the summary report*
MR. STEIN: Let me state this as I understand it. The
865 ppm at Imperial Dam is a 28-year average. The 925 figure
is the 1970 average,
MR, FREEMAN: That is the highest annual average that
has been observed on the river.
-------
892
R. Freeman
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR, THATCHER: Then there are two different numbers,
then?
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. THATCHER: We need to identify them, then. They
are both correct, in other words?
MR. FREEMAN: That is right. But in terms of the
wording of the sentence in which that number appears, the 927
is the correct word.
MR. THATCHER: O. K.
MR. STEIN: Nine hundred twenty-seven or nine hundred
twenty-five?
MR. FREEMAN: I am sorry, it is 927.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. THATCHER: Nine hundred twenty-seven is the 1970
annual average.
MR. DIBBLE: It keeps going up, you see.
MR. FREEMAN: No, sir.
MR. STEIN: It keeps going up and up.
MR. WRIGHT: We are losing ground.
MR. DIBBLE: In Just 2 minutes it went up 2 points.
(Laughter.)
MR. FREEMAN: In response to your question, Mr.
-------
: 893
R. Freeman
Thatcher, that is the highest annual average salinity concen-
tration from the trace of record,
MR. STEIN: Are there any further questions?
MR. TABOR: Question.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. TABOR: The contribution of salinity by irriga-
tion to the Colorado River, is the contribution considered as
net or gross? In other words, that which is contributed to the
river by irrigation, is that each project taking the salinity
of water that goes in, subtract it from the salinity that goes
o ut and that is the contribution?
MR. FREEMAN: No, sir, it is the gross contribution.
The concentration of the effluent multiplied by the volume of
effluent.
MR. TABOR: It is an increment, isn't it?
MR. FREEMAN: As I understand, the values in the
report are in fact determined by measuring the quantity of
return flow, the quality of return flow, and calculating loads
on that basis.
Mr. Blackman actually made those calculations.
MR. BLACKMAN: The values reported are net values.
We determined the salt load entering an Irrigated area and
the salt load leaving the irrigated area, so it is a net value.
-------
. 894
R. Freeman
MR. TABOR: Thank you.
MR. DIBBLE: It is an increment.
MR. BLACKMAN: That is correct.
MR. STEIN: Are there any others?
Yes.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, I also have a question of
Mr. Russell. In his recommendation which is shown as Recom-
mendation 10 in the report, summary report, on page 7, he says:
A baslnwide salt load reduction program
appears to be the most feasible of the three
salinity control alternatives.
And I have no problem with that sentence. The next
sentence says:
The scope of such a program will
depend upon the desired salinity objectives.
And I think that is true.
But then over- in the next page where he gets into his
recommendations, he proposes that the criteria should be set and
should assure the objective of keeping the concentration at
Imperial Dam below 1,000 ppm.
And so I would interpret that to mean that you really
are establishing the scope of the program Indirectly if that
last statement is true. Is that your intent?
-------
_^ 895
R, Freeman
MR. FREEMAN: Basically the problem we came to is the
| same problem that has been discussed several times. What we
I
I recommended is a policy of maintaining existing quality as the
!
guiding policy. But in searching for a number in the staff
discussions, 1,000 seemed to be a number that could be used if
it were properly described and interpreted as to what that 1,000
is. It is a value that essentially represents the upper limit
of concentration most of the time with an understanding that on
occasion it will be exceeded and the standards would, therefore,
have to be written accordingly.
MR. DIBBLE: Well, it would seem to me that the salt
load reduction program is something that we don't truly have a
handle on yet as to the magnitude of the program, what the
costs will be, and that until we know that we shouldn't be
setting our objectives because we don't know whether we can--
well, we don't know whether the program is being described in
a big enough form or not. If it turns out that it would take
an even larger program to meet this objective, then we have to
change the scope of the program.
It seems to me that Mr. Armstrong in effect is saying
there is still more information we need before we can say how
big a program or what size program is feasible.
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, I think what we are having here
-------
R, Freeman
is sort of a difference in philosophy of how you approach a
problem like this, and the philosophy that we used was to
establish a goal and hopefully then generate a program to meet
i
that goal or at least try that until such time as it could be
shown that the goal was not realistic. The other way around,
of course, is to try and do as much as you can and see where
you get with that approach.
Oftentimes we feel by taking the approach of estab- •
> I
lishing a goal and striving for that, that sometimes this adds '
a little more emphasis to the process. Or turning it around, !
- . t
It allows the people who are doing this, which will be the con- j
i
ferees here, I presume, an opportunity to sort of establish |
a level of priority for this program and its recommendations. !
In other words, if you establish the goal, then I
think you are telling us as technicians how hard we have to
work. On the other hand, if you allow us to tell you what we
can do, you see, we may not want to work too hard.
MR. DIBBLE: Well, I think that we all are going to
find we have got to work our hardest, no matter what, and I
think you set your goal in your first recommendation. You said
that:
A salinity policy be adopted for the Colorado Rivejr
System that would have as its objective the maintenance
-------
897
R. Freeman
of salinity concentrations at or below levels
presently found in the lower main stem.
Now, that is the objective you are setting for all of
this or you are proposing.
MR. FREEMAN: This is the basic recommendation that I
feel is the strength of the position, yes.
MR. DIBBLE: So the next point you make when you
start to define a figure, you really are beginning to qualify
that upper figure. Now, maybe this 1,000, maybe it is not good
enough. I am not prepared to say at this time.
MR. FREEMAN: That is right. Well, essentially what
we are attempting to do is find a specific number to quantify
this objective, and it may be worthwhile to discuss that.
MR. STEIN: By the way, Mr. Dibble, I think you
have raised an essential point. Maybe the representatives
of the Bureau of Reclamation considered this. Mr. Armstrong
also said:
Historical records at Imperial Dam
show that the average salinity concentration
for January 1957 was 1,000.
Now, he seemed to be basing his program on 1,000
or below. I think if we can approach this philosophically,
not approaching 1,000 as a number, but Just to put something
-------
898
R. Freeman
down, the issue here is to say that you are not going to
increase the salinity that is at the dam now. And I am
not giving you a point of view; I am trying to report it
the way I understand it. The issue is that they are trying
to say, we want to at least keep the lid on what we have
now. The lid is, if we look at the number, in the 900's,
if we round it off, if we put this numerically, we will be
going somewhere below 1,000. That doesn't mean that at some
times you are not going to bounce above 1,000 or we may have
that.
But I don't think either Mr. Freeman or Mr. Armstrong
put the 1,000 forward as a regulatory figure which was an abso-
lute, but they put the 1,000 .forward as the kind of top range
that they believed the average represented at the present time.
Now, with that, possibly we can approach this.
Do you understand?
MR. DIBBLE: Well, I am certainly listening with
great interest. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: No, no, herej The objective of the
program, as I understand—again Just reported by Mr. Freeman
and Mr. Armstrong—is to not permit the salinity as measured
at Imperial Dam to go above what it generally is now.
Also if you are going to look at it as it goes
-------
R. Freeman
now to the highest figures, it is in the relatively high
900*s. Therefore, as a method of showing this, if you
say 1,000 mg/1 or ppra at Imperial Dam would be what you
are hitting for to maintain it at the present level, this
does not mean, at least to me, that 1,000 will be an abso-
lute regulatory figure. I think Mr, Freeman Just stated
that. You may be able to go above it or have to stay below
it at a particular time. But in order to get down to a
descriptive term as to what we are putting out on the
average—and I understand he is giving us average figures
here—the 1,000 is about the average of what is going out
in salinity from Imperial Dam now.
MR. DIBBLE: Well, I understand, Mr. Stein, the
point you are making, and let me respond in this way.
Maintaining salinity at or below levels presently found
I think is different than setting a figure, for this reason
And maybe this isn't a very good comparison, but it is
the first one I was able to think of just here quickly.
When the State sets a speed limit on the highway
at 70 miles an hour, really what they want you to do is
travel at or below 70 miles an hour, but there are an awful
lot of people that decide that that is the limit at which
they should travel all the time. In fact, they maybe even
-------
900
R. Freeman
think 5 miles more won't hurt any, so you find everybody
driving at 75 when in reality what was intended was that
everybody would be below 70 •
Now, maybe that is not a good comparison.
MR. STEIN: No, I think your comparison is great,
because this is the problem precisely we are grappling
with.
MR. DIBBLE: If we want the objective to be to
hold the salinity concentrations at or below the level
presently found, once somebody starts using a fixed figure
they start talking about revolving around that point, as
you described. You said, sure, In fact part of the time
they will sneak above that a little.
And I think we have to decide which it is we
want. Do we want it at or below or do we want It revolving
around a stated figure? I think if we all believe in anti-
degradation we want It at or below.
MR. STEIN: Right. We are going to have this prob-
lem with every permit we set, and we are grappling with It
now. I commend you to Mr. Freeman's first statement. I am
not talking about the figure. The report said 865, maybe it
should be 827. He says about 925. But I think the key word
there, as I see it, Is "about."
Now, obviously when we talk in terms of "about," when
-------
901
R. Freeman
we talk in terms of 1,000, we are talking in terms of an
average* Whether we mean that 1,000-and this is the Job I
think we have to do, Mr. Dibble— to be an absolute limit above
which you can't go, or whether we mean it as an average from
which we are going to give a certain variance is what we have
'to decide.
But I think it serves a useful purpose if we round
it off at about 1,000 if that is the area; at least the ball
park, you are talking in* I am not talking in terms of that
for regulatory figures because I think Mr. Armstrong indicated,
and I think very properly, that we have to get some pretty
refined stuff before we are going to come out with numbers that
we are going to use for regulatory figures. But it also seems
to me that if we get Mr, Freeman from-EPA and Mr, Armstrong
from the Bureau of Reclamation both talking in terms of about
1,000, then we know the area we are talking about; And we are
talking about a 75-or a 70-mile speed limit and not a 25-mile
speed limit*, and that makes a tremendous amount of difference.
But I think both of these gentlemen are putting these
figures forward, as I understand it, in the same sense.
MR. MALETIC: Mr. Stein.
MR. O'CONNELL: Let me respond to that Just briefly.
MR. MALETIC: May I respond? I would like a
-------
902
R. Freeman
clarification on that statement on your interpretations of Mr.
Armstrong's statement.
There was no statement that he made that addressed
Itself to 1,000 mg/1 mean monthly as a potential standard in
the river, and our comments dealing with that were comments
pertaining to the recommendations of EPA only and, therefore,
did not reflect an Interior Department position.
MR. STEIN: I hope I said that, and I hope I won't
have to read it. But I am quoting from Mr. Armstrong, I think,
and he said:
Historical records at Imperial Dam
show that the average salinity concentration
for January 1957, whatever, was 1,000 mg/1
and for December 196? it was 992 mg/1.
Then he goes on to say:
If a numerical standard of 1,000
mg/1 maximum monthly average is established,
It will probably be necessary..." etc.
I think Mr, Armstrong made himself very clear that he
couldn't come out with any numerical standard at all—
MR. MALETIC: Now you have got it.
MR. STEIN: --but again in reading these numbers and
In reading Mr. Freeman's numbers—and this is what I think I
-------
90_3
R. Freeman
said to Mr. Dibble—it is very Important for the conferees
to Know that when we speak of a speed zone, we are speaking
In the terms of 70 miles an hour Instead of 25 miles an
hour. This Is just the significance of the figures.
I think we understood Mr. Armstrong's position very
clearly that this was too early a stage to set any numerical
figure. However, the way I read his statement, and after
listening to Mr. Freeman, I believe from the historical record
they are not speaking about anything very much different. They
are both thinking of the same thing as to what the existing
situation is, the possible philosophic possibility of not let-
ting it go above that, and keeping that as a summa.
Yes.
MR. O'CONNELL: I would like to make one comment
along those lines.
I believe the first and second recommendations
are completely consistent, paraphrasing what Commissioner
Armstrong said on page 4, with present levels of development,
a maximum monthly average value at Imperial of 1,000 could
be expected to be exceeded about 10 to 12 percent of the
time, something like that.
In our first recommendation the statement was made
salinity should be maintained at or below existing levels. The
-------
90J
R. Freeman
second statement says how far below existing levels we think
we ought to shoot for, which Is the 1,000 at Imperial Dam. In
other words, under present conditions you could expect it to be
exceeded 10 percent of the time. We are saying that should
drop to zero. So It is how far below.
MR. STEIN: Let me say, we don't Intend to go much
after 5 o'clock.
All right.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: Could I ask Mr. Freeman, you mentioned
927 mg/1 was the high annual for the period of record. Would
you tell me what year that occurred?
MR. FREEMAN: Do you have those records?
• •».Slide..,
MR. BLACKMAN: The figure quoted was 927 mg/1 as the
annual average for 1970..
MR. WRIGHT: 1970?
MR. BLACKMAN: Right.
MR. WRIGHT: And that is the highest for the period
of record, is that right?
MR. BLACKMAN: No, there have been higher momentary
values—
-------
_ 905
R. Freeman
MR. WRIGHT: No, highest average annual.
MR. BLACKMAN: That is correct.
MR. STEIN: Are there any further questions?
You know, I am glad you brought that chart outt. please
leave it here. I would like to—
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Stein, I hadn't yielded the floor
yet,,if you don't mind.
MR. STEIN: Go on. I don't mind a bit.
MR. WRIGHT: Pine.
Mr. O'Connell, you mentioned that you thought Recom-
mendation 2 was a paraphrase of No. 1. I would suggest that
there is a significant difference between a salinity policy and
a specific quality standard.
MR. O'CONNELL: No, I Just said they were consistent,
that is all.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to push that chart over a
little to the right so we get the dates? You know, this is the
most significant chart to me, and I didn't see it before today,
but I Just ask you to look at this. This conference has been
in business since I960. They have got the figures since I960
and 1970. We have done a pretty good Job on radiation. Look
what has happened with salinity in the 10 years we have been in
existence. I think if these figures are right they Just speak
-------
R» Freeman
for themselves.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Freeman, when you were discussing
Item 2, Recommendation 2, I believe that I heard you, and your
recorder might come back, that a-longer time than by January 1,
1973, might not be unreasonable.
If you will recall, on November 15, 1967, the con-
ferees met when we were writing the water quality standards for
other parameters and adopted a resolution requesting the
salinity report. It has been 51 months that EPA has been
working on the report. I actually received a copy in December,
so that Is about 4? months--49 months it took to write Appendix
A, B and C and the summary report. We are advised It is another
30 days before the Bureau's printed report can come to us.
Realizing that, let's say, it has been 50 months since
we were thinking about it last and the ball was in the field of
the Federal Government, would you care to expand on what you
mean by a little more time than by January 1973?
MR. FREEMAN: I think you have hit precisely upon the
problem, and that is this recommendation was written as the
report was writ ten, and the report has been sometime in the
printing and review process. Therefore, it might be appropriate
-------
907
R. Freeman
to consider that some of the time that has elapsed since this
date was selected be considered. I believe the recommenda-
tion at the time this was written down we were considering
i
something in the 18 to 24 months, although you might check with
Mr. O'Connell, because he was the one who last had it.
MR* STEIN: Mr. O'Connell?
MR. O'CONNELL: That is pretty close, yes.
MR. STEIN: In other words, if you are considering
18 to 24 and the Bureau of Reclamation is considering 36, we
are narrowing the gap. (Laughter.)
All right, any other questions or comments?
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or questions
on the Federal report?
MR. TABOR: I assume this table that is on the screen
is in one of these appendices? (See 922a.)
MR. STEIN: Yes, it is.
And again I ask you to look at this very, very care-
fully, because this is what struck me. We have been with this
conference since I960 to 197-0. We were supposed to reduce the
salinity. And as has been indicated on the table, the salinity
has risen significantly in the past decade.
Now, the question is what do we do,, Do we just roll
-------
. 908
R. Freeman
on, do we put some brakes on, or do we let the next decade
take care of Itself the same way the last one did? Unless
someone would show us that these figures are wrong, I think
they speak for themselves.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: May I ask again, was that table
in the report?
MR. FREEMAN: No, sir, it is not in the appendix
report. We will have a copy made available.
MR. DIBBLE: Could you for tomorrow?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Are there any further questions or com-
ments?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I might pass a comment on that No.
2 recommendation there of setting specific standards. This
gets down-r- I know the Federal push is get a standard, period.
We went through this in 1965, get a standard.
When you are on the other end of setting the standard,
we have to enforce it* and this puts us in a position when we
write a standard who do we work on, how do we do it. In other
words, what can I do if the salinity goes up? I have got to be
able to go back and say, "Cut it out." And as yet we don't
have those answers.
This is the other part of the study, is to try to
-------
909
R, Freeman !
prove that we can through some major projects reduce the
salinities. So we are at that point. To establish a numerical
standard is only asking for one awful lot of headaches, because
as soon as it is violated somebody is going to come up and say,
"Enforce it "and then what do I do? And looking at pending
Federal legislation, maybe they would even bring suit against
the Administrator for not enforcing the standards when it is
violated.
So these are some of the other sides of setting this
standard. I certainly go along with a nondegradatlon policy.
We all have this. We have all got the agreement in seven States
that we do everything on a point source if we can. But any
time we write a number down, 1 don't care whether it is as a
policy number or as a standard, somebody is going to come up
and say, "That is the standard; you enforce it," and we don't ha^re
the answers, I don't think we for sure have them yet.
We have a good program here laid out that might be
the answer, but 1 think we have got to wait and see if it is,
MR, STEIN: Any other comments or questions on the
Federal report?
If not, thank you very much, Mr, Freeman,
MR, WRIGHT: I have one more question.
Mr. Freeman, could you give me the source of your
-------
910
R. Freeman
data for that last table, in particular the 927?
MR. BLACKMAN: Most of these data are from the U. S.
Geological Survey and water supply papers. I would have to
check that specific figure.
I have Just been told that that 1970 figure repre-
sents a partial water year. However, the previous year, 1969,
average was 920 and that was for a complete water year.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions or comments
on this?
If not, thank you, Mr. Freeman.
Now, I think we have enough time, We are going to
call on Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Wright, and we are going to revert
back to our tailings pile problem and try to complete that
tonight.
Mr. Thatcher.
-------
• 911
L. Thatcher
LYNN M. THATCHER
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OP HEALTH
UTAH STATE DIVISION OP HEALTH
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
MR. THATCHER: Mr* Chairman, the draft of regulations
that were similar to the ones that EPA recently submitted to us
for review were prepared by Utah a few years ago, but they haven
yet been officially adopted and this is primarily due to
lack of program funding at the State level. I am pleased to
report at this time that this was partially rectified by the
1972 budget session of the Utah Legislature which adjourned last
week.
The State of Utah took a positive stand against
removal of tailings. This related particularly to the tailings
pile in the Salt Lake Valley early in the development of this
problem, I don't remember the exact year, but while the pile was
still active. And we learned inadvertently that this was being
done; we hadn't known about It* As soon as we found this out,
we prohibited all hauling from the pile and to our knowledge
this edict has remained in effect. We are now attempting to
identify the areas of deposit accomplished for this period of
control and we believe that these are rather minimal.
-------
912
L. Thatcher
We had a few recommendations on the draft of the
regulations that EPA submitted for our review. We gave these
verbally to representatives of the Denver Office of EPA.
In the interest of saving time, I won't delineate
these unless you specifically want me to, and I can say that
we do agree with the regulations in principle, and it is our
Intent now to move ahead and adopt them officially in the
State of Utah*
MR. STEIN: I understand most of your recommendations
have been incorporated in the latest draft.
MR, THATCHER: I see. I haven't seen the latest
draft.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
Mr, Wright?
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you very much, Mr. Stein,
I had an inquiry about the discharge from tailings
piles in the Durango area, and an environmentalist, quote, in
New Mexico said he heard that the problem was significant
again. I attempted to obtain STORET retrievals, etc., and
found the data for the past coufcle of years was difficult to
track down, apparently due to reorganization within EPA,
shifts in responsibilities of the laboratories, and delays in
putting the data into STORET and not knowing who to send the
-------
913
J,,,R, Wright
data to. I would appreciate It If EPA could attempt to get
the house In order Just a little bit better so that we can
obtain data when we are sharing it.
The State of New Mexico has reviewed the regulation
and finds thatit will not be suitable on a Statewide basis.
The recommendation Is suitable as far as it goes, but it only
deals with one aspect of the problem and that is the mill
tailings* New Mexico is presently drafting a regulation and
expects to adopt it within a year and the regulation will
address Itself to the whole problem of mine dumps, quarries
as well as tailings.
Mr, Kaufman of our Radiological Health Unit feels
that some low grade ore dumps are much more of a hazard than the
mill tailings themselves. At the present time I can report that
the only mill in the Colorado Basin in New Mexico is now
Inactive, the pile has been covered at this time and is dry,
in a desert area where the rainfall Is approximately 7 Inches
a year.
Thank you,
MR, STEIN: Mr. Rozlch.
MR. ROZICH: Yes. The information that radio-
activity is emitting from Colorado in the vicinity of Durango
is news to me. Of course, Mr, Jacoe, I don't see him In the
-------
General Discussion
audience, whether he can address himself to that. But I
thought we solved the problem by moving the mill to Farmlngton,
New Mexico. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: Are there any further questions?
I don't want to pursue this, but let me indicate
that if you have any problems on data, call on us. I have
worked with these people in Colorado for years, and we may
have had other problems, but getting data or the informa-
tion wasn't one of them. This I don't quite understand.
If we have a problem, it will only take a phone call.
I would suggest again, before we recess for the
night, I don't think that we are too far apart on those
uranium tailings controls. I suspect that New Mexico doesn't
have much of a problem—they have one mill which pretty well
Is taken care of—-and that several of the other States don't
have significant problems. Possibly the States that have
the problems here are maybe Utah and Colorado. I think
Wyoming was fortunate enough In that the uranium mills
developed there a little later than in the other States.
Art Williamson was alert enough to look at his sister States
and figure that the best place for a uranium mill wasn't at
the side of a stream but over on the mesa where it was dry
and site location was probably the best way of preventing
-------
915
General Discussion
the problem.
But in dealing with the Colorado experience and
what we have heard from Utah and the .Federal people, I think
we have a relatively minor variation on the same requirement
and something which has been tested certainly at least in
one State. Therefore, we should be very near to a conclusion
on that, and I hope we can wrap up the tailings problem.
On the salinity problem, of course, we have many
more presentations to make* We have to hear from the States
on this, but I am very much encouraged, because I think
essentially the reports that we have from EPA and the Depart-
ment of the Interior are very compatible.
MR. THATCHER: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. THATCHER: Excuse me. Just following along
your comment there, perhaps we should point out that the
one aspect of the radium tailings that would become an
interstate problem is leaching of uranium, or I assume that
this is the case, or leaching and draining. We did achieve
significant gains in this area before and now each State,
of course, has the local problem of wind erosion.
MR. STEIN: I think this is the question. Of course,
Mr. Thatcher, you weren't here this morning. I think we
-------
916
General Discussion
Indicated that one of our successes and the States1--because
you are the people who did it, both the Industry and the
States—has been the control of this problem. And again I
say when you deal with the two States--Utah and Colorado—
that had the problem, they had to do the major cleanup.
You have done the cleanup. I think we made that very, very
clear in the record,
The only question we have now is the residual
aggravation on which we said at the last conference we
were going to come up with a suggested regulation for
tailings. This we have done. I suggest that the conferees
agree with this, get together on this and go on, I don't
see really any material difference on this. As far as the
direct Federal involvement is concerned, one of the areas
where we can point to success in abating the pollution,
if we complete this task, is that we have turned it back
to the States. I hope we can get that done at this con-
ference.
However, the major point that you have to consider
is where we go on the salinity control. Now, on the salinity
control, EPA and the Interior Department, as far as I
listened to the report, are essentially moving down the
same road in tandem. I don't see any differences except
-------
917.
General Discussion
differences in detail. I think again the record speaks for
itself. But the only reason I emphasize that is that I don't
think you could have said that in past years. At the present
time they are working very closely together.
I would ask the States to present that, because again
I think this is one of the problems that we can put on the road
and sit back and really come up with an achievement. Essentiall
I don't think we are too far apart, at least the Federal agencie£
are not too far apart, and I hope the States can get together
and arrive at an accommodation.
Again let me say Just for myself that some places I as
questions and some places I don't. The reason I asked Commissioihe
Armstrong so many questions was that I think his statement was a
tremendous breakthrough. His document, as well as the EPA
recommendations, is something that should be very, very carefull;
considered by the State conferees. It certainly gives us a
blueprint as to how we can move forward on this problem.
MR. THATCHER: I am sure the States could do this.
Let me get back to one more question on the tailings.
This may have been answered this morning.
At the sixth session something was said about the
Federal Agency that then was handling this problem cooperating
with the Atomic Energy Commission in developing some long-range
-------
. 918
L. Thatcher
controls which the States felt pretty powerless to cope with.
Did anything come out on that this morning?
MR. DICKSTEIN: I believe that Mr. Malaro from AEG
in his statement addressed this area, and it seems we are coming
'along.
MR. THATCHER: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: You know, we are coming along faster on
the long-range problem than treating the salinity. . (Laughter.)
What is the half-life of that stuff?
MR. DICKSTEIN: Sixteen twenty.
MR. STEIN: Sixteen twenty. You know, there are
probably only two guys in this room, Carl Eardley.,and I, who
know what 1620 means. That is what they used to pay a clerk
back in the old days of the government. (Laughter.) But that
is a long time in years, and when you talk about a long-range
program, it is going to be longer. (Laughter.)
All right. Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. WESTERGARD: I have a question. As one of the
conferees, and I am sure some of the people here, I would be
interested in knowing what the schedule is going to be tomorrow,
what the anticipated time elements are. You did take registra-
tions for statements, and that might give some indication of the
time.
-------
. 919
M. Stein
MR. STEIN: I think that is a very good question.
You know, this is always a problem, knowing how long people
are going to speak. I recognize that when people come here
who are not professionals, while their estimates are given
in the best of faith, they generally are under.
We deal with some pros, you know, who know how
they are going to speak. You know, one Washington Congress-
man went to the Mayflower Hotel on the wrong night. While
he was roaming around the halls, suddenly he saw a room
With a function going on, and the speaker hadn't shown up.
So they asked him in and he spoke. Then the press heard
about this, and they thought it was a fascinating story.
They said, "Mr. Congressman, what did you speak
about?"
He said, "Oh, about a half an hour." (Laughter.)
But here is what we have. Here are the people
who are going to have to speak on the list.
Sheldon Boone, Soil Conservation Service, United
States Department of Agriculture; a communication from the
United States Army Corps of Engineers; Sacramento--
Maybe when I call the names, you can call out.
Mr. Boone, how long do you expect to speak?
MR. BOONE: Not too long, 10 minutes.
-------
i 920
M. Stein
MR. STEIN: All right. (Laughter.)
/
You know, that is my case right there.
M. Holburt, Colorado River Board of California;
D. Kennedy, Metropolitan Water District; L. Weeks, Coachella
Valley County Water District; R. Carter, Imperial Irrigation
District; L. Morrill, Colorado Water Conservation Board; R.
Fischer, Colorado River Water Conservation District; D. Paff,
Colorado River Commission of Nevada; D*. Hale, New Mexico
Interstate Stream Commission; Gaylord Skogerboe, Colorado State
University; a communication from National Council of Public
Land Users; Charles Wilkinson, Native American Rights Fund;
Dr. H. K. Qashu, University of Arizona; Dr. 6. William Fiero,
Jr., Sierra Club; G. Bryant, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation,
Winterhaven California; F. Brown, Quechan Tribal Council, Yuma,
Arizona; Lome 0. Everett, University of Arizona, Department of
Hydrology, Tucson; and Mary Kozlowskl, Nevada Open Spaces
Council.
By the way, in preparation for this I was down around
Yuma and Winterhaven a while ago and I know you were trying to
get some Federal officials to visit the reservation down there.
I don't know if they showed, but I guess you have come here and
you are welcome.
We will recess now, but let me indicate that I
-------
: 921
M. Stein
understand that the expanded recommendations read by Mr,
Freeman will be available In a few minutes for the conferees,
and it is suggested that you might want to get those before
you leave this evening.
With that we will—
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Mr. Stein, what time are you
going to start in the morning?
MR. STEIN: I will announce that in a moment.
We are going to reconvene in the same place at 9:30
tomorrow morning, and 9:30 it is. We are going to start right
on time.
We stand recessed until tomorrow,
(Whereupon, at 5:15 o'clock an adjournment was taken
until 9:30 o'clock, Wednesday, February 16, 1972,)
-------
922
MORNING SESSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1972
9:30 o'clock
MR, STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Starting this morning we will clear up some of the
points that were raised yesterday.
Mr. Blackman, I believe you wanted to make a comment
on the chart entitled Average Annual Total Dissolved Solids
Concentrations in Selected Stages.
MR. BLACKMAN: Can somebody get the lights, please.
...Slide.,. (See 922a)
The question as to the source of the 1970 TDS figure
at Imperial Dam was raised yesterday. This figure was derived—
well, let me say that on this side of the chart I have penciled
in the monthly flow weighted mean TDS concentrations for 1970.
You will see that the figure 960 for February was circled. We
retrieved this data from STORET and that particular figure was
missing. We correlated the February value from previous years'
data. Using that one correlated month, the 927 figure was
derived.
Now, I have further listed on this side (indicating)
of the chart the 1971 monthly flow weighted mean TDS concentra-
tions, again USGS data, which are presently available in STORET
for your information*
-------
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS*-
AT SELECTED STATIONS
196019701
YEAR
1950
1961.
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
CAMEO
COLO.
429
469
338
582
498
369
519
468
439
436
388
GREEN
RIVER
WYO.
347
319
276
302
296
322
332
287
363
315
389
LEES
FERRY
ARIZ.
593
710
525
934
811
572
;517
621
647
602
631
GRAND
CANYON
ARIZ.
629
784
536
1,030
913
636
566
681
691
667
718
HGOVEfi
GAM
ARIZ -NEV.
671
697
685
677
722
809
743
675
699
776
776
r^BCKSSZ'flR^fiTjl^'JIBJOSI1'
PARKER
DAM
ARiZ-CAL.
631
669
699
681
679
765
755
689
692
748
784
IMPERIAL
0AM
ARIZ-CAL.
777
820
818
791
624
916
896
842
846
92G
927
H
B
SOUTHERLY
NTERN
BOUNDARY
1381
1382
1339
1322
1307
1298
1264
*HL VALUES IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER.
ro
03
-------
923
S. 6, Boone
MR. STEIN: Does that complete the chart?
May we have the lights, please?
We will begin calling on other people who wish to make
statements now. Are there any questions or comments you want to
raise at this time on the EPA presentation or the presentation
of Commissioner Armstrong?
If not, we will go on to the other presentations,
Sheldon G. Boone, Soil Conservation Service, United
States Department of Agriculture.
SHELDON G. BOONE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. BOONE: My name is Sheldon G. Boone,
Mr. Chairman and other Federal and State conferees.
I have been asked by the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture
to present this statement at this conference.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to present a
statement concerning the mineral water quality problem in the
Colorado River relating to the Environmental Protection Agency
report entitled "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado
River Basin." The Department of Agriculture has both technical
-------
924
S, G, Boone
and administrative interests and responsibilities within the
basin.
We note that the report shows that while 65.6 percent
of the total salt load at Hoover Dam comes from natural sources,
33 percent comes from Irrigated agriculture, accounting for
nearly all of the manmade salt load to the river. In terms of
salt concentration, however, irrigation contributes 37 percent.
Increased salt concentration due to Irrigation comes about in
two ways: (1) As a result of consumptive use of water which
diminishes stream flow, and (2) as a result of Increased salt
loading to the stream through the leaching of salt from the
soil profile and underlying aquifers • These are natural
results of the Irrigation process and ones which can be modi-
fied only in degree by system Improvement and Improved water
management practices*
A major portion of the high water producing lands in
the basin support a forest type of vegetative cover* These
lands are major contributors to economic and social well-being
of the Colorado drainage in terms of timber, forage, wildlife
habitat, recreation, and the dependent industries they support*
They also contribute a major source of runoff water for the
region. The management of forest land for commodity production,
water production and water requirements under the multiple-use
-------
__ _._:_ .. . . 925
S. 6. Boone
concept and related problems such as water quality, soil erosion[
]and sediment production make these areas a highly significant
part of-the salinity control planning effort.
The Department's watershed management program could
;make a significant contribution to salinity control programs
directed toward reduction of natural salts associated with
sediment production from public land. A function of this prograjjn
is to provide scientific soil, geology, and hydrology inputs
for resource planning and development programs. These inputs
are necessary to provide a firm basis for long-range planning
and to assure that projects are designed and conducted in a
manner which protect environmental values. Other major func-
tions of the program are:
1. To develop the protection requirements needed to
assure that development and management activities meet estab-
lished watershed objectives and standards.
2. To restore the productivity and water handling
capabilities of denuded and damaged watershed land.
3. The design and application of resource management
practices and supplemental structural measures, where appropriatjs,
to Improve water quality and quantity or timing of water yield.
4. To optimize the public benefits from the avail-
able water resources of National Forests through coordination
-------
: . 926
S, 6. Boone
of Forest Service resource use and development activities with
multiple purpose water resources development.
5. Monitoring the effects of resource management
uses on the overall quality of the soil, water, and air
resources.
The installation of Improved irrigation water delivery
systems and the use of on-farm application systems and water
conservation practices can make measurable contribution to
improved water quality in the Colorado River Basin, The
improved systems would reduce the amount of water consumed per
unit of crop output and decrease the water depleted by non-
economic vegetation, thereby minimizing reduction in stream
flow. Improved water management by the irrlgators and the
installation of adequate drainage systems will reduce deep
percolation and the volume of groundwater flow through saline
formations, thereby reducing salt loading.
Implementing present technology for improving irri-
gation water management will give a needed reduction in salt
loading and salt concentration. These practices which make a
marked contribution to water quality improvement also result
in increased crop production and a higher return to the farm
enterprise.
Although programs are available to assist landowners
-------
_. 927
S. G. Boone
and local organizations in improving irrigation systems and
water management, a high degree of success depends upon a number
of factors. These include (1) an adequate educational program;
(2) increased technical assistance available to landowners; (3)
cost-sharing or loan assistance where high capital investment
is required; (4) major system improvements through group action;
(5) phasing out irrigation on soils with natural high salt con-
tent; (6) selection of new areas for irrigation which have soils
and underlying formation with low salt content.
There is a need for continued study and research
on improved soil and water management practices in both irri-
gated and nonlrrlgated areas in relation to salinity control.
The major area of study should be on minimizing saline levels
in return flows.
The reduction of erosion in areas where surface soils
are high in salt will reduce sediment and salt loading from
natural diffuse sources. Identification and characterization
of these diffuse areas will permit development of management
practices to minimize salt losses. Additional research on the
impacts of improved watershed management on salt loading is
needed.
From research on the pressing problems of water
resources in high elevation forest and alpine areas, two
-------
. 928
S. G. Boone
methods of watershed treatment have evolved for Increased
water yield.
1. Rearrangement or reduction of vegetative mass
In the timber harvest zone,
2. Conversion of deep-rooted stands of dense brush
on noncommercial timber to shallower rooted stands of grass.
Manipulation of vegetative cover and other water
yield Improvement techniques can result In Increased streamflow
without damage to the watershed or to areas downstream If the
activity Is carefully planned and executed as a part of a
coordinated land resource management program* The danger lies
in proceeding too fast with too little knowledge of the plant-
soil-water and other environmental relationships Involved*
Ill-conceived, poorly executed programs are likely
to cause considerable damage to watershed, soil and water
quality and add to salinity problems* Close coordination between
weather modification programs and land treatment programs will
be essential to minimize any adverse effects on anticipated
Increase in precipitation or runoff*
We have made no attempt to evaluate the input data
used in the preparation of the report* Lack of time allotted
for review and the scope and complexity of the problem made it
impossible for us to make such an evaluation.
-------
S. Q, Boone
With respect to the report, there is very little
Material that relates to water pollution control programs
^except in the area of mineral quality. Although salinity is
the most serious water quality problem in the Colorado River
Basin, pollution problems of virtually every form may be found
in the region. Decisions relating to salinity improvement
programs must, therefore, consider impacts on all existing and
planned water resource utilization and developments.
The report is weak in considering in depth the effects
of some of the proposals. For example, phreatophyte control can
have a significant adverse effect on aesthetics, fish and wild-
life habitat. Vegetative manipulation to Increase streamflow
can Increase storm associated runoff with Inoreased sediment
production and channel Instability. In addition, drastic
removal of vegetative species could affect site productivity,
recreational values, and community economics. An environmental
analysis of the effects of each proposal is essential before
final- decisions can be made.
The Department will continue to cooperate with other
Federal, State and local entities to solve the salinity prob-
lems encountered in the Colorado River system. Cooperation from
all levels of government are necessary before much accomplish-
ment will be realized toward the overall objective of salt load
-------
930
S. G. Boone
reduction.
Because all aspects of water and related land resource
development, control and management are related, it appears that
the most feasible solutions to mineral quality control will
result in the implementation of comprehensive basinwide plans.
Water quality control planning should become a major consider-
ation in agency or interagency river basin planning efforts in
the Colorado River Basin. We concur in the adoption of a policy
to plan and implement programs to reach the objective of main-
taining salinity concentrations in the Colorado River at or
below levels presently found in the lower mainstern.
In closing we would like to affirm our willingness
to work with all concerned to the limits of our authority and
expertise in developing, evaluating and recommending measures
and programs for controlling or minimizing water problems in
the Colorado River Basin,
Thank you,
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Boone,
Are there any comments or questions?
MR, WRIGHT: Yes, Murray.
MR. STEIN: Go right ahead.
MR. WRIGHT: John Wright from New Mexico,
Did I hear correctly that you stated that the technique
-------
- 931
S, G. Boon*
of trickle irrigation will decrease deep percolation in contact
with salt-bearing stratas and thereby reduce the salt load?
MR. BOONE: No, sir, we didn't say anything about
deep percolation—-or about the trickle irrigation.
MR. WRIGHT: Can 'you tell me the context that that
phrase did occur? I remember you saying something about deep
percolation or preventing deep percolation and I wondered how
you did that.
MR. BOONE: The statement was, I believe, to improve
water management by the irrigators, and the installation of ade-
quate drainage systems will reduce deep percolation and the
volume of groundwater flow through saline formations thereby
reducing salt load, salt loadings.
MR. WRIGHT: In other words, Just better drainage
systems in some cases will help us?
MR. BOONE: Yes, I think the object would be to
expose the water to the least amount of soil profile and under-
ground aquifers. In other words, getting the return flow back
to the stream before it has an opportunity to pick up a high
salt content.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Mr.Boon*, I would like to briefly ask
a few questions on irrigation practices.
-------
S. G. Boone
I have read quite a bit on irrigation leading into
this conference, and several of the articles I have read have
indicated that it is a general practice of the irrigator to
open up the gate in the morning, go to work and then close the
gate at night. Now, if something could be done about this
immediately, couldn't we greatly reduce the leaching in our
growing practices? It seems to me obviously a plant Just takes
so much water and the excess water, all that really does is
leach, is that true?
MR. BOONE: Well, I think this is a general statement,
and we find all ranges of expertise in terms of handling irri-
gation water. It seems to me that the programs that we have in
the Department and that have been available to irrigation farmer
have made immeasurable contributions to Increased efficiency in
water use and will continue to do so, and perhaps additional
effort needs to be made along this line,
MR. DICKSTEIN: That more or less goes along with the
area discussed of education with the farmers and educating them
about the proper use of water.
MR. BOONE: Yes, that is right.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Also you made a comment, It seems to
me that technologically we do have many of the solutions right
now, it is a matter of Implementing them, Is this true?
-------
i33
S. G, Boone
MR. BOONE: This is true in many fields. I believe
it is also true in irrigation.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very, very much.
I believe we have a communication from the Corps
of Engineers,
MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, we have a communication from the
District Engineer, Sacramento District Corps of Engineers, which
I would like to offer for the record.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will be entered
in the record as if read.
(The above-mentioned letter follows:)
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY RECEIVED
SACRAMENTO D-3T.TCT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS E. P. A. RFG ION IX
63J CAriTOL MALI
SACRAMtMO, CALIFORNIA 95814 ffB 1 1 |{J 32 flH *7?
SPKED-P 9 February 1972
Regional Administrator, Region IX
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
Sea Francisco, California 94111
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to your letter of 13 January 1972 inclosing a copy of
your report on "The Ittncral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin"
which is to be the basis for the Federal-State Enforcement Conference on
the Colorado River to be held 15-17 February in Las Vegas, Nevada.
A study of the flood and related water resource problem of the Colorado
River and tributaries above Lee Ferry, Arizona, has recently been reactivated
by this District* As a part of this investigation, consideration will be
given to possible solutions to water quality problems in the basin. The
purpose of the study is to develop solutions, where feasible, to the flood
and related water resource problems of the area, both locally and on a
basin-vide comprehensive basis. It is anticipated that several years
will be required to complete the investigation.
Studies relating to water quality and salt sources in the Upper Colorado
River Basin have not been initiated by this office at this time. Therefore,
we do not propose to have a representative attend the conference in Las
Vegas on 15-17 February 1972. However, because of our recently activated
studies on the Upper Colorado Basin, we would appreciate receiving data
on water quality problems and any suggested solutions which night be
presented at the conference, including any transcript or summary which
may be prepared of presentations made at the conference.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your report and the invitation to
participate in the conference. We will ke*>p you advised of any proposed
inproveoents affecting water quality or which may include provisions for
-------
935
SPKEIHP 9 February 1972
Regional Administrator, Region IX
reducing the salt load of the- river system that may bo developed during
the course 01 our studies on the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES C. DONOVAN
Colonel, CE
District Engineer
-------
936
Col. J. C. Donovan
MR. O'CONNELL: Copies have Just been distributed to
the conferees. Just for the benefit of the audience I will
summarize it by saying that the Corps states that a study of
flood and related water resource problems of the Colorado River
and tributaries above Lees Ferry, Arizona, has recently been
reactivated by the District; and they will keep us advised of
any proposed improvements affecting water quality or which may
include provisions for reducing the salt load to the river system
that may be developed during the course of their studies on the
Upper Colorado River Basin.
MR. STEIN: At the present time we are going to call
on the States, and then we will call on people who have indi-
cated that they wish to speak.
First Arizona.
MR. TABOR: No comment from the conferee.
MR. STEIN: California.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, before I make any comment,
if I do, I would like to call on various organizations from the
State that have Indicated they would like to make a statement.
The first one I would like to Introduce is Myron
Holburt, who is the Chief Engineer of the Colorado River Board
of California,
-------
._ 937
M. B, Holburt
MYRON B. HOLBURT
CHIEF ENGINEER
COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
MR. HOLBURT; Thank you, Mr. Dibble.
Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement, of which I hav
some extra copies, enough for the conferees.
My name is Myron Holburt, Chief Engineer, Colorado
River Board of California.
The Colorado River Board is the California State agenc
with the statutory responsibility of protecting the rights and
Interests of California, its agencies and citizens, to the water
and power resources of the Colorado River System. The Board is
composed of six members appointed by the Governor of California,
one each from each of the major public agencies with water and
power rights in the Colorado River. There are the three urban
agencies: the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, San Diego County
Hater Authority; and three other cultural agencies: Imperial
Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District,
and Palo Verde Irrigation District.
I think most of you are aware of the intensive activities
of the Colorado River Board In the las* few years in attempting
-------
. ; 938
M. B. Holburt
to seek solutions to our salinity problems. The Board's basic
comments on the draft edition of the report that was submitted
to the conferees today are included in the Joint statement pre-
pared by the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department
of Water Resources and the Colorado River Board, and this was
presented by the conferee, the State Water Resources Control
Board, in a letter that is Included in Appendix D to this report
Basically we are in agreement with Recommendations 1
and 3 as they are now in the report, and that is that we have as
objectives the maintenance of salinity at or below present level£
and we achieve this objective by a baslnwlde salinity control
program.
We are opposed to Recommendation No, 2 in the report
calling for establishment of specific numerical criteria by
January 1973* And basically, the reason we are opposed to it
is that we can see very little value in the efforts of the con-
ferees and the Federal Government in trying to establish numer-
ical criteria. If we felt that numerical criteria would help
us, we would be for it, because together with Arizona we have
the position of getting the impact of all the salinity problems
in the United States by being at the lower, end of the basin.
I think the basic situation where we stand today is
that after much time and effort, all of the basin States and
-------
„ 939
M. B. Holburt
the Department of State together with Interior are united in
going forward with a major salinity control program.
And although to date these studies of the salinity
control program, which have been largely on a reconnaissance
level, have been favorable, we don't think that we should
attempt to even start the setting of numerical criteria until
we better know the results to the feasibility studies of this
salinity control program.
And thirdly, I think that in the absence of salinity
control projects, the only way in which numerical criteria could
be enforced would be by taking actions against water users In
the* Upper Colorado River Basin States, and these States have
indicated that any attempt to establish enforceable numerical
criteria would be viewed as an attempt to threaten their economl
development and would be in opposition, at least as they view
it, to the Colorado River Compact.
So basically, we believe that Instead of working on
numerical criteria at this time, we urge that the Environmental
Protection Agency take three basic steps:
1. Expedite the ongoing collection and research
programs and fund additional programs. Specifically, there is
one program that is up for consideration by the Environmental
Protection Agency which I feel should be funded immediately
-------
940
M. B. Holburt
and that is the program submitted by Professor Skogerboe in the
Colorado State University entitled "irrigation Practices, Return
Flow Salinity and Crop Yields." And the basic thrust of this
research project is to try and determine the effect of reducing
return flow and deep percolation from crops and what the effect
is on the salinity of the return flows. There is a lot of
speculation on this, but we don't as yet have any good research
project to cover this activity,,and I believe that EPA could do
a real service by acting on this request which is now before it.
Secondly, I believe the EPA should utilize its
existing expertise in working with the Bureau of Reclamation.
You have people like Russ Freeman, Jim Vincent, Jim Russell,
who have been scattered throughout your organization now, but
they have gained valuable experience in working on this program,
and I feel that they should be utilized in working with the
Bureau in some capacity.
And finally, you should continue to transfer funds as
necessary to the Bureau,,,as you have in several other programs
which have been going forward today*
I have one other comment and that relates to two
recommendations that were in the draft report but deleted in
the final report. Unfortunately, these two recommendations are
still in Chapter VIII of the report. They relate to, one,
-------
M. B. Holburt
setting up a task force to develop numerical criteria, and
secondly, consider the possibility of a new agency, I think we
are all in agreement that the Bureau of Reclamation shall move
forward on this program, but it is very confusing to pick up a
report and see that the recommendations are no longer in the
front of the report, but the recommendations, together with all
the backup, are still contained in Chapter VIII of the report.
I believe EPA should take some me as ure to eliminate this con
fusion*
Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
I would like to understand what you are saying* And
please understand, I just want to get this.
Are you saying that you are In favor of numerical
criteria but not now?
MR. HOLBURT: No, I am saying that we should defer
any consideration of numerical criteria until we better know
the results of these feasibility studies.
MR. STEIN: Do you think we should ever have numerica
criteria?
MR. HOLBURT: I don't know. There may be a time when
it is valuable, but it certainly isn't now*
-------
M. B. Holburt
MR. STEIN: Right. Then you don't go as far as
Commissioner Armstrong when he said, speaking yesterday."this
Department," that is Interior,"accepts the .need for numerical
*
standards?
MR. HOLBURT: No, I don't. I don't think that the
Department of the Interior should be spending its effort trying
to develop numerical criteria. They have got a big program in
terras of getting some physical works and implementation on
salinity control. That is where their efforts should be.
MR. STEIN: Here is something we are looking for*
We saw the chart that Mr. Blackman addressed himself to this
morning. If the figures or the information on which that chart
is based is substantially correct, we have a steady increase of
salinity in significant places in the Colorado River In the
last 10 years. Now, if we are going to prevent that from
creeping up, how will we know when to blow the whistle unless
we have some kind of benchmark?
And I am not arguing criteria with you. I am Just
trying to give you the problem that we have here. In other
words, we are the Agency -- with California agencies and the
agencies in the other States—responsible for the conditions
of the waters in the country. If,.after a 10-year trend period,
you see salinity coming up and we are looking for a device to
-------
_ 9^3
M. B. Holburt
regulate that to see that it gets better and not worse, how do
we do that? How do we approach It?
MR. HOLBURT: Oh, I think—
MR. STEIN: Usually, and I am not saying just in this
field, but in any other regulatory field, whether it is cities
or industries, we use numerical requirements to see what is
done. Now, I am trying to understand what we are driving at or
how we do it here without that.
MR. HOLBURT: Well, I think the response is that what
we do is we accelerate the salinity control program to see that
it is moved ahead as fast as possible. We want to see con-
structive and every feasible salinity control project we want
to see implemented--every potential feasibility control measure.
We want the best quality water we can get. We are not concerned
with setting any arbitrary numbers and looking at them. We want
to move forward to a physical program.
MR. STEIN: I am not talking in terms of arbitrary
numbers, sir. I am not saying that I don't agree with what you
are saying philosophically, but we have a law we have to work
with that the Congress has given us* Now, for years I think
this statement and your point of view was made to the Congress^-
that we don't have numbers, that we accelerate the program and
keep this from entering the municipality limits, that we
-------
944
M. B. Holburt
accelerate the abatement program and this Is what cleans up
pollution. Sure. However, the Congress has indicated to us
that they didn't believe we were moving fast enough. As a
matter of fact if you look at the record, it indicated they
thought we were losing ground with that approach. Therefore,
they came up with this criteria standard requirement for us to
set and enforce, and this is the Job we have.
Now, as we have utilized these standards throughout
the country, and again 1 am not applying it here, what this
boils down to is setting some kind of number that we are going
to enforce against. Now, the suggestion is we don't do that.
1 would like to know how we handle that with the mandate we
have from the Congress to carry the program forward.
Again I am not arguing this point, because I recog-
nize the difficulty of the problem we have to deal with.
MR. HOLBURT: Well, I think you simply handle it by
recognizing the salinity problem In the Colorado is consider-
ably different than the water pollution from industrial wastes
and municipal wastes that you have in some of the eastern
streams where you can set a number and control some of these
things.
For Instance, I have heard you look at that 10-year
chart on several occasions and say the numbers speak for
-------
M. B. Holburt
themselves. Well, those numbers don't speak for themselves.
They are a combination of many different factors, of the flow
of the river, the impoundment in the reservoirs and releases,
the type of development, the rapidity with which development
takes place. You have to analyze those numbers to know what
they mean.
For instance, I expect that in the next couple of
years we will get a little better water down at Parker because
we have had a couple of good years on the Upper Bfcsin and some
improvement at Lees Perry will pass through in 2 years and
be reflected down at Parker. What doesn't make me happier, if
you have a number that you set at present and then we go below
it, are you going to say,"Well, that is fine, we are making
progress"? I don't think we are.
The problem remains the numbers that we are going to
get are going to fluctuate depending on conditions, and it is
fruitless at this point to try and work with those numbers. I
can only repeat that the proposition that you have to tell your
people is that we are going to work on a physical program to
meet the problem* and that is the answer* AmtiL at some later
date when we know more about the programs,-there may be some
advantage in setting numbers, but it will be very divisive at
the present time to try and set numbers. And we in the lower
-------
946
M. B. Holburt
basin States don't see It as any particular advantage at this
point either. I think Mr. Dibble yesterday was giving a pretty
good, exact analogy about a speed limit and in terms of setting
a number, and that is what people work for.
I hope that answers your question.
MR. STEIN: Well, I think your point of view is
very clear. I don't want to prolong that. With your
explanation, yes, these figures do speak for themselves.
I think we need the explanation that you gave; I know these
sources have put In pollution control.
But I would like to call your attention to one
thing, and I think we all have this however we come out.
If you say the setting of numbers Is going to be divisive,
what do you think the nonsetting of numbers is going to
be? Do you think we are going to be welcomed with open
arms with a lot of people who want clean water in the Colo-
rado by the nonsetting of numbers or are we faced with a
divisive result no matter what we do?
MR. HOLBURT: I don't think there is anyone that
wants better quality water than the people in California
unless it is the people in Arizona, and if we thought this
was the thing to do we would be recommending it.
Could I ask you a question?
-------
M. B. Holburt
MR. STEIN: Surely.
MR. HOLBURT: You keep talking about enforceable.
How would you enforce it? How would you enforce the numbers
that you would set?
MR. DIBBLE: I was just going to ask him that too.
May I add to your question, as long as you have
brought it up?
I thought we had gone into this in, sort of some
detail yesterday, that the problem on the Colorado River just
doesn't lend itself to enforcement. It seems to me that the
EPA staff in presenting the results of the report yesterday in
effect said this, and it seems to me it is the key to the
problem}
The salt load in the Colorado River
tends to be essentially a constant salt load
in terms of tons, but the problem is that the
amount of water moving downstream is gradually
being less as the stream is depleted in terms
of amount of water, which means that the con-
centration in the remaining water is more.
Now, how do you enforce on a problem like that? That
is not an enforcement problem that can be handled by a regula-
tory agency, and I think that that is the real thrust that we
-------
. 9J*8
M. B. Holburt
have to—point we have to get across In a conference like
this. It Just doesn't lend itself to enforcement. The
only solution to it is to take this all back out by some
kind of a salinity control program, keep the salt from
getting in or take it out.
MR. STEIN: Well, that well may be. That may be
the result of enforcement.
MR. DIBBLE: Not of enforcement, but of a physical
actual program.
MR. STEIN: That is what we have in all cases.
I suggest, Mr. Dibble, that we have the problem in many,
many streams in the eastern part of the country that you
have indicated you have here on the Colorado. Again, I
think we have this all over. For instance, we have taken
streams like the Mississippi or the Missouri or the Ohio,
which used to be free-flowing streams, and changed the
regimen of those streams. To use a very clear example
that I think most of you are aware of, the Ohio is a. series
of pools or in effect lakes; then you have a lock and the
levels drop a little lower. Well, in the old days, when you
had an industry or a city on the Ohio putting its wastes down
in that swift-flowing stream, it certainly didn«t have the
kind of current, immediate effect that it does when it is put
-------
__ 949
M. B. Holburt
in a slack-flowing pool. So this is the problem we are facing
all over.
I think we are here to try to develop with you a tech-
nique of getting that. I ask you again to examine the position
you have. The question is what approach we take. I think that
Mr. Armstrong indicated he adopts the need for numerical stand-
ards, but doesn't think we are quite ready. The EPA thinks we
night be ready for those pretty soon or perhaps now. As I under
stand the position that you Just gave, you are not sure we will
ever need numbers; rather we have to go back with the notion
that we are all going to put our shoulder to the wheel and
reduce salt pollution as much as possible. Is that the result
Of what you have come out with?
MR. DIBBLE: Right.
MR. STEIN: All right. I understand that position.
But may I suggest to you, sir, that I am not sure that the
adoption of that solution wouldn't create as much divislveness
as any other.
'- ' MR. HOLBURT: In other words, it is simply a defer-
ment of it. We are not saying whether we need it or don't
need it; maybe we do sometime in the future, but defer it
Indefinitely.
MR. STEIN: But right now you are deferring it
-------
950
M, B. Holburt
Indefinitely?
MR. HOLBURT: Right.
MR. STEIN: Right. I understand. Thank you very
much, sir.
MR. HOLBURT: You are welcome.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, the next one from Cali-
fornia who would like to make a statement is David Kennedy of
the Metropolitan Water District.
DAVID KENNEDY, ENGINEER
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, my name is David Kennedy.
I am an Engineer with the Metropolitan Water District of Souther
California. I am here today representing Frank Clinton, our
General Manager.
We1 have a brief statement of about 3-1/2 pages and
with your concurrence, Mr. Chairman, I will read the statement.
MR. STEIN: Go right ahead,
MR. KENNEDY: The District has worked closely with
California's Colorado River Board in reviewing the EPA report,
and we concur fully in the comments presented by Mr* Holburt.
-------
. : 951
D. Kennedy
Our statement today is intended to supplement Mr. Holburt's
comments•
The Metropolitan Water District has been bringing
water from the Colorado River to its service area within the
Coastal Plain of Southern California since 19*1. For the past
several years, diversions have been at essentially the full
capacity of the Colorado River Aqueduct, which in 1.2 million
acre-feet per year. This supply provides approximately 43
percent of the total water supply used in the District's
service area. There are now 124 cities within the District
and the total population is presently 10.3 million.
The salinity of Colorado River water during the 30
years of the District's operations has fluctuated considerably
but has always been higher than desirable. I think this gets
to one of the points that you were quizzing Mr. Holburt about.
The average salinity at the intake t& the District's Aqueduct
at Lake Havasu over the 30-year operating period was 684 ppra.
The salinity has ranged from all«w of 48? ppm in January 1953
to a high of 842 ppm in January 1957. For the past year it has
averaged approximately 741 ppm.
Let me digress a moment, Mr. Stein. The chart that
the EPA fellow showed yesterday I believe showed that at
Parker Dam the salinity in 1970 was 784 ppm, is that correct?
-------
952
D. Kennedy
And that is where our diversion is. So that ?8M in 1970 com-
pares with 7^1 over the last year.
Several agencies, Including EPA, have made projections
of future salinity levels of Colorado River water. While there
are some differences in the specific projected levels, all of
those studying the problem agree that salinity will increase,
unless corrective measures are undertaken.
In viewing this situation, the one encouraging factor
is that specific corrective measures have been identified which
could probably offset the projected increase and possibly even
reduce salinity below present levels. The EPA report describes
a broad range of salt reduction measures, which, at the recon-
naissance level, appear to be economically Justified. The
present need is to determine more precisely the feasibility
of these individual projects and to develop a comprehensive
salinity control program.
With reference to the three recommendations in the
EPA Summary Report, the District agrees with Numbers 1 and 3.
We disagree, however, with Number 2, that specific numerical
criteria be established at key points throughout the Basin
by January 1, 1973. On this issue, the District shares the
view of many other agencies that the attempt to establish such
criteria would lead to unnecessary contention among the Coloradc
-------
953
D. Kennedy
River States and would not be a constructive step toward
resolving the salinity problem.
The District is further concerned by an apparent
dilemma in the general concept of setting salinity criteria in
the Colorado River Basin. It is clear that present levels are
far greater than desirable and are causing significant economic
problems. It is also clear that until the feasibility of
specific control measures is determined we will not know what
levels can be maintained. If the adopted values were in the
range of salinity levels presently found in the Lower Basin,
the implication would be given that any value less than that
adopted is acceptable, and during periods In which normal
fluctuations caused the actual salinity to be less than the
criteria there would be less Impetus to take long-range
corrective actions. That is a situation I think we are facing
rightv.today. On the other hand, If the criteria were set at
levels considered acceptable or desirable from the water user's
standpoint, the criteria might be unattainable and hence would
tend to be disregarded.
On this point, Mr. Chairman, you asked Mr. Holburt
for a benchmark. I think we probably passed the acceptable
benchmark about 60 years ago when we went past 500 ppm. So
that If you get up and start talking about 750 ppm, we are
-------
954
D. Kennedy
concerned that the implication will be given that any time
you are less than that adopted value everything is all right.
It is the District's belief that the most pressing
need is to proceed with determining the feasibility of
individual salinity control projects. Based on information
contained in the EPA report, there is reason to expect that
many of these projects will be found feasible and that a
comprehensive baslnwide salinity control program can be
developed. Recognizing that salinity levels in the Lower Basin
will probably be higher than desirable no matter what control
measures are undertaken, the program of implementation should
include all salinity control projects which are economically
Justified.
That completes our prepared statement. I might make
one more comment as to another way of framing the objective that
we are all pursuing here in the basin.
We have talked about that we need some standard to
shoot for. I think Mr. Freeman yesterday presented two alterna-
tive approaches to this general problem of salinity.
Another way of stating our position would be, we
think that all of the salt that can be removed from the river
economically should be taken out, that we are far past any
acceptable or desirable level, so that if we want to set
-------
955
D. Kennedy
objectives we might set them In terms of removing X tons of
salt from the river rather than maintaining any particular
level in the river.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
I would like to thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for an
excellent statement. I think again that while we may differ
on the method©logy--I don't know that we really differ;
I am here to learn—the objective we have is certainly the
same.
I would like to Just point out that I will agree
with you that your figure of 500, which we went above a
long time ago, was the kind of figure that was probably over
a desirable level. But I would suggest to you that in making
your statements on what you are doing in taking the water out
of Lake Havasu. and mentioning the number 500, in order to
prove and illustrate your points at every stage you did, in
fact, use numbers, and that is what we are dealing with, are
these numbers*
I also would suggest that Just going below a desig-
nated number does not mean that you are doing a tremendous
Job, because of fluctuations, or if you go above it, you are
automatically going to have a violation. Any approach with
-------
956
D. Kennedy
numbers like that is going to be mechanical, and you are going
to get into trouble.
I notice Mr. Beverly from the uranium milling
industry is here. I remember we had the same problem
with numbers in dealing with uranium in certain tributaries.
When the radium level got down to the Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards a lot of people said, "Boy, that
is low enough; let's stop." Our notion was, "Nonsense." I
believe in no radiation. At least, I am one of those who
believe in the cumulative effect of radiation; that the best
kind of radiation is as little and as close to background
level as possible. Putting that thesis forward and with
the cooperation of the industry, we reduced it, as I pointed
out, to about one-third of Public Health Drinking Water
Standards.
So in setting a number for control measures, I
don't think that you necessarily have to think you have
achieved the mlllenlum once you have gotten below that
number and you can't push back. At the same time, if you
have a fluctuation and you have an aberration above it, I
think you should be able to set something flexible enough
not to lower the boom if that happens to be out of control.
And I am merely suggesting that as a technique. Let me try this
-------
__ . 957
D. Kennedy
again on you,and I don't necessarily expect an answer. This
may be a rhetorical question or comment.
Mr. O'Connell points out to me that we are obliged
under the Federal law to deal in terms of numerical requirements
in States or requirements in States; maybe numerical is not the
word. If States don't adopt it with us, then we are obliged to
do that ourselves under the law.
What I am trying to do is see if we can arrive at a
control mechanism with the States that will enable us to roll
back the salinity of the Colorado River, enable us to comply
with appropriate Federal law that we are operating under, and
also allow all interested observers to have some kind of bench-
mark to see if the States or we are doing our Job.
MR. KENNEDY: I think my comment on that is that this
particular benchmark' that you would be choosing is on the one
hand misleading' because it is not a useful benchmark. And the
second point is, I think it is going to serve to defer taking
those actions that we all think should be taken. We are all in
agreement, I think everyone in this room, that the salinity of
the Colorado River should be reduced,,and the objective or the
question is how are we going to meet that. Now, you feel
that by setting these standards that will be helpful. I think
we feel that it will be Just the opposite, that it will mislead
us
i
-------
958
D. Kennedy
actually, by giving us a false benchmark.
MR. STEIN: I understand what you are saying. Let
me clarify a personal position. I don't have any feeling on
this now.
What I do suspect is that this isn't the first time
that these views were presented to EPA. No doubt you gave them
to Mr. DeFalco and the Regional Director and the staff many
times. Presumably that staff in EPA was not persuaded,or we
would have got this report from EPA.
What I am here looking for is to see, in the face of
that; whether we can come to an accommodation and arrive at an
agreed-upon position that you and we can both adopt to go
forward. That is the only thing I am recognizing.
MR. KENNEDY: Let me suggest what that accommodation
might be. Maybe we could all agree to defer this setting of
standards Indefinitely until more information is known.
(Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: I am not—again, Mr. Armstrong suggested
3 years; I know you don't, but he needs it for study. One of
the approaches, and I am making no suggestion on this at all,
because one of your approaches might be in terms of setting a
requirement or an objective to get a certain amount of salt out
of the river, which was pointed out. That might be an approach.
-------
__ 959
D. Kennedy
What I am trying to do here, the reason I am going
with you, because I think you are very sensitive and responsive
to the problem. I am trying to look for a possible technique
that both you people and the Federal people can sign off on so
we can get on with the program.
MR. KENNEDY: 1 Just suggested one to you. Let me—
MR. STEIN: I know. But I would suggest that
indefinite postponement may not be quite the way to arrive
at an accommodation, sir.
MR. KENNEDY: How about postpone for a period of 3
years, and then pull the conference together again and see
where we all are?
MR. STEIN: Well, that might be. But what is to
prevent .an increase in the interim? Do you need certain
objectives to see how many pounds have been reduced during
those 3 years?
I don't want this to even be represented as my
position, certainly not an official position. I am Just
giving you the kind of ideas that we possibly can get to
to arrive at an accommodation on this.
MR. KENNEDY: Let me put it not on the basis of
the recommendation in the EPA report, which is what we are
really talking about.
-------
96 g
D. Kennedy
I think you can summarize our position by saying that
we fee]* first* that the setting of standards Is a misleading
type of approach. It misleads all of us.
Secondly, and «. point that there hasn't been much
conversation about, It would take a great deal of staff time.
By staff time I don't mean Just the engineering time, but the
time of a great many people who could better use that time
pursuing this salinity control program, I think if we spend
all those hours arguing about what the numbers should be, we
would wind up at the end of it without having attained very
much, and it would not have accomplished as much in the salinity
control program as we could have,
MR, STEIN: I couldn't agree with you more on that
statement, although I come out a little differently, I see
people in the Federal Government, I won't speak about the States
spending an Inordinate amount of time arriving at these numbers—
tifcfe that could be more profitably spent9 I have the
feeling that I could* or after a couple of hours discussion, you
could come up with as good a numbeg and maybe we can do
that as well today as we could 3 years from now and go on with
the job.
MR. KENNEDY: I think any number you come up with,
though, would be a misleading number, and that is where we are
-------
961
D. Kennedy
concerned.
MR. STEIN: I understand your view.
MR. KENNEDY: I might just comment in concluding our
remarks that we are probably the first water user you have
heard from. I think the others have been Federal and State
agencies, not those actually using the water, and there may be
some significance to the fact that those who are actually
affected, as our District is very much, feel the very same way.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or questions?
Yes.
MR. DICKSTEIN: One comment.
You have several years of data at Parker Dam, and you
gave us a high and a low* What has been the trend analysis of
this data?
MR. KENNEDY: There is very little discernible trend
over the 30-year period that we have a record. It has gradually
you might say, increased, but the swings have been so significant
up and down that Just plotting the record up and down it is hard
to find that trend that everybody says is there. Now, you can
plot a*double mass diagram and think you find something, but it
is not quite as apparent as some people have implied.
Now, over the last year the salinity at Parker has
actually decreased by about 10 ppm. We are at about 7*0 right
-------
962
D. Kennedy
now. We nave been as high as 8^0.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. DIBBLE: You said, If I understood you, that we
are looking for a technique for protecting the quality of the
river, and then in about the next breath you were talking about
lowering the boom. And I really was wondering whether you are
looking for an enforcement technique or whether you are looking
for a way to keep the quality of the Colorado River under con-
trol. It seems to me the two are different.
MR. STEIN: Well, if they are, we would like to
hear. Our objective is to keep the river under control.
Now, we recognize this, and I think, Mr. Dibble, you made
this point. I thoroughly agree with the point. I hope I
am not talking about lowering the boom.
I think the problem that we have on the
Colorado River can possibly be likened to our dealings
with acid mine drainage in the East. The question raised
is whom do you proceed against; whom do you enforce?
The difficulty that I think we have had in these cases is
that we do not have another mechanism—or if we do, it
hasn't been utilized—to bring the States together and grapple
-------
D. Kennedy
with this problem. And in all candor, I would say that
this Is why we at a conference of this type have dealt with
those tailings piles. It may have something to do with
pollution when it blows into the stream. But after we had
cleaned up, as I indicated—I think the States, the Indus-
try, we, and the AEC did not only a reasonably good job,
but an outstanding Job reducing the radium discharges and
content of the Colorado River and its tributaries—we were
faced with the residual of these tailings piles. They
wouldn't go away, except to blow away, and no one seemed to
deal with them. So we were given the job or we took it upon
ourselves because we just couldn't walk away.
Now, again, here is the way I see the problem,
and I think this is a very Important one from our point of
view. I hope you will agree with it.
MR. KENNEDY: May I comment on that—
MR. STEIN: I ask you to look at the Colorado
River. We find that the radiation problem there—as I
indicated a reasonably progressive Job is being taken on
municipal and Industrial wastes—the big—•
MR. KENNEDY: May I comment—excuse me, go ahead.
MR. STEIN: Please, just a minute.
The big source that we are dealing with in the
-------
D. Kennedy
degradation of the water quality, or the condition in the
river which is causing the water quality to be below what
we would like to see, is the salt. Now, we have tried to
use our most flexible tool, using this mechanism of a con-
ference to get together and try to reach an accommodation.
The advantage of this technique, if nothing else, is that
all the States get together around the table with us and we
don't go off on a problem dealing with this separately,
either Federal or State.
Now, I suggest—and again I spent, you know, a
career on these water-diversion cases, both here and in the
Great Lakes—that possibly the most rapid way to come to an
accommodation on the solution is to keep a conversation or
dialogue going between the States and us, as we have here.
It is very easy, as you people know—and I don't have to tell
you in California and Arizona—to get beyond the point of no
return with this water problem where you are Just locked in.
This is why we are using the conference.
MR. KENNEDY: That is the particular point I would
like to comment on, Mr. Stein.
The Colorado River salinity problem is a unique problen
The particular point that we are concerned about on this accom-
modation is that the States have now reached an accommodation
-------
965
D. Kennedy
for the first time, or with the exception of the Colorado River
Basin bill that was passed in 1968 after a great struggle.
This is.an issue on which the Colorado-River States are united,
and that is quite an unusual thing, as you are probably aware.
Our Chairman, Joe Jensen, who has been involved in Colorado
River matters for a long, long time, made a comment to some
Bpper Basin people here about 2 weeks ago to the effect that we
have got to work our problems out together. He said,"we have
spent many years fighting you people and we are not going to do
it that way in the future. We would like to work this problem
out in cooperation.tf
Now, here you have a problem that the seven States
are united on, and what we would ask for is EPA's support in
getting behind that agreement that we all have. We feel we see
the solution to this problem. We ask for your support.
MR. STEIN: I think this goes both ways. I might say
if you are united on the Colorado River it is not Just unusual,
it is unique. (Laughter.)
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. DICKSTEIN: I just have one comment on the side
here. It seems to me that the enforcement conferences we have
had on the Colorado River have really achieved a monumental
event here in helping unite the people*
-------
. 266
D, Kennedy
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: It has been very helpful.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, the next one that would
like to be heard from California is Mr* Lowell Weeks, who is
the General Manager and Chief Engineer of the Coachella Valley
County Water District, referred to yesterday as the Cocachella
Valley. (Laughter.)
LOWELL WEEKS
GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF ENGINEER
COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
MR. WEEKS: Mr, Chairman and gentlemen. Coachella
Valley has been called many things down through the years, but
we still consider it quite an important part of the Colorado
River Basin,
My name is Lowell Weeks and I am the General Manager
and Chief Engineer of the District, and on behalf of our Board
of Directors I want to thank you for this opportunity to
»
appear in front of this conference. You have the written state-
ment in front of you and I will Just try to briefly bring up
-------
_1 967
L. Weeks
some of the Important points as far as we are concerned in the
Coachella Valley,
Many people do not know the location of Coachella
Galley, and unfortunately when I am away from home I have to
say Palm Springs is located within Coachella Valley, Then
everybody knows where it is.
The average rainfall is so slight in Coachella Valley
that it is practically disregarded, and the sole dependence for
water in growing crops is placed in irrigation. The source of
this supply lies principally in the rainfall and the melting
snows on the high mountain peaks at the northwestern end of the
valley, and since 19^9 in a supplemental supply from the Colo-
rado River diverted at Imperial Dam through the Ail-American
Canal to Coachella Valley, a distance of 150 miles, where it is
distributed onto the farms.
The development of the valley began in 1888 when they
found groundwater below the surface of the ground. However,
with the installation of wells, the water table decreased, so
it was not long before the farmers recognized they had to have
a new source of water.
The Coachella Valley County Water District was
organized in 1918 to carry out water conservation policies and
to seek an additional supply of water. The Water District is
-------
: 168
L. Weeks
a public agency of the State of California and its functions
and powers are governmental in nature. Since 1918 the District
has entered into six separate and distinct contracts with the
United States, all dealing with a supply of water from the
Colorado River. These contracts were entered into in 1920,
1921, 1929, 193^, 19*17, and 1963, The early contracts were
brought into existence after the passage of the Kinkaid Act by
the Congress in May 1918 under which the District made contri-
butions to the United States for its early surveys, investiga-
tions and reports, looking forward to the construction of what
we now call Hoover Dam and the building of the All-American
Canal to deliver water into the Coachella and Imperial Valleys.
The 193** contract was a water delivery and repayment
contract which provided for construction of capacity in the
All-American Canal Project to deliver water into Coachella
Valley.
The 191*? contract was a distribution system contract.
It provided for the physical works to take water out of the canajl
and deliver it onto the land. All of the work contracted to be
performed by the United States has been completed and Colorado
River water is now being used for irrigation in the valley.
This took a long time. The works were turned over to the Dis-
trict for operation and maintenance in March 1949, 29 years aftelr
-------
^ 969
L. Weeks
the date of the first contract between the United States and
the District.
The District diverted 466,000 acre-feet of Colorado
River water during 1971 for irrigation water service to more
than 60,000 acres in the Valley. In addition to providing
irrigation water service, the District serves domestic water
service to an estimated 25*000 persons, has constructed and is
operating a wastewater reclamation plant, conveys the drainage
discharge from over 1,900 miles of on-farra drainage tile lines
to the Salton Sea, and constructs, operates, and maintains flood
control facilities.
The increasing salinity of the Colorado River is of
great significance to the farmers and other citizens of the
Coachella Valley, and the District has been active for many
years in seeking to limit salinity increases and to minimize
the impact of the'high saline Colorado River water. The Dis-
trict has participated with the Colorado River Board of Cali-
fornia in its activities to reduce the salinity of the Colorado
River by effecting a Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program, and fully supports the Board. We are pleased with
the completion and distribution of the EPA program. We believe
that it may be of assistance in obtaining a Federal program to
control the salinity of the Colorado River.
-------
L. Weeks
We believe that the report's Recommendations 1 and 3
will help In achieving that goal; however, Recommendation 2,
calling for the establishment of specific numerical criteria
throughout the basin by January 1, 1973, would tend to negate
the beneficial impact of the other two recommendations.
Accordingly, we strongly recommend that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency take no further action with regard to
the Recommendation 2 of Its report. Further, we endorse the
recommendations of the Colorado River Board of California per-
taining to that report and commend them to your attention.
Just to add a little to it, 1 have listened to the
comments of the Chairman, to each of the other two partlcipants-
MR. STEIN: I am not going to say against. (Laughter.))
MR. WEEKS: I would just like to bring one thing to
mind. When you mention the enforcement of the uranium, I think
they were very definite, you knew where they were, you could go
out and draw a line around them and had no problem whatsoever.
However, salinity in the Colorado River is a vast, complex, and,
as you know, very difficult program.
The only'comment I would like to make to your idea
of setting standards, I am afraid EPA% staff, which they did
put out an excellent report, in which you said that they
evidently in all the staff hearing; did not abide by the decision^
-------
971
L. Weeks
or wishes of the States, I am afraid they are oriented, as
most sanitary engineering, as most public health people, to
a number. Once you have a number, man, we have something.
Anybody that goes below it, we can run out and spank them. I
don't know who you are going to spank in this.
I think the whole concept must be taken out of the
idea of having something for enforcement, and rather than spend
money for employees to check the river for enforcement, let's
put all this money into building salt control works and if you
want a figure*let's take 5 million tons of salt a year out of
the river.
That's our comments, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.
MR. STEIN: Any comments or questions?
MR. DICKSTEIN: Mr. Weeks, what type of irrigation
practices do they use on your valley? Do they use mechanical
means or the hose soaking method or what?
MR. WEEKS: In the Supreme Court hearing between
California and Arizona, the special master found out that we
have the most efficient irrigation in the United States, all
underground pipeline, every drop of water is metered the same
as your domestic water meters.
MR. DICKSTEIN: It can be done, then?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, it can.
-------
972
L. Weeks
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
That was a very excellent statement, Mr, Weeks. I
agree with you that It may be a little more difficult finding
the sources and controlling them with salinity than it was with
uranium, but I am also convinced that the organization or
ingenuity indicated by your statement, and going down the line
with Mr, Kennedy and Mr. Holburt, would give the kind of
organizational ability that would be able to deal with a prob-
lem like this.
MR. WEEKS: I would like for you—
MR. STEIN: You have got good men.
MR. WEEKS: I would like for you to meet with the
Bureau of Reclamation, see to it. They have got all the money
that is required to get the work started,
MR. STEIN: Let's recess for 10 minutes,
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Mr. Dibble, would you proceed,
MR. DIBBLE: Mr, Chairman, I would like to introduce
Mr, Robert Carter, the General Manager of the Imperial Irriga-
tion District, our largest irrigation district in California,
-------
. 973
R. Carter
ROBERT CARTER
GENERAL MANAGER
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Dibble.
Mr. Chairman, members of the conference committee.
My name is Robert Carter and I hold the position of
General Manager of Imperial Irrigation District in Imperial,
California.
Imperial Irrigation District, a publicly-owned water
and power utility of California, welcomes this opportunity to
present these comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's
report, "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River
Basin," dated 1971.
The District performs three functions: (a) Diversion
and delivery of Colorado River water for irrigation, industrial
and domestic uses, there being no other usable water available
from any source; (b) Operation and maintenance of drainage
canals and facilities; and (c) Generation, transmission and
distribution of electrical energy to a 7,500 square mile area,
including the area that Mr. Weeksfs district is located that
(receded me.
-------
R, Carter
The District diverts water from the Colorado River
at Imperial Dam and transports the same through the All-American
Canal for a distance of 80 miles into its 1,650-mile canal
system to serve 6,000 headgates. These in turn deliver water
to 553,000 acres for agricultural use, on a single-crop basis,
and to 7 incorporated cities for municipal and industrial
purposes.
The District is one of the largest irrigation dis-
tricts in the United States and is the largest single diverter
in the entire Colorado River system. Its diversion for the
year 1971 was 2,939,000 acre-feet.
The District further provides a 1,375-mile drainage
system throughout its service area which acts as a collector
for surface regulation and receives subsurface brine effluent
from the 16,815 miles of subsurface tile installed in 369,804
acres of land through the soil profiles in an effort to maintain
a favorable salinity balance. The increasing salinity of the
Colorado River is of great concern t6 Imperial Irrigation
District and the farmers the District represents.
The District fully supports the studies, reports and
recommendations of the Colorado River Board of California which
pertain to the salinity of the Colorado River and it has
participated with the Colorado River Board in urging the
-------
i_ 975
R. Carter
establishment of a Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
The District is pleased with the completion of the
Environmental Protection Agency's report, "The Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River Basin," and we urge that the
agency use its influence, also, to obtain a Federal program to
control the salinity of the Colorado River. We concur in the
report's Recommendations 1 and 3 and believe that they will
assist in achieving a goal of a Federal Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program.
We do not agree with Recommendation 2, however, which
calls for the establishment of a specific numerical criteria
throughout the basin by January 1, 1973, with the criteria predij-
cated on a 1,000 mg/1 concentration at Imperial Dam, our
diversion point. It is our opinion that this recommendation
would make it difficult to achieve a basic objective of limiting
salinity to or below present levels at Imperial Dam. Further-
more, If a numerical value, such as 1,000 ppm,is established, it
nay very well act to prevent the adoption of measures that would
reduce the river's salinity below present levels which, in our
experience, certainly are more harmful to our water users.
Accordingly, we believe that the setting of a specific numeri-
cal criteria should be deferred at this time until a salinity
control program Is effected and the impact of the program is
-------
R. Carter
known.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of Imperial
Irrigation District that the Environmental Protection Agency
take no further action with respect to Recommendation 2 of its
report, "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River
Basin." And let the record show that we fully support and
endorse the recommendations made by the Colorado River Board
of California pertaining to that report.
I would like to make one other comment that is not
included in the paper but I think is pertinent which deals with
the incoming water that I made reference to, the 2,900,000 acre-
feet in the quantity that we diverted in 1971. Of course it
differs each year. But we do establish a set of figures in that
respect to determine how much salt is coming into the valley, and
by figures that we have developed we have approximately 4
million tons of salt enter our system each year, and the 16,000
miles of subsurface tiling that I made reference to transports
4,600,000 tons of salt away from the soils into Salton Sea. We
have no return opportunity of water going back to the river.
But my point is simply this. If we are able to pick
up M.6 million tons of salt from our system, I agree with Lowell
Weeks, the speaker who preceded me, that your obligation should
be to remove the 5 million that he made reference to.
-------
/__ 977
R. Carter
Thank you, (Laughter,)
I will be glad, to answer any questions,
MR. STEIN: Are there any questions or comments?
Again let*s try this, because I think maybe we are
discerning a pattern here that possibly we can work on, I
think to expand the previous speaker's comments, and I think
this is not just Mr, Weeks but Mr, Kennedy and Mr, Holburt,
what you say, I would like to refer to one .sentence in there
because I think maybe this can help us get around first base:
Accordingly, we believe that the
setting of a specific numerical criteria should
be deferred at this time until a salinity
control program is effected and the impact of
the program is known,
0, K. Now, that to my mind doesn't talk about neces-
sarily indefinite postponement, but postponing until you are
going to come up with a salinity control program.
Now, let's take the other ideas that were thrown out
by your earlier California speakers here. If we are talking in
terms of developing a program for removing X pounds of salt from
the river and if we are talking in terms of that obviously over
a period of years, could we—and I am just, again, putting this
out as a possibility—indicate or come up with a specific time
-------
.978
R. Carter
where we will have an objective for coming up with the salinity
control program to reduce the salt and determine how long that
would take and then recognize when we would find that the Impact
of this would become effective so we can consider what the
impact of this soil reduction would be before we move on to
the next step?
MR. CARTER: Well, it would seem to me that the broad
data is available in certain forms over many years past and that
it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable to defer the establishment
of a maximum, if we are talking about Imperial Dam, because I
think you have to establish the maximum on the District at the
tail end of the system. You certainly can't establish a maxi-
mum upstream because they will contribute to the demise or the
betterment of it, if you please, if they divert back to the
river.
But I certainly agree with what Mr. Kennedy and Mr.
Holburt and Mr. Weeks previously stated here. I think it would
be premature at this time to establish it. Why not put the
operation in gear, if you please, and get the position of doing
something started, get the benefit of the operation of a pro-
gram whereby we might be able to better this 1,000 ppm? The
testimony that I have heard here this morning all relates to
1,000 ppm. We certainly aren't happy with 1,000 ppm, particularl;
-------
979
R. Carter
when we take into consideration that this 16,000 miles of tile
has cost the farmers of Imperial Valley $3^ million.
MR. STEIN: Yes. The only thing—I don't direct this
directly to you, Mr. Carter, but to the conferees and the other
people who have made statements. Again let me refer to your
statement.
We believe that the setting of a specific
numerical criteria should be deferred at this time
until a salinity control program is effected and the
impact of that program is known.
I would suggest that we might give some consideration
to indicating, if this is the approach, how long it will take us
or what date we might set for the development of that salinity
control program and what date we might expect—and what the
objectives of that salinity control program are, perhaps in
reduction of pounds per day of salt, and when you could reason-
ably expect or possibly as an objective expect the results to be
known. I Just throw that out as a possibility.
Any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Dibble.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, the last person I would
-------
98p
R. Carter
like to introduce from California is Mr. Wayne MacRostie, who
is representing the State Department of Water Resources.
Mr. MacRostie.
WAYNE MAC ROSTIE, CHIEF
INTERSTATE PLANNING BRANCH
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
MR. MAC ROSTIE: My name is Wayne MacRostie. I am
the Chief of the Interstate Planning Branch of the California
Department of Water Resources. I am here today representing
Bill Gianelli, our Director, who was not able to make the meet-
ing and sends his regrets.
The Department of Water Resources is very much con-
cerned about the Colorado River. It now comprises 75 percent
of the water supply of Southern California. When our State
water project becomes operative after 1990 the Colorado River
will still supply over half of the water needed by our southern
counties.
The Department of Water Resources is also very much
concerned about the salinity problem in the Colorado River. We
have been working very closely with the State Water Resources
Control Board, Mr. Dibble's organization, with the Colorado
-------
_ 981
W, MacRostie
River Board, in order to find ways that are reasonable and
practical to solve the problems that result from this increasing
salinity.
We wish to endorse wholeheartedly the statement that
the Colorado River Board has submitted today and the discussion
that ensued after Mr. Holburt's statement. We can also agree
with the statements of the District people that appeared before
me.
We feel that the program that has been outlined by the
Bureau of Reclamation to help overcome the salinity problem of
the Colorado River is a most worthwhile program and should be
pressed with all diligence, and we feel that it would be a
serious mistake at this time to set numbers as objectives,
criteria, or whatever you wish to call them. We think the
emphasis should be on developing a program to find a physical
solution of the problem.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Dibble.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr, Chairman, the only other matter that
I would like to present to the conference on behalf of
-------
982
W. MacRostie
California is this, that California submitted its formal com-
ments on the draft of the report many months ago and those were
included in Appendix D of the EPA report.
There are two additional letters that I would like to
have added to the record representing the position of California
First is a letter dated September 3, 1971» from Kerry
Mulligan, Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board,
to the Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus, summarizing California's
thoughts on the Colorado River salinity problem.
The second is a letter dated December 23, 1971, from
William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, to Mr. Mulligan.
And I would request that those be made a part of the
record as though they had been read.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will be done.
(The above-mentioned letters follow?)
-------
983
A— • THE RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD RCAGAn.
ER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
^ 114), RESOURCES BUILDING Pt""" 445-3993
IIBflH STREET • SACRAMENTO 9581 4
tfJijWUICArl. Chairman
iHKt, Via Chairman
KID I OWE, Memoir
itlMMS. Mtfflocr
all attar.
S£? 3137}
Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus:
Summary of Colorado River Salinity Problems
The salinity of the Colorado River under natural conditions
was high. Activities by man have significantly increased the
salinity of the River, and it will continue to- increase unless
control actions are undertaken.' Salinity is a basinwide
problem for the seven states in the Colorado River drainage area.
It is also a major problem for Mexico, as evidenced in the
statements by the President of Mexico that the salinity of the
Colorado River is the single most important issue between the
United States and Mexico.
The Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency
and its predecessor agencies, and California have been studying
the salinity of the Colorado River for many years. These studies
have identified, on a reconnaissance level, a number of salinity
control projects that have the capability of preventing several
millions of tons .of salt per year from entering the river system.
A major salinity control program was agreed to by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the former Federal Water Quality Administration
at the end of 1968; however, it was never carried out.
Recently, all seven Colorado River.Basin states joined together
in urging the commencement of a Colorado River Salinity Control
Program as a major activity, and the preparation of feasibility
reports for specific projects. This program has been endorsed by
the State Department as an urgency matter because of the need to
negotiate a new agreement with Mexico concerning the River's
salinity. Secretary Rogers has written to Secretary Morton urging
support of such a program. The Bureau of Reclamation has trans-
ferred funds within its own budget to commence feasibility studies
and will shortly be coming up with a major action program.
-------
984
Hon. William D. Ruckelshaus -2-
In April, 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a
draft of its long-awaited report for review by the seven states.
One of the recommendations advised establishment of specific
numerical salinity criteria in the Colorado River Basin. This
recommendation was opposed by all of the basin states in their
comments on the draft report. It is our understanding that,
based upon its national policy, the 2PA plans to recommend in
its report specific numerical criteria for consideration "by the
conferees at a meeting to be held in the fall. California urges
that'numerical standards not be recommended at this time. This
state uses more water than the other six states combined. Vie
are making this recommendation in full recognition of our position
of being the lowest on the river, thereby receiving the major
impact of the salinity problems of the basin.
If the attempt to establish numerical criteria now would be
beneficial and helpful with respect to the Colorado River salinity
control problem, we would be for it; however, such a program
would not be beneficial at this time for the following reasons:
1. After much time and effort, all the basin states and the
Departments of State and Interior are unified in proceeding on
a positive program to help correct the salinity problem. Vie
urge wholehearted support of the Environmental Protection
Agency in this program. Any attempt to establish numerical
salinity criteria could be divisive and would harm this
unified effort.
2. The EPA draft report has recognized that more information is
needed on the feasibility and capability of the salinity con-
trol projects that have been identified to date. Thus, it
would not be possible to rely on such projects as being
adequate means of achieving desirable salinity standards until
feasibility studies on the projects have been completed.
3. la the absence of any salinity control program, the only way
in which numerical criteria could be enforced would be by
talcing actions against water users in the Upper Colorado
River Basin states. These states could view any attempt to
establish numerical criteria as an attempt to stop their
economic development and also as being in opposition to the
seven-state Colorado River Compact.
4. The Upper Basin states have indicated they will use all
political and legal tools at their disposal to block the
-------
985
Hon. William D. Rucicelshaus -3-
SEP 31971
setting of numerical criteria. This could result in years'
of adversary type . proceedings and little action on physical
control projects.
As an alternative to recommending numerical criteria, we
recommend that at a meeting of the states the EPA take the
.following approach:
a. Recommend as a goal the maintenance of salinity at or below
existing levels;
b. Note that all parties support a major Colorado River Salinity
Control Program;
c. Offer its support and expertise to assist in the program; and
d. Defer for a specified period of time the establishment of
numerical criteria pending sufficiently rapid development of
the salinity control program.
Sincerely,
Kerry W. Mulligan
Chairman
cc: Wayne MacRostie
Myron B. Holburt
JBG/KWM:kir
-------
986
9 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Dec 23, 1971
Honorable Kerry D. Mulligan
Chairman
State Water Resources Control Board
State of California
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Mulligan:
This is in further response to your letter of September 3,
1971.
The issues discussed in your letter regarding the Colorado
River salinity problems provided valuable insight into their
various aspects. My staff and I have reviewed in-depth the
present situation in respect to the issues you presented.
It would appear that the position advanced by you and that
of the Environmental Protection Agency are not far apart.
A major program for the control of salinity in the Colorado
River Basin will be necessary to prevent additional
degradation of the water quality as the Basin is developed
further, and to reduce the present salinity levels in the
waters of the Basin. It is noted that a major salinity
control program has the support of the various States
concerned. Certainly, EPA within its resource constraints
will provide support and expertise to assist in this
program.
As you are aware, the question of setting numerical criteria
for salinity, in the Colorado River Basin has been under
consideration for some time. It has been delayed pending
the development of additional information on the salinity
concentrations in the waters of the Basin, the sources of
the salinity, and methods for the control of the salinity
sources* While there is no question that additional
information should be developed, we believe that data
accumulated by the Colorado River Basin Water Quality
Control Project furnishes a basis for the adoption of a
-------
987
numerical objective for salinity levels in the Basin. Such
an objective is necessary as a guide in the development of
water quality standards for the Colorado River and its
tributaries and for the implementation of a salinity control
program.
The joint Federal-State "Conference in the Matter of
Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and
Its Tributaries" will be reconvened in the near future. The
Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project will
present its report containing action recommendations to the
Conferees at that time. It is anticipated that the
Conferees will resolve the various issues so that the design
and implementation of a salinity control program and the
establishment of salinity water quality standards for the
Basin can proceed without delay as a coordinated effort.
I am essentially in agreement with the four points outlined
in your recent letter. I also believe that the course of
action, which we proposed as a joint State-Federal program
should provde for both improved water quality in the
Colorado and maximum beneficial use of the water resource.
You may be assured that we want to work with the several
States in finding practical and constructive solutions to
the long term problem of the Colorado.
Sincerely,
William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
-------
: 288
R. C. Fischer
MR. DIBBLE: That is all.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much for California's
presentation. It has been very helpful indeed.
May we call on Colorado next. Mr. Rozich.
MR. ROZICH: We will use the same format as our
colleague from California used in calling those people from
the State of Colorado that have indicated that they wish to make
a statement.
First is Mr. Roland Fischer, who is Secretary-
Engineer of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.
ROLAND C. FISCHER
SECRETARY-ENGINEER
THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr, Chairman.
I am Roland Fischer, Secretary-Engineer of the Colo-
rado River Water Conservation District at Glenwood Springs,
Colorado.
The Colorado River Water Conservation District is an
organization of western Colorado composed of all of 1£ and
parts of three more western Colorado counties that are the
principal headwaters of the Colorado River in Colorado. This
-------
__ 989
R. C. Fischer
includes the Yampa, the White, the mainstem Colorado, the
Gunnison and a part of the Dolores. We are governed by a Board
of 15 men appointed by the County Commissloners of those
counties.
I have distributed copies of the statement and I will
now read it, with some small additional comment.
The Colorado River Water Conservation District recog-
nizes that there is a mineral quality problem in the Colorado
River Basin and that the problem must be addressed. The solu-
tion to the problem will result from cooperative effort among
the water users and water quality people of the seven basin
States and Federal agencies.
The waters of the Colorado River Basin are apportioned
among the seven basin States by two compacts signed in 1922 and
•19*8. Colorado and the other three Upper Basin States must be
permitted to use their respective shares of compact-apportioned
Colorado River water.
Of the 17 projects shown in the Summary Volume of
the Report, "The Mineral Quality Problem In the Colorado River
Basin," six of the proposed projects are within the boundaries
of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Although
the Environmental Protection Agency has worked closely with the
water resources people in the State of Colorado on a State
-------
R, C. Fischer
level, this District would like to suggest that emphasis should
be placed by the Environmental Protection Agency on working with
the water users themselves. There has been very little water-
users knowledge of the preparation of the report and its
potential impact upon water users. The right to use water in
Colorado and other appropriation States of the Colorado River
Basin, under decrees issued by the State Courts, is a property
right.
Two irrigation improvement projects listed in Table 8
of the Summary Report are examples: Both of these are within
the boundaries of the riv«r District.
Project 2, Grand Valley, Colorado,and Project 6,
Uncompahgre, Colorado. It appears that 38,000 and 50,000 acre-
feet of water per year, respectively, from these very senior
decrees will be left in the river. These waters have been
beneficially used in Colorado since around the turn of the
century and if they are, in fact, left in the river by various
management methods, the owners of the decrees must have the
opportunity to participate in the decisions relating to the cur-
tailing of diversions and the disposition of that water. Those
users should not be penalized either in water or dollars.
Article II (b) of the Colorado River Compact of 1922
defines the Colorado River Basin as "all of the drainage area ol
-------
£ 991
R. C. Fischer
the Colorado River System and all other territory within the
felted States of America, to which the waters of the Colorado
Blver System shall be beneficially applied." All users of the
Colorado River water share responsibility for water quality
control and they must manage their water use for water quality
purposes, if any are so required.
At this time there is very little reliable data upon
irhich Colorado River mineral quality deciaions can be made.
There are many legal and technical questions that must be
resolved and a great deal of information for these purposes
rill be required. A basic and sophisticated study must be
conducted to acquire the necessary data, both in the legal and
technical arenas. One very important question will be who will
own or control the use of water that might be saved or left in
the river as a result of the potential salinity management
programs.
The principal headwaters of the Colorado River are in
Colorado; most of the total runoff originates there. Many of
Colorado's legal and technical problems are unique. Colorado's
great mountain rivers originate In western Colorado and most of
the population is on the eastern slope* As a result there are
trans versions* These trans versions take large quantities
jof very high quality water. All such transversions aggravate
r •
-------
—__992
R. C. Fischer
the mineral quality problem and yet little consideration was
given to this problem in the Environmental Protection Agency
report. There was no consideration given to the system of
priorities in Colorado, which ordinarily require curtailment
of diversions in inverse priority. Nor was consideration given
to the effect of leaving unused water in the stream. As an
example, the mineral quality problem will be greatly aggravated
if a proposed new transversion for an additional 1 million acre-
feet of high quality water per year from the western slope
basins of origin to the eastern slope becomes a reality.
Perhaps EPA and the conferees and their advisors shoul^
consider the complexities surrounding the question: What pro-
tection will have to be afforded to the users within the basins
of origin, not only regards use of water, but water quality?
At this time no Colorado State laws or court decisions are
specifically applicable to water quality questions.
Although a great many questions and problems will be
legal and technical, they will become political problems both
Interstate and intrastate. The outcome at this time is unpre-
dictable.
The proper Federal agencies should certainly partici-
pate In the study I have suggested. The policy decisions
of the study should be guided by the States and the water users
-------
993
R. C. Fischer
who will be affected. Perhaps the Bureau of Reclamation is the
optimum organization to conduct the work of the study.
Much of the land of western Colorado and the western
United States of the softer more soluble sedimentary formations
contributing to the dissolved solids load by percolation and
runoff is owned by the Federal Government.
As an example here, I would like to point out that
one tributary of the Colorado River in Mesa County, East Salt
Creek, at a sample point which is above all irrigation, and
all of the land above this sample point is owned by the United
States, is contributing about 11,900 ppm to the Colorado River.
The water users must not be penalized in water use or dollar
cost because of the salt load contributed by Federal lands.
The EPA study implies:the intention to set numerical
standards for dissolved solids in various places on the Colorad
River. At this time there is not sufficient data to set or to
enforce or perhaps even realistically discuss numerical stand-
ards. The Colorado River Water Conservation District suggests
at this time that the conference not set numerical standards.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, I do have one question.
-------
R. C. Fischer
I think your point is certainly well taken that
there are many institutional and legal problems that are
going to have to be overcome to achieve any degree of improve-
ment of the salinity problem of the Colorado.
One question I had. Reference is made to users
with rights to beneficially use water of the Colorado and
in situations where improvements in management practices can
lead to reduction in water use. Might it be implied from
that that the water which is now being used, say, improperly
is not being beneficially used in that sense, that amount of
water which would be saved by application of proper management
practices? I wonder if that question has ever been adjudicated
or brought up in Colorado?
MR. FISCHER: The water is being properly used at
this time, and the question of what is beneficial use or con-
versely what is waste has never been decided in Colorado.
MR. STEIN: Mr-. Dibble.
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, do
you consider that EPA has the legal authority to make that
kind of determination?
MR. STEIN: As pointed out, we obviously considered
these problems when we entered this situation here, Mr.
Fischer. If we didn't have the prior appropriation doctrine
-------
, 995
R. C. Fischer
and the legal and technical implications of that—I am
not just speaking for ourselves—we and the States could
have had a much more definitive approach to the water quality
problem here.
The very fact that there is a paucity of water
quality decisions in your States gives rise to the fact
that it has up to this time, at least in the courts, been
overshadowed almost completely by adjudication in terms of
vater quality. But I think we—
MR. DIBBLE: You said "water quality."
MR. STEIN: On water quantity, I am sorry, water
quantity.
Now, when we come down to it, here is the basic
point. I think if we turn to the California suggestion,
we are going to be faced solid with this operation. If
we are talking in terms of a net reduction In the amount
of salt going in the river we are faced with this: There
is going to be additional water there that is probably
free of salt if we permit it to stay in the river. Let's
suppose say In Colorado that you reduce the salt load 100
tons. If you permit that water to be used downstream after
it gets back in the river, over and over again, where the
Increment of 100 tons is going to be put Into it, you haven't
-------
996
R. C. Fischer
saved a bit.
Now, I think you have put your hand on the nub of
the problem and what has held us from coming up with a solu-
tion up to now. Let us suppose we arrive at the millenlum
and get the water, as Mr* Kennedy indicated, somewhere below
Parker or Imperial Dam down to below 500 ppm of salt. What
is the use of doing that if you are going to permit some
guy to divert it and run it through and let it percolate
through and leach out some stuff and pick up a tremendous
salt load and put it back?
In other words, given the prior appropriation
doctrine, once we have achieved the salt reduction and we
put that water in the stream, how can we under the existing
legal patterns keep that water that clean and not permit
that to be used by either a lower approprlator or someone
downstream to put that salt load back in? Now, I think
there is no question of that, that this is the nub of the
problem and we are not going to come up with any net gain
on this unless we begin to solve it.
Now, when you ask can EPA do this, I don't think
so, because, as you know, the law is woven into the consti-
tutional law of the 17 western States. I do recall there
are probably one or two old opinions that give you the
-------
997
R. C. Fischer
notion that If you have the right to use water, you don't
have the right to pollute it or deplete it in character.
Now, I don't want to get into these legal questions here,
because the question is if you are going to use it for
Irrigated agriculture, is the additional salt a pollutant.
I think the laws of the 17 western States—as a
natter of fact I am sure they are—are sufficiently flexible
that we can require a city or an ordinary industry to put
in pollution control devices before they put their water
back in the stream. Let's Just take this as an example.
The point is, though, if we get Denver taking the bacteria,
killing the bacteria before they put this waste load in
the stream, you are not likely to have a downstream user
putting that bacteria right back in within a few miles.
The water is going to be pretty clear. And as that water
rolls down the South Platte River, we have cleaned it up*
However, if we get the salt out, we don't have
that easy a problem. Because, unless we are careful, going
downstream someone is going to just make up for that salt
load again, and we are going to have a real problem.
This is the crux of our situation, and I think
that is why we have to move through this very, very carefully.
MR. FISCHER: Part of your problem with the example
-------
R. C. Fischer
of Denver and the South Platte is that when Denver diverts the
waters out of the basin of origin it concentrates the salt load
in the basin of origin. The situation is one of the big trans-
verters taking the very high quality water out in very large
volumes, diverting that water off of igneous metamorphic hard
rocks, leaving in the basin of origin for use by the downstream
agricultural and other users water that is naturally concen-
trated in salinity. And there is part of our problem, and this
is one of the areas that I think perhaps EPA should take a look
at—is not only salt loading but salt concentrate.
MR. STEIN: Oh, I think that was pointed out. I
think we thoroughly agree with you on that. We have to work
on this, both on the loading and the concentrate, if we are
going to manage it In the basin.
But I think again, sir, the key point Is this. What
can we do once we get water in the stream up to the quality that
we would like to maintain, as it rolls downstream past the old
diversion points? I am not sure we have a simple answer to that
problem. I am not sure that we are going to solve this question
of salinity in the Colorado River Basin until we do.
MR. WRIGHT: Could I ask a question?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Fischer, could you describe for me,
-------
. 999
R. C. Fischer
not in detail but in generalities, the drainage system that
your users have in the basin?
MR. FISCHER: Are you talking about the natural drain-
age basin of the streams?
MR. WRIGHT: No, the irrigation drainage system.
MR. FISCHER: No, Mr. Wright, I can't.
MR. WRIGHT: I see. Well, my reason, of course, for
asking was Mr. Boone this morning I think pointed out that
better irrigation practices—and one of those practices was
good drainage, not allowing the water to percolate deeply into
the soil—would help the salinity problems. And you mentioned
en page 2 that you didn't believe that your users should be
penalized either in terms of water or dollars. It seems like
it would not be unreasonable for your users to build a good
drainage system if it would decrease the salt load, particularly
since Mr. Boone also discussed the possibilities of the Soil
Conservation Service funding those investments.
MR. FISCHER: We feel, Mr. Wright, that the users of
those No. 1 and No. 2 rights of the Colorado system on the
western slope of Colorado should not be penalized in dollars or
water. And the reasons are this:, that in the appropriation
system these people have used this water for many, many years
and their livelihoods depend upon it and if they are to be
-------
1000
R. C. Fischer
asked to manage that water for purposes other than presently
spelled out in Colorado law, they should not be penalized.
MR. STEIN: We understand that position. We would
like the States to do that. This is the problem here. And
I don't mean to cast any aspersions on this, but we have the
same problem, say, that we have in many industries in the
East. For example, there are factories up in New England,
many factories, that are built right over a stream. That
is why the factory was built there. And they have been
there since the l800fs, some early 1800's, and they have had
to put in pollution control devices because of the increased
requirements.
I think this problem is something that we are
going to have to face, but I believe you have grasped the
crux of the problem, and I am not suggesting that the views
you expressed are not almost the universal view I have heard
out here. You are suggesting that if you have these people
who have had these water rights for a very long time and their
whole economy is based on utilizing these water rights and making
a living from irrigated agriculture, and if you are going to re-
quire them to go to some additional expense—as we required these
factories, say, in New England—by putting in tile drainage here ,
or if you are going to require them to take away some of their vater
-------
1001
R. C. Fischer
rights and they are not going to use that much water, these
people are going to protest. Now, here is the issue.
In other words, Mr. Wright, I think that what we are
faced with here is the response we are getting from the people
you may say are responsible for the water when it picks up this
added salinity. Their response is that if we are going to go
ahead with a quality improvement program they don't want to
bear the expense.
MR. FISCHER: This is true.
MR. STEIN: Right. All right.
MR. FISCHER: In the East you have a riparian situa-
tion where you have got assumptions based on riparian and those
assumptions run not only to volume but they run to quality. I
think, certainly, that if in appropriation States, and espec-
ially Colorado, there is going to be management, either by EPA
or through case law, then that management must take into conside^a-
tlon, Mr. Wright, the appropriation doctrine and the priority
dates. This is one of the things I said here, if you are going
to ask the users in the basin to curtail, I think you have to
ask all users of the Colorado River Basin waters as we find in
the Compact to also manage for quality reasons and thereby take
into consideration the appropriation doctrine,
I notice this with a great deal of interest, that of
-------
. 1002
R. C, Fischer
the seven basin States no State capital is in the basin. Part
of our problem of water quality, much of the discussion here
today, Involves people who are taking that water out of the
basin, and therefore I think we must consider that too and we
must take into consideration Federal and State law and in Colo-
rado priority dates as decreed by the State courts.
MR. STEIN: I know of two of the cities in those
States which are the larger cities in the respective States
that are getting a considerable amount of water out of that
basin to drink.
MR. FISCHER: They are taking it out to drink, most
certainly.
MR. STEIN: Yes, sure.
MR. FISCHER: Right.
MR. STEIN: But let someone else have the capital.
MR. FISCHER: That is true. (Laughter.)
MR* DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fischer in his last
statement implied, if there is a—-he said, if I can restate it
correctly:
If there is a management program on the management
of the waters and if this is dictated by EPA, then certain
things should be. He said they ought to take into account the
water rights.
-------
. . 1003
R. C. Fischer
I think you were very correct a few minutes ago when
you said you were getting down to the crux of the problem
because I think you were;, And I think the problem is that under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, EPA and the States are
charged in the water quality water pollution control program
control of waste discharges. But I don't read anywhere in that
Aet where the EPA is given any authority to decide what a person
water rights are, which is a property right, and what they can
take from a stream and what they can't take from a stream.
And I think that this conference certainly should make
some recognition of that because 1 don't think there is anything
in this law which would allow the EPA in an enforcement proce-
dure to tell somebody they can't take some of the water that a
court has already decreed they have or a State has in its
procedure.
MR. STEIN: I would agree with you, Mr. Dibble, but
here is the problem with that because I think we are right on
the verge of that. I am not saying that we would do this, but
theoretically we could say," Sure, you can take the water out of
the stream, but when you put it back it darned well better be
of X quality."
Now, what I think Mr. Fischer has pointed out and
several of the other people have pointed out, if we are going
-------
1004
R. C. Fischer
to deal with a complex problem like this and not deal on a
source-by-source or case-by-case basis of control on that, we
may have to, with the States, and hopefully the Bureau of
Reclamation, adopt a water management technique which would
protect water quality in the stream beds. Because the alterna-
tive of that is, as you pointed out before, the problem of the
difficulty of enforcing this kind of thing against every
individual water user,and I am not sure that that is the way
to do it. I think this is the nub of the problem. We are
looking for a little different approach to handle this than
to put a water quality order against every guy who has a pipe
in the stream and a pump and is taking the water in his irri-
gation.
MR. DIBBLE: Well, in going back to the EPA report
on the inter-quality problem, taking the figures off of Figure
M5 in Appendix A, I was doing a little calculation to summarize
where this salt load comes from in the Colorado River. Taking
the river as a whole it is interesting that the natural sources
in the net runoff represent, two-thirds of the salt, you see,
and so when you go to try to do something about this it comes
back to the point I was trying to make yesterday?-that it is
better to do it as a water resource management technique through
a salinity control program because so much of this comes from
-------
_____ 1005
R. C. Fischer
the natural sources anyway that there isn't anybody to enforce
against there. So it is best Just to start right out and say
this should be a resource management -approach to a salinity
control program rather than through an enforcement program.
MR. STEIN: That might be. But again you are going
to be faced with the problem that Mr. Fischer brought up of
the water in the stream. And as I say, and I have no brief
with this, but I do think, and I ask you people in the States
to think of this, what we are dealing with here is at least
a' forum, where we have all the States represented and talking
it out.
I think at this stage—this is just a personal
opinion—there may be more value in keeping this kind of
format, than Just the approach of either the Federal
Government or the States being eliminated from this part-
nership operation. I suspect that If we take too many steps
the other way we will find ourselves In a spot* As I
pointed out, you know the history of water litigation as
well as I do, and I don't believe that Is the way to really
try to get at this problem in the foreseeable future.
MR. FISCHER: Right.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Fischer.
MR. ROZICH: Prior to leaving Denver, the Colorado
-------
1006
R. G. Beverly
Association of Commerce and Industry delivered their statement
to me and asked that I enter it as part of the record. Mr.
Beverly, who is Director of Environmental Controls for Union
Carbide, has agreed to read their statement. And of course,
since he didn't take part in preparing the statement, I doubt
if he can answer questions on it.
MR. STEIN: I have known Mr. Beverly for years. He
can answer a question on any subject. (Laughter.)
ROBERT G. BEVERLY
WATER QUALITY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE
OF THE COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
MR. BEVERLY: I am Robert Beverly and I am interested
in the conference. I think I have attended every session that
the conference has had. And I am on the Water Quality Sub-
committee of the Environmental Quality Committee of the Colorado
Association of Commerce and Industry.
This statement is made in behalf of the Colorado
Association of Commerce and Industry, an association of more
than 900 Colorado businesses, and is being made for the obvious
reason that the future of the waters of the Colorado River is
-------
•±. 1007.
R. G. Beverly
of extreme importance to them as it is to all citizens of
Colorado and of the entire river basin.
We recognize that man exerts a powerful influence on
the environment. The process of making and operating the host
of things demanded by our society has been accompanied by
necessary and unnecessary effects on the environment. Acknowl-
edging that man has the responsibility and obligation to avoid
unnecessary, and to minimize necessary, disruptive Impacts on
the environment, it is appropriate to implement all possible
means to achieve goals of environmental quality that best serve
the public interest.
Among the resources of concern to ensuring an accept-
able quality of life is the quality and quantity of our water
resource. Many of our waters, such as the Colorado River, must
be used and repeatedly reused to service the many present and
future beneficial uses. The imposition of water quality stand-
ards, such as salinity, should reflect an appropriate deter-
mination of attainability with full regard to the inventory of
natural and manmade contributions to the salinity within the
river system. This would take into account the degree of water
quality enhancement achievable from the application of good
conservation, treatment and watershed practices*
We recommend that prior to the adoption of any
-------
: , 1008
R. G. Beverly
numerical salinity standards salinity studies should be under-
taken to identify and inventory each and every source throughout
the river system, including tributaries, from natural and man-
made sources. Furthermore, in the necessary over-all study of
salinity problems of the Colorado River, economic benefits must
be analyzed and correlated with the analysis of economic detri-
ments. We note the comment of the State of California, Appendix
D, that, "the report makes no mention of the precedent-setting
work on salinity control programs in the Arkansas and Red River
Basins in Texas and Oklahoma." We suggest that any study and
proposed program must consider data developed by these studies
on control of natural resources of salinity.
It must be recognized that other factors, such as a
permit program under the 1899 Refuse Act or proposed changes
in Federal water quality legislation, may significantly reduce,
by Imposition of effluent controls, many sources of salinity.
The Environmental Protection Agency sponsored Pacific Ocean
desalinization projects could also have a significant effect
upon the salinity problem*
The United States recognizes through its study, "The
Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin," that the
quality of the water within the Colorado River Basin is a matter
of interstate and international concern. Therefore, in order tc
-------
^ : 1009
R. G. Beverly
achieve the desired goals and to accomplish the desired results,
adequate Federal funds snould be made available to Insure the
development of a practical logical program and its success.
Costs will be significant in achieving any controls to either
manmade or natural sources of salinity.
Any program and implementation plan which is to be
adopted must be developed and agreed upon by all the States of
the Colorado River Basin as well as the interested Federal
agencies and existing river authorities.
This is respectfully submitted under the name of
Raymond A. Kimball, the President of the Colorado Association
of Commerce and Industry, and statements were delivered to
Governor Love and the Colorado Congressional Delegation.
I would like to add Just a couple, three comments of
my own.
We recognize that an inventory—I mentioned a thorough
inventory should be made. We recognize an inventory has been
made. We think this should be updated, and more important, I
think we should have an evaluation of the technical and economic
feasibility of reducing the salinity from these point sources.
I also was looking, as Mr. Dibble was, through the
report. I note that 1 percent—that is about what the paper
said this morning—1 percent was from municipality and industrial
-------
: ^010
R. G. Beverly
sources on the Colorado River. These may or may not lend them-
selves to enforcement action, but how do you enforce reduction
in the 33 percent of the agriculture usage? Sure, we have some
ideas, but I think they are really not reduced to complete
practice at this time, but I am not knowledgeable on that, I
won*t speak to that. But more important, how do we reduce 65
percent of the salinities from natural sources?
If anybody comes up with the answer to Blue Springs,
I am sure industry throughout the country will be most interested
because salinity is a problem countrywide to remove it from
large quantities of water. So if the Blue Springs answer comes
out, I would say it would certainly be useful.
Since radium in water has been alluded to a number
of times, I would mention I think it is a good example in
reverse here. Something over 90 percent of the radium that was
ever coming down the Colorado River was coming from natural
sources. We had a few problems in local mills and these were
corrected. We appreciate all the compliments on the job done.
But we wouldn't know today how to remove that 90 percent that
was coming from natural sources. And I think this is the case
with salinity.
And I think we all agree with the goals, as Mr.
Dibble and Mr. Williamson have referred to, as far as
-------
R. G. Beverly
enforcement action. We have to find some technical answers
before we can really expect any significant reductions in
salinity.
I am ready to go to lunch.and so are you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments?
If not, thank you very much.
We will stand recessed for lunch. And let's be back
by 1:40.
(Whereupon, at 12:10 o'clock a noon recess was taken.)
-------
1011
AFTERNOON SESSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1972
1:40 o'clock
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Mr. Rozlch.
MR. ROZICH: Next I have a statement that came the
long way getting to me. It is a statement by Mr. Lloyd Summer-
ville, who Is with the Colorado Farm Bureau. It was delivered
to me this morning by Mr. Leonard Johnson, Assistant Director,
Natural Resources Department, American Farm Bureau Federation,
and he asked that I read it, so you will have to bear with me.
I am not familiar with his style of writing, so it may not
sound too well.
My name is Lloyd Summerville of Fruita,
Colorado, President of the Colorado Farm Bureau,
which is a general farm organization of 13,235
members in the State of Colorado.
Colorado Farm Bureau appreciates this
opportunity of presenting its members1 views
relative to the problems of salinity of the
Colorado River waters. Farm Bureau's approach
to establishing environmental quality standards
is found in its basic policies relative to
quality of the environment. These policies state:
-------
—: . 1012
L. Summervllle
We pledge cooperation with all
responsible groups in cleaning up pollution of
the environment. We urge that pollution regu-
lations be based upon researched facts and that
they provide a reasonable period of time for
abatement of pollution.
Farm Bureau members have expressed
concern for some time over the salinity buildup
on the Colorado River. We supported the estab-
lishment of water quality standards for States
and rivers. In accordance with our policy, we
supported and recommended that studies be com-
pleted to clearly identify the sources of salinity
pollution of the Colorado River. We recognized
that much work has been accomplished by the
Bureau of Reclamation and the States in pollution
studies of the river. From these pollution
studies a salinity control plan is being developed
by the conference States. We think a control plan
should be provided opportunity to be implemented.
We believe the establishment of a
numerical salinity standard for the Colorado
River at any of its key check points would be
-------
1013
L. Summerville
unwise at this time. Such an approach would
divert attention away from abatement plans for
natural salinity sources and could place
emphasis upon salinity resulting from use and
development of the river's resources.
An essential part of a healthful en-
vironment is the wise and balanced conservation
of resources. Some conservationists appear to
misinterpret the full significance of the word
"conservation."
President Theodore Roosevelt had
engraved beside his bronze statue in Washington,
D. C., these words, "Conservation means develop-
ment as much as it does protection.1?
The sound conservationist understands,
as Teddy Roosevelt did, that there is a mutual
relationship between man and nature, that man must
serve nature so that nature may serve and support
man.
We believe there should be a clear
distinction between natural salinity sources and
salinity due to development and use. Prom such a
base of facts there can be a comprehensive,
-------
1014
L. Summerville
balanced program of healthful development on sound
conservation and environmental principles in the
Colorado Basin.
We believe the States have already made
progress towards implementation of a salinity
control program on this river without a firm
numerical standard. At the same time, we recog-
nize there is much more that needs to be done.
If there is need to strengthen the
existing salinity control program, including
adequate funding by Congress, we support
improvement of the program plus an aggressive
funding plan.
We appreciate the opportunity of making
this statement and restate our commitment of
cooperation with those who seek to Improve the
quality of the environment. We ask that abate-
ment plans be based upon soundly researched
principles and that a reasonable period of time
be programmed for corrective measures.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
I suggest one typographical change. I know that you
-------
___ 1015
i
L. Summerville
didn't do this, but a lot of people read this and notice the
language. Check page 2. After Theodore Roosevelt that should
be "has" instead of "had." 0. K.? The way this reads is,
President Theodore Roosevelt had
engraved beside his bronze statue in Washing-
ton these words, "Conservation means develop-
ment as much as it does protection."
I think obviously it should be "has."
MR. ROZICH: Right.
MR. STEIN: 0. K. It will save us a lot of trouble.
Thanks.
Any comments or questions?
Mr. Rozich, any more from Colorado?
MR. ROZICH: I have a statement here that is a joint
statement of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the
Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission, and Mr. Morrill,
who is listed as being our first speaker, begged off, and now
he would like on following my statement^ and his will be only
a short statement.
-------
: 1016
F. Rozich
PRANK ROZICH, DIRECTOR
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. ROZICH: As an agency vitally Interested in the
prevention and abatement of pollution and as an agency attempt-
Ing to enhance all waters of the State, we endorse the philos-
ophy and concept of salinity control in the Colorado River
Basin. The adoption of broad water quality objectives to
maintain salinity concentrations at or below present levels in
the lower Colorado River Basin is an objective which both
Upper and lower Basin States should carefully consider. The
details proposed to accomplish this objective leave many
important questions unanswered. The legal, Institutional and
political considerations, as well as the equity considerations,
have not been fully explored and a satisfactory solution to thesje
factors will certainly be needed before the details of the salt
load reduction program can be fully Implemented*
As was noted in the comments of all of the States with
regard to the draft report of last year, all were against the
adoption of numerical criteria at this time. We concur that
the adoption of numerical criteria should be deferred until the
potential effectiveness of Colorado River salinity control
-------
, ___ 1017
; F, Rozich
projects are better known. It should also be noted that when
enough information is available to possibly set such numerical
criteria, means must be provided to equalize the information
gathered in both the $Jpper and jpwer Basin States. By this I
Bean that in the Lower Basin States at Hoover and Imperial Dams
the existence of these large storage reservoirs serves to pro-
vide mixing of dissolved solids in the water. As a result of
this mixing effect, the salinity concentrations below these
reservoirs are not dependent on flow and the maximum mean
monthly salinity concentration tends to stabilize throughout
the year regardless of flow of discharge. This is not true in
the Ipper Ifcasin States as concentrations will vary inversely
with the flow.
Colorado feels that the construction of salinity con-
trol works, along with the full development of water resources
in both the fl£per and lower Basin States, should continue.
However, in reading the reports, it isn't too clear as to who
will be assessed the cost of such salinity control projects.
Fifteen of the 17 projects mentioned in the report are
located in the Tapper Basin States. Of the 15 Upper Basin
projects, seven would be in Colorado. Of the seven projects in
Colorado, five are labeled as irrigation improvement projects.
These projects would have an average annual cost of a little
-------
1018
F. Rozich
over $13 million. Only approximately $6,5 million has been
assigned to salinity control costs, the assumption being that
the other $6.5 million would be returned to the water users and
the irrigators in the form of improved crop yields. Although
this report mentions local costs in a very general way, the
draft report of November 1970 Indicates that at least $6,5
million would be paid by local investment. This figure would
run even higher if any of the salinity control projects were
assigned to the Irrigators.
The above figures are all based on 1970 dollars. It
is well to remember that only that portion assigned to salinity
control costs is used in the benefits to cost ratio and other
projected dollar values used in this report. It is also well
to remember that 80 percent of the benefits accrue to the Lower
Basin States. It Is therefore recommended that congressional
authorization and funding be sought for the purposes of recon-
naissance and feasibility studies for the entire river basin.
Unless such Federal moneys are provided for a basinwide salt
load reduction program, it could place an intolerable financial
burden on individuals and/or State governments. I am informed
by our Department of Agriculture that the average income of the
farmer or irrigator in the Colorado River Basin in Colorado Is
a little over $4,000 per year. Therefore, it is easy to see
-------
1019
T " ~ ~~ ' - - _ .- --__,...
P. Rozich
that such a group of irrigators could not afford an expenditure
of approximately $6.5 million a year.
It is our understanding--and after yesterday's talk
by Commissioner Armstrong it is more than an understanding now
(laughter)—that the Bureau of Reclamation has been authorized
to make and has feasibility investigations under way with
regard to determining further means of reducing the salinity of
the Colorado River. We, therefore, feel that the conferees and
EPA should support the Bureau of Reclamation in these efforts.
In order to advise and guide the Bureau of Reclamation with
respect to these investigations and research plans, Colorado
would be receptive to setting up some sort of a task group which
would include other disciplines in addition to water pollution
control people. However, our State Water Pollution Control
Commission does not at this time feel that they wish to relin-
quish their authority within Colorado to any river basin
commission or State-Federal agency that would have the powers
to carry out all phases of activities necessary to basinwide
management and control of salinity.
In conclusion, we feel that much has been done in the
past few years to control salinity pollution within the basin,
and on the other hand, much remains to be done. We, therefore,
have come to this conference with an open mind towards understadding
-------
1020
F, Rozich
the positions of the other conferees and EPA and hope that we
will all leave this conference with the feeling that construc-
tive actions have and will continue to be taken in the control
of salinity without impeding development in any of the States.
Thank you*
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Rozich.
You know, there is one important point. I am not
sure, maybe the Department of the Interior .people can tell me.
You are not authorized yet to go ahead with these salinity
studies, are you?
MR. MALETIC: Yes, we are.
MR. STEIN: You are?
MR. MALETIC: Indeed. The three acts that were cited
in Commissioner Armstrong's statement—
MR. STEIN: I know, but under the general acts. In
other words, you feel that the general acts give you authoriza-
tion?
MR. MALETIC: Give us that authority and we have the
program funded and moving.
MR. STEIN: Right. All right, thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR, TABOR: Just a geographical correction on the firs
page, "... at Hoover and Imperial Dams the existence of these
-------
. 1021
P. Rozich
large storage reservoirs..." Imperial Dam is not a storage
reservoir.
MR. ROZICH: I think I was referring to the reservoir
behind the dam rather than whether it was storage or otherwise.
In other words, what I was trying to point out is that here you
have a mixing basin,»And whenever you collect samples for TDS
there is not going to be too much fluctuation, whereas in the
Upper Basin States, at least at present, when you are collecting
it out of the river,it is going to fluctuate with the flow and
many times there is quite a fluctuation.
MR. TABOR: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
Does that complete Colorado, Mr. Rozich?
MR. ROZICH: Except for Mr. Morrill. He wishes to
make a very short statement*
Mr. Morrill is Deputy Director of our Water Conserva-
tion Board.
-------
1022
L. D. Morrlll
L. D. MORRILL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. MORRILL: My name is L. D. Morrill, I am Deputy
Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and I would
like to make a very brief statement on a point mentioned by Mr.
Fischer.
He stated that irrigators with old decrees should not
be penalized in water or dollars through the imposition of
salinity control measures. It is a statement with which I
agree.
For the past several years the State of Colorado
through the Water Conservation Board, in cooperation with the
Colorado State University, the Soil Conservation Service, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and EPA have carried on studies in the
Grand Valley, which is near Grand Junction, of the costs of
improving irrigation and drainage practices with the objective
of decreasing the salinity of the Colorado River, While such
studies are not complete, early indications are that the
Irrigators may actually benefit financially from such improved
practices because of increased crop production.
One of the things that Colorado would like to see
-------
: 1023
L. D. Morrill
would be a large-scale demonstration project in the Grand Valley
to find out if the indications of the present small—scale
studies are correct, and we recommend that the EPA help us
initiate such a project.
I think that is my statement.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
If not,.thank you very much.
MR. ROZICH: Is Mary—I can't pronounce the name--
Kozlowski here? I understand she has a statement to make on
behalf of the Rocky Mountain Center on Environment, And I
didn't know whether it should be included under the Colorado
portion or under the Nevada portion since I understand you are
from Nevada.
MR. WESTERGARD: Yes, we claim her.
MARY KOZLOWSKI
NEVADA OPEN SPACES COUNCIL
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
MS. KOZLOWSKI: Thank you. I am glad you do. I would
hate to be without a country.
-------
M. Kozlowski
But I also have a statement here that I received this
morning from three Colorado organizations,
MR. STEIN: Pardon me. I don't think you understood
the ground rules. I know Mr. Westergard has the syllables trip-
ping off his tongue, but would you give us your name and how
you spell it, please.
MS. KOZLOWSKI: Oh, 0. K.
It is Mary K-o-z-l-o-w-s-k-i.
Now do you want to decide whether I should give this
statement during the Colorado portion?
MR. STEIN: Oh, no one is going to tell you to go
away. (Laughter.)
MS. KOZLOWSKI: Several organizations have sent me
their statements with the specific request that they be read
into the record. I will be reading their statements for them
in their absence, and as a reader I feel that I cannot give
interpretations or answer questions concerning the comments
that they have put in their statements. They were given to me
this morning air mail special delivery, and so I would continue
on this basis if it is acceptable to you,
MR. STEIN: Go right ahead.
MS. KOZLOWSKI: The first comments will be made by
the Eagle Piney Water Protection Association, Colorado Open
-------
_^ 1025
M. Kozlowski
Space Council, and Trout Unlimited-Colorado Council. This is
their statement for the Colorado River enforcement conference.
Gentlemen:
The following is our statement of
position concerning the mineral quality prob-
lem of the Colorado River Basin. We have asked
Mary Kozlowski of the Nevada Colorado River
Commission to present this statement for us
personally at the enforcement conference in Las
Vegas. Eagle Piney Water Protection Association
is a newly-formed State group which represents
several hundred individuals and assorted con-
servation-water State organizations concerned
with State water problems. Colorado Open Space
Council is a Denver-based organization represent-
ing 4? separate conservation organizations
throughout the State of Colorado. Trout Unlimited-
Colorado Council represents approximately 1,000
members in Colorado and is an affiliate of Colorado
Open Space Council and Eagle Piney Water Protection
Association.
1. The adverse effects of transmountain
water diversions.
-------
M, Kozlowski
As the Environmental Protection Agency
Summary Report on the Mineral Quality Problem
on the Colorado River Basin aptly states, "out-
of-basin diversions from the Upper Basins con-
tribute significantly to stream flow depletions
and produce a salt concentrating effect similar
to consumptive use,"
The Environmental Protection Agency
should be advised that on the Upper Colorado
River there are numerous transmountain diversion
projects under consideration, new ones and
enlargements of existing projects, which, if
permitted to proceed, will seriously further
deplete the stream flow of the Colorado River
to an enormous extent (perhaps in the neighbor-
hood of 1 million acre-feet a year). Some of
these planned new and enlarged transmountain
diversion projects are:
(a) The Windy Gap Project on the
tipper Colorado River mainstem near Hot Sulphur
Springs-Six Cities Users' Association (sub-
district of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District).
-------
, 102?
M. Kozlowskl
(b) The Eagle Piney Project and the
Eagle Colorado Collection System on the Eagle
River and its tributaries, Piney River and its
tributaries, the Colorado River and its tribu-
taries, and the tributaries of the Blue River
(below Dillon Dam) - The Board of Water Commis-
sioners of the City and County of Denver.
(c) Homestake Project on Homestake
Creek and Cross Creek and their tributaries (all
tributary to the Eagle River) - Cities of Colo-
rado Springs and Aurora.
(d) Twin Lakes Canal and Reservoir Co. on
the Roaring Fork River above Aspen, Colorado -
(private corporation).
(e) Pryingpan-Arkansas Project on the
Fryingpan River (tributary to the Roaring Fork
River at Basalt, Colorado).
(f) The Central-Colorado-Denver Project
of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District
(g) San Juan-Chama Diversion Project
on the Blanco and Navajo Rivers near Pagosa Springs-
Bureau of Reclamation.
(k) The Gunnison River claims of the
-------
1028
M. Kozlowski
Central Colorado Water Conservancy District
and Messrs* Oxley and Bunger (both sets of
claims representing a reincarnation of the
old Bureau of Reclamation Gunnison-Arkansas
Project).
We urge the Environmental Protection
Agency to consider declaring that a state of
emergency exists as to the quality and quantity
of water in the Colorado River Basin in light
of these new developments and enact a moratorium
on transmountain diversions of water in connection
with new projects yet to be built and proposed
enlargements of existing projects. The mora-
torium should be set up to last until the Federal
Government and its associates have a chance to
study all of the pertinent ramifications of these
proposed diversions on the quality and quantity
of Colorado River water,
2, Water Quality and Quantity Control
and Existing Legal Constraints,
Colorado laws concerning water rights
appropriations and beneficial use of water do
not presently countenance water quality or quantity
-------
1029
M. Kozlowski
control, both of which are required to save the
Colorado River Basin from becoming more seriously
depleted and polluted as a result of the maxi-
mization of water development projects planned for
the near future.
We urge the Environmental Protection
Agency to assist on-going Colorado Statewide
efforts to obtain legal protection for streams
and river basins of origin and to bring about
changes in Colorado water laws so that water
quality and environmental protection purposes
(among others) will be considered valid beneficial
in-stream uses of water, capable of appropriation,
in the State of Colorado.
We ask that these recommendations be placed
in the official record of your proceedings.
I also have a statement from the Rocky Mountain Center
on Environment.
The Rocky Mountain Center on Environment
(ROMCOE) has reviewed the Deport on "The Mineral
Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin" of
1971, and appreciates the opportunity to submit
these comments for inclusion in the conference
-------
1010
N. Kozlowski
proceedings.
ROMCOE is a private, non-profit
regional environmental service center, providing
a broad range of; environmental assistance to
government, conservation groups, industry and the
general public in the eight Rocky Mountain States.
These comments are prepared by the ROMCOE staff
and do not necessarily represent a formal posi-
tion of the ROMCOE Board of Directors.
ROMCOE has recognized and been concerned
about Colorado River Basin salinity for several
years. The extremely rapid multiplication of the
salt load in this century is another example of
a stress on the ecosystem resulting from man's
abuse of the principles of ecology. The basic
cause of this stress is the exceeding of "carry-
ing capacity" of the land. The efforts to
manipulate natural processes, to extract more
resources and biological production than the
region can support within naturally-created
limits is causing the collapse of an element
of the ecosystem, Man in the Rocky Mountain
West must learn to live within the capabilities
-------
1031
M. Kozlowski
of natural systems.
The logic of the water development
syndrome, which is the first cause of the
salinity problem, goes like this:
(1), Economic growth, development
and population growth are vital to the future
of the West.
(2) Economic growth and development
depend almost entirely on development and
redistribution of water supply.
(3) Increased water supply will
require considerable accelerated water develop-
ment and redistribution projects.
(U) Water development and redistri-
bution will assure ever-expanding economic
growth and population expansion.
(5) Expanding populations and
economic growth will generate new demands for
increasing water development and redistribution
projects.
(6) Return to Step 1.
Manifestations of other root causes of
the salinity problem are: Western water law; the
-------
1032
M, Kozlowski
false alchemy of turning land into money by
liberal sprinklings of water; and accelerating
growth ethic pressures for more water-related
"pork barrel" projects.
Western water law evolved at relatively
the same time and under the same frontier circum-
stances as the Mining Act of 1872. Both are in
need of drastic revision. It is imperative that
Western States recognize water quality control
and ecological processes, as well as recreation,
fish and wildlife and aesthetics, as "beneficial
uses" of water resources. It is essential that
priorities of appropriated uses be restructured
to balance beneficial uses. It is to EPA's
credit that this issue is identified in the rteport;
Western States can no longer duck the question.
Current water wisdom and water law
generate exploding developments that turn "land
into money." The massive water projects which
stimulate rapid and uncontrolled growth, to the
primary benefit of a small number of people and
to the detriment of the general public, are not
predicated upon sound principles of land use.
-------
. _^ 1033
M. Kozlowski
And the creation of new land use patterns is the
ultimate result of the projects. It is time to
relate planning and development of water resources
to proper land use planning. Federal money should
no longer be used to perpetuate past mistakes
which fail to recognize the inextricable relation-
ships between water resources development and land
use decisions.
Water policy which has caused the TDS
problem of the Colorado Basin needs to be re-
examined in a whole new perspective. Projects
have been developed without a true assessment of
total social costs and total social benefits.
Resulting salinity is but one "disbenefit" which
has been ignored in the accounting system for
project justification.
In specific response to the r'eport,
we would suggest a number of actions:
(1) There should be a moratorium,
perhaps permanent, on any Federal assistance
or approval of diversions out of the Basin.
Federal money or authorization should not be
involved in any project which is part of a system
-------
M. Kozlowski
resulting in such diversion. The projects
mentioned in the report are not a complete
listing; for example, the Bureau of Reclamation
is planning diversions from the Green to the
Missouri Basin in Wyoming and Montana. The EPA
Report discusses the fact that these are high-
quality headwaters which will be diverted,
reducing Colorado River flows but not salt loads
by an equivalent amount. Additionally, most of
these projects involve reservoirs, which increase
evaporation losses (although such losses are
small compared to Lake Mead and Lake Powell).
Interbasin transfer economics often are not
favorable when subject to close scrutiny, as is
indicated by a recent book by Howe and Easter.
(2) An Interstate Commission should be
created to address the salinity problem compre-
hensively. This Commission should be a State-
Federal partnership. If left to their own devices,
the States individually will probably never resolve
the problems and achieve the necessary results in
salinity control. The history of water quality
control to date substantiates this thesis.
-------
1035
M. Kozlowski
Proposals for lining irrigation ditches,
"flushing" salt-laden streams and building
desalinization plants are piece-meal approaches
that avoid the basic issues.
In fact, we are dismayed by the dis-
cussion of several of the alternatives to
reduce the salinity problem. We cannot condone,
at this point, any approach which perpetuates
the present philosophy of treating the symptoms
rather than the disease. The approach of out-
basin diversions, augmentation into the basin,
more storage and evaporation, and salinity
control and removal may well become a techno-
logical-economic treadmill.
(3) Numerical criteria should be
established. It is recognized that additional
research is needed, but this should be conducted
as rapidly as possible. Again, the absence of
numerical standards historically has resulted
in an absence of pollution control in America.
Additional new and Innovative approaches
should be investigated. A discharge permit program
for irrigation runoff might be established. To
-------
M. Kozlowski
overcome the problem of over-irrigation because
of the fear of losing water rights, the Federal
Government might acquire water rights in lieu of
irrigation water payments. Such rights could then
be used for the beneficial uses of quality control
(although such rights might be downstream of the
areas where the maximum need for ecological bene-
ficial uses occurs).
New methods of controlling and deliver-
ing irrigation water, such as those used in Israel,
should be implemented. (Water can be metered and
piped to plant roots, using water with TDS con-
centrations of 1,000 to 2,QOO ppm, apparently
based on Israeli experience.) Federal monies might
better be spent on approaches such as this rather
than a continuation of the *• conventional wisdom?
methods.
ROMCOE believes that the National
Environmental Policy Actfs phraseology about wise
stewardship and future generations must be taken
seriously. Any program which does not have
specific elements for control of excessive con-
sumption must be reexamlned. Any program which
-------
1037
M. Kozlowski
does not demonstrate definite means for conserva-
tion of resources is deficient. Western water
use, both agricultural and municipal, at present
does not conform to the intent of NEPA.
Most certainly, as mentioned in the fceport,
land suitability should be a major factor in assess-
ing federally-funded projects. Irrigation of lands
of high salinity or marginal agricultural productivity
should not be permitted. Similarly, federally-
assisted water projects for municipal and Industrial
use should recognize the erosion and salinity suit-
abilities of land proposed for development. Even
though the total municipal contribution of salt
load to the Colorado River is low, it is more
readily susceptible to control than many natural
sources.
Additional funding for research and
control is in order. It is indicative of the
root cause of the problem that the Bureau of
Reclamation has a hlgher-than-usual budget for
project development, which will aggravate the
water quality problem. A reallocation of funds
from development to research and control Is in
-------
M. Kozlowski
order.
The study should Identify future
consumptive losses more accurately. Massive
thermal powerplants and oil shale development
(with 1-1/2 to 3 barrels of water consumed per
barrel of oil produced) will have significant
effects.
The study should identify secondary
impacts more carefully. If removal of salt from
irrigated land is accomplished by flushing,
additional fertilizer must be applied. This
will cause a higher nitrate level in both surface
and ground waters, with potential adverse effects
such as lake eutrophication and methemoglobinemia.
This is but one example of a potential secondary
disbenefit.
The incidence of costs of salinity might
be more precisely described. The deport states
that the cost Incidence of salinity is largely
assignable to farmers. Yet the August 1970 report
by the Colorado River Board of California states
that water users are continuing to make large
investments in drainage facilities to maintain
-------
1039
M. Kozlowski
productivity. The costs are passed on to the
consumers. The cost incidence may therefore be
assignable to a broader segment of society,
including low-income people to whom increased
food prices are a major burden.
In institutional matters, a positive
program for public participation should be
identified. This conference is but one form of
participation; other types should be utilized as
well.
It is noted that the study used a 5
percent discount rate in determining present
worth of investments in salinity reduction pro-
grams. If a more realistic 10 percent "oppor-
tunity cost" were used as the discount rate, the
Investments would be much higher in present
worth. This argues against the high-investment
technological control alternatives and in favor
of the alternative of "limited development." The
latter alternative is also an appropriate approach
as regards numerical criteria for salinity
because the salinity vs. time curve flattens and
becomes constant. Also, it conforms most closely
-------
— 10^0
M. Kozlowskl
to the use of ecological principles in planning.
The Report states that this "limited
development" alternative may cause benefits to
be foregone.. In some cases this may be true.
However, because past benefit/cost ratios have
not assessed total costs, the "benefits foregone"
may well be "dlsbenefits foregone" in many cases.
The use of a more realistic discount ratio will
yield lower net dollar benefits; many past
projects have been funded on the basis of an
artificially low discount rate.
The alternative of limited development
would reduce the difficulty of the control cost
allocation question, where Upper Basin States
contribute the salinity but Lower Basin States
suffer the costs.
Some of the methods contemplated for
control of natural diffuse sources will start
another round of technological bandaids. Sealing
of ground surfaces, contour ditches to pick up
runoff and carry it rapidly to streams and similar
methods will be quick-fixes, the secondary result
of which will be disbenefits in a broad range of
-------
__^_ 1041
M. Kozlowskl
categories. The study team should proceed
farther In identifying these secondary impacts
and effects.
Alternatives involving desalinization
which requires electrical power (such as distil-
lation or electrodialysis) should be discouraged.
The ,*eport discusses out-basin diversions
in terms of helping the Colorado River quality
problem. These diversions should be viewed In
another way: the Colorado River salinity problem
diminishes the merits of further out-basin
diversions.
In summary, ROMCOE finds much to praise
in the EPA JSeport and work. Its conclusions and
recommendations merit support. ROMCOE Is directly
involved with only eight Rocky Mountain States,
not including California. However, parochialism
or regional chauvinism have no place in the prob-
lems addressed by the fttport, The ecosystem knows
no political boundaries. Mexico and America are
not separable In terms of ecological processes,
and the problem of salinity must be considered in
this frame of reference.
-------
• 10*12
A. E. Williamson
Thank you very much,
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
MR. ROZICH: I would Just like to apologize for
someone with a name like Rozich not being able to pronounce
Kozlowski. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: I will bet it took you years before you
could pronounce Rozich. (Laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: I would like to make a comment on
this matter of diversion, maybe.
I think it is probably the 10 years of experience
that some of us have had sitting on this thing that we remember
the ground rules and maybe the people who have only got
involved in this in the last few years don't know what ground
rules were laid down to start with, and I think this is probably
important.
It was a common agreement when we started that in no
way would water quality standards or such ever be used to
circumvent the allocation of waters as laid out in the Compac.t.
Second, that in no way would we infringe on a State's
right to use their allocated share of water. This matter of
diversion is a State-controlled thing. If you are unhappy with
the diversions in your own State, then do something about your
-------
1043
A. E. Williamson
State law. These are the ones that are controlled by the State.
So I don't think for the conferees here to sit here,
and me,to tell Colorado they can't divert water, Colorado tell
us we can't divert water, this is our own problem to solve and
I don't think it is a fittin1 problem for the conferees.
This matter of ecology words jumped up here. We have
run into it before. A number of us have been in the ecology
business for 30 years, anyway. And it always comes to my basic
first thought, speaking of ecological systems, remember Barry
Commoner's basic law of ecology and that is, "There is no such
v}
thing as a free lunch. Whenever mankind is going to exist on
this earth he is going to pay one end or the other. It makes
no difference if we want it for the fish, the wildlife, and so
forth, we are going to pay for it in reduced food and fiber on
the other end, high prices of putting some better land under
cultivation somewhere else.
So just to say we are forgetting the ecology on one
end—maybe. We have got to look at the other end also on the
thing because somebody will pay In the end.
That is Just a comment I had to get in. Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
Thank you, Mr, Williamson. You know, we are just
here to improve the quality of waters and I suggest that some
-------
104*1
C. P. Wilkinson
of the comments may be directed toward changing the world.
However, if I were going to.change the world, Mrs. Kozlowski,
there, is no one whose spirit I would enjoy more than yours.
We are going out of order just slightly because we
have a request here for someone to appear before 2:30.
Is Charles Wilkinson of the Native American Rights
Fund here?
CHARLES P. WILKINSON
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
BOULDER, COLORADO
MR. WILKINSON: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate
your calling me out of order and I will be quite brief.
I might mention that our statement does have attached
a fairly long exhibit which will not be read into the record.
My name is Charles Wilkinson from the Native American
Rights Fund in Boulder, Colorado. We represent American
Indians. Mr. DeFalco of Region IX was kind enough to ask
Joseph Brecher of our office to appear today and he is unable
to testify and so I will appear in his behalf. He regrets his
inability to come.
The continued existence of the five Lower Colorado
-------
. 1045
C. P. Wilkinson
Indian tribes, the Chemehuevi, Cocopah, Colorado River, Fort
Mohave, and Fort Yuma, is entirely dependent on water from
the Colorado River. The Supreme Court has recognized an
obvious fact: the survival of the Lower Colorado River Indian
tribes depends on an adequate supply of high quality water.
They have no other source of water supply than the Colorado
River.
In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that
these five tribes were entitled to 905,000 acre-feet of
Colorado River water, Arizona v. California. The Supreme
Court explained its action in an earlier opinion as follows:
Most of the land in these reservations
is and always has been arid. If the water neces-
sary to sustain life is to be had, it must come
from the Colorado River and its tributaries.
Congress and the President knew when they created the
reservations that:
Most of the lands were of the desert
kind—hot, scorching sands—and that the water
from the river would be essential to the life
of the Indian people and to the animals they
hunted and the crops they raised.
The water was to be used "to irrigate all practicably
-------
1046
C. F. Wilkinson
irrigable acreage on the reservations." Again that is a quote
from Arizona against California. In view of this total
dependence, the Environmental Protection Agency's Summary Report
on the Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin
presents a reason for great apprehension. The report notes that
in the lower Colorado River, salt concentrations already exceed
threshold limits for municipal, industrial, and agricultural
uses. The effect has been a reduction in crop yields and in
the types of crops which can be successfully grown, as well as
a deterioration in soil quality.
As bad as the situation is today, the Summary Report
predicts that it will get much worse if current water diversion
plans are allowed to continue. Eighty percent of the predicted
future increases in salinity can be attributed to such diver-
sions .
By far the most significant of these diversions will
be the Central Arizona Project, authorized by the Colorado River
Basin Project Act. The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that
the CAP will divert 1,650,000 acre-feet of Colorado River
annually at Lake Havasu. There are numerous other Colorado
River diversion and storage projects in the Upper Basin
authorized by Congress. They, too, will have a major effect on
downstream salinity.
-------
1047
C. F. Wilkinson
The effect of this major flow depletion in terms of
downstream salinity has never been studied. In the Bureau of
Reclamation's Draft of Environmental Statement for the Central
Arizona Project, prepared under the mandate of the National
Environmental Policy Act, the only mention of the salinity prob-
lem occurs on page 37, where it is stated as follows:
The impact on water quality of the
Colorado River main stem below Parker Dam from
diversions of water for the Central Arizona Project
will not be significant. Operating criteria
for the river with the Central Arizona Project
on line will reduce the possibility of surplus
flows in the river below Parker Dam. While
surplus flows would provide some incidental
dilution in the river below Parker Dam, their
infrequent and unreliable occurrence minimizes
their value. The last significant surplus flow
occurred in 1963.
It can thus be seen that the Draft Environmental
Impact for the CAP totally ignores the critical problem of
increasing salinity. Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act,
the Administrator of the EPA is required to review and comment
in writing on the environmental impact of Federal projects such
-------
: 10*18
C, P. Wilkinson
as the CAP. Senator Muskie, the sponsor of the Clean Air
Amendments of 1971> which added Section 309, stated to Mr,
Ruckelshaus during the hearings on Mr. Ruckelshaus's nomination,
that 309:
...makes you a self-starter, whenever
you, unilaterally, see the environmental risk.
What is involved here is not an input to somebody
else's decision and somebody else's statement.
This is an issue to be taken by you.
Ending the quote from Senator Muskie.
The draft Environmental Statement for the Central Ari-
zona Project contains numerous other serious deficiencies. A
detailed discussion of these defects is contained in a document
we submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation on November 10, 1971.
A copy of that comment is attached to this testimony as Exhibit
A.
Pursuant to its obligation under the Clean Air Act,
we believe that the Environmental Protection Agency should make
a definitive study of the environmental effects of the Central
Arizona Project, with a special emphasis on the salinity prob-
lem. The results of this study should be Incorporated in EPA's
comments on the Central Arizona Project and, if modifications
to eliminate these problems are not forthcoming, EPA should
-------
• 1049
C. P. Wilkinson
implement Section 309(b) of the Clean Air Act by publishing a
determination that the Project is unsatisfactory from the stand-
point of environmental quality and should refer the matter to
the Council on Environmental Quality.
(Exhibit A referred to follows:)
-------
EXHIBIT A /
NaMvo Ainoricjui _Ui^b<;s lAnK.1 .._.. _ ' *L_fl _ _ __ 1050
Houlilcr.Coloi.ulo SU.K)2
•ill I. Colettes
1>IUI:< TOK UcMIVyli.,,|ol
linn •• u. en-cue ASSIS r/\r: i i o i in--
Yvonne I. Knight DIUI.CIOU
Kolwl S. IVU-ypcr
Daniel J. 'I "aalTe
("tonics I-'. Wilkinson
ATIOKNHYS
John I-'. l-Yholiawk
U-laml J. Pond , „ .. , -,^-,-,
UHSKARCII ASSISTANTS 10 November 1971
Mr. E. A. Lundberg
Regional Director
Bureau of Reclamation
Regional Office - Region 3
P. 0. Box 427
Boulder City, Nevada 89005
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
The following comments on the Draft Environmental
Statement: Central Arizona Project are submitted on behalf
of the Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians and the Natural Resources
Defense Council. The Supreme Court, in Arizona v. California,
376 U.S. 340, awarded the Chemehuevi Tribe 11,340 acre feet
of Colorado River water. The Chemehuevi Tribe believes that
construction of the Central Arizona Project will threaten the
quality and quantity of Colorado River water available to them
and that the adverse environmental impacts associated with
that construction will affect their health, welfare, and live-
lihood.
The data presented in the draft statement is totally
inadequate. As the court said in Envi ronmental Defence 'Fund
v. Corps of Engineers , 325 F.Supp. 725, 759, an impact state-
ment must "contain such information as will alert, the Presi-
dent, th-e Council on Environmental Quality, the public, and
indeed the Congress, to all known possi bl e environmental con-
sequences of proposed agency action." The Council on Environ-
mental Quality's Guidelines for federal agencies under the
National Environmental Policy Act, 36 F. Reg. 7724, et seq . ,
paragraph 6(a)(i)> says a draft statement must inclucfe "a
description of the proposed action including information and
technical data adequate to permit a careful assessment of
environmental impact by commenting agencies." Also, under
paragraph 10(c) of the Guidelines, the public must be provided
with "relevant information, including information on alternative
courses of action." Obviously, the public is not "informed" at
all, when relevant data is missing from the statement. Almost
-------
c- Vuiurk-mi lUjjbjs Vuncl 1051
Mr. E. A. Lundhorg -2- 10 November 1971
every page of the draft statement contains admissions that
data is lacking, that information is "unknown," or that tests
are presently being conducted, the results to be determined
in the future.
Another basic flaw in the draft statement is the un-
challonged acceptance of the proposition that growth must
continue; unabated in Phoenix and Tucson and tha:t it is the
duty of the government to supply the wherewithal for that con-
tinued growth. The Council on Environmental Quality has
recognized that "population growth threatens the nation's store
of natural resources" and that in some rapidly growing areas,
"there was now a need to de-emphasize growth as a social goal
, . ."' Instead of invoking the need for growth in Phoenix and
Tucson as an imperitive reason to build the C.A.P., the state-
ment should have been considering seriously the possibility
that such growth is a reason to halt construction.
The following is a list of specific comments on various
aspects of the draft statement:
Page Mo. Defect
1 The statement does not cover the effects of the
Navajo Power plant, even though 25% of its power
(and hence, its pollution) is attributable to the
requirements of the C.A.P.
6 There will be four relift pumping stations along
the Granite Reef Aqueduct. There is no discussion
regarding the impact of these stations.
7 There will be a pumping plant on the Salt-Gila aque-
duct. No mention is made of its environmental impact.
8 There will be two pumping plants along the Tucson
aqueduct. No mention is made of their environmental
impact.
10 Plans for the distribution system for delivered water
are not finalized yet. The statement admits that "an
accurate estimate of miles of main and lateral canals
cannot be made at this time." This information should
be available to the decision-makers before a decision
is reached.
First Annual Report, pp. 13-14 (1970).
-------
Nnlivc Amcrlcjm Ri^lils Fund. 1052
Mr. E. A. Lundbcrg -3- 10 November 1971
Pago No. Defect
13 The statement alleges that as an alternative to the
Hooker Dam, four dam sites on the Gila River and
two on the San Francisco River are being investigated.
The statement does not indicate the location of those
six dam sites or even whether they are in the Blue
Range Primitive Area or the Gila Wilderness Area. The
statement also says: "alternatives to other major
features of the project are also being investigated."
Those alternatives are not described with particu-
larity.
Hugh information gaps such as this are impermissible
in a NEPA statement. In D.C. Federation of Civic
As_s_ocj_at_i ons v. Volpe , F. 2d , 3 E.R.C. 1143,
1146-47 CD.C. Cir., October 12, 1971, Mo. 24,843),
the plaintiffs called into question whether the
Secretary of Transportation, in approving the design
for a set of highway ramps and interchanges, followed
the statutory requirement that "the project includes
all possible planning to minimize harm to such park
... or historic sites."2 The court noted that such
planning could not possibly have taken place, since
the final design of the ramps and interchanges was
not yet complete at the time the planning allegedly
was done. The court commented: "absent a finalized
plan for the bridge, it is hard to see how the
Department could make a meaningful evaluation of
'harm.'" Similarly, in this draft statement, the
Bureau of Reclamation could not possibly have
assessed the environmental impact of the Hooker Dam,
when it is not even sure of its ultimate location.
14 Some parts of the aqueduct will be fenced to protect
wildlife. Other parts, that are not "wildlife
crossings and natural migration routes," will not be
fenced. What will happen to game in those areas?
2 23 U.S.C. § 138.
-------
Mr. E. A. Lundbcrg -4- 10 November 1971
No. Defect
14-17 The report analyzes in great depth various types of
wildlife drinking facilities, but admits that the
project as presently funded does not contemplate
construction of such facilities. It is indicative
of the one-sided orientation of the statement's drafters
that they devote three pages to an elaborate descrip-
tion of "wildlife benefits" that are almost sure not
to come about, while the potentially disastrous in-
crease in lower Colorado River salinity that will
result from the C.A.P. operation is totally ignored.
18 The statement says that disposal areas will be rcve-
getated. It does not say hov/ this can be accomplished,
especially under the severe, arid desert conditions
prevailing in the area.
18 Quarry sites will be in "remote areas" and will be
left in a condition that will "minimize the impact
on aesthetics and will not endanger wildlife." The
location of these sites is not specified, nor is the
method for restoration.
19 There will be a great deal of additional fishing at
the reservoir along the stream. There is no mention
of the potential environmental dislocation to be
caused by more people and their 'cars.
19 The Bureau admits that there may be "many other possi-
bilities of environmental enhancement, protection,
and mitigation features" that may be appropriate.
These features will be considered "as they become
more specificly identified and evaluated." Obviously,
there is no way for a reader to assess the effective-
ness of these measures at this time.
i
22 Instead of describing the vegetation found along the
right-of-way, the statement refers the reader to
various scholarly papers. The same is true for
fauna. These papers are not readily accessible to
the general public. The information contained in
them should be set forth in the statement, itself.
24 Several rare and endangered species of animals are
listed and the conclusion that "construction of the
project is expected to have only minimal effect on
rare and endangered forms" is expressed. There is
no data supporting this conclusion.
-------
ll'vo A ' i HU'icau U i f^Uts • A i n d 1054
Mr. E. A, iundbcrg -5- 10 November 19/1
Page No. Defect
25 Unspecified recreation facilities are to be considered
later. This is another example of the drafters'
claiming benefits for the C.A.P. that may never
materialize.
27 There is no discussion of the effect of the Lake
Havasu water intake facilities on fish in the lake.
29 The statement admits that most of the canal right-
of-way will contain a power line and maintenance
road. There is no discussion regarding how these
facilities wil.l affect aesthetic values in the
area.
29-30 The statement admits that there will be "major ecolo-
gical changes" resulting from the construction of the
reservoir. It also mentions "alteration of the ori-
ginal stream species." For "alteration" one should
read "obliteration." Cf. Environmental Defense Fund
v. Corps of Engineers, 325 F.Supp. 728, 749. The
statement admits that the Bureau has no information
regarding fishing along the Gila River. It also
indicates that there will be some "alteration" of
fauna. There also will be a reduction in habitat.
But the extent and nature of such alternations and
'reductions is not specified.
33 The statement indicates that there will be a net
gain in recreation because of the Charleston Reser-
voir, since there is a scarcity of "large recrea-
tional lakes" in the area. It does not mention the
corresponding loss of recreation in the free-flowing
streams there.
34 The Charleston Reservoir "will have the greatest
impact on archaeological values of the four project
reservoirs." That impact is not specified.
34-35 It is impossible to learn anything about the effects
of the Hooker Dam Project, since its exact location
Is not specified.
-------
Aimu'Jciux III ,(.;h(.s lAi ml
1055
Mr. E. A. Lunclberg -6- 10 November 1971
Pago No. Defect
37 The statement maintains that "the stream flow regimen
of the Colorado River below Parker Dam will be un-
altered by the diversion of C.A.P. water." Certainly,
there will be an increase in salinity and a decrease
in the amount of water available do.wnstream. In the
draft impact statement for the Mav.ajo Project, it is
admitted (page 48) that withdrawals from the Colorado
River of about 100,000 acre feet by five power plants
would increase downstream salinity by "less than 1/2
percent." Since the C..A.P. will withdraw about twelve
times that amount, we can expect an increase of about
5-6%. This could prove disastrous to downstream users.
The statement does not even mention the inevitable
salinity problem.
38 The statement admits it is not possible at this time
"to assess in detail the effect that Colorado River
import water will have on the beneficial use of exis-
ting supplies in the service area of the project."
This data should be supplied in the statement.
39 The policy on use of pesticides and herbicides is
ambiguous. The reader is unable to learn if pesti-
cides will be used and, if so, the exact quantities
involved.
40 The statement indicates "the rate of population growth
can be expected to continue with or without the
(C.A.P.) project." It also says "increasing the
supply of water will circumvent drastic curtailments
of the present rate of population growth . . ." The
former assertion is absurd; obviously, the availability
of a huge new influx of cheap water will serve to
attract additional population and industry. The latter
statement indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation is
committed to maintaining the present cancerous growth
of population in Phoenix and Tucson.
40 The statement claims flood control benefits for the
project. I doubt that there are many floods of severe
magnitude in the Salt and Gila Rivers.
-------
Native Amorlmix I'Utflits lAmd
JLO'56
Mr. E. A. Lundbcrg -7- 10 November 1971
Page No. Defect
43 The statement admits that there are wildlife "hazards
associated with high volume canals." It proposes
to neutralize these hazards by drawing wildlife away
from the canals with ponds, "back water fingers,"
and "guzzlers," although there is no money to build
any of these facilities. Therefore,- this proposed
solution is chimerical.
44 The statement notes that the Arizona Game and Fish
Department wants up to 60,000 acre feet to develop
50 new fishing lakes in the mountains. What would
be the environmental effects if these lakes are con-
structed?
45 The statement admits that there is no data concerning
the effects of increased accessibility to the aqueduct
area and also admits, "it must be recognized that other
beneficial or detrimental effects, not presented in
this statement, will occur." Finally, it admits
that there is absolutely no knowledge concerning
"economic and sociological impacts resulting from
the project." These are all serious omissions.
46 The statement admits the aqueducts may have an effect
on the migration of big game, but does not specify
those effects.
47 The statement admits that certain species may be eli-
minated altogether. Which species are these? .
47 New species may be admitted into the Salt River-Gila
River system from the Colorado River and may affect
the ecological balance there. No specifics are given.
48 It is indicated that ground-water recharge may be
reduced downstream. Where, and by how much?
48 At the top of the page, the statement admits that
increase in population density may have an adverse
environmental impact. Yet at the bottom.of the page,
the alternative of not building the project is dis-
missed because it would hamper increases in population,
standard of living, agriculture, and industry.
52 The statement admits "the long-term effects of the
project will be to provide for continued urban and
-------
NnUvo AincriC! n Rj;,*l.\l.s lAiml
Mr. H. A. Lundbcrg -8- 10 November 1971
Page No. Defect
• t iw»M_ -T~ t
industrial growth ..." Notice that the statement
does not mention the long-term needs of preserving
stream -flow in the Colorado River or of the need to
discourage the continued i n-migration to the desert
southwest, a fragile area that cannot support in-
definite growth.
54 Again, the statement indicates that existing and
endemic biological populations will be changed.
These changes are not elaborated. Note also that
72,000 acre feet of water a year will be evaporated.
It should be noted that the statement does not even
mention how much water the C.A.P. will divert from
the Colorado, and does not mention this hugh diver-
sion as an irretrievable commitment of resources.
The final and most serious defect in the statement from
the Chemehuevis' point of view is its complete disregard of the
devastating effect the C.A.P. will have on the environment of
the Indians. The statement does not even mention that the Orme
reservoir will wipe out almost 2/3 of the Fort McDowell Reserva-
tion. Nor is any concern expressed for the effects of the C.A.P.
on the water rights of downstream Indian reservations. The
Supreme Court recognized in Arizona v. California. 373 U.S. 546
that Indian lands are- essential ly "useless" without water and,
therefore, the Colorado River tribes were entitled to enough
water "to satisfy the future as well as the present needs of
the Indian Reservations . . . and to irrigate all the practicably
irrigable acreage on the reservations." (373 U.S. at 600). The
five Colorado tribes were awarded a priority right to 905,496
acre/feet by the Supreme Court, almost 783,000 of those acre/feet
to reservations downstream from the C.A.P.
The Colorado. River is already overdrafted. Existing
water uses -without the C.A.P., for the years 1961-65 for Cali-
fornia, Nevada, Arizona, and Mexico, plus losses from '-evapora-
tion totalled 9,628,600 acre/feet-,0 more than 2 mi 1 1 ion • acre/feet
more than the entitlement of the Lower Basin states under the
3
Senator Clifford llanscn in Congressional Record, vol. 113,
p. 21375, August 3, 1967.
-------
Native American Hights Fund
Mr. E. A. Lundbcrg -9- 10 November 1971
Colorado River Compact of 1922. When the Upper Basin states
use thcfr full entitlement, as they soon will, there simply
will not be enough water for the C.A.P.^ At that point, the
government will be faced with two possible alternatives. It
could shut down the project, thereby sacrificing several billion
dollars' investment and suddenly cutting off from Phoenix and
Tucson a source of water on which their expanding populations
will have come to depend. Or, as appears more likely, the
government could appropriate Indian-quaranteed water to make
up the difference. The first choice is politically and ec-
onomically unthinkable; the second is illegal and immoral.
The Colorado River tribes' water is threatened not only
in quantity, but also in quality. The Colorado River already
contains 1,000 parts of salt per million. That figure will
expand to 1,400 parts per million, nearly three times the amount
considered tolerable by the Public Health Service, unless 2-2 1/2
million acre/feet of relatively pure upstream water is available
for dilution purposes.^ Construction of the C.A.P. will eliminate
one-half this needed margin. According to the criteria for
irrigation accepted by the State of California,6 water of 1,000
p.p.m. is marginal, and at 1,200 p.p.m.., it enters into the realm
of "injurious to plants." Thus, the Central Arizona Project
threatens to nullify the Indian entitlement to water decreed
by the Supreme Court, even if the requisite number of acre/feet
are available, since that water will be unusable for irrigation.
It is almost inconceivable that a potential environmental effect
of such grave magnitude' could have been overlooked entirely in
the draft statement.
I hope these comments prove useful. I assume that com-
mencement of construction on the C.A.P. will be delayed until
the questions raised in this letter are answered.
Yours truly,
OJB:fpp Joseph J. Brecher
A
See article by Edwin C. Johnson, Congressional Record, vol. 113,
pp. 21657-60, Aug. 7, 1967.
c
Congressional Record, vol. 114, p. 13426, May 15, 1968. This
dTTution effect has already been recognized by your Division.
See Environmental Statement, Navajo Project, p. 48.
Criteria established by Dr. L.D. Donocn.
-------
: . 1059
C. F. Wilkinson
MR. STEIN: Any comments or questions?
MR. DICKSTEIN: I don't quite understand where the
Clean Air Act enters into this.
MR. WILKINSON: Well, as we state on page 3, we think
that this does give EPA the power to submit comments on the
draft environmental--
MR. DICKSTEIN: We always had the power under the
original CEQ act. The Clean Air Act involves air. We commented
on the impact of air problems under that particular act. And
we do have the power, but under the CEQ. I don't understand.
I think it is Just something misunderstood, really.
MR. WILKINSON: Well, our point is the comment.
MR. DICKSTEIN: There is a way, yes.
MR. WILKINSON: Right, that is the point.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. WILKINSON: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Let's go on with Nevada.
MR. WESTERGARD: I would like to introduce Don Paff,
who is the Administrator of the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada.
-------
• 106Q.
D. L. Paff
DONALD L. PAFF
ADMINISTRATOR
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION
OF NEVADA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
MR. PAFF: Thank you, Roland.
First of all, I would like to remind my friend Myron
Holburt that Nevada is also a Lower Basin State, participates in
the burdens of the mineral quality of the Colorado River. We
are also a water user.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present
Colorado River Commission of Nevada1 s comments at this conference.
It was our understanding that the conference discussions would
be primarily directed to the subject of mineral quality as
identified in the Environmental Protection Agency's report "The
Mineral Quality Problem In the Colorado River Basin" dated 1971*
Our comments will be generally confined to that report and the
draft of that report dated November 1970.
The Colorado River Commission of Nevada has viewed the
increasing salinity of the Colorado River as a matter of great
importance. Recently placed into operation in southern Nevada
is a water treatment and transmission system to further develop
the
-------
. : . 1061
D. L. Faff
Nevada's allocation of Colorado River water. Thus the major
municipal and industrial supply to southern Nevada will be from
the Colorado River, Increases in river water salinity places
an additional burden of cost on the people of Nevada for the
Southern Nevada Water System and other water facilities.
Salinity control measures are necessary to abate and possibly
reduce salinity levels in the river.
As an agency of the State created in 1935, the Colo-
rado River Commission of Nevada is empowered to receive, pro-
tect, safeguard and hold in trust and administer for the State
all water and water rights and all other rights and interests
or benefits in and to the waters of the Colorado River and to
the power generated thereon or which hereafter may accrue to
the State of Nevada. Within this responsibility our comments
on the 1970 draft were discussed with Nevada's conferee and
incorporated in his letter to the Environmental Protection
Agency on June 4, 1971. A copy of that letter was incorporated
in Appendix D of the 1971 report.
We have found no reasons to modify the major points
of our previous comments. However, we wish to reaffirm our
present basic position relating to Colorado River mineral quality
and we strongly urge the conference adopt these positions.
We believe that:
-------
• 1062_
D. L, Paff
a) a broad Colorado basinwide
mineral quality policy should be adopted
that would have as its objective the mainte-
nance of lower main stem salinity concentra-
tions at or below present levels;
b) in the broad quality policy
implementation, the problem should be treated
basinwide, recognizing that with the Upper
Basin continuing to develop its Compact allot-
ment, salinity levels may temporarily rise;
c) no numerical criteria or stand-
ards be adopted until the effectiveness of
present and future State and Federal Colorado
River salinity control programs are better
known;
d) the Bureau of Reclamation should
have primary responsibility for investigating
and implementing a basinwide salinity control
program with other Federal agencies assisting
and consulting with the Bureau of Reclamation
to achieve maximum effect in the salinity con-
trol program*
The Colorado River Commission of Nevada supports
-------
: ; 1063
D, L. Paff
an aggressive salinity control program which, in our opinion,
can only be brought about by a continued cooperative attitude
between the Federal agencies and the Colorado River Basin
States. The Commission has and will continue to participate
and support programs to control the mineral quality problem in
the Colorado River Basin,
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. PAFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Any comments or questions?
I don't have any because it will Just be repeating.
Either the States have gotten together or there is remarkable
unanimity of opinion. (Laughter.)
MR. PAFF: Mr. Chairman, we would suggest that, as
has been said before, Nevada supports what we think is a con-
solidated position of the seven basin States.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: The word "consolidated" is yours.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Westergard?
MR. WESTERGARD: I think that concludes for now.
Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I would be in a position similar to
you, I would be guilty of repeating.
MR. STEIN: That is my function, (Laughter.)
-------
1064
S. E. Reynolds
New Mexico.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Stein, Mr. Reynolds, Secretary of the
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, would like to present
some statements for the State of New Mexico.
S. E. REYNOLDS
SECRETARY
NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE
STREAM COMMISSION
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, my name is S. E. Reynoldsj
j
I am Secretary of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission.
By letter to Mr. Wright, New Mexico's conferee, dated
June 24, 1971, I commented on behalf of the Interstate Stream
Commission on the draft report of the EPA. Those comments are
included in Appendix D of the EPA report, which I am advised
has been made a part of the record of this conference. The
substance of those comments remain as applicable to the revised
report as they were to the draft report and I ask that they be
so considered.
Just to summarize the Commission's position, Mr.
Chairman, we concur that an objective of maintaining salinity
concentrations in the lower main stem of the'Colorado River at
-------
. 1065
S. E. Reynolds
or below present levels should be adopted. We think that
numerical salinity standards under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act should not be adopted. We urge that the seven
States and the EPA aggressively and energetically support the
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation salinity control program.
I might digress, if I may, for just a moment, Mr,
Chairman, in view of the recent comments concerning trans-
mountain diversions and point out that the,ultimate effect of
a transmoutain diversion is to improve the quality of water.
The water diverted, of course, is relatively pure, but some salt
is diverted with the water. The alternative, of course, is the
consumptive use of that same amount in-basln, leaving the full
load of salt within the basin.
MR. STEIN: Steve, I am glad we are having this
meeting here and not on the Columbia River after making that
statement. (Laughter,)
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, one further point of
a technical nature. In considering the merit of the Bureau of
Reclamation's proposed program or other measures to alleviate
the salinity of the Colorado River, one must keep in mind the
point that I think is well made in the EPA report, which is
that more than 80 percent of the projected increase in salinity
is due to the concentrating effect, not to a loading effect.
-------
. 1066
S. E. Reynolds
Mr. Chairman, I am gratified that you have seen so
clearly that the unity on salinity among the Colorado River
States is unique, and I hope that you will handle that struc-
ture with great respect and great care.
Thank you. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: Possibly we have a basis for an
approach if the objective is to lower the salinity. It
is pointed out, if we have achieved nothing else but created
a unanimous position among the seven Colorado Basin States,
I think we might go down in history as honored heroes of
the Republic. (Laughter.)
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, your conference may
have contributed more to that than you understand. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: That is right. No, I know that. (Laughter.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Stein mentioned that
it appeared that the States have gotten together. I think that
maybe a point should be made that we started getting together
in I960. In 1963 we asked for the study to start with as a
basin unit, and the conferees, and I am not sure that you need
to explain It necessarily, but I can say for the pollution
control people of the States, we have been in correspondence
ever since I960. During the establishment of the present water
-------
1067
S. E. Reynolds
quality standards we had numerous meetings all over the basin.
Maybe you should comment for the Chairman on whether
or not the water resources type people have conferred on this
subject.
MR. STEIN: Do you care to comment?
MR. REYNOLDS: This probably need not be said.
Certainly they have,
MR. STEIN: That is right.
MR, REYNOLDS: And properly so. Mr. Chairman, I might
say that some of the States have been working at this since
about 1912.
MR. STEIN: That's right. That is what I was going to
say to Mr. Wright, And here is the big difference, really.
I know the States here have been getting together at
least since 1912, but most of the times in those early days
you were getting together in court. (Laughter.) And let me
contrast this to what we have done here. Maybe we have helped
it.
But I remember very clearly--maybe you were there, Mr,
Reynolds, I don't recall^-we once had a meeting down in Phoenix,
and I remember we didn't have a map of the basin such as is
behind us,and we asked the people down there to get us a copy
of the map. Of course that was when the great case between
-------
1068
S. E. Reynolds
Arizona and California was going on.
A map was put up and there were some little numbers
around the map, and suddenly there was a hum in the hall and
the hum Increased and increased. That was before we had the
disturbances. I guess you all know about that as I know too
well. But I Just couldn't continue with the meeting.
Then I turned around to the map, and it developed that
these numbers were the numbers that Arizona was putting forth
as the acre-feet that it required, or thought it was entitled tc
in the lawsuit, and there was no holding the meeting. (Laughter.
And I said, you know, let's try to discount those
numbers. They are Just numbers on the wall. All we have
the map up here for is to show the basin and the tributaries.
And after I made what I thought was a reasonable
statement, everyone quieted down. I thought we would continue
with the meeting. That lasted about 5 minutes and then the
hum began again. They just couldn't stand looking at those
numbers. So I had to give up and take it down. (Laughter.)
I think things are different now.
MR. REYNOLDS: Much different.
MR. STEIN: And really much better, right.
MR. REYNOLDS: 1 agree, sir.
MR. STEIN: Right.
-------
_. 1069
L, M, Thatcher
Any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: May we go to Utah.
MR. THATCHER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow
the pattern that the other conferees have developed and ask
Utah's invitees to make statements. I have had some response
from our Invitees, but no specific indication that any of them
wanted to make a presentation.
So let me just say that if any of Utah's invitees
are in the audience and if they would like to make a statement,
now is the time to come forward.
Apparently there are none.
I have a brief prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and
I believe I have enough copies for one for each State conferee,
one for the Chairman, and one for the reporter.
LYNN M. THATCHER
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OP HEALTH
UTAH STATE DIVISION OP HEALTH
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
MR. THATCHER: This statement is supported by the
Utah Water Pollution Committee and the Utah Division of Water
-------
1070
L. M. Thatcher
Resources and it is really in summary form, so I will read it
hurriedly.
I want to begin by expressing thanks to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency of the Federal Government, and its
predecessors, for their accomplishment in making available the
report on the Mineral Quality Problems in the Colorado River
Basin. This report resulted from one of many recommendations
made by the conferees, exemplifying the need for Federal
resources to accomplish development of information required to
set up a fair, practicable, and enforceable program for control
of pollution in the Colorado River.
I must point out that while I served for a period as
temporary chairman of the Colorado River conferees during the
time that an agreement was being developed for selection of
water quality standards, I do not at this time have any such
relationship to the group, and my statement is not in any way
related to any formal action by them. In fact, since the agree-
ment on development of standards was achieved by the conferees
in 1967, no further formal action on this matter has been con-
sidered necessary, pending completion of studies under way at
that time.
The previous action of the conferees to set standards,
but to temporarily exclude specific standards on salinity, was
-------
. 1071
L, M. Thatcher
based on the concept and acknowledgement that ultimately, when
sufficient information becomes available, specific standards
will be set for all essential parameters. The Mineral Quality
Problems report mentioned provides part of the information
needed to accomplish pollution control. Our deliberations on
this report should guide us on a continued course of action
toward the ultimate objective of water quality management.
The three recommendations which emerged in the final
EPA report lead me to propose more specific recommendations as
follows. These are in harmony with Utah's previous comments on
the report.
1) A salinity policy should be
adopted for the Colorado River System that
will have as its objective the maintenance
of salinity concentrations at or below
levels presently found in the lower main stem.
2) Implementation of this salinity
policy objective for the Colorado River System
should be accomplished with acknowledgement
that the salinity problem must be treated as a
basinwide problem that needs to be solved to
maintain Lower Basin water salinity reasonably
near present levels while the Upper Basin continues
-------
1072
L. M. Thatcher
to develop its compact-apportioned water,
recognizing that salinity levels may rise
until control measures are made effective,
3) The adoption of numerical
criteria should be deferred until the
potential effectiveness of the Colorado
River salinity control program is better
known and because with the present level
of information it is not possible to estab-
lish equitable, practicable and enforceable
numerical standards.
*0 The Bureau of Reclamation should
be assigned the primary responsibility for
investigating, planning and implementing a
foasinwide salinity control program in the
Colorado River System, in order that Federal
funds can be properly assigned for solution
of this truly interstate problem.
5) The Environmental Protection
Agency should continue its dedication to the
program by consulting with and advising the
Bureau of Reclamation, accelerating Its ongoing
data collection and research efforts, and
-------
_. 107 3
L. M. Thatcher
transferring funds to the Bureau of Reclamation.
6) The Office of Saline Water should
contribute to the program by assisting the Bureau
of Reclamation as required to appraise the
practicability of applying desalting techniques.
7) The Congress and administration
should be urged to accelerate the salinity control
program, including appropriation of adequate funds.
In support of these recommendations, it is pointed out
that language of the Federal Act under which the conference was
called seems to lead ultimately to the concept of "remedial actijo
with respect to pollutants entering the river system. The
proposed salinity control program by the Bureau of Reclamation
certainly can be regarded as remedial action and seems to
satisfy the intent of the law and also to support the concept
of no numerical standards at this time because the very
accomplishment of the suggested objectives of the Bureau will
provide us with necessary information to establish such stand-
ards in a fair and equitable manner. It should be pointed out
also that every State has been in the process of taking
important remedial action since the conference was first
organized and even before the seven States came to an agreement
on the establishment of water quality standards. This consists
-------
L. M. Thatcher
of reviewing plans for new developments and imposing necessary
controls. Without such controls, many new sources of salinity
could have developed and increased the salinity problem through-
out the basin.
It must be stressed that delaying establishment of
numerical salinity standards will not diminish these remedial
i
i
actions, but that setting such standards with present inade- j
i
quacies of knowledge could result in unsound, inequitable, and
unenforceable standards.
Let me also throw out the caution that the concept
of singling out the salinity problem and taking action with
respect to it alone, apart from other conference activities,
denies the basic fact that no part of a pollution problem can
be separated from other parts. Salinity, radioactivity, heavy
metals, bacteria, viruses, all are part of the pollution pic-
ture and have to be considered as an Integrated whole.
Much has been said in the past about the need to
augment the conferees by bringing in representation of other
resource interests in each State. This has always been recog-
nized as a valid concept, and to my knowledge has been imple-
mented in most cases. If the water resource groups in the
*
various States feel they have not had adequate representation
in the quality problem, certainly something must be done about
-------
. 1075
L. M. Thatcher
it, and I, for one, would accept practical suggestions as to how
the conferees group could be properly augmented by others. I
do not feel this problem has occurred in Utah, but I still would
be receptive to some modified approach which satisfied all
groups in all States.
I then continue with a reference to the uranium tall-
ings problem. I needn't get into that now because we covered
that yesterday, but add only one thing that really goes without
saying:
The EPA is making some efforts in financing research
projects that have a direct bearing on this problem. I would
hope that these would continue and even be accelerated. One
specifically that I have in mind is a research program by Utah
State University in Utah's Uinta Basin area which goes directly
to this question of application of irrigation water to the soil
and is intended 'to eventually come up with facts that may help
us solve the salinity problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Thatcher, on page 3, Item 7, I noted
-------
L. M. Thatcher
the phrase "salinity control program."
The Congress—I am not sure that is the
paragraph I had in mind, but let's use it—
The Congress and administration should be urged
to accelerate the salinity control program,
including the appropriation of adequate funds.
The phrase "salinity control program" refers to what Mr. Ellis
Armstrong presented yesterday and entitled it the Water Quality
Improvement Program, is that correct?
MR. THATCHER: Yes, I would accept any change in
terminology that relates to what the Bureau has in mind.
I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
If you really thought so much of us, you thought we
were saints. I like that No. 5 where you say, "The Environ-
mental Protection Agency should continue its dedication to the
program by transferring funds to the Bureau of Reclamation."
(Laughter.)
MR. THATCHER: You say you like that or you don't
like it?
MR. STEIN: Well, I didn't know you really thought
we were that pure. But that's great. I am glad you think that
highly of us to make that suggestion.
-------
— : . 1077
A. E. Williamson
Any other comments or questions?
If not, may we go to Wyoming,
MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't nor have not been contacted
by anybody from Wyoming to make a statement and I have only
seen one familiar face from the State around here, so I will
ask if anybody from Wyoming would wish to make a statement at
this time. I doubt if there is anyone here for that purpose.
I do not have a formally prepared statement at this
stage. However, I think I would like to make one or two
comments about what is going on here, if that would be possible.
ARTHUR E. WILLIAMSON
DIRECTOR OP SANITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICE
CHEYENNE, WYOMING
MR. WILLIAMSON: There has been much discussion of
standards, and I would say that we are as a State in conformance
with the others here that we do not feel a numerical standard
is wise at this time and that we certainly support a good
policy for the control of salinity.
This matter of standard setting to me gets down with
argument here State versus Federal. I can see the Federal
reason for wanting a standard set. But I also can see the
-------
A. £. Williamson
reason why the States do not want it set, and it is surprising
that it is the States that are on the firing line, that are
really doing the enforcement on these standards when they are
set.
And all of the regulatory agencies have had enough
experience with standards at this stage in the game that they
can only say we don't want a number written down at this stage
because we know what the problems of enforcement are, so we .
are unanimous that this isn't going to give us anything but a
headache if we start putting that number on paper. So this is
probably why we have got such good agreements in the States.
Past experience does pay off.
Now, as to policy, I think we have pretty good
policies developed over the past 6 years, anyway, from the time
we started thinking about setting water quality standards in
1965. The States did have a number of meetings in which we
discussed water quality standards - what was going to be our
policy, how we should work towards controlling salinity in the
Green River. And I think some of that existing agreement is
still a pretty good framework to have around. So I am sure we
will come out with a workable policy on this matter.
Now, yesterday was interesting and I think Murray
got it read into the record, anyway, that we are dealing with
-------
1079
A. E. Williamson
unconventional sources when we are looking at irrigation. I
will certainly agree with him that these are unconventional
sources compared to the other types of pollution which we
handle.
Certainly they call for unconventional methods of
control. We cannot go back to that point source and say, you
have got to plug it up. So we have to start looking at these
unconventional methods, and I think many of them have been
brought out here, touched on a little bit but not quite clar-
ified, but that we are going the right way.
I think we have to gear our program to the policy
we developed. Let's get going, let's carry out something to
show that it can be done, rather than following again the
conventional means of gearing your policy more or less to
conventional financing. In other words, if we have to go
through 3 years of our feasibility reports, argue with com-
mittees for appropriations for a number of years, we are not
going to show much success on our accomplishments.
So I would hope that we can become unconventional
here and say, let us get a project started, let's pick a good
big project we know something about, particularly in the irri-
gation field, where something can be done and let's use some
unconventional method of financing to get the thing started
-------
1080
A. E. Williamson
next year instead of waiting 3 or 4 years. And I think this
can be accomplished with the proper application of powers at
various points. I think if we let our wishes be known along
this line that it will occur.
So let's take a real hard look at this unconventional
type of thing and maybe we can get the wheels turning here next
year instead of 6 years hence. This is the one big hope I would
like to see.
We got in a little bit of argument here yesterday
also about where do we treat, at the source or the point of
diversion. The only judgment I could make on that, we are
probably going to be doing both of them. We are not really
saying that treating at the diversion is a method of salinity
control. We are probably going to say it is a necessity to
give good quality water to the people that want it. Because
even if we develop our irrigation efficiencies up to 100 percent
or something like this, we get our salt balance taken care of,
we are just taking out what we are putting in. This matter of
consumed water is going to whip us, even though we still have
that water in the stream and we haven't added anything. Just
the concentrating effect is probably going to require somebody
to desalinate it at some point to give them a little better qual
ity of drinking water if they want or industrial water or
-------
1081
A. E. Williamson
possibly agricultural water. So I think we have to consider
this as an adjunct rather than as a control method. Certainly
it has many possibilities. And we don't want to hang at this
time, in my book anyway, a lot of faith in controlling these
natural sources.
Now, it is a possibility, we have got to look at
it, we are going to have to spend some money on it. Somebody
said we hadn't referred to the Ark-Red study. I know this is
one of the first ones in the country. I followed it quite a
while when they were doing on it and Just recently talked to
one of the boys who was on the project, and they had some big
salt springs down in that country. They did manage to stop
the flow from these salt springs, but they didn't change the
salinity in the river one bit. These things have a habit when
you plug up a hole and stop it flowing they come out some
place else, and they got wide diffusion of salt water back in
the riverbed.
Well, these are some of the technical aspects I think
we are looking at when we are looking at natural sources. It
sounds easy to say you can go out here and plug a hole and stop
water from coming out of it, but you have got to remember that
water has been running there several million years, it came out
of there for some reason. That was probably because the
-------
: : 1082
A. E. Williamson
pressures got too high. And if we plug them up the pressure is
built up again and it is going to come out somewhere.
So we may just be diffusing the problem, but this
certainly has to be looked at, it has to be studied, what are
the potentialities. So if we hang our faith in a standard on
removing so many tons of salt from natural sources we might be
kidding ourselves at this stage in the game.
So these are Just some of the aspects that may or
may not have been thought of that I would like to bring to
attention at this time.
I think that is all the comments I have.
MR. STEIN: Any comments or questions?
I think a point of clarification. I think I agree
with you when you talk about this problem that we need uncon-
ventional methods of solution and unconventional financing.
As I think has been a pretty close history of the development
of water resources in the West, the conventional financing has
been Federal financing. The question I have to ask you, does
that unconventional financing mean you are proposing State and
local financing? (Laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: No, I am not talking of that,
Murray. (Laughter.) I am talking about the long rigmarole
it usually takes to get Federal financing through. I think
-------
, 1083
A. E. Williamson
there are probably some quicker avenues that can be used at
this time rather than going before the Appropriations Som-
mittee year after year.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
We have one more we are going to call before recess.
Marianne Slagle, Sierra Club.
MARIANNE SLAGLE
SIERRA CLUB
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
MS. SLAGLE: I am Marianne Slagle from Las Vegas,
Nevada, a member of the Sierra Club, and I am going to be
reading a letter from John McComb of the Sierra Club addressed
to Paul DePalco, Administrator of the EPA, Region IX. Any
questions, since I didn't write this, should be addressed to
John McComb, Chairman of the Sierra Club, Southwest Office,
2011 East Broadway, Room 212, Tucson, Arizona, 85719.
(The letter referred to follows:)
-------
1084
RECEIVED'! r-
r~ -i ,
FEB / o
SIERRA CLUB
"•'•"' J*!
S^«.^->±^s<^ 2014 East Broadway, Room 2i2 , Tucson, Arizona 85719
Sandstone Sculpture, Peach Wash, AT; ona
February 3, 1972
Paul DeFalco, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. DeFalco:
Thank you for sending me a copy of your report, The Mineral Quality
Problem in The Colorado River Basin. The wealth of information con-
tained in this report is very much appreciated.
Virtually everyone, whether he be a Sierra Club member or a representative
of a state water agency, agrees that a salinity control program is needed
for the Colorado River Basin. However, judging by the comments by state
agencies, contained in Appendix D, this appears to be about as far as
they want to go. Water resource development agencies appear to be opposed
to any meaningful program that might interfere in any manner with their
plans.
In our opinion, numerical water quality standards are absolutely necessary
if anything is to be accomplished about the salinity problem on the
Colorado River. These standards or criteria should initially provide
for no further degradation of the waterquality. This means that any
developments that would tend to increase the salinity must be accompanied
by suitable counterbalancing control measures. The long term program
should hope to correct many of the existing manmade salinity problems
in the basin. A timetable calling for decreasing salt concentrations
in the Colorado River should be established to meet this goal.
The report outlines three general alternatives whereby salinity control
might be effected. These were limitations on further development in
the basin, reduction of salt loads, and augmentation of the water supply-
From our point of view, there should be much more emphasis given to the
alternative of limiting further development and thereby depletions of
the water supply.
The existing plan of virtually every water resource agency in the Colorado
River Basin is to "completely develop" their share of the Colorado River
water. It is a fallacy to believe that we can undertake this level of
-------
1085
page 2
Mr. Paul DeFalco
February 3, 1972
development with the accompanying build up within the basin of dissolved
solids which formerly were discharged into the Gulf of California without
in the long run having some peculiar problems. We hope that the long range
implications of this level of development will be carefully studied by your
agency.
The report dismisses the alternative of limiting further water resource
development in the basin with the comment that it "had the obvious disad-
vantage of possibly stagnating growth of the regional economy." As you
already know, the growth philosophy is increasingly under attack. We believe
that it is unfortunate that the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed
the development limitation alternative without giving it more serious con-
sideration. This alternative is clearly unacceptable to the water resource
development agencies in the various states of the Colorado River Basin. It
is doubtful that these same agencies will ever do what is needed to control
the salinity if it means that some water resource developments have to be
foregone. It is not clear however, that this alternative is unacceptable to
many of the residents of the area. We believe that the more emphasis on this
alternative would be welcomed by that increasing segment of the public which
is concerned with our present indiscriminate quantitative growth without any
regard for the quality. The combined economic and environmental cost of
"complete" water resource development in the Colorado River Basin including
the cost of increased salinity would in all probability exceed the benefits
'from this development.
.The existing compacts and other legal institutions which apportion the water
among the various states should not be regarded as a license for any form of
development at any cost in the Colorado River Basin. The alternative of
limiting development has many political, economic, and environmental rami-
fications, but it should definitely not be dismissed as casually as has been
done in the report.
Obviously, the major brunt of any development limitations would be born by
the upper basin states, since the lower basin states already are or shortly
will be using their entire entitlement. However, salinity problems in the
lower basin should not be ignored. For example, the Welton-Mohawk Project
appears to be particularly unfortunate when its impact on the salinity of
water delivered to Mexico is taken into consideration. Quite possibly this
project should never have been undertaken. The cost in terms of increased
salinity as a result of diversions for the Central Arizona Project should
also be carefully evaluated before any irrevocable decisions are made and
construction begins.
Augmentation of the*water supply, whether by trans basin diversion, weather
fflodification or importation of desalted sea water is generally not an accept-
able alternative to us at this time. Trans basin diversions are both economic-
ally and environmentally unsound and probably politically unrealistic. While
-------
page 3 1086
Mr. Paul DeFalco
February 3, 1972
flow augmentation by weather modification appears to have some promise
for providing additional water at low cost, the environmental effects of
weather modification are at best very poorly known at this time. This
alternative should not be promoted until much more thorough research has
been done into these effects. vThe same is generally true of importation of
demineralized sea water.
We generally agree that programs to reduce salt loads should be pursued.
However, the control programs should be directed primarily at man caused
increases in the salt load. Many of the natural sources of salt are also
features of outstanding natural interest. Attempting to control them could
result in destruction or impairment of significant natural values.
One example of this which I would like to cite is Blue Spring on the Little
Colorado River. Your report correctly notes that Blue Spring is the largest
single point source of dissolved solids in the Colorado River Basin. The
report also lists a potential project to control this source.
Blue Spring itself is one of the largest springs in the West and thus is of
interest for that reason alone. The canyon in which it is located is an
integral part of the Grand Canyon and it is spectacular in its own right.
We would certainly oppose any significant construction within this canyon.
Thirdly, the high mineral content of the water has formed a series of
beautiful travertine dams in the thirteen miles between Blue Spring and
confluence of the Little Colorado River with the main stream. The Little
Colorado River and these travertine dams are a major feature of interest for
boating parties in the Grand Canyon and virtually all of them stop at the
mouth of the river.
Many other natural sources of dissolved solids have similar values which
deserve protection. Programs which would affect these sources should very
carefully weigh the economic benefit of reduced salt load against the adverse
effects the control program would have on features of significant natural
interest.
We hope to have someone present to observe at least part of the enforcement
conference to be held on February 15-17, 1972, in Las Vegas, although we don't
know who will be able to attend at this time. Col. Henry M. Zeller of 5120
West Via Mallorca, Tucson, Arizona, will be responsible for locating someone
to attend the meeting.
The comments in this letter are based on discussions about the mineral
quality problem with Sierra Club members throughout the Colorado River basin.
We appreciate your soliciting our views. We also hope that you will continue
to keep us informed of your agencies actions concerning this matter.
Y John A. McComb
Southwest Representative
-------
108?
page 4
Mr. Paul DeFalco
February 3, 1972
JAM:ab
cc: Henry M. Zeller
Joe Brecher
Jack McLellan
John Barker
G. William Fiero
Roy Evans
Brant Calkin
Michael McCloskey
-------
1088
M. Slagle
MS. SLAGLE: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any questions or comments?
As long as we don't have the letter writer, I would
just like to make one point, read one sentence from the letter,
and I think this is reflective of the entire letter, with the
positions we have heard before. This sentence I would like to
call attention to:
In our opinion, numerical water
quality standards are absolutely necessary
if anything is to be accomplished about the
salinity problem on the Colorado River.
I think we may have a diversity of opinion. (Laughter*
Any other comments or questions?
If not, let us take a 10-minute recess. I urge you
to be back on time because we have quite a few people to hear,
and I would like to complete on time so we don't exhaust the
reporter.
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
As far as I see the schedule now, I believe we will
hear or be able to hear all the people who want to make state-
ments tonight and the conferees will reconvene at 9:30 tomorrow
-------
__ 1089
General Discussion
morning. I do believe, as a matter of fact I am very hopeful,
that we may have a statement by then. If not, you can watch
us develop one or disagree. But I am always an optimist and I
think we can make it. Our batting average is pretty high in
getting unanimous agreements and I am going to hope until we
don't.
MR. THATCHER: Mr. Chairman, can I raise a question?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. THATCHER: Is there any chance that we could
break the routine and meet a little earlier in the hopes of
getting through earlier tomorrow?
MR. STEIN: Yes. What time do you want to meet
earlier? 9?
MR. THATCHER: Earlier than that.
MR. STEIN: Here is my experience and let me tell you
what happens. The reason I say 9:30, this is not Just an
accident. We have repeatedly scheduled meetings earlier than
that. The difficulty is people don't show up, despite pro-
testations to the contrary, and I recognize the town we are
in. Now, if you want to meet earlier, I can be here, you know.
MR. THATCHER: I think we can get the conferees here
by 8:30, couldn't we?
MR. STEIN: You poll them and see if they are ready
-------
1090
General Discussion
by the end of the day. I will entertain that if you want to do
it.
MR. WRIGHT: I am willing to work until 9 o'clock
tonight.
MR. STEIN: No, no. The point is again, and I said
this before, when attempting to get an agreement you had
better take your time, because these rush agreements give you
things to regret afterwards.
But I don't mind meeting any time, Lynn, that you can
get the agreement here.
Now, when do you have to get out?
MR. THATCHER: Well, I haven't set my schedule yet.
I want to step it up from tomorrow evening, which it is now.
MR. STEIN: Well, I would believe if you do your
homework right, let's see how this goes and you get the feeling,
we may Just have an announcement here at 9:30 tomorrow without
discussion.
MR. THATCHER: Well, could we make it at 8:30, the
same as--
MR. STEIN: Well, as I say, why don't you check
again.
MR. THATCHER: All right.
MR. STEIN: You check with the other conferees, but
-------
.— : 1091
G. V. Skogerboe
let's go through this and you check.
MR. THATCHER: Am I correct, one more thing, in the
assumption that the record will be held open for people to
submit statements—
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. THATCHER: —for a period of time?
MR. STEIN: Yes. I believe we said that would be
a month.
MR. THATCHER: A month? All right, our Division of
Water Resources wanted to submit a statement.
MR. STEIN: All right.
All right, let's go on. Gaylord Skogerboe.
GAYLORD V. SKOGERBOE
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
PORT COLLINS, COLORADO
MR. STEIN: I tried. Repronounce your last name for
us.
PROF. SKOGERBOE: Yes. First of all, I answer to
anything that comes close. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: I was pretty close on Gaylord, wasn't I?
-------
1092
G, Y. Skogerboe
(Laughter.)
PROP. SKOGERBOE: Yes. That is Gaylord Skogerboe,
Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering, Colorado State
University.
I would like to point out first of all that I have
two reports, one titledMResearch Needs for Irrigation Return
Flow Quality Control,* which is presently at the Government
Printing Office, should be available in April, and its EPA
report, prepared by myself and Dr. James Loth at the Ada,
Oklahoma, lab of EPA.
The second report I have is in this binder which was
Just sent out last Friday for review, which is the final report
for the Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration Project.
This project was funded a little over 3 years ago,
about 3-1/2 years ago, by EPA, its predecessor agency. It was
a grant of $350,000 of Federal funds tea consortium of irrigation
companies in Grand Valley. In addition these companies put up
another $150,000 for the studies. The technical evaluation unde
this project was subcontracted to Colorado State University, and
I was the project leader for Colorado State University on this
effort.
The study was accomplished in a demonstration area
which represents about 5 percent of the irrigated land in
-------
1093
G. V. Skogerboe
Grand Valley; in other words, roughly 5,000 out of the 100,000
acres of irrigated land.
Under this project we were to line canals, originally
we were supposed to do some work with drains. Our first effort
was to evaluate seepage losses in these canals to make recom-
mendations on construction. As we proceeded in the Investiga-
tions, we soon discovered that the seepage losses were fairly
low. Also that we had as a major problem the lateral system
from the main canals. And so we proceeded with the construction
program of lining about 8 miles of main canal section and about
a comparable mileage of laterals.
Now, the results of this study show that we are
annually removing about 5,000 tons of salt that formerly went
into the Colorado River with this project, and if we used the
damages in the EPA report at about the turn of the century,
which was a little over $50 million, it would turn out on a
50-year repayment of 5 percent interest that we would break
even on these costs. In other words, the downstream damages
would pay for the cost of this canal lining. And of course if
we go to higher damages which are reported in the Colorado
River Board of California report on some other estimates that
have been made of future damages, these benefits would be even
higher. And again this doesn't take into account the benefits
-------
1094
G. V. Skogerboe
to the local people by accomplishing this canal lining.
Now, as part of our evaluation we had to put in a
lot of instrumentation in the demonstration area so that we
could do both water quantity and salt budgets for the area*, and
this required that we model the irrigation system, and the most
difficult part was modeling the groundwater flow system. This
required quite a series of piezometer measurements, we did a lot
of drilling of wells down into the Mancos shale which underlies
these soils, and were able to arrive at what we feel is pretty
good information for this particular area of 5,000 acres.
Now,we soon recognized that the real important part
of achieving salinity control in this demonstration area was
on-the-farm water management. In other words, the key to
accomplishing salinity control is to minimize the amount of
water that passes below the root zone. Now, in irrigated
agriculture we always have a requirement for a certain amount
of leaching in order to maintain a salt balance in the root
zone, but I think most of you in the audience recognize that
in many of the irrigated regions throughout the West the deep
percolation losses below the root zone far exceed the leaching
requirement s^/ind this is certainly the case in probably most of
the Upper Colorado River Basin.
The other aspect that is required in order to
-------
: 1095
G. V. Skogerboe
accomplish on-the-farm water management is some rehabilitation
work on the irrigation system ltsel£ Und by a rehabilitation
we mean some canal lining* H0e need flow measurement throughout
the system—in other words, how do you manage the water if you
don't know how much water you have gotr->-and the operation and
management of the canal system itself.
Now, these canal companies operate the canals, turn
the water out at a turnout structure, and it is then turned
over to a small group of water users who operate the lateral
system. Some of these laterals are very well maintained. In
fact, the farmers on some laterals have gone in and accomplished
canal lining and improvements, but many of them are in a very
poor state of maintenance. And one of our recommendations in
this report is that the canal companies take over the operation
of these laterals so that it can be operated as a more inte-
grated type system.
Well, I would like to go from those recommendations
into the results of this demonstration area and what it means
valleywide.
First of all, by taking an input-output model, as
was accomplished in the EPA reports, we can come up with the
total amount of salt picked up in the Grand Valley area. But
then the next question we have to ask ourselves, if we had no
-------
: 1096
G. V. Skogerboe
irrigated agriculture at all in this valley how much salt would
we still be picking up in this valley? At the present time we
don't have that answer.
Now, there have been a number of reports put out
which have taken a certain proportion and assigned it to
natural sources and a certain percentage to irrigated agri-
culture, and these percentages have varied. Our own educated
question mark guess is that the large percentage of the salts
aredue to irrigated agriculture, but I can't say that I really
know that answer. It is only a guess on my part after having
worked with the system.
The second major area of question is if we were to
go into a controlled program in Grand Valley and we were to
cut by a half the amount of deep percolation losses, this
is the water moving below the root zone, would we reduce the
salt load or the salt pickup by a half that is returning to
the Colorado River? Now, here again we don't have the answer
to that question. And in the research needs report, which is a
report to guide the EPA's research efforts in this area in the
future, this is recognized as one of the very major areas of
research to be accomplished in the near future, in what we call
subsurface return flows and our ability to predict the chemical
changes that occur in the water as it moves through the soil
-------
1097
G. V. Skogerboe
profile and returns back to the river system.
A second major area of effort required is economic
evaluation. In a nutshell, what are the direct and indirect
benefits in accomplishing any salinity control program? What
are the benefits to the immediate area? And there are both
direct and indirect benefits right in Grand Valley in accomplish
ing a salinity control project and, of course, the major bene-
fits are really downstream in the Lower Basin States, both
direct and indirect again.
But I would say these problems that I have cited are
probably the simpler problems to attack. It is mostly a matter
of putting in the funds to do the Job.
The real heart of the problem, I feel, is water
rights. And here I will just have to refer to my own Judgments.
I am sure many of you would argue very strongly with me. But
I think what is needed is a change not in the western water
laws but in the Interpretation of western water laws. Somehow
we need to build in some type of an incentive system for
improved management of the water supplies that we have. At the
present time to me it is very understandable why a group of
farmers, an irrigation company, an irrigated valley, isn't
about to give up the water rights that it established, say, at
the turn of the century or prior to that time. These are held
-------
1098
G. V. Skogerboe
in very high regard, very important to the area, and they are
very much afraid of giving them up.
Well, some economists have made suggestions that
water should be placed on the open market. I personally feel
that there should be some sort of an economic incentive system
given to the irrigated area which would allow them, if they are
to conserve water, to have some rights to turn around and either
rent, sell, place or transfer that water and receive something
in return. And I believe there ate definite ways that this can
be accomplished. I believe that States can put in certain safe-
guards to insure that the reallocation of those waters would fit
into a Statewide water resource development plan and also safe-
guard against black market prices on the water.
Now, I would like to go into research and action
programs. Since I am a university type and very heavily
involved in research, probably many of you think, well, I have
cited research needs and probably the type who could go on
researching these same problems for 20, 30 years. Well, I think
fortunately in this area of irrigation return flows that with
the studies that have been conducted over the last few years
and the few research efforts that we have, we can now proceed
on a combined research and action program, with the research,
of course, being the applied type of research.
-------
1099
G. V. Skogerboe
A good illustration of this would be, we could go
into the irrigation scheduling as proposed by the Bureau of
Reclamation in the Grand Valley area. We can proceed, real-
izing that by reducing the amount of deep percolation losses
that we are going to have water quality benefits. The only
problem is, as we proceed on that basis we don't know what
those water quality benefits are exactly.
So one area that we could proceed along with is a
study on these subsurface return flows and the effect of
changing the amount of soil moisture movement and what its
effect is on the chemical quality of the return flows.
Now, we presently have a proposal before EPA. This
proposal was originally submitted about a little over 2 years
ago requesting 95 percent Federal funding, I was told two
things, first to get political support and secondly to only
ask for 70 percent'. And so I went to the State Legislature of
Colorado and I really didn't; give myself much of a chance, but
a year ago they provided funding to match this particular
project at this 30 percent level.
And a little history here. CSU was provided funds
by the legislature for two new research projects, this one and
one other one on pesticide research, the only two out of
a request of probably 30 or 40 projects, so I felt very
-------
: lioo
G. V. Skogerbbe
fortunate in that end.
Also we have a proposal before EPA which I am sure
will be funded,, and it has to do with the water quality aspects
of irrigation scheduling and also combining irrigation schedul-
ing with tile drainage, particularly on the lands close to the
river which have been damaged substantially by irrigation return
flows.
And also as a part of this last proposal, we are
going to have a conference in Grand Junction. I hope most of
you have read the posters outside in the lobby i A national
conference on managing irrigated agriculture to improve water
quality. It will be held May 16 to 18 at Mesa College in
Grand Junction. The hosts for this conference are the Grand
Valley Water Purification Project, which is the consortium of
irrigation companies that took on this canal lining study,
the Mesa College and the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce
and sponsored by EPA and Colorado State University. And I hope
that most of you will take the time to attend this conference.
What we will be getting into in this particular
conference is the variety of water quality problems resulting
from irrigated agriculture throughout the West, We will
naturally discuss the Colorado River Basin some, but we will
be getting into discussions in the Columbia Basin, the San
-------
1101
G. V. Skogerboe
Joaquin in California, Rio Grande, other areas around the West,
how some areas have survived the poor quality water, what are
some of the potential solutions for alleviating these problems,
including what are some of the economic questions, what are
some of the legal questions. We will have a couple of sociolo-
gists who have studied irrigation systems,, and last of all we
will have a panel discussion on implementing control programs.
My final statement, I would like to make a self-
evaluation of the statement by Ellis Armstrong yesterday,
particularly in regards to looking at their schedule for
between now and 1981, I believe, their particular program. I
think that, of course, this schedule could be speeded up by
additional funding, but I think that we have a problem here
when we go into an action program in a particular area. It is
not just a simple matter of putting up so many million dollars
and achieving salinity control, I think there is a certain
amount of time-effort required to move into an area, develop a
feel for the system, develop a rapport with the people to get
them working with you on this, I also feel that it is a problem
which involves not just engineering. It is a problem involving
salt physics, salt chemistry, engineering, economics, and by
far the legal profession is heavily involved here.
That concludes my statements.
-------
; 1102
G. V. Skogerboe
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Stein,
I heard one figure during your presentation of
reduction of 5,000 tons--
PROP. SKOGERBOE: Annually,
MR, WRIGHT: —annually, but I am not sure I know per
area. We need some kind of units on that. Is that per acre of—
PROP. SKOGERBOE: No, it was 5,000 tons due to
lining those particular sections of canal.
MR. WRIGHT: Approximately how much acreage is
involved under the project?
PROP. SKOGERBOE: Well, this canal system we are talkln
about serves 5,000 acres*
MR. WRIGHT: So it is about 1 ton per acre of irri-
gated land?
PROP. SKOGERBOE: Right. But I might point out, the
salt pickup per acre is more like 8 tons per acre, so we have
only made a small dent in the problem.
The point I really wanted to make was, even though
the seepage losses are very low in this particular canal system,
that we can very easily show economic benefits far exceeding
the costs. And frankly, a year or a year and a half ago I
-------
1103
G. V. Skogerboe
didn't think this would be the case. I thought that the seep-
age losses were so low that we wouldnft be able to show that
it was economically beneficial,
MR. WRIGHT: Were you here yesterday when Mr. Boone
discussed the improvements that could be obtained from better
drainage systems?
PROF. SKOGERBOE: Was that this morning?
MR. WRIGHT: No, it was yesterday.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Yes, it was.
MR. WRIGHT: Was it this morning?
PROP. SKOGERBOE: First thing this morning.
MR. WRIGHT: This morning? Yes, you are right.
PROF. SKOGERBOE: I missed the first few minutes of
his presentation, but I heard most of it.
MR. WRIGHT: So if there is 8 tons of pickup per
acre in this particular valley at this point in time,,could you
maybe describe the drainage system that is there now and tell
us whether or not an improved drainage system would be effec-
tive in—
PROF. SKOGERBOE: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: —much larger terms than 1 ton per acre?
PROF. SKOGERBOE: Yes. Well, in the proposal we have
before EPA at this present time I mentioned going into a
-------
__ no**
G. V. Skogerboe
combination of Irrigation scheduling and tile drainage, and the
idea here is to collect the water reaching the groundwater table
before it is allowed to pass deeper into the soil profile and
then pass over the beds of Mancos shale, which contain
crystalline salts and have a high pickup. So you would still
have a certain amount of salt pickup, but you would reduce it
substantially, we would feel.
But this is only a solution in a part of the valley,
not the entire valley. It is a solution for the lower lying
lands.
I might make one other point here. To me a salinity
control program for Grand Valley is not a matter of lining
canals, it is not a matter of irrigation scheduling; it is a
matter of an entire package of on-the-farm water management
and rehabilitation of the irrigation system and drainage.
MR. WRIGHT: In your experience as a person Involved
in Irrigated agriculture, have you reviewed the Bureau of
Reclamation's report presented yesterday and do you feel that
their proposed water quality improvement program covers all of
those points that you Just mentioned?
PROF. SKOGERBOE: Yes. The only study that I maybe
didn't see and hear is on the prediction of subsurface return
flows. But not wanting to be too laudatory to the Bureau so
-------
: 1105
G. V. Skogerboe
that they don't slow down on the job here, I do feel that in
what I would call a short time they have put together a program
which, really hits at the heart of salinity control for irri-
gated agriculture.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you very much.
PROP. SKOGERBOE: But at the same time I might point
out in my discussions with the Bureau I do feel that they are
as well aware of the problem of predicting subsurface return
flows as I am. They recognize that this information is needed,
MR. STEIN: There is no such thing as a free potshot
at the Bureau.
Mr. Maletic.
MR. MALETIC: I would like to answer that question
and let him know that, of course, we have been working on this
question of subsurface flows. We will be publishing rather
sophisticated studies in this area dealing with the movement
of water through the unsaturated zone, through the saturated
zone, done for and with EPA and San Luis utvit, and extende
to other areas. And in Vernal we are making a separate study
of this problem. Utah State has already done some studies using
similar techniques, and these are published and a lot of work IB
being done in this field.
MR. STEIN: That is right.
-------
1106
G. V. Skogerboe
MR. MALETIC: And our studies, of course, contemplate
evaluating effects of these projects using these models.
MR. STEIN: You are talking about, you know, what is
it, a pickup of 8 tons, 7 tons an acre?
PROF. SKOGERBOE: Yes, 8.
MR. STEIN: Eight. And I think if we cut this back
on tiles, cut it back 1 ton down to 7, I don't think that we are
going to—maybe we are not going to get the pay dirt.
PROF. SKOGERBOE: No.
MR. STEIN: In other words, it seems to me we have
got to do a lot better than that if we are really going to
come to grips with this problem.
PROF. SKOGERBOE: I feel personally that we should be
able to reduce it in half without too much trouble.
May I add one other comment to Mr. Maletic. When I
am talking about predicting subsurface return flows, I am aware
also of the work they are doing. But as we go into each area
and go into a salinity control program, there has got to be a
certain amount of evaluation take place in each area. There is
only a certain amount of information transfer that can occur
from Grand Valley, say, to Ashley Valley or return. So we have
to collect this type of information in Grand Valley. As we
gain more experience in utilizing some of these models or get
-------
1107
G. V. Skogerboe
a little more sophisticated In our analysis, then we will be
able to cut down on the amount of effort when we go into a new
region, but we are still going to have to collect a lot of
this basic type of data in each region.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Are there any comments?
MR. WRIGHT: Murray, I think one point maybe that we
don't want to lose sight of. We are looking,at this 8 tons
pickup, but from the report I think we need to remember that
it indicated to us that 60 percent of the problem is from
natural sources, 33 percent manmade. Of the 33 percent that is
manmade, 80 percent is concentration and only 20 percent is
the pickup.
So even though it looks big, like 8 tons per acre
pickup, this is only one particular project and it is really
small in comparison to the overall problem.
PROF. SKOGERBOE: Yes. I would take exception to your
citations there, though, on these percentages, because how do
we really arrive at that figure? We run an input-output model
and we say that there is so much tonnage of salt picked up
moving through Grand Valley and then we turn around and we
divide that total tonnage by the number of acres of irrigated
ground, which in this case is about 100,000. And the total
-------
; 1108
G. V, Skogerboe
annual tonnage picked up is somewhere between 900,000 and 1
million. So from that we come up with maybe 9 or more.
But we don't know of that how much is due to irri-
gated agriculture and how much is due to natural sources.
These breakdowns by percentage that are given in this report
for the total upper Basin don't apply at all to Grand Valley.
1 mean we are shooting'in the dark as to what those percentages
are when we talk about Grand Valley. All we really know is
the total tonnage of salt that is picked up.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
PROP. SKOGERBOE: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: We have -a communication here from the
National Council of Public Land Users, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Without objection,! would like to put this in. I
think the major pitch here—you get all kinds of suggestions— ie
that they recommend the way to clean this up is to recover the *
Federal public land watershed with a suitable vegetative cover.
The first requirement for this would be the complete removal of
the original cause—the domestic livestock.
(The above-mentioned letter follows:)
-------
1109
tf Maxwell, President
P. O. Box 811
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
February 8, 1972
P
REGION u
in
10 5? /if'-J V?
' *<-
Herbert Snydcr. Secretary
Mr. Curtiss M. Evert
Acting Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Sir:
Thanks for the report, "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado.
River Basin", together with Summary Report and Appendices A - D.
Your invitation to attend the meeting to be held February 15 - 17,
1972, at Las Vegas, Nevada is sincerely appreciated. It is apparent
we will be unable to attend. However, a copy of the minutes of the
meeting would be appreciated.
The National Council of Public Land Users have prepared a
resolution pertaining to salinity on the federal public lands watershed,
a copy of which is enclosed. This is the only written testimony we are
prepared to submit at this time.
Here's hoping for some action, for it is long past due.
Secretary
PS. An extra copy of the resolution is enclosed to be included with the
minutes of the meeting.
-------
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO 1110
SALINITY ON THE FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS WATERSHED
??HERSAS: Reports indicate that ninety (90) per cent of the water flowing in
Colorado's streams arises on United States public lands watersheds.
WHEREAS: Research by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reveals that much
of these federal public lands are highly mineralised frith soluble salts.
WHEREAS: Extreme grazing abuse on these federal public lands by domestic livestock
has been practiced by an extremely small minority of domestic livestock permittees
for scores of years.
r/IIERSAS: This overgrazing abuse has denuded the federal oublic lands of natural
protective covering vegetation and laid it bare to high temperatures from the sun.
T7HEREAS: Evaporation of water from these uncovered lands has resulted in capillary
action concentrating mineral salts at the surface of the land.
V/HEHEAS: Rainfall and melting snow has accumulated these salts in their accelerated
runoff, carrying them into the streams.
'VHEREAS: Aquatic life, together with other vrater users, has been depleted and
degraded as a result of saline concentration in the streara drainages and reservoirs.
??HEREAS: The runoff waters have been used for many years for purposes of irrigation
on lands within the Colorado river drainage.
TJHSREAS: The irrigation practice of soaking the irrigated lands, then shutting off
the water while evaporation and plant growth take place, has resulted in excessive
concentration of salts in these lands. The irrigated lands have been suffering from
continual depletion of production since the inception of the practice of irrigation
with these saline waters. Ifuch of this once highly productive irrigated land is
now practically worthless for agricultural purposes.
TJHSREAS: The waters from the Colorado river drainage are of inestimable value and
the quality is critical for domestic requirements.
THEREFORE EE IT RESOLVED: That the first effort in improving the quality of the
Colorado river water should be the recovering of the federal public land watershed
with a suitable vegetative cover. The first requirement for this must be the
COUPLETS REMOVAL OF THE ORIGINAL CAUSE - THE DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK. Removal is a
necessity because the present condition of the lands demonstrate the incapacity of
the livestock users - or the government agencies - to adequately protect the federal
public lands. No other program can be administered or expected to be satisfactory.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the highly expensive program of desalination by arti-
ficial means, such as by desalination machinery, be delayed until the full effects
of natural vegetative recovery has had an opportunity to demonstrate its value.
Tffi IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That specific sources, such as flowing wells, be plugged.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That present saline levels in the Colorado River watershed
have become so high as to require IlSfEDIATE ACTION to protect the national health,
safety and wellbeing of the citizens.
This resolution regularly adopted at a meeting of the Nationa
Land Users at Grand Junction, Colorado, February 8, 1972
Attest:
Tnrt.AjjuuJ.es
-------
: . 1111
Dr. H. K. Qashu
MR. STEIN: May we have Dr. H. K. Qashu of the Uni-
versity of Arizona.
HASAN K. QASHU, PH.D.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES
UNIVERSITY OP ARIZONA
TUCSON, ARIZONA
DR. QASHU: Mr. Chairman.
I would like to make a comment, two comments, and
they will be short. Cue on the work being done at this time
concerning water and salt movement in soil. There is a working
model. John Maletic of the Bureau of Reclamation has it. It
was developed Jointly by the University of Arizona in Tucson
and the University of California at Davis, and if you people
are interested in it» I am sure John will make it available for
you. It considers both salt and water movement in soil.
We have a project funded by the Office of Water
Resources Research at the University of Arizona to look at some
of the predictive possibilities, given certain soil conditions
and certain water quality, how in irrigated agriculture—what to
expect in seepage or water flow below the root zones and a
three-dimensional type of a model, how does the water and
salt flow below the root zone. And this is a 2-year project
-------
. 1112
Dr. H. K. Qashu
which started, oh, less than a year ago and will not be com-
pleted until next year.
There is to me one important point I think the con-
ference should consider and that is the same point, really, that
has been emphasized before. That is the need for one agency to
be responsible for planning of the Colorado River Basin, not
only planning action programs but also research. There are a
lot of resources at institutions in the region that can be used
by action agencies, but I think a lot of the duplication can be
avoided if the research is directed by one agency and towards
satisfying one purpose.
I will have one more comment to make. We have an
active program with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation on Lake
Mead which is for developing a model on salinity, trace minerals
and biological productivity of the lake. Unfortunately, the
report on it will not be available until about June^ and it will
be released by the Bureau of Reclamation. That was a 2-year
study that will be completed this summer.
Mr. Everett, who will follow me, will give you some
information, preliminary information, what we have found.
Mr. Stein made a statement this morning, "We would
like to know how can we know when to blow the whistle." EPA
has done excellent--
-------
• 1113
Dr. H. K. Qashu
MR. STEIN: That was a question, not a statement.
DR. QASHU: Yes. Well, he asked the question and I
really would like to address myself to that question because
it is a very important one, when to blow the whistle. Because
you are talking there about predictability. I mean to know when
to blow the whistle, that means you are predicting there is a
change going to occur in the system. And whenever we are pre-
dicting anything there is uncertainty or .risk. If we have data
we have a risk, if we don't have data we have uncertainty.
And that would bring us to the range of predictability
how good is that—what is that predictability based on. If you
have good data, good basic information, you will be able to do
something with certainty; you will be able to say this is going
to happen. But if you don't have that, it is like the economic
model you have on page 31 of the Summary Report of the EPA.
Some of these cost values you have, if you put confidence
limits on these values, I assure you they will extend from
minus to probably $100 million or more. So the results could
be misleading.
EPA has done an excellent job, I feel, in putting the
reports together and no doubt the scientific curiosity of us
by the reports will result in some effort which will have some
impact on the salinity control of the lower Colorado River
-------
Dr. H. K. Qashu
studies or both, total basin, really, go on up. Although I
disagree with some of the conclusions, the research team did a
good Job, and I do regret the fact that the people who did the
Job were moved from research to enforcement. As a matter of
fact, I would like to suggest to the Chairman to run an impact
study on what happens when you transfer people from research
to enforcement in EPA. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: I don't know what you-- Let me indicate
something to you here, and this should be brought out.
Since the first days of the conference, this whole
Colorado study and the information you got was financed by
enforcement money out of the budget. And we didn't trans-
fer anyone. Our largest single item was for studies, and
we financed this for many years at the rate of three-quarters
of a million, $750,000 a year.
So I think the professors really should look at
this if you want to know where the money is coming from.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you. (Laughter.)
DR. QASHU: No, no, no, I am not. I think you mis-
understood my comment, Mr. Stein. What I was saying, we had a
crew in Denver that was familiar with the institutions in
research and they were really—this applies to Bill Blackman,
it applies to Jim Russell and all of them who were involved in
-------
1115
Dr. K. H. Qashu
research with universities.
MR. STEIN: Right, but where do you think their
money came from, Professor? That was enforcement money getting
those wonderful researchers out to see you.
Again I say, why don't you see how benign we are and
how we are helping you out?
DR. QASHU: Well, maybe there is a misunderstanding
there. I don't like to stretch it too much.
I believe in all the answers and the discussion we
have here there is one important point that has not been dis-
cussed and in the 2 days we have failed to discuss it and
that is the interaction between salinity, sediments, biological
components, and the use of water, that is in situ use of water.
I feel there.should be a full consideration given to
the ionic species components of salinity when we are talking
about salinity because, Just to illustrate the point here,
salinity of, say, X number of ppm as reported in the reports
may generate a different loss function if you will try to
develop an economic model than a salinity half that amount or
double that amount. What I am saying, if you have salinity of
600 ppm with a majority sodium you are going to have much more
harm than if you have 1,000 ppm with a majority of the ions
calcium. And this has not been brought out in the conference and
-------
1116
Dr. K. H. Qashu
this is one of the points which I would like to emphasize,
need of research to establish some kind of a range, what is
acceptable for what use. And that is why I feel very strongly
against a number just pulled from the hat and establishing a
standard by saying,"Well, it should not exceed 800 ppm or 600
ppm."
In conclusion I would like to say whoever is going
to blow the whistle has my sympathies unless the decision is
based on a debated resource plan and a supporting research
program to go with it.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
Ralph Esquerra.
RALPH ESQUERRA
CHAIRMAN
CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE
HAWTHORNE, CALIFORNIA
MR. ESQUERRA: The name is Ralph Esquerra.
I am the Chairman of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of
California. The Chemehuevi—
MR. STEIN: Why don't you spell that for us?
-------
1117
R. Esquerra
MR. ESQUERRA: Chemehuevl?
MR. STEIN: Yes. C-h-e-m-e-h-u-e-v-i. Right?
MR. ESQUERRA: Yes.
MR. STEIN: 0. K.
MR. ESQUERRA: The Chemehuevi Indian Reservation,
consisting of some 28,000 acres, is located along the western
shoreline of Lake Havasu some 30 miles south of Needles,
California. The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe is a member of the
/
newly-formed Federation of River Tribes of the Colorado River,
and I am here today to testify on behalf of this entity with
respect to the quality of- the waters of the Colorado River.
The tribes comprising this federation are the Colo-
rado River Indian tribes, Port Mohave Tribe, Quechan Tribe,
Cocopah Tribe, and the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe. Together
these tribes have adjudicated rights to approximately 1 million
acre-feet of water in the Colorado River. These rights are
decreed in the Supreme Court case of Arizona versus the State
of California.
The Federation of the River Tribes of the Colorado
River is deeply concerned about the quality of the waters com-
prising the Colorado River, In the words of the Supreme Court
respecting the tribes of the federation, "Colorado River Water
Is essential to the life of the Indian people." Life cannot
-------
: 1118
R. Esquerra
be sustained on the American Indian reservations in the Colorado
River Basin without good water from the Colorado River or its
tributaries.
In the process of reviewing the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency's Summary Report on the mineral quality problem
on the Colorado River Basin, we have concluded that the sur-
vival of our people is in jeopardy. The report clearly Indi-
cates that the salt concentrations in the lower Colorado River
have exceeded the set limits for municipal, industrial and j
agriculture uses. The report also indicates that the salinity
concentrations will become worse if current water diversion
plans are permitted to continue.
The Federation of the River Tribes firmly believes
that the mammoth Central Arizona Project is another step
toward increasing the salinity of the Colorado River and
accordingly respectfully requests that the Environmental
Protection Agency do everything within its power to halt the
construction of the Central Arizona Project and all other
authorized diversion projects until a definitive study can be
made relating to the effects that these particular projects
will have on the soil concentrations in the Colorado River.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you. Are there any comments or
-------
— 1119
R. Esquerra
questions?
Thank you very much, sir.
Do we have G. Bryant, Port Yuma Indian Reservation,
here?
G. Brown, Quechan Tribe?
Lome G. Everett of the University of Arizona?
LORNE G. EVERETT
DEPARTMENT OF HYDROLOGY
UNIVERSITY OP ARIZONA
TUCSON, ARIZONA
MR. EVERETT: Mr. Chairman, my name is Lome Gordon
Everett and I come to this meeting in the lowly capacity of a
graduate associate at the University of Arizona.
The single thrust of this rather spontaneous talk
will be to show the level of sophistication that exists today
in the relationship between salinity and biological primaries
in the lower Colorado River System. John has chosen to take
out of context some of the work that we have been doing on Lake
Mead under the cooperation of the Bureau of Reclamation over
the past 2 years. What we would like to do is illustrate how
we have quantitatively attempted to show the correlation between
the biological parameters and salinity.
-------
. : 1120
L. G. Everett
The map on the right-hand side here Illustrates the
sampling procedure that we established. We chose eight loca-
tions across Lake Mead. At these stations we decided to at
six times over the year, look at all of the biological parameters
as they existed in one State and correlate them with what we
felt was a complete analysis of chemical and hydrodynamic
parameters.
I have chosen to take the one parameter that we feel
is the most sensitive as a diagnostic indicator of the pollu-
tion in Lake Mead. We thought we would take that one indicator
and correlate it in a graphical way with salinity.
The bars that appear across the system are established
to represent the primary productivity as measured by Cl4
techniques. The green areas are accepted as the ppr rate,
primary productivity rate, accepted by Rodhe in Europe and Odum
in America. We can see that at no place in the system does
Lake Mead behave as an ollgotrophic lake.
Now, the purple area represents what we like to call
a mesotrophic lake. This is a situation in which because of
enrichment, be it natural or artificial, we are getting algal
growth rates that are indicators of problems. We can see by
looking at the large bars that the majority of the lake acts as
a raesetrophic lake. Don't let this be misleading. The tall
-------
1121
L. G. Everett
bars are representative of September values, which are the
highest growing rate. The small bars to the right of each of
the larger bars are indications of the winter conditions.
The first thing that we should notice is looking at
the right-hand side we see a large red bar appearing that there
is a high level of algal growth rate in the South Cove area
which is a response to nutrient influxes coming down through
the Grand Canyon. At this time we are not going to say whether
it is because of boat trips, whether it is because of watershed
effects. It can't be quantitatively determined. But six times
over the year we have determined that there is a high algal
growth rate at South Cove.
Following the red lines to the left of the graph,
we realize that there is a decrease in the ppr rate, a sig-
nificant decrease, indicating that the system is growing
towards better wafer quality conditions. As we come into the
Boulder Basin area, we quickly realize that we now have a
lake within a lake. A whole system behaves as a unit and not,
as has previously been assumed, that the Las Vegas Wash area
alone was the problem area. In fact we have shown that as you
approach Hoover Dam the problem increases.
So that I don't get myself into a corner with the
representation by these bars, we have distributed our parameter
-------
1122
L. G. Everett
with depth and that is the bar graph that you see below.
Now, if we are saying that salinity is in some
measure a reflection of water quality problems, we would
assume that by measuring salinity across the system we could
see the reflection in the algal growth rate. The green line
at the bottom of the chart indicates a passage of salinity
across Lake Mead. It is kind of turned up, unfortunately.
Perhaps I can bend it down.
It soon becomes obvious that as we go towards the
left we realize an Increase in the soluble salts. We also
realize a reduction in the primary productivity rate. If we
were quick to assume, we could say increased salinity results
in poor algal growth. We may say that In a couple of months,
but we won't say it at this stage.
As we go into Boulder Basin we see a drop in the
salinity and then a slight Increase again. So generally you
would say salinity doesn't materially increase coming across
this lake.
The question has been asked to explain the purple
part of the bar again. The purple bar represents the level of
primary productivity associated with a mesotrophlc lake, which
is a lake that is in transitory stage between poor nutrient
conditions and excessive nutrient conditions. It might be
-------
1123
L. G. Everett
described as the state of Lake Tahoe as it is now.
In any case, we soon realized that in the Boulder
Basin area there is a fantastic increase in primary productivity
that is not a function of the salinity that comes into the
system. So the first thing we have to conclude is that salinity
in no way as a gross lump parameter indicates primary productiv-
ity if we are going to say that primary productivity is an
indicator of water quality problems.
We did not choose to talk in terms of salinity. We
wanted to use the term at this talk. We would much rather have
broken it down to show the responses of calcium, sodium,
chloride, the breakdown of constituents that result in salinity
problems.
As a concluding remark, we would like to say that
until a functional relationship has been established between
biological processes and those elements that are being lumped
as salinity, I think we should hesitate on a control value.
Thank you.
MR.STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Everett.
Are there any comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much,
I believe Mr. Dibble has a comment.
Mr. Dibble.
-------
. 1124
General Discussion
MR. DIBBLE: Mr. Chairman, it was suggested that
I clarify one bit of conversation that went on this morning.
Mr. Kennedy when he was speaking, there were some
questions about the values at Parker Dam of water between those
that he was speaking of and those that EPA was using in some
of their testimony. And it was brought to my attention that these
differences were primarily because the two entities were using
a different method of calculating the total dissolved solids.
It is my understanding that EPA was using the filterable
residue method and Metropolitan Water District was using the
summer constituents method which automatically, particularly
with the higher concentrations, will give a different
value. So that there not be any misunderstanding of the
discussion this morning, I think part of the difference in
the figures was Just because they were obtained in a dif-
ferent way.
But going on a little further, I think that Illustrates
the fact that there is a problem in setting numbers and that is
making sure that the numbers are all consistent with each other,
and it seems to me that the conference might suggest that in
the Immediate future the various entities that are involved in
monitoring, such as EPA, the USGS, the Bureau of Reclamation
and other agencies, get together and try to standardize on the
-------
1125
General Discussion
the figures that they use so that in the future we are not
using apples and oranges in the same meeting.
MR. STEIN: I think that point is very well taken.
This is one we have arising repeatedly. If we are going to
use any kind of numbers, we just have to have the same method-
ology or else we are in trouble. And I think perhaps—well,
we of course will get together and we will have to work very
closely with the Department of the Interior on this.
These are all the people I have who indicated they
wish to speak. Is there anyone else who has anything to say?
Because I think this will conclude the public presentation,
and we will Just have findings and recommendations.
Hearing no one else, Mr. Thatcher has polled the
conferees. The consensus seems to be that we will reconvene
at 8:30 a.m. here tomorrow morning. I hope you all live as
clean as Mr. Thatcher, so we will be bright eyed and bushy
tailed when we get here.(Laughter.)
MR. THATCHER: I didn't say I wasn't going to go out
tonight.
MR. STEIN: I know, but you have got that wonderful
reserve. (Laughter.)
With that we will stand recessed until—
MR. THATCHER: Mr. Chairman.
-------
: 1126
General Discussion
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. THATCHER: I am not sure I heard you correctly.
You are not implying that the summary and conclusions would not
be a public presentation?
MR. STEIN: No, not at all.
MR. THATCHER: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: Absolutely not. Certainly not. I
thought I made this clear, this is open to the public. One
of our charms is that we are public. You may not like what
you see or what you hear, but at least you can form your own
conclusions as to whether we or anyone else are doing our
Job.
With that we will stand recessed until 8:30 tomorrow
morning.
(Whereupon, at 4:15 o'clock an adjournment was taken
until 8:30 o'clock, Thursday, February 17, 1972.)
-------
112?
MORNING SESSION
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1972
8:30 o'clock
MR. STEIN: The conference is reconvened.
The conferees will now go into executive session.
We will have the executive session across the hall. Just keep
working on your way toward the back. I would ask Just the
conferees to come because we are going to have such a large
group in there, and hopefully we should be out, optimistically,
in a half hour, possibly an hour, but we will let you know
when we will be out to make a statement.
...Executive Session...
(The conference reconvened at 9:30 o'clock.)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
I wish everyone would sit down.
We have discussed two main subjects at the con-
ference. One was the tailings pile problem dealing with the
uranium mills. As you recall, the problem of discharges from
these mills into the waters has largely been corrected in the
region and in the basin, and this has been one of the successes,
I think, of the conference and the States and the industries and
the AEC, But we still have this residual tailings pile problem
and the conferees are in unanimous agreement that a tailings
pile regulation comparable to that submitted to the conferees
-------
1128
Conclusions and Recommendations
shall be adopted and implemented by the Colorado River States
at the earliest practicable date but not later than July 1,
1973.
At this point I would like to call on Mr. Lynn
Thatcher of Utah for a statement of a resolution adopted by
the States on the salinity problem.
Mr. Thatcher.
MR. THATCHER: Mr. Chairman.
This is the resolution that was developed by the
conferees at this session and has been agreed to by the con-
ferees of all the seven States:
WHEREAS, 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 I960
under the authority of Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, in 1963 based upon recommendations of the
conferees, the project began detailed studies of the mineral
quality problem in the Colorado River Basin; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency trans-
mitted in April 1971 its draft report on "The Mineral Quality
-------
. 1129
Conclusions and Recommendations
Problem in the Colorado River Basin" to the conferees and water
resource agencies of the Colorado River Basin States for review
and comment; and
WHEREAS, all Colorado River Basin States reviewed
and commented on the draft report on the mineral quality
problem in the Colorado River Basin; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency has
revised its draft report and transmitted to the Colorado River
Basin States a final report dated 1971; and
WHEREAS, the said report constitutes a necessary
step toward the solution of the mineral quality problem of
the Colorado River system; and
WHEREAS, the States and Federal agencies have imple-
mented measures to control salinity of the Colorado River; and
WHEREAS, the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to
make, and has feasibility investigations under way, to deter-
mine additional measures to reduce the salinity of the waters
of the Colorado River under present and future conditions; and
WHEREAS, during 1971 the States of the Colorado River
Basin urged committees of Congress to appropriate funds to the
Bureau of Reclamation to accelerate feasibility investigations
of salinity control projects on the Colorado River; and
WHEREAS, additional funds were appropriated to the
-------
1130
Conclusions and Recommendations
Bureau of Reclamation for these feasibility studies; and
WHEREAS, in the interest of comity between the United
States and Mexico the State Department has given its support to
a baslnwide salinity control program:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the conferees of
California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming 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) in implementing the salinity policy objective
for the Colorado River system the salinity problem be treated
as a basinwide problem that needs to be solved to maintain
Lower Basin water salinity at or below present levels while
the ffpper Basin continues to develop its compact-apportioned
water, recognizing that salinity levels may rise until control
measures are made effective;
3) to guard against any rise in salinity the
Congress and the Administration be urged to accelerate the
entire salinity control program and, in particular, to augment
the P.Y. 1973 budgeted amount of $1,005,000; and
4) the Bureau of Reclamation have the primary
-------
1131
Conclusions and Recommendations
responsibility for investigating, planning, and implementing
the basinwide salinity control program in the Colorado River
system;
5) the Environmental Protection Agency continue its
support of the program by a) consulting with and advising the
Bureau of Reclamation, b) accelerating its ongoing data col-
lection and research efforts, and c) transferring funds to the
Bureau of Reclamation;
6) the Office of Saline Water contribute to the
program by assisting the Bureau of Reclamation as required to
appraise the practicability of applying desalting techniques;
and
7) the adoption of numerical criteria be deferred
until the potential effectiveness of Colorado River salinity
control measures is better known;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency be commended for performing the necessary
studies and completing the 1971 report on the Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River Basin; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution
be transmitted to the Secretary of State, Secretary of the
Interior, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Governors and Members of the Congress of the Colorado River
-------
. 1132
Conclusions and Recommendations
Basin States, the Commissioner of Reclamation, Director of the
Office of Saline Water and other interested entities.
That completes the Resolution, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments?
I would like to ask the Federal conferees. Mr.
O'Connell?
MR. O'CONNELL: Yes.
We have reviewed the Resolution of the States and
find that we do agree in general and in principle, if not with
some of the particular specifics of this unanimous position of
the seven States as described in the Resolution you just heard.
However, we believe that a more specific and detailed program
of action is called for to bring about the reduction of salinity
in the Colorado and to Implement some of these principles that
are enunciated in the Resolution.
We do not have at our disposal today all of the
specifics that we would need to identify this particular program
of action, but we expect to be with the Bureau of Reclamation
and get this information within the next 30 days while the
record is kept open, and after reviewing that come up with some
specifics of a program of action that we would hope would be
-------
1133
Conclusions and Recommendations
also agreed to by the States that would supplement this general
statement of principles with which, as I say, we are in general
if not specific agreement.
Would that be acceptable, Mr. Chairman?
MR. STEIN: Go on.
Mr. Dickstein.
MR. DICKSTEIN: I once again generally agree in prin-
ciple with the Resolution and concur with.all the comments made
by my fellow conferee, Mr. O'Connell.
MR. STEIN: Well, it is my understanding, then, that
the States unanimously have agreed on this Resolution. We have
previously stated that the record would remain open for 30 days,
at the request of various people. It is my further understand-
ing that the Bureau of Reclamation specifically will come up wit|h
a document or material in those 30 days which will include
proposals for specific reductions of salinity in the Colorado
River Basin, in the waters of the Colorado River, and these
will be couched in both tonnage or pounds removed and concentra-
tions or either/or, and it will contain proposed time schedules
and dates.
And I do think that essentially this is what a con-
ference is all about. The step is to get something cleaned up,
and to judge whether we are going to clean it up or not and put
-------
1134
Conclusions and Recommendations
everyone on the track, we have to have a time schedule to do the
job and have specifics to do the job, and our sister agency,
the Bureau of Reclamation, has agreed to come forward with this
all-important step in the next 30 days.
However,, given the importance of this problem, when
we get this material I would suggest that the Federal people,
where appropriate, meet with the Bureau and with other Federal
agencies to clarify any problems, if there are any problems
that may come up, on language or understanding. Also that we
get together with the State agencies, or the conferees do that,
to be certain there is particular communication. And that we
will call another session and reconvene this session of the
conference within a few weeks after the 30-day period to make
the announcement of the Federal position.
Now, I would expect at that time that the Federal con-
ferees would be prepared to come out with the Federal position
for this go-round or session of the conference, is that correct?
MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, we would be in a position to do
that.
MR. STEIN: All right.
With that, I think that probably winds up the con-
ference session. There are a couple of announcements I have
to make.
-------
—— — 1135
Conclusions and Recommendations
Are there any other comments?
MR. THATCHER: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. THATCHER: I have had some questions asked by
people who want to submit statements during the 30-day period.
What is the appropriate way to address these statements so
that they will know?
MR. STEIN: Send them to me as Chairman in Washing-
ton, because otherwise you are not going to get them in the
record as expeditiously. They will get in there, but it is
slower.
Let me again indicate. Obviously, we have a lot of
procedures like this, and we have a staff that works full time
on putting these documents together. If we get these additional
statements in headquarters, then we know what we have and can
get them in the record. They will be time stamped, and that
will be the most expeditious way to handle it.
MR. THATCHER: All right.
MR. TABOR: Mr. Chairman, although it is understood
among the conferees that we all agree with the statement that
was read by Mr. Thatcher, I think for the record there should
be a roll call of the States and have each member say that he
concurs with the statement as presented by Mr. Thatcher.
-------
1136
Conclusions and Recommendations
MR. STEIN: 0. K., we will do that. Let me go off
the record.
(Off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Let's have the roll call of the States.
Will you start?
MR..TABOR: Arizona yes.
MR. DIBBLE: California also concurs, Mr. Chairman.
I think while commenting, though, we should point out that this
is a big step forward in trying to protect and Improve the
quality of the Colorado River to have all the States and EPA
recognizing that we need a vastly accelerated salinity control
program, and personally I am glad to see the progress we have
made.
MR. ROZICH: Colorado concurs.
MR. WESTERGARD: Nevada concurs.
MR. WRIGHT: New Mexico concurs.
MR. THATCHER: Utah concurs.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wyoming concurs.
MR. STEIN: Well, I would like to again thank the
States and the other participants in the conference. I do think
that we really have achieved something here in, one, developing
record *fl setting forth the problems and coming up with what I
hope will be unanimous concerted action by the Federal Governmen
-------
: . 1137
Conclusions and Recommendations
and the State Agencies In dealing with this problem. And I
really want to say this because I think possibly this has been
one of the most significant achievements in water resource
development and water quality that we possibly have had in the
country, The reason for this is that obviously in a com-
plicated situation like this, as in many other situations in
our country, not everyone agrees with the same philosophic
principles or theories, and so forth and so on.
But the genius of our country is that in proceedings
of this type we can always work out a solution or a mode of
operation on a particular problem and go forward. And with
all the States involved here and the complicated issues of
water rights in this particular section of the country, the
fact that we were able to apply that typically American tech-
nique of coming forward with an accommodation and moving forward
to a solution I think is something that I would like to commend
the entire group on.
Before we recess—notice I am saying recess, because
He are going to have another session or the concluding session
part of this conference after the 30-day period—we will expect,
as I understand it, to have the press here at 10 o'clock. It hafs
keen our practice—and I think this has worked successfully in
the past—that we just recess the conference, and any of you who
-------
113 8
Conclusions and Recommendations
want to stay with the press, handle this in your own way and do
this individually. I think that has worked a lot better and
erases any possible inhibitions from anyone, because you are
not at the table any more and can say just what you want to say.
With that, if there is nothing more, again I would
like to thank you all.
The conference stands recessed until it is called j
i
again by the Chairman. j
(Whereupon, at 9:^5 o'clock, the seventh session of j
i
i
this conference was recessed until further notice.) |
-------
SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO
l^ater Conservancy District
1139
HONE 544-2040 • P.O. BOX 440
February 23, 1972
LEGAL AGENCY FOR
FRY-ARK
WATER PROJECT
905 HIWAY 50 WEST
PUEBLO, COLORADO 81002
Ir. Murray Stein, Chairman
Federal State Enforcement Conference
fcvironmental Protection Agency
Fashington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Stein:
lam sorry it was not possible for a representative from the Southeastern Colorado
Fater Conservancy District to appear before your Conference in Las Vegas, February
15- 17, at which time you thoroughly researched the subject "The Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River Basin".
Oar Conservancy District does have a very keen interest in the work you and your assoc-
ates are doing in the study of salinity conditions on the Colorado River, and we respect-
Illy request permission to have the enclosed Statement made a part of your Conference
Eeport. We stand ready to gather additional and more specific data upon your request,
md should you elect to hold further Hearings, we would like very much to be in attend-
ee.
?ery sincerely,
Charles L. Thomson
General Manager
CLT/mb
cc: Honorable John A. Love, Governor, State of Colorado
Honorable Gordon Allott, United States Senator
Honorable Peter H. Dominick, United States Senator
Honorable Wayne Aspinall, United States Representative
Honorable Frank E. Evans, United States Representative
Honorable Donald Brotzman, United States Representative
Honorable Mike McKevitt, United States Representative
Board of Directors, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
tuclosure
-------
1140
POLICY STATEMENT
SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER
CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
ON
"THE MINERAL QUALITY PROBLEM IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN"
The Board of Directors of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
a legal agency in the State of Colorado, established April 29, 1958, under Section 150-
5-1, Article 5, WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICTS - CRS 1963, voted unanimously on
Thursday, February 17, 1972, that the following be submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency for consideration as a part of the Testimony taken at the Public Hear-
ing in Las Vegas, Nevada, February 15-17, 1972, regarding "The Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River Basin". The District is the holder of conditional water
decrees on the Colorado River, as a part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, now under
construction by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and, consequently, the District has a
vital interest in the final results of efforts to establish Salinity Standards on the Colorado
River.
The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was authorized by an Act of Congress, approved
August 16, 1962, (76 Stat. 389). The Public Works proposed to be constructed are set
forth in House Document 187, 83rd Congress, modified as proposed in the September
1959 Report of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation entitled "Ruedi Dam and Reservoir,
Colorado", House Document 353, 86th Congress, 2nd Session. Initial construction on
the Project began July 15, 1964, and as of February 1, 1972, the Project was 36%
-------
xjmplete. President Richard M. Nixon has recommended a budget for FY 1973 of
(38, 515, 000. 00 for continued construction, and the awarding of two new contracts.
Representatives from the District participated in the drafting of Statements submit-
ted at the Las Vegas Hearing by the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, the
Seven Colorado River Basin States and the State of Colorado, and we endorse the recom-
mendations offered for consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency. We know
each of the above mentioned Statements reflect the sincere and expert opinion of those
iho will be affected by such Standards as may be promulgated.
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is in the unique position of
being a holder of conditional decrees on the Colorado River, and, at the same time is an
integral part of the Arkansas River Basin. We, therefore, carry additional responsibil-
ities over and above others who participated in the Las Vegas Hearings. Three years
igo the Honorable John A. Love, Governor, State of Colorado, appointed four represent-
atives from the District, and the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Re-
sources for the State, to represent Colorado on the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee. This Committee consists of five appointees from each of the States served
tythe Arkansas River, namely, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado, and has the
responsibility of studying the Arkansas River from its origin in our District in Colorado,
to its confluence with the Mississippi River. Consequently, we are aware of Salinity
Studies which the Environmental Protection Agency has conducted in the Arkansas and
Bed River Basins; the United States Bureau of Reclamation in the Colorado River Basin;
ffld by the Office of Saline Water in the Arkansas River Basin in Colorado, and the Pacific
Coast; and do recommend that all data and conclusions developed in said Studies be made
-2-
-------
an integral part of such Standards as may be established for the Colorado River Basin.
We sincerely urge that consideration be given to the fact economies have been
established in both the Colorado and Arkansas River Basins, predicated upon water sup-
plies available, and respectfully suggest that final Standards be set to not reduce the
absolute need for use and successive use of the waters historically and beneficially used.
We recognize that, thanks to Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency,
technology to relieve salinity problems from successive uses of water has accelerated at
a rapid rate, in order that the problem can be arrested. Such technology, however, has
not brought complete solutions at this time, and the expensive equipment is still almost
prohibitive to existing water users in each Basin. We also urge that careful considera-
tion be given to the natural causes of salinity when considering technology to resolve the
total problem. It is essential, therefore, that Federal funds be made available to meet
such Standards as may hereafter be established by the Environmental Protection Agency.
This is in conformity with legislation now pending before Committees of Congress of the
United States.
The District strongly endorses those particular sections of the CACI and Colorado
River Basin Statements, calling attention to the fact salinity problems on the Colorado
River are of Interstate and International character, and, consequently, the solutions are
properly a responsibility of the United States. Federal funds for equipment, operation
and maintenance to resolve the problem should be made available when Standards are
established. We highly commend the Environmental Protection Agency for the procedure
being followed to research this complex Nationwide program, and offer the services of
our District in arriving at a fair and equitable solution in the public interest.
-3-
-------
QUALITY OF WATER
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
PROGRESS REPORT No. 5
JANUARY 1971
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
JAN 1 2 1971
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Transmitted herewith is the biennial report (Progress Report
No. 5 dated January 1971) on continuing studies of the
Quality of water of the Colorado River Basin. The report
is transmitted pursuant to Section 15 of the Act of April 11,
1956 (70 Stat. 105), authorizing the Colorado River Storage
Project and Participating Projects; Section 15 of the Act
of June 13, 1962 (76 Stat. 96), authorizing the Navajo Indian
Irrigation Project and the initial stage of the San Juan-Chama
Reclamation Project; and Section 6 of the Act of August 16,
1962 (76 Stat. 102), authorizing the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
Sincerely yours,
Assist
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Enclosure
retary of the Interior
IDENTICAL LETTER TO:
Hon. Spiro Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
-------
QUALITY OF WATER
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
PROGRESS REPORT No. 5
JANUARY 1971
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
CONTENTS
Summary 1
Part I Introduction 3
A. Legislative requirements for report 3
B. Previous reports 3
C. Cooperation k
D. Scope 5
E. Water quality legislation 5
Part II Description of Basin 7
A. Geology 7
B. Soils 8
C. Climate 9
D. Vegetation 9
E. Hydrology 10
Part III History of water resource development 12
A. Irrigation Development 12
B. Streamflow depletions 12
C. Legal Aspects 13
1. Colorado River Compact 13
2. Mexican Treaty ik
3. Upper Colorado River Basin Compact ~Lk
k-. Arizona vs. California suit in the
Supreme Court.' 14
5. Colorado River Basin Project Act 15
D. Economic conditions 16
Part IV Basic studies 17
A. Study objectives 17
B. Effects of impoundments 17
1. Flaming Gorge Reservoir 17
Quality of water in the reservoir .... 17
Quality of inflow waters 20
Effects of closure on the Green River
at Greendale 21
2. Lake Powell 21
Quality of water in reservoirs 21
Effects of closure on the Colorado
River at Lees Ferry • 2*4-
3. Lake Mead 27
C. Lower Colorado River salinity investigations . . 27
D. Natural sources of salinity 28
1. Diffused sources 28
2. Contribution of salts to the river sys-
tem by springs and tributaries 29
Paria River * 29
Little Colorado River 32
Bright Angel Creek 32
Tapeats Creek 32
Kanab Creek 33
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Part IV Basic studies (continued)
D. Natural sources of salinity (continued)
2. Contribution of salts to the river system
by springs and tributaries (continued)
Havasu Creek 33
Other tributaries between Glen Canyon
and Lake Mead 33
Virgin River 33
Summary of contribution by springs and
tributaries below Glen Canyon Dam. ... 34
E. Agricultural sources of salinity 35
1. Florida Project 36
2. Vernal Area 37
3. Eden Project 38
4. Other studies 38
F. Municipal and industrial sources of salinity . . 39
G. Summary of sources of salinity 39
Part V Evaluations of existing salinity conditions 4l
A. Quality of water stations 4l
1. Key stations with complete records 4l
2. Key stations with partial records 4l
Green River near Green River, Wyo 4l
Green River near Greendale, Utah 43
Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah. ... 43
San Rafael River near Green River, Utah . 43
San Jaun River near Archuleta, N. Mex.. . 43
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. ... 43
Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Ariz. . 43
Virgin River at Littlefield, Ariz 43
Colorado River below Hoover Dam,
Arizona-Nevada 4-3
Colorado River below Parker Dam,
Arizona-California 44
Colorado River at Imperial Dam,
Arizona-California 44
3. Other quality of water stations 44
B. Methods of chemical analyses 44
C. Historic mineral quality 45
1. Total dissolved-solids concentrations ... 45
2. Ionic loads 46
D. Present modified condition 48
1. Glen Canyon Unit 49
2. Flaming Gorge Unit 49
3. Navajo Unit 49
4. Curecanti Unit 50
5- Fontenelle Reservoir 50
ii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Part VI Anticipated effects of additional developments. ... 51
A. Description of projects 51
1. Above Green River near Green River, Wyo.. . 51
Seedskadee Project 51
Industrial developments in south-
western Wyoming 52
2. Between Green River near Green River, Wyo.,
and Green River near Greendale, Utah ... 52
Lyman Project 52
Utah Power & Light Co. and others .... 52
3. Above Duchesne River near Randlett 53
Central Utah Project (Bonneville Unit). . 53
Central Utah Project (Upalco Unit). ... 53
Central Utah Project (Uintah Unit). ... 53
U. Between Green River near Greendale,
Duchesne River near Randlett, and
Green River at Green River, Utah 53
Four County, Colorado 53
Hayden Steamplant 53
Cheyenne, Wyoming ... 5^
Savery-Pot Hook Project, Colorado-
Wyoming 5^
Central Utah Project (Jensen Unit). ... 5^
5. Above San Rafael River near Green River,
Utah 5^
6. Above Colorado River near Glenwood Springs. 5k
Denver, Englewood, Colorado Springs,
and Pueblo, Colorado 5^
M&I—Green Mountain 55
Homestake Project, Colorado 55
7. Between Colorado River near Glenwood
Springs and Colorado River near Cameo. . . 55
Independence Pass Expansion 55
Fryingpan-Aarkansas Project 55
M&I--Ruedi Reservoir, Colorado 55
West Divide Project, Colorado 55
8. Above Gunnison River near Grand Junction. . 56
Fruitland Mesa Project, Colorado 56
Bostwick Park Project, Colorado 56
Dallas Creek Project, Colorado 56
9. Between Colorado River near Cameo,
Gunnison River near Grand Junction,
and Colorado River near Cisco, Utah. ... 57
Dolores Project, Colorado 57
San Miguel Project, Colorado 57
10. Above San Juan River near Archuleta .... 57
San Juan-Chama Project 57
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project 57
111
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Part VI Anticipated effects of additional developments
(continued)
A. Description of projects (continued)
11. Between San Juan River near Archuleta
and San Juan River near Bluff 58
Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado-
New Mexico 58
Expansion Hogback 5$
Utah Construction Company 59
12. Between Green River at Green River, Utah,
San Rafael River near Green River, Utah,
Colorado River near Cisco, San Juan River
near Bluff, and Colorado River 59
Resources, Incorporated, Utah 59
M&I in Arizona 59
13. Above the Virgin River at Littlefield,
Arizona 59
Dixie Project, Utah 59
14. Between the Colorado River at Lees Ferry,
Virgin River at Littlefield, and Colo-
rado River below Hoover Dam 60
Southern Nevada Water project, Nevada. . 60
15. Between Colorado River below Hoover Dam
and Colorado River at Imperial Dam. .... 6l
Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 6l
Chemehuevi Indian Reservation 6l
Central Arizona Project 62
Contracts—Boulder Canyon Project. ... 62
Lower Colorado River Indian Reservation. 63
Lower Colorado River Channelization
Project, Arizona-California 63
Part VII Effects of salinity on water use 65
A. In-stream use. 65
B. Irrigation use 65
C. Industrial use 66
D. Domestic use 6?
Part VIII The potential for salinity control . 68
A. Technical possibilities for salinity control . . 68
B. Feasibility of salinity control 68
C. Salinity control investigations 70
1. Cooperative salinity control reconnais-
sance study 70
2. Grand Valley salinity control demon-
stration project 71
3. Other related investigations 72
D. Completed salinity control projects. ...... 72
Part IX Other water quality aspects 7^
A. Source of water quality degradation 7^
1. Municipal wastes 7^
IV
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Part IX Other water quality aspects (continued)
A. Source of water quality degradation (continued)
2. Industrial wastes ..... . ....... 7^
3. Sediment. ............. .... 75
k. Agricultural wastes ............ 77
5. Mine drainage ............... 77
B. Water quality parameters other than salinity
and sediment .................. 79
1. Dissolved oxygen .............. 79
2. Temperature ................ 79
3. pH ..................... 80
k. Heavy metals ................ 80
5. Toxic materials .............. 80
6. Nutrients ................. 80
7. Bacteria .................. 8l
8. Radioactivity ............... 82
Part X Conclusions ..................... 83
-------
TABLES
Page
A. Mineral and saline springs, Upper Colorado River Basin. ... 30
B. Mineral and saline wells, Upper Colorado River Basin 31
C. Contribution from major springs and tributaries "between
Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams 3^-
D. Technical possibilities for salinity control 69
E. Mine drainage sources and effects in the Colorado River ... 78
Number
1 Flow and quality of water data, Green River near Green
River, Wyoming 85
2 Flow and quality of water data, Green River near Green-
dale, Utah 88
3 Flow and quality of water data, Duchesne River near
Randlett, Utah 91
U Flow and quality of water data, Green River at Green
River, Utah 9^
5 Flow and quality of water data, San Rafael River near
Green River, Utah 97
6 Flow and quality of water data, Colorado River near
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 100
7 Flow and quality of water data, Colorado River near
Cameo, Colorado 103
8 Flow and quality of water data, Gunnison River near
Grand Junction, Colorado 106
9 Flow and quality of water data, Colorado River near
Cisco, Utah 109
10 Flow and quality of water data, San Juan River near
Archuleta, New Mexico 112
11 Flow and quality of water data, San Juan River near
Bluff, Utah 115
12 Flow and quality of water data, Colorado River at
Lees Ferry, Arizona
13 Flow and quality of water data, Colorado River near
Grand Canyon, Arizona 121
lU Flow and quality of water data, Virgin River at
Littlefield, Arizona
15 Flow and quality of water data, Colorado River below
Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada 127
16 Flow and quality of water data, Colorado River below
Parker Dam, Arizona-California 130
17 Flow and quality of water data, Colorado River at
Imperial Dam, Arizona-California 133
18 Summary of anticipated effects of additional develop-
ments on quality of water at eighteen stations 136
19 Projects depleting Colorado River water 137
20 Annual summary—dissolved constituent loads, Green
River at Green River, Utah 138
vi
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
21 Annual summary--dissolved constituent loads, Colo-
rado River near Cisco, Utah 138
22 Annual summary—dissolved constituent loads, San
Juan River near Bluff, Utah . . ' 139
23 Annual summary—dissolved constituent loads, Colo-
rado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona 139
2k- Annual summary--dissolved constituent loads, Colo-
rado River below Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada 1*40
25 Annual summary—dissolved constituent loads, Colo-
rado River at Imperial Dam, Arizona-California lUO
26 Temperature of water, Green River near Green River,
Wyoming 1*4-1
27 Temperature of water, Green River near Greendale, Utah. . 1*4-1
28 Temperature of water, Green River at Green River, Utah. . 1*4-2
29 Temperature of water, Colorado River near Glenwood
Springs, Colorado 1*4-2
30 Temperature of water, Colorado River "below Colorado-
Utah State Line 1*4-2
31 Temperature of water, San Juan River near Archuleta,
New Mexico 1*4-3
32 Temperature of water, San Juan River near Bluff, Utah . . 1*43
33 Temperature of water, Colorado River at Lees Ferry,
Arizona l*4-*4-
3*4- Temperature of water, Colorado River near Grand Canyon,
Arizona lU*4-
35 Temperature of water, Virgin River at Littlefield,
Arizona 1*4-5
36 Temperature of water, Colorado River below Hoover Dam,
Arizona-Nevada 1*4-5
37 Temperature of water, Colorado River below Parker Dam,
Arizona-California 1*4-6
38 Temperature of water, Colorado River at Imperial Dam,
Arizona-California 1*4-6
39 Historical flow and sedimentation data—Green River
near Jensen, Utah 1*4-7
*4Q Historical flow and sedimentation data—Green River
at Green River, Utah 1*4-8
*4-l Historical flow and sedimentation data--Colorado
River near Cisco, Utah 150
*4-2 Historical flow and sedimentation data--San Juan
River near Bluff, Utah 152
*4-3 Historical flow and sedimentation data--Colorado
River at Lees Ferry, Arizona
*4-*4- Historical flow and sedimentation data--Colorado
River near Grand Canyon, Arizona 155
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Quality of water map, Colorado River Basin Frontispiece
2 Flaming Gorge salinity, October 1966 18
3 Flaming Gorge salinity, September 1967
and September 1968 19
k Lake Powell salinity, January and May 1968 22
5 Lake Powell salinity, July and October 1968 23
6 Relation between annual average streamflow and
dissolved solids-concentration, 19^1-68, Colo-
rado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona 25
7 Flow and quality of water records, 1941-68 k2
8 Weighted average dissolved-solids concentrations,
Colorado River below Lees Ferry, Arizona Vf
9 -Colorado River at Lees Ferry--sediment and water flow . . j6
viii
-------
QUALITY OF WATER
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
PROGRESS REPORT
SUMMARY
This report presents the past, the present modified, and the future
quality of water of the Colorado River down to Imperial Dam. The past
is represented by a tabulation of the recorded or estimated historic con-
dition at 17 quality of water stations for the 19^1-68 period. The pres-
ent modified condition includes adjustments of the historic condition
based on the assumption that new developments completed during the 19^1-68
period were in operation for the full period. The' future quality condi-
tion is an estimate of the situation after the p .-esently authorized de-
velopments and some projects proposed for authoiization are placed in
operation. These effects are primarily related to mineral quality al-
though other quality factors are discussed in the report.
Studies of chemical trends indicate that under historic conditions
the average concentration of dissolved solids of the Colorado River at
Lees Ferry had about 0-75 "ton per acre-foot, below Hoover Dam about 0.9^4-
ton per acre-foot, and at Imperial Dam about 1.02 tons per acre-foot for
the 1941-68 period.
Under present modified conditions (-that is assuming that the re-
cently constructed projects were in operation for the entire period) the
concentrations would have been about O.Qk, 1.03, and 1.18 tons per acre-
foot, respectively, at the three stations.
It has been assumed for purposes of this study that the rate of
pickup of dissolved solids from new irrigated lands would vary from zero
to 2 tons per acre. It was also assumed no additional pickup of dissolved
solids would occur for lands already under irrigation.
Under future conditions, assuming negligible salinity control meas-
ures, with all authorized projects and projects proposed for authorization
in operation and with an assumed pickup of 2 tons per acre on the new
irrigated lands, the concentrations are estimated to be 1.09 tons per
acre-foot at Lees Ferry, 1.38 tons per acre-foot below Hoover Dam, and
1.70 tons per acre-foot at Imperial Dam.
The depletions used in this report for the projects, both authorized
and proposed for authorization together with present developments and
other proposals, are estimated to be the ultimate depletions for the de-
velopments listed. Other developments, as yet not identifiable, are
expected to occur which will.reduce the quantities of water shown for
the various stations and cause some changes in concentrations from
those indicated in this report.
-------
SUMMARY
This report also includes discussions of the effects of salinity
on water uses and potentials for salinity control measures within the
basin.
Other water quality aspects including sources of pollution and para-
meters other than salinity are discussed. These parameters include sedi-
ment, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, heavy metals, toxic materials,
nutrients, bacteria, and radioactivity.
-------
PART I. INTRODUCTION
A. Legislative Requirements for Report
This is the fifth progress report on Quality of Water in the Colo-
rado River Basin. The directive for preparing this and the four previ-
ous reports is contained in three separate public laws. Section 15 of
the authorizing legislation for the Colorado River Storage Project and
participating projects, Public Law 485, 84th Congress, Second Session,
April 11, 1956, states, "The Secretary of the Interior is directed to
continue studies and make a report to the Congress and to the States of
the Colorado River Basin on the quality of water of the Colorado River."
A progress report to comply with Public Law 84-485 was in prepara-
tion when the authorizing legislation for the San Juan-Chama Project and
the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (P.L. 87-483) became effective on
June 13, 1962. Section 15 of this act states, "The Secretary of the In-
terior is directed to continue his studies of the quality of water of
the Colorado River system, to appraise its suitability for municipal,
domestic, and industrial use and for irrigation in the various areas in
the United States in which it is used or proposed to be used, to esti-
mate the effect of additional developments involving its storage and
use (whether heretofore authorized or contemplated for authorization)
on the remaining water available for use in the United States, to study
all possible means of improving the quality of such water and of allevi-
ating the ill effects of water of poor quality, and to report the results
of his studies and estimates to the Eighty-Seventh Congress and every
two years thereafter."
A few weeks later Public Law 590, 8jth Congress, Second Session,
which authorized the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, was passed with a sim-
ilar section pertaining to quality of water reports. This public law,
however, stipulated that January 3, 19o3, would be the submission date
for the initial report and that the reports should be submitted every
2 years thereafter.
B. Previous Reports
The January 1963 report prepared by the Department of the Interior
was comprised of two parts: (l) an assessment of the water quality sit-
uation in the part of the Colorado River Basin above Lee Ferry, Arizona,
as of 1957, prepared by the Geological Survey; and (2) a projection of
the water quality effects to be expected from additional developments
that involve storage and irrigation use of river waters above Lee Ferry
by the Bureau of Reclamation.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The January 1965 report appraised the water quality conditions in
the Colorado River Basin above Imperial Dam using the period 19^1-6l as
a base and included data from two points not considered in the 1963 re-
port. The 1967 report included 3 additional years of record and included
suspended sediment data for six stations.
Changes made in the January 1969 Progress Report included (l) con-
sideration of the Hammond Project under present modified conditions,
(2) an average of about 9*000 acre-feet of water now being used by
Cheyenne, Wyoming, (3) the addition of another key station, Colorado
River near Glenwood Springs, (^) the net future effects of Upper Colo-
rado River Storage Unit operations being limited to evaporation only,
(5) elimination of the Marble Canyon Project, (6) addition of the Cen-
tral Arizona Project by pumping, (7) addition of the Fort Mohave and
Chemehuevi Indian lands, and (8) addition of the Colorado River Indian
Project. Other additions included 2 more years of record through 1966,
discussions of state water qoality standards, industrial wastes, munic-
ipal problems, temperature data, and salinity control.
Following, in addition to including 2 more years of record, are
changes which have occurred since completion of the January 1969 report
and which are incorporated in this report: (l) showing present modi-
fied flows and corresponding dissolved solids only on a mean annual ba-
sis (19^1-63) rather than on a year-by-year, month-by-month basis;
(2) eliminating the Green River near Ouray, Utah, station; (3) consid-
ering Silt and Emery County Projects as existing rather than future
projects; (U) including estimated average reservoir evaporation losses
not reflected in historic records as a part of present modified flows;
(5) showing only "Historical, Present Modified, and Fature" conditions
on the Summary Table No. l8 ; and (6) addition of discussions of agri-
cultural wastes, mine drainage, dissolved oxygen, pH, toxic materials
including pesticides, heavy metals, nutrients, and radioactivity.
In order to keep each report self-contained, it has been neces-
sary to include some of the text material and tables from these previ-
ous reports in this fifth progress report dated January 1971•
C. Cooperation
This report was prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation with assist-
ance of the Geological Survey and Federal Water Quality Administration.
The Geological Survey provided most of the basic data and prepared some
of the sections of "Basic Studies." A continuing cooperative program
between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Survey for the collection of
streamflow quality data and the exchange of information has been in ef-
fect for a number of years. This cooperation provides for the collec-
tion of data at stations other than those normally maintained by the
Survey. The Federal Water Quality Administration who collects samples
-------
INTRODUCTION
where needed in areas not covered by the Geological Survey or Bureau of
Reclamation has also participated extensively in preparing this report.
Data collected "by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
have also "been included in this report.
Below Hoover Dam, water quality along the main stem of the river is
determined by analyzing daily samples taken at key stations. Data ob-
tained above each project diversion and below the return flow from each
project show the effect of irrigation on water quality in each section
of the river. Data are obtained periodically at various points along
the river and in drains in cooperation with the Geological Survey, the
Colorado River Indian Agency, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, the Imperial Irrigation District, and others.
D. Scope
This report presents data concerning (l) the historical quantity and
quality of the flows of the Colorado River and its principal tributaries
for the 19^1-68 period; (2) an evaluation of historical conditions modi-
fied to reflect present development; and (3) a projection of the range of
salinity conditions resulting from future development at 17 selected sta-
tions in the basin. The potential for salinity control and the current
status of salinity control activities are also discussed. A section of
the report is devoted to water quality parameters other than salinity.
E. Water Quality Legislation
In addition to the legislative requirements previously discussed for
studies of water quality in the Colorado River Basin, other legislation
authorizes the Secretary of the Inferior to conduct various activities
directed toward the protection and enhancement of water qaality.
The Federal Water Pollution Act, P.L. 8^-660, as amended (P.L. 87-88,
P.L. 89-231*, P.L. 89-753, and F.L. 90-221*), established a national policy
of water quality enhancement throogh the prevention, control, and abate-
ment of water pollution. The Secretary is directed by the act to cooper-
ate with other Federal and State agencies as well as involve mu.iicipali-
ties and industries in the development of comprehensive programs aimed at
reducing the water qaality degradation in interstate streams and associ-
ated tributaries.
The Water Quality Act of 1965 amended the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to require the establishment of water qaality standards for
all interstate waters. Tnese standards were to consist of water qual-
ity criteria a.id a plan for implementation and enforcement of the cri-
teria. Establishment of such standards was thus required for the
Colorado River and its interstate tributaries.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Each of the seven Basin States proceeded with actions directed
toward establishment of standards for the Colorado River. Early in the
standards-setting process, it became apparent to the states that, be-
cause of legal and institutional constraints combined with lack of tech-
nical knowledge on salinity control and management, it would be very
difficult to establish numerical salinity standards which would be work-
able, equitable, and enforceable.
The seven Basin States subsequently developed water quality stan-
dards which did not include salinity standards and submitted these
standards to the Secretary for review and approval. Following a period
of review and negotiations with the states in an attempt to establish
suitable numerical salinity standards, former Secretary of the Interior
Stewart Udall reached a decision on approval of the proposed standards.,
In recognition of the problems associated with establishing numerical
standards, the Secretary approved the proposed standards with the under-
standing that suitable numerical criteria would be established by the
states at some future date when sufficient information on which to base
such criteria had been developed. The states have taken no further for-
mal action to establish numerical salinity standards. A number of the
investigations reported herein have been undertaken to improve the tech-
nical knowledge of salinity control and provide part of the basis on
which suitable standards could be established.
Beginning in I960 six of the seven states of the basin have met in
eight conferences to discuss water quality problems. Three of these
conferences have been of a technical nature dealing with specific pollu-
tion sources and problems. Initially, the conferences were primarily
concerned with pollution from radioactive sources, but from 1963 to the
present the emphasis has been directed more toward salinity problems of
the basin. Five of the conferences have considered this water quality
problem.
In the second technical conference in "February 196^ the state con-
ferees assigned the Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Project
of the U.S. Public Health Service in Denver, Colorado, the following
general objectives:
(l) Assess the nature and magnitude of the salinity problem in
the Colorado River system,
(2) Evaluate feasible methods of control and salt-load reduction
in the river, and
(3) Determine net basinwide economic benefits associated with
various levels of salinity control.
The Federal Water Quality Administration has concluded the studies begun
by the Public Health Service to meet these objectives.
-------
PART II. DESCRIPTION OF BASIN
A. Geology
The upper or northern portion of the Colorado River Basin in Wyoming
and Colorado is a mountainous plateau 5,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation
marked by broad, rolling valleys, deep canyons, and intersecting mountain
ranges. Hundreds of peaks in these mountain chains rise to more than
13,000 feet above sea level and many exceed 1^,000 feet in elevation.
Mountain lakes exist in considerable numbers. The southern portion of
the Upper Basin is studded with rugged mountain peaks interspersed with
broad, alluvial valleys and rolling plateaus. The main stream and its
tributaries in Colorado generally flow in deep mountain canyons. The
Green River, primary tributary of the Colorado River, flows in similar
canyons in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah after rising in the Wind River
Mountains. The San Juan River, a large tributary, emerges from the moun-
tains of southwestern Colorado, flows through northwestern New Mexico,
and then traverses the deep canyons of the San Juan in Utah before join-
ing the Colorado River in Glen Canyon. The "Glen Canyon section of the
main stream and tributaries lies almost entirely in deep canyons.
Rocks of all ages from those of the Archean age (the oldest known
geological period) to the recent alluvial deposits, including igneous,
sedimentary, and metamorphic types, are found in the Colorado River Ba-
sin. The high Rocky Mountains which dominate the topography of the
upper regions are composed of granites, schists, gneisses, lava, and
sharply folded sedimentary rocks of limestone, sandstone, and shale.
Many periods of deposition, erosion, and upheaval have played a part in
the present structure of these mountains.
In contrast to the folded rocks of the mountains which fringe the
basin, the plateau country of southwestern Wyoming, eastern Utah, and
northern Arizona is composed principally of horizontal strata of sedi-
mentary rocks. Slow but constant elevation of the land area has allowed
the Colorado River and its tributaries to cut narrow, deep canyons into
the flat-topped mesas. Tnis type of erosion reaches its culmination in
the Grand Canyon where the Colorado River has cut through all of the sed-
imentary rocks down to the oldest Archean granites.
The Lower Basin is characterized by broad, flat valleys separated
by low ranges. These valleys are filled by large accumulations of allu-
vial deposits.
Sediment removed by constant erosion of the upper areas was depos-
ited in Arizona, California, and Mexico and now forms the great delta of
the Colorado River.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF BASIN
Reservoirs constructed above Lee Ferry (Lake Powell, Flaming Gorge,
Fontenelle, Navajo, Morrow Point, and Blue Mesa), together with Lake
Mead downstream, have caused some major changes in stream .regimen:
(l) The stream channels inundated by these reservoirs will no longer
be subjected to natural stream erosion, (2) the accumulation of sediment
and water within the reservoirs slows the growth and flooding of the
Colorado River delta, (3) flooding has diminished in many areas, and
(4) sections of sediment-laden streams have given way to clear water
streams and lakes.
The mineral concentration in runoff increases from the headwater
areas downstream and occurs in relation to the geologic character of the
terrain across which the Colorado River and its tributaries flow. The
geologic formations that largely contribute to the mineral concentra-
tions in natural runoff are evaporites of Paleozoic age, shale of Cre-
taceous age, ani salt and gypsum of Tertiary age.
B. Soils
The soils of the Colorado River Basin closely resemble the geologic
formations of their origin. Only in limited areas at the higher eleva-
tions has the precipitation leached the soil mass of its soluble con-
stituents. Over most of the area both residual and transported soils
are basic in reaction and well supplied with carbonates with normal or
mature soils exhibiting a distinct horizon of carbonate accumulation.
The impress of soil-forming factors has resulted in the widespread de-
velopment of soils classified as members of the Gray-Desert Great Soil
Group. In areas with higher rainfall, soils of the Brown and Chestnut
Great Soil Groups have developed. Saline and alkali (sodic) soils occur
in many parts of the basin.
The residual soils comprise the larger area and are usually shallow
in depth over shale and sandstone of various ages. Many of the shales
are saline bat contain much gypsum as well as other chloride and sul-
phate salts. Some formations are high in sodium chloride and some have
sodium carbonate or bicarbonate strata. Very few residual soil areas
are suitable for irrigation development.
The alluvial materials are extremely variable and range from allu-
vial fans and terraces, outwash plains, to lacustrine sediments. Some
areas have soils from material transported only short distances and re-
semble the original materials. Other areas have soils which have been
transported and mixed extremely well. Most of the agricultural areas
are on these well-mixed alluviums and, therefore, the soils are quite
variable.
Extensive areas of Eolian deposits occur in parts of the basin,
principally in southwestern Colorado. The uniformly textured soils
8
-------
DESCRIPTION OF BASIN
are reddish "brown in color and have no resemblance to either the under-
lying formations or adjacent areas. These are excellent agricultural
soils, but in many areas topography makes agriculture difficult.
C. Climate
The Colorado River Basin has climatic extremes, ranging between
year-round snow cover and heavy precipitation on ths high peaks of the
Rocky Mountains to desert conditions with very little rain in the south-
ern part of the basin. This wide range of climate is caused by differ-
ences in altitude, latitude, and by the configuration of the high moan-
tain ranges. Th5 encircling mountain ranges obstruct a.id deflect the
air masses to such an extent that storm patterns are more erratic than
in most other parts of the United States. Most of the moisture for pre-
cipitation on the Upper Basin is derived from the Pacific Ocean and ths
Gulf of Mexico. The Pacific source predominates generally from October
through April and the Gulf source during the late spring and early
summer.
In the northern part of the basin most precipitation falls in the
form of winter snows and spring rains. Summer storms are infrequent
but are sometimes of cloudburst intensity in localized areas. In the
more arid southern portion the principal rainy season is in the winter
months with occasional localized cloudbursts in the summer and fall.
Extremes of temperature in the basin range from 50° F. below zero to
1300 F. above zero. The northern portion of the basin is characterized
by short, warm summers and long, cold winters, and many mountain areas
are blanketed by deep snow all winter. The southern portion of the basin
has long, hot summers, practically continuous sunshine, and almost com-
plete absence of freezing temperatures.
Nevertheless, the entire basin is arid except in the extremely high
altitudes of the headwaters areas. Rainfall averages as low as 2.5
inches in the southern end. of the basin while total precipitation in the
high mountains my range from ho to 60 inches annually.
D- Vegetation
Areas of higher elevation are covered with forests of pine, fir,
sprace, and silver-stemmed aspens, broken by small glades and mountain
meadows. Pinon and juniper trees, interspersed with scrub oak, mountain
mahogany, rabbit brush, .bunch grasses, and similar plants grow in ths
intermediate elevations of the mesa and plateau regions. Large areas in
the Upper Basin are dominated by big sagebrush and related vegetation.
Many of the streams are bordered by cottonwoods, willows, a/id salt cedar.
-------
DESCRIPTION 0? BASIN
Scattered cottonwoods and chokecherries grow in the canyons with the
cliff rose, the redbud, and "blue columbine. A profusion of wildflowers
carpets many mountain parks. At lower elevations large areas are almost
completely devoid of plant life while other sections are sprinkled with
desert shrubs, Joshua trees, other Yucca plants, and saguaro cacti, some
of the latter giant plants reaching 40 feet in height. Occasionally,
cottonwoods or desert willows are found along desert streams with roes-
quit e and creosote bush or catclaw and paloverde. In recent years many
river channels have bsen overrun with tamarisk or salt cedar to the ex-
tent that a large volume of water is being consumed by such vegetation.
Measures are being taken to curb the growth of phreatophytes to conserve
water.
E. Hydrology
The Colorado River begins where peaks rise more than 1^,000 feet
high in the northwest portion of Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park,
70 miles northwest of Denver. It meanders southwest for 6^0 miles through
the Upper Basin to Lee Ferry, The Green River, its major tributary, rises
in western Wyoming and discharges into the Colorado River in southeastern
Utah—730 river miles south of its origin and 220 miles above Lee Ferry.
The Green River drains 70 percent more area than the Colorado River above
their junction but produces only about three-fourths as much water. The
Gunnison and the San Juan are the other principal tributaries of the Upper
Colorado River.
The flows of the San Juan River are now controlled by the Navajo Dam,
the Green River by Fontenelle and Flaming Gorge Dams, and the Gunnison
River by the Curecanti Unit Dams. Glen Canyon Dam is the only major dam
on the main stem of the Colorado above Lee Ferry, but it will permit con-
trol of almost all flows leaving the Upper Basin.
Ttie flow at various points in streams in the Colorado River Basin
for the 1941-68 period is given in Tables 1 through 17- The records of
flow depict the characteristic wide fluctuations from month-to-month and
the considerable variation from year-to-year. The recently constructed
storage reservoirs will now level out some of these fluctuations.
The natural drainage area of the lower Colorado River below Lee Ferry
and above Imperial Dam is about 75,100 square miles. This section of the
river is now largely controlled by a series of storage and diversion dams
starting with Hoover Dam and ending at Imperial Dam.
At the present time there is no significant storage on the main river.
or on the tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. The interven-
ing tributary inflow is erratic but amounts to almost enough to offset the
evaporation from Lake Mead.
10
-------
DESCRIPTION OF BA.SIN
Lake Mead provides most of the storage and regulation in the Lower
Colorado River Basin with the water being stored for irrigation and
municipal and industrial uses, generation of electrical power, and other
beneficial uses.
Lake Mohave, the reservoir formed by Davis Dam, backs water at high
stages about 67.miles upstream to the tailrace of Hoover Powerplant.
Storage in Lake Mohave is used for some reregulation of releases from
Hoover Dam, for meeting treaty requirements with Mexico, and for devel-
oping power head for the production of electrical energy at Davis Power-
plant.
Toe river flows through a natural channel for about 10 miles below
Davis Dam at which point the river enters the broad Mohave Valley 33
miles above the upper end of Lake Havasu.
Take Havasu backs up behind Parker Dam for about ^5 miles and cov-
ers about 25*000 acres. Lake Havasu serves as a forebay from which the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California pumps water into the
Colorado River Aqueduct. Lake Havasu also controls floods originating
below Davis Dam.
Headgate Rock Dam, Palo Verde Diversion Dam, and Imperial Dam all
serve as diversion structures with practically no storage. Imperial Dam,
located some 150 miles downstream from Parker Dan, is the major diver-
sion structure to irrigation projects in the Imperial Valley and Yuma
areas. It diverts water on the right bank to the All American Canal
which delivers water to the Yuma project in Arizona and California and
Imperial and Coachella Valleys in California. It diverts on the left
bank to the Gila Gravity Main Canal.
The Senator Wash Dam also affords regulation in the vicinity of
Imperial Dam and assists in the delivery of water to Mexico.
11
-------
PART III. HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
A. Irrigation Development
Irrigation development in the Upper Basin took place gradually from
the beginning of settlement about i860 but was hastened by the purchase
of land from the Indians in l873« About 800,000 acres were irrigated by
1905. Between 1905 and 1920 the development of irrigated land continued
at a rapid pace, and by 1920 nearly 1,^00,000 acres were irrigated. The
development then leveled off and increase since that time has been slow.
In 1965> 1,600,000 acres were under irrigation in the Upper Basin.
The slow growth in irrigated acreage in the Upper Basin in the last
1*5 years is ascribed to both physical and economic limitations on the
availability of water. By 1920 most of the lower cost and more easily
constructed developments were in operation, and, although some new devel-
opments have taken place since that time, they have been partially offset
by other acreages going out of production.
Irrigation development began in the Lower Basin about the same time
as in the Upper Basin. Development was slow because of difficult diver-
sions from the Colorado River with its widely fluctuating flows. Devel-
opment of the Gila area began in 1875 and the Falo Verde area in l879«
The development rate increased in the period 1900-10 with construction
of the Yuma Project, the Palo Verde Canal and intake, and other irriga-
tion projects along the river. Construction of Boulder Canyon Project
in the 1930's and other downstream projects since that time has continued
to expand the irrigated areas until about 25,500 -acres in Utah, 12,000
acres in Nevada, and 7^9*500 acres below Hoover Dam are irrigated under
organized irrigation systems. An additional unknown acreage is irrigated
by private pumping from wells in the river aquifers in the Lower Colorado
River Basin.
B. Streamflow Depletions
Development and utilization of the basin's water resources results
in depletions of streamflows. Consumptive use of water by irrigated
crops and exports to other basins produce the greatest flow depletions.
Reservoir evaporation and consumptive use of water for municipal and in-
dustrial purposes also produce significant depletions.
For the 191*l-63 period of record consumptive use of water by irri-
gated crops in the Upper Basin was estimated to average 1,727,000 acre-
feet annually. This is low in comparison to the irrigated acreage, bat
some lands do not receive a full supply.
12
-------
HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Water exported from the Upper Basin during the same period averaged
about 357>000 acre-feet per year. Since completion of the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project with initial diversions made in year 19^7> "the Duchesne
Tunnel completed in 1953, and the Roberts Tunnel completed in 1963 > the
transmountain diversions have increased to around 500,000 acre-feet.
Consumptive use of water for municipal and industrial purposes in
the Upper Basin produced a minor depletion of about 30,000 acre-feet
annually.
Reservoir evaporation varies from year to year but the variations
have little effect on average streamflow depletions. For the period of
record considered, average reservoir evaporation in the Upper Basin was
minor as the large reservoirs of the Colorado River Storage Project did
not begin filling until late in the period. Under normal operating
conditions, evaporation from the Colorado River Storage Project reser-
voirs is expected to average about 600,000 acre-feet annually.
For the 19^1-68 period of record, streamflow depletions in the
Upper Basin totaled about ? million acre-feet.
In the Lower Basin above Imperial Dam water is exported to the
Southern California coastal areas and to Imperial and Coachella Valleys
and delivered to irrigated areas along the river in Arizona and Cali-
fornia, principally to the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Palo Verde
Irrigation District, Gila Project, and Yuma Project. Water is also de-
livered to Mexico at the International Boundary as well as consumed by
phreatophytes or evaporated.
C. Legal Aspects
1. Colorado River Compact
Water of bhe Colorado River was divided between the Upper and Lower
Colorado River Basins by the Colorado River Compact which was signed in
1922 by a commissioner of each of the seven States of the river basin
and by a representative of the United States. All States but Arizona
ratified the compact 'prior to its effective date in 1929* The dividing
point on the river between the Upper and Lower Basins is at Lee Ferry
which is defined as a point 1 mile below the mouth of the Paria River.
The compact apportions from the Colorado River system to each of the
Upper and Lower Basins in perpetuity for exclusive beneficial consumptive
use a total of 7,500,000 acre-feet annually. In addition to the appor-
tionment of 7,500,000 acre-feet, the Lower Basin is given the right to
increase its beneficial consumptive use of water from the Colorado River
system by 1 million acre-feet annually. The compact further provides that
the States of the upper division will not 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.
13
-------
HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
One provision in the compact permits exportation of the water out of
the basin as long as it is used beneficially in the seven Basin States,
and another provision recognizes the obligations of the United States to
the Indian Tribes. The compact prescribes the manner in which the waters
of the Colorado River system may be made available to Mexico under any
water rights recognized by the United States.
The compact, in effect, cleared the way for legislation authorizing
the construction of major projects such as Boulder Canyon Project, and it
also cleared the way for compacts or agreements within the Upper and Lower
Basins to further divide the water among the States.
2. Mexican Treaty
The treaty with Mexico, signed in 19^4, provides basically for a
guarateeed annual delivery by the United States to Mexico of 1,500,000
acre-feet of Colorado River water.
3. Upper Colorado River Basin Compact
With the water allocated to the Upper Basin by the Colorado River Com-
pact and with the Mexican Treaty signed, the Upper Basin States began ne-
gotiations which resulted in the signing of the Upper Colorado River Basin
Compact in 19^8. Under the terms of the compact, Arizona is permitted to
use 50,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Upper Colorado River sys-
tem, and the remaining water is apportioned to the other Upper Basin
States in the following percentages.
State of Colorado 51*75 percent
State of New Mexico 11.25 percent
State of Utah . 23.00 percent
State of Wyojiing 14.00 percent
Congress had previously been unwilling to approve projects without
assurance that a water supply would be available, so this division of
water among the States permitted development in the Upper Basin to pro-
ceed and resulted primarily in the authorization of most of the Federal
projects above Lee Ferry that are mentioned in this report.
Neither of the compacts specifically mentions water quality, but it
has been recognized as a factor to be considered in developing projects,
and water quality studies have been required by recent legislation au-
thorizing the construction of projects in the Upper Basin.
k. Arizona vs. California Suit in the Supreme Court
The States of the Lower Basin hav.e never agreed to a compact for the
division of use of the waters of the Lower Colorado River Basin. The
-------
HISTORY OP WATER RESOURCE DEVELOB4MT
State of Arizona filed suit in the Supreme Court of the United States in
October 1952 against the State of California and others for the determi-
nation of the rights to use the waters of the Lower Colorado River system.
The Supreme Court gave its decision on June 3> 1963, and issued a decree
on March 9, 196^, providing for the apportionment of the use of the waters
of the main stream of the Colorado River "below Lee Ferry among the States
of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The States of Arizona and New Mexico
were granted the exclusive use of the waters of the Gila River system in
the United States. The decree did not affect the rights or priorities to
the use of water in any of the other Lower Basin tributaries of the Colo-
rado River.
The decree permitted the States of the Lower Basin to proceed with
developments to use their apportionments of Colorado River water. Major
new developments include the Southern Nevada Water- Project in Nevada, the
Dixie Project in Utah, and the Central Arizona Project in Arizona. Devel-
opment of the Indian lands is expected to use all of the water allocated
to them by the decree. These lands include the Colorado River Indian Res-
ervation, Arizona-California; the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation, Arizona-
California-Nevada; and the Chemehuevi Indian Reservation, California.
5. Colorado River Basin Project Act (Public Law 90-537, 90th Congress,
September 30, 1968)
The major items provided in the law include the following:
Construction of the Central Arizona Project consisting of a sys-
tem of main conduits and canals including a main canal and pumping plants
(Granite Reef aqueduct and pumping plants) for diverting and carrying
water from Lake Havasu to Orme Dam or suitable alternative.
Construction of five multiple-purpose projects in Colorado; the
Animas-La Plata, Dolores, Dallas Creek, West Divide, and San Miguel; and
one in Utah, the Uintah Unit of the Central Utah Project, upon comple-
tion and approval of a feasibility report to Congress.
Establishment of a Lower Colorado River Development Fund.
Development.of criteria for the coordinated long-range opera-
tion of the Federal reservoirs, equalizing the storage in Lake Mead and
Lake Powell.
Directed that the Secretary of the Interior shall conduct full
and complete reconnaissance investigations for the purpose of developing
a general plan to meet the future water needs of the Western United States,
except that for a period 'of 10 years from the date of the act, studies
shall not be undertaken of any plan for the importation of water into
the Colorado River Basin from any other natural river drainage basin
15
-------
HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
lying outside the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico,
and those portions of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming which are in the natural
drainage basin of the Colorado River.
Directed the Secretary to make reports of annual consumptive use
and losses of water from the Colorado River system.
D. Economic Conditions
The prosperity of agriculture in the Upper Colorado River drainage
basin generally parallels the prosperity of the livestock industry. With
vast areas of fine rangeland available for summer grazing, livestock pro-
duction is limited by the production of hay for winter feed.
Intensified development of mineral resources in recent years has
created new employment opportunities, including off-the-farm work for
many farmers. The most extensive and commercially important mineral re-
sources of the Upper Basin are coal, oil, and natural gas. The Upper
Basin is also the leading domestic source of vanadium, uranium, radiu-n
ore, and molybdenum. Copper, zinc, lead, silver, and gold are also com-
mercially important. In recent years mining of trona has become exten-
sive in the State of Wyoming. The increase in population resulting from
new job opportunities has created new markets for locally produced and
imported products, has taxed municipal facilities and water supplies in
several areas, and has increased demands for electricity. Raw materials
are stimulating industrial activities in areas adjoining the upper drain-
age basin, particularly areas near Denver, Pueblo, Provo, and Salt Lake
City. These adjoining areas all import water from the Colorado River
Basin and without the imported water their economic growth would be lim-
ited.
Tourism as an industry has increased significantly in recent years
because of the many natural attractions. Manufacturing as a basic in-
dustry is of relatively minor importance in the Upper Basin.
Irrigated areas in the Lower Colorado River Basin and in adjoining
basins using Colorado River main stream water are highly productive and
the agricultural operations very intensified. Gross crop values per
a^re probably are greater than any other area of comparable size in the
world with a 1968 average gross crop income of $^15 per acre.
The Pacific Southwest is one of the most rapidly developing areas
in the Nation, both industrially and populationwise. Colorado River
water for municipal and industrial purposes is supplied to approximately
130 incorporated towns and other communities in this area with a popula-
tion of about 10 million people. This water supply, which totaled about
1,200,000 acre-feet in 1968, ranges from a minor supplemental supply for
some entities to a complete supply for others.
16
-------
PART IV. BASIC STUDIES
A. Study Objectives
The Secretary of the Interior is required by various legislative
acts to report on the quality of water in the Colorado River Basin, to
evaluate the suitability of the water for beneficial uses, to estimate
the effects of future development on water quality, and to investigate
means of improving water quality. A number of basic studies have been
undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Geological Survey, and the
Federal Water Quality Administration in compliance with these legisla-
tive requirements.
These studies include the collection of data for evaluating quality
of water investigations, studying the effects existing water resource
developments have had on water quality, detecting and defining water
quality trends and predicting the effects of future development on water
quality, defining the suitability of Colorado River water for beneficial
use, and evaluating water quality control measures. These studies are
discussed in the following Parts IV to IX of this report.
B. Effects of Impoundments
1. Flaming Gorge Reservoir
Quality of water in the reservoir.--In October 1966 and September
1968 water quality samples were collected at the surface, bottom, and
seven intermediate points from each of six sites in the reservoir. Some
additional data are also available from three sites for September 1967.
The approximate dissolved-solids distribution in the reservoir during
sampling times is shown in Figures 2 and 3 . Available data are insuf-
ficient to define the annual limnological cycle of Flaming Gorge Reser-
voir. Figures 2 and 3 represent chemical-quality conditions in the
reservoir in the fall of 1966, 1967, and 1968. The less concentrated
spring and summer runoff can be seen at the lower end of the reservoir.
These exiguous data for the period 1966-68 indicate that the water prob-
ably takes an average of about 3 months to move the length of the res-
ervoir.
The measured load of dissolved solids in the reservoir on October 1,
1966, was about 1,850,000 tons. This figure was computed using the
chemical-quality data from the six sampling verticals and area capacity
curves. In order to determine initial leaching and storage, a theoreti-
cal load as of October 1,'1966, was also computed, using available inflow
and outflow data. The theoretical load was 1,050,000 tons, and this rep-
resents the net amount of dissolved solids contributed to the reservoir
17
-------
6000
SOLVED SOLIDS MG./L
A* MINIMUM POWER ELEV.
DEAD STORAGE ELEV.
FLAMING GORGE
SALINITY
OCT. 1966
5600
CARTER SHEEP CR. HENRYS SPRING CR.
CR. FORK
RIVER MILES ABOVE
FLAMING GORGE 0AM
Fig. 2
18
-------
6000
DISSOLVED SOLIDS MG.A.
A=MINIMUM POWER ELEV.
B-DEAD STORAGE ELEV.
FLAMING GORGE
SALINITY
SEPT. 1967
5600
1 P°~
CARTER SHEEP CR. HENRYS SPRING CR.
CR. fORK
RIVER MILES ABOVE
FLAMING GORGE DAM
6000
DISSOLVED SOLIDS MG./L
A-MINIMUM POWER ELEV.
B'DEAD STORAGE ELEV.
FLAMING GORGE
SALINITY
SEPT. 1968
5600
T°~~f
SKULL CR. CARTER SHEEP CR.
CR.
HENRYS SPRING CR.
FORK
RIVER MILES ABOVE
FLAMING GORGE DAM
Fig. 3
19
-------
BASIC STUDIES
from runoff. The data used to arrive at the above figures are not sea-
sonally continuous and they cover only a short period of time (1957-66).
The chemical quality of the major inflowing tributaries (Green River at
Green River, Wyo., Blacks Fork at Little America, Wyo., and Henrys Fork
at Linwood, Utah) has been measured since 1952, but the flow at Greendale
has been observed only since 1957 after construction began; thus the rela-
tionship used to estimate unmeasured inflow is not precise. For these
reasons the figures should be considered as estimates only. The differ-
ence of 800,000 tons between the measured load and the theoretical load
represents the estimated amount of dissolved solids added to the river
system by leaching during the first 4 years after closure of the reser-
voir.
The load of dissolved solids in the reservoir measured in September
1968, 2 years later, was about 1,500,000 tons. Starting with 1,850,000
tons of total dissolved solids in storage on October 1, 1966, the theo-
retical load, or the total amount of dissolved solids, which should have
been in the reservoir as the result of runoff, was about 1,100,000 tons.
Thus, in the 2-year period ending in September 1968, the amount of dis-
solved solids leached from the inundated area was about 400,000 tons, or
one-half the amount leached in the previous 4-year period. On the basis
of these calculations, it would appear that the rate of leaching has not
decreased significantly over the first 6 years since the reservoir was
closed.
The major observable changes in chemical composition occurring in
the reservoir are an increase in the percentage of sulfate and a decrease
in the percentage of bicarbonate compared with the chemical composition
of the inflow. The inflowing water during the 1963-66 period contained
about equal percentages of sulfate and bicarbonate ions (47 percent of
the total anions). The water in the reservoir on October 1, 1966, con-
tained about 34 percent bicarbonate and 57 percent sulfate. The percent-
age of the other ions has remained about the same. The change in the
percentage of bicarbonate and sulfate ions relative to the other ions
in solution may be the result of leaching of gypsum (CaS0^.2H20) and
other sulfate soluble evaporites from the inundated areas and of pre-
cipitation of calcium carbonate (CaCOo).
The chemical composition of water in the reservoir itself, although
it is different from that of the inflow, is very uniform. The dissolved-
solids concentration shows a definite increase with depth, but the per-
centage of individual ions is essentially the same throughout the major
portion of the reservoir.
Quality of inflow waters.—The major inflow to the reservoir is
from Green River which contributes 70-95 percent of the water, but only
55-65 percent of the inflow load of dissolved solids. Because of their
higher coneeatrations of dissolved solids, Blacks Fork,and Henrys Fork
contribute a higher percentage of the dissolved-solids load than they
do of water.
20
-------
BASIC STUDIES
The minor tributaries contribute less than 10 percent of the total
inflow to the reservoir and account for less than 15 percent of the to-
tal incoming load. The streams draining into the upper part of the res-
ervoir above Henrys Fork are mostly intermittent. The total amount of
•water they contribute is small, but they are high in dissolved-solids
content. Carter Creek, Cart Creek, and Sheep Creek, which drain into
the lower section .of the reservoir from mountainous areas, contribute
larger amounts of water but are more dilute.
Effects of. closure on the Green River at Greendale.--The closure of
Flaming Gorge Dam has been too recent (November 1962) to allow a state-
ment as to its ultimate effect on the chemical quality of the water down-
stream.. Data for the first 7 years since closure indicate an initial
increase in the average dissolved-solids concentration of the water at
Greendale. The highest weighted-average dissolved^-solids concentration
occurred in 1963 when a minimum of water was being released as the res-
ervoir filled. During the next 6 years (196U-68) the annual weighted-
average dissolved-solids concentrations were less than in 1963 but
greater than during the 6 years preceding closure. Information is not
available on the chemical quality of the water below the reservoir prior
to 1957 when construction of the dam began. Construction operations from
1957 to 1962 probably had some effect, and the concentration and load of
dissolved solids in the Green River prior to the beginning of construc-
tion may have been slightly different from that for the 1957-62 period.
The annual weighted-average concentrations of all major constitu-
ents have increased in the water at Greendale since closure of the res-
ervoir with sulfate having the most pronounced increase. The percentage
composition (in milliequivalents per liter) of calcium, magnesium, so-
dium, and chloride has remained about the same after closure as before
closure. However, the percentage of bicarbonate has decreased, while
that of sulfate has increased. These changes in composition are due to
chemical changes in the reservoir as previously discussed.
2. Lake Powell
Quality of water in reservoirs.--Water quality studies were started
by the Bureau of Reclamation at Lake Powell in January 1965 as the lake
was approaching inactive storage level. The program is to collect and
analyze water samples four times a year at seven different locations.
January, May, July, and October are designated as the months of collec-
tion and in addition samples are taken once a month at the mouth of Wah-
weap Creek. The samples are taken at 50-foot intervals to the bottom of
the lake. Results of the sampling for 1968 are shown on the accompanying
isohaline graphs. (Figures k and 5.)
The graphs show that for any point in the reservoir the salt con-
centration generally increases with depth. The exceptions are probably
caused by colder-less saline water flowing under the warmer-more saline
21
-------
3600
3490—A
-13400
3370
03300
4
111
_i
14
3200
3100
SOLIDS mg/l
POWER ELEV
ELEV.
LAKE POWELL
SALINITY
JAN. 1968
or
WAHWEAP
T 40
CROSSING OF
THE FATHERS
3500
3490
800
E
34OO
! 3370
53300
J
DISSOLVED SOLIDS mg/l
POWER ELEV.
ELEV.
A: MINIMUM
B=DEAD
STORAGE
3200
LAKE POWELL
SALINITY
MAY 196B
3100
P0?
WAHWEAP
20—r
CROSSING OF
THE FATHERS
40
OAK
CANYON
RIVER MILES
604
SAN JUAN
8O 100
ESCALANTE RIVER
BULLFROG
140
HITE
ABOVE GLEN CANYON
Fig. 4
22
-------
DISSOLVED SOLIDS mg/l
A= MINIMUM POWER ELEV
B=DEAD STORAGE ELEV.
LAKE POWELL
SALINITY
JULY 1968
o
CROSSING OF OAK
THE FATHERS CANYON
80 100
ESCALANTE RIVER
SAN JUAN
RIVER
DISSOLVED SOLIDS ma/I
A= MINIMUM POWER ELEV
B=DEAD STORAGE ELEV.
LAKE POWELL
SALINITY
OCT. 1968
3100
WAHWEAP
—0I0
CROSSING OF
THE FATHERS
ESCALANTE RIVER
ToT
OAK SAN JUAN
CANYON RIVER
RIVER MILES ABOVE GLEN CANYON
Fig. 5
23
-------
BASIC STUDIES
water without mixing. The January graph shows the concentration near
the surface of the reservoir generally increasing toward the upper end
of the reservoir, probably resulting from the more saline flows of sum-
mer and fall from the Colorado and Green Rivers. As the winter and
spring flows with less concentration enter the reservoir, the May chart
shows the higher concentrated water above the Escalante River becomes
diluted. The July chart shows the less saline flows of the high runoff
from the Colorado and Green Rivers have moved down the reservoir, flow-
ing mainly over the more saline water already in storage. Also the July
chart shows the beginning "of the more saline summer flows entering the
reservoir. The October chart shows the less saline flows have moved
farther down the reservoir, diluting the more saline water slightly. It
also shows the more saline summer and fall flows from the Colorado and
Green Rivers moving into the reservoir and flowing under the less sa-
line waters. This is one interpretation of the data from the sampling
program. The isohaline graphs could be drawn slightly different for
other interpretations of the data.
The concentration of the flow in the river below the dam when com-
pared with the concentration at Wahweap for the minimum power elevations
indicates that some of the water passed through the powerplant penstock
comes from the more concentrated water from lower elevations.
Effects of closure on the Colorado River at Lees Ferry.—The dis-
charge-weighted, average concentration of dissolved solids in the water
from the Colorado River at Lees Ferry for the 19^1-62 period was a func-
tion of the river discharge. This relation is shown in Figure 6 . How-
ever, since 1962 this relation has been affected by storage of water in
Lake Powell. The concentrations of dissolved solids at Lees Ferry were
higher than would have been expected without storage during the first
3 years of regulation and were lower than expected during the ensuing
2 years (1966-67).
By adjusting the discharge at Lees Ferry for storage in Lake Powell
beginning with 1963? the dissolved-solids concentration that would have
been expected without storage was obtained from the established dissolved-
solids discharge relation. The tabulation on page 26 shows the measured
and adjusted discharges and measured and expected weighted-average
dissolved-solids concentrations for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry for
the period 1963-68. (The data for 1968 are preliminary.)
-------
RELATION BETWEEN ANNUAL AVERAGE STREAMFLOW
AND DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS 1941-68
COLORADO RIVER AT LEES FERRY, ARIZONA
2 2.5 3 *
2.5 3 * 567
Discharge in Million Acre-Feet
-------
BASIC STUDIES
Colorado River at Lees Ferry
Expected
Calendar
year
1963
1964
1965
1966
•1967
1968
Historical
tons per
(mg./l.) acre-foot (mg./l.)
825
675
485
675
650
560
1.12
.92
.66
.92
.88
.76
935
810
575
515
625
650
tons per
I acre-foot
1.27
1.10
.78
• 70
.85
.88
Discharge
(million acre-feet)
Adjusted
4.94
7.68
15.15
7.6o
8.45
10.14
Historical
1.38
3.24
11.59
7-74
7.56
8.78
The data from the above tabulation plotted in Figure 6 show that
during the filling of the reservoir (1963-65) the measured concentra-
tions of dissolved solids in the water released from the reservoir were
greater than would have existed without the storage. However, during
2 years of withdrawing water from storage, 1966-67, the measured con-
centrations were less than the expected.
The concentration in years subsequent to the start of regulation
is influenced by the concentration of the water already in storage and
the degree of stratification in the reservoir, as well as runoff condi-
tions in the given year. Thus it is believed the concentrations at Lees
Ferry in 1963* 1964, and 1965 were somewhat higher than would have been
expected without storage because of initial storage of water of higher
than average concentrations in 1963, relatively low runoff in 1963 and
1964, and because the water released contained a higher concentration
of dissolved solids than the average concentration of dissolved solids
of the water in storage owing to salinity stratification in the reser-
voir.
The rather large reduction in outflow concentration occurring in
1966 resulted from the diluting effect of the unusually high inflow of
dilute water during the spring runoff period of 1965.
The increase in concentration of outflow water in 1967 resulted
because total inflow and the ratio of spring inflow to total flow in
both 1966 and 1967 was lower than in 1965.
The effects of evaporation and chemical precipitation due to Lake
Powell cannot yet be clearly evaluated.
Experience is too short at this time to define a concentration-
discharge relation at Lees Ferry subsequent to the closing of Glen
Canyon Dam. In fact, one should not expect a close correlation be-
tween concentration and discharge at Lees Ferry. There will always
be a lag in the response of concentration of outflow water at Glen
Canyon Dam to inflow conditions due to storage and stratification in
the reservoir. This is borne out by experience below Hoover Dam.
26
-------
BASIC STUDIES
3. Lake Mead
The Bureau of Reclamation conducted an extensive quality sampling
program of Lake Mead from 196^ through 1968. As many as 28 stations
were sampled in the spring and fall. Tests were made for dissolved oxy-
gen, carbon dioxide, pH, alkalinity, temperature, conductivity, and tur-
bidity at selected depths at each station. Water samples were obtained
from selected depths for laboratory analysis for calcium, magnesium,
sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, sulphate, chloride, nitrate,
phosphate, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, and pH. The
results of these investigations were correlated with the sampling sta-
tion at Hoover Dam where monthly water analyses of many of these factors
have been made for over 20 years. The data collected from the sampling
program during the period April 196^ through November 1966 were published
in Report No. CHE-70, Water Quality Study of Lake Mead, November 196?,
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.
This report documents the effect of the reduced inflow on water
quality and the improvement of quality with increased inflow to the
lake following the initial filling of Lake Powell.
The report discusses the limnological characteristics of Lake Mead.
The annual temperature cycle of Lake Mead is classified as warm monomic-
tic in that the temperature is never below 39-2° *"., undergoes circula-
tion during the winter, and is directly stratified in the summer.
There is an increase in mineral content from the upper to the lower
end of Lake Mead with the greatest increases being in sulphates and chlo-
rides of calcium and sodium. The only decrease noted was in the bicar-
bonate values.
It is expected that the type of sampling made during this survey
will be repeated at appropriate intervals in the future.
C. Lover Colorado River Salinity Investigations
Water quality data from 58 locations in the Lower Colorado River
Basin are being used, in a special study instituted by the Bureau of
Reclamation in 1970 to more clearly define the sources of salinity con-
tribution between Parker Dam and Imperial Dam. To acquire the necessary
data for the study, the sampling frequency was increased to obtain daily
specific conductance, weekly TDS analyses by evaporation, and monthly
chemical analyses at 10 stations as follows: Colorado River below Parker
Dam; Colorado River Indian Reservation Main Canal near Parker; Poston
Wasteway near Poston; Colorado River Indian Reservation Levee Drain near
Parker; Palo Verde Canal near Blythe; Colorado River Indian Reservation
2?
-------
BASIC STUDIES
Lower Main Drain near Parker; Colorado River at Taylor Ferry near Cibola;
Palo Verde Irrigation District Outfall Drain near Palo Verde; Colorado
River below Cibola Valley; and Colorado River at Imperial Dam.
D. Natural Sources of Salinity
Inspection of the flow and quality records reveals that along cer-
tain reaches of the Colorado River there are large increases in the
dissolved-solids load that cannot be attributed to irrigation. This
increase is mainly due to natural diffused sources and the saline springs
and wells in the Colorado River Basin. Although wells are man-made and
not a natural source, abandoned saline flowing wells are also presented
in this section.
1. Diffused Sources
Natural diffused sources are those sources of salt contribution
which occur gradually over long reaches of the river system.
Salt pickup occurs over large areas of surface and underlying soils,
from stream channels and banks, and is difficult to identify, measure,
or control. This source contributes the largest overall share of the
salts to the Colorado River. Natural point sources are mainly saline
springs where the contribution of salt and water is easily identified,
issuing from single or concentrated sources.
Past records indicate an increase in salt load in the Lake Powell
area above Lees Ferry and below the Green River, Cisco, and Bluff sta-
tions, lorns and others (1965, p. 20) presented estimates of dissolved-
solids loads in this river reach based on the period 1914-57 adjusted to
1957 conditions of development. Unaccounted inflow of dissolved solids
in this reach amounted to about 5 percent of the load at Lees Ferry.
During 3 consecutive years (1949-51) when there was very little in-
crease in water discharge between Lees Ferry and Grand Canyon, the
dissolved-solids load increased about 1-3 million tons each year. Dur-
ing 1951 the discharge increased by about 1 million acre-feet, but the
load increased by only 2 million tons. In 1952 the discharge increased
by 0.2 million acre-feet and the load by 2.2 million tons. With the
exception of these 2 years the annual increase in dissolved-solids load
during the 28-year period has ranged from 0.5 million tons to 1.8 mil-
lion tons.
In 1962 runoff of 14.4 million acre-feet at Lees Ferry increased by
400,000 acre-feet at Grand Canyon and the dissolved-solids load increased
by half a million tons. By contrast, during the filling of Lake Powell
the following year, only 1,384,000 acre-feet was recorded at Lees Ferry
and the increase in flow at Grand Canyon amounted to 246,000 acre-feet,
but the dissolved-solids load still increased by more than a half million
28
-------
BASIC STUDIES
tons. Likewise, with a small flow in 1964 the dissolved-solids load
increased by nearly 900,000 tons.
Large amounts of dissolved solids also are added to the Colorado
River between Grand Canyon and Hoover Dam. This does not result entirely
from the solution of material in the bed of Lake Mead, but definition of
specific sources along this reach of the river is difficult.
Very little information was obtained prior to irrigation and there-
fore more studies are needed to identify the magnitude of specific natu-
ral sources of salinity in the Colorado River Basin.
2- Contribution of Salts to the River System by Springs and Tributaries
Tables A and B summarize information about the contribution of
water and dissolved salts by springs and wells to the Upper Colorado
River system. The largest contributors in the Upper Basin are the Dot-
sero and Glenwood Springs which supply the major part of the salts from
point sources. Recent studies in the Lower Basin by the Geological Sur-
vey and the Bureau of Reclamation have provided information about the
contribution of springs to the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam
and Lake Mead and to the Virgin River which drains into Lake Mead. The
results of these studies are presented in the following paragraphs.
Between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead numerous springs and small
spring-fed tributary streams, as well as several large streams, contrib-
ute water and dissolved solids to the Colorado River. The largest con-
tributors of dissolved solids are the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers
and Bright Angel, Tapeats, Kanab, and Havasu Creeks. Records summarized
in this report for the hydrologic data stations on the Colorado River at
Lees Ferry (just upstream from Paria River) and near Grand Canyon (just
upstream from Bright Angel Creek) indicate that each year slightly more
than a million tons of dissolved solids are added to the Colorado River
in this reach alone. About half of this increase can be attributed to
springs in the lower 13 miles of the channel of the Little Colorado
River. The Virgin River salinity contribution is principally from the
LaVerkin Springs about 40 miles northeast of Littlefield, Arizona.
Paria River.--lorns and others (1965, Table 10, p. 346) estimated
that the Paria River contributed about 34,000 tons of dissolved solids
and 23,000 acre-feet of water annually to the Colorado River. Their
estimates were based on the period 1914-57, adjusted to 1957 conditions
of development. For the 1941-68 period the average annual contribution
is about 30,000 tons of dissolved solids and 18,800 acre-feet of water.
Sulfate, calcium, sodium, and magnesium are the major dissolved constitu-
ents making up this dissolved-solids discharge.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Table B
Mineral and saline wells
Upper Colorado River Basin
Spring and location
South Drain, Ashley Creek
Oil Field, Vernal, Utah
Crystal Geyser, Green
River, Utah
u> Oil Test Hole, Meeker,
Colorado!/
Flowing Well near Aneth,
Utah
Flowing Well 13-1 miles
above mouth of
Piceance Creeki/
Drainage, lies Dome Oil
Field near Loyd,
Colorado
Total
Flow
(c.f.s.)
2.200
.282
3-100
.133
• 355
2.900
8.970
(mg./l.)
i,5^o
2,^30
3,010
1,980
11
39
Total dissolved-
Cl solids concentration
(mg./l.) (mg./l.)
96 2
14,560 13
8,720 18
763 k
55^ 17
137 2
,670
,100
,900
,56o
,900
,180
(tons/AF)
3
17
26
6
2k
2
.6
.8
.0
.2
.k
• 9
Total dissolved-
solids load
(tons/
day)
15
10
160
1
17
17
•9
.0
.0
.6
.2
.0
(tons/
year)
5,800
3,6^0
58,1+00
580
6,280
6,200
Flow
(acre-
feet/
year)
1,593
20^
2,2*4.14.
96
257
2,100
6,^9^4-
!>
o
en
c|
a
Lru
en
I/Plugged in summer of 1968.
-------
BASIC STUDIES
Little Colorado River.--The water discharge of the Little Colorado
River near Cameron, Arizona, which is above Blue Spring, has ranged dur-
ing 19U8-68 period from 19,260 acre-feet in 1956 to 3^7,600 acre-feet in
1952. The average for the 21-year period is 1^8,000 acre-feet. An es-
timated annual dissolved-solids discharge of 130,000 tons appears rea-
sonable for the Little Colorado River Basin upstream from Blue Spring.
This estimate is based on chemical-quality records collected at Cameron
which is upstream from the gaging station and from Moenkopi Wash.
Blue Spring is in the bed of the Little Colorado River about 13
miles upstream from its mouth at approximately 36°07' N. latitude and
111O42' W. longitude. Other springs discharge into the channel of the
Little Colorado River throughout a 10-mile reach downstream from Blue
Spring. Measurements of water discharge near the mouth of the Little
Colorado River made at times when the river was dry at the gaging station
near Cameron, Arizona, (mile ^5«5) indicate that the combined flow of the
springs is constant. The average discharge, based on 10 measurements
from June 1952 to May 1966, was 222 cubic feet per second. This discharge
results in a contribution of l6l,000 acre-feet of water annually and
5^7,000 tons of salt to the Colorado River.
Bright Angel Creek.—Bright Angel Creek enters the Colorado River
just downstream from the hydrologic data station near Grand Canyon. The
average annual water discharge (^5 years of record) of Bright Angel Creek
at its mouth is 25,^-10 acre-feet and is mostly from springs near the
North Rim of the Grand Canyon. The base flow has been estimated as
15,000 acre-feet per year. Records of water quality indicate that the
average dissolved-solids concentration is about 0.27 ton per acre-foot
and that calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate are the major dissolved
constituents. The annual contribution of dissolved solids from Bright
Angel Creek to the Colorado River is about 7*000 tons.
Tapeats Creek.—Tapeats Creek is fed by springs in its headwaters
and by Thunder Spring, the source of water for its major tributary,
Thunder River. Simultaneous measurements of water discharge at the
mouth of Tapeats Creek and at the mouth of Bright Angel Creek indicate
a good correlation of streamflow (R. B. Sanderson, written communication,
1963) and thus permit application of the long-term streamflow record for
Bright Angel Creek to estimate the discharge of Tapeats Creek. By use
of this correlation the average annual discharge of Tapeats Creek is
estimated to be about 58,000 acre-feet.
Only few determinations of water quality of Tapeats Creek at its
mouth have been made. These data indicate that the water is of the cal-.
cium, magnesium, bicarbonate type, and is of low mineralization.
The average dissolved-solids concentration of water at its mouth
computed from the few measurements is about 0.2 ton per acre-foot. On
this basis Tapeats Creek contributes about 12,000 tons of dissolved
solids annually to the Colorado River.
32
-------
BASIC STUDIES
Kanab Creek.—Kanab Creek has a drainage area of about 1,600 square
miles, of -which about 1,000 square miles is in southern Utah. A few
miscellaneous measurements of water discharge and water quality have
been made at the mouth of Kanab Creek. Calcium, magnesium, and sulfate
are the principal dissolved constituents.
Based on these measurements the estimated base flow of Kanab Creek
at its mouth is about k c.f.s. and the corresponding dissolved-solids
concentration is about 1.5 tons per acre-foot. The minimum annual con-
tribution of dissolved solids from Kanab Creek to the Colorado River on
this basis is estimated to be 4,500 tons.
Havasu Creek.—Havasu Creek drains the Coconino Plateau south of the
Colorado River and enters the river about 13 miles downstream from Kanab
Creek. Two determinations of water quality at the mouth of Havasu Creek
indicate that the water is of the calcium, magnesium, bicarbonate type
and that its dissolved-solids concentration is about 0.5 ton per acre-
foot. Ten measurements have indicated a base flow of about 65 c.f.s.
If the base flow of Havasu Creek is 65 c.f.s. (47,000 acre-feet per
year) and the average dissolved-solids concentration is 0.5 ton per acre-
foot, a minimum annual contribution of 24,000 tons of dissolved solids
can be estimated to reach the Colorado River from Havasu Creek.
Other tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead.—Many small
springs and spring-fed tributaries also contribute dissolved solids to
the Colorado River, but information about the water discharge and chemi-
cal quality of these inflows is sparse. In recent years, however, sev-
eral parties of Interior Department scientists and engineers have made
observations of water discharge and collected water-quality data during
trips down the Colorado River.
Virgin River.—The dissolved-solids discharge of the Virgin River
at Littlefield, Arizona, is about 350,000 tons per year (see Table l4).
Although much of the water and dissolved solids is diverted for irriga-
tion between Littlefield and the mouth of the river in Lake Mead, the
dissolved solids eventually reach Lake Mead.
Of the springs which discharge into the Virgin River and its tribu-
taries, the largest contributor of dissolved solids probably is LaVer-
kin Springs ("Dixie Hot Springs"). These warm (105-107° F.) springs
discharge into the river in a reach several hundred yards long about 40
miles northeast of Littlefield, Arizona. Some of the springs rise in
the bed of the river, and others discharge from the sides of the canyon
walls in the Hurricane Fault zone.
In recent years several measurements of water discharge have been
made just downstream from the springs when the entire flow of the Vir-
gin River upstream from the springs was being diverted. These measure-
ments ranged from 10 to 11 c.f.s. and indicate that the flov of the
33
-------
BASIC STUDIES
springs does not vary appreciably. The chemical quality of the combined
spring inflow is also relatively constant.
The annual contribution of LaVerkin Springs is estimated as 1,100
acre-feet of water and 98*000 tons of dissolved solids which include
principally sodium (26,000 tons), sulfate (22,000 tons), and chloride
(38,000 tons).
Summa,ry of contribution by springs and tributaries below Glen Can-
yon Dam.—Major springs and spring-fed tributaries annually contribute
a minimum of almost 800,000 tons of dissolved solids to the Colorado River
between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Storm runoff in small tributaries
in this reach of the Colorado River contribute an unknown, but probably
much smaller, load to the river. The contribution of dissolved solids
by major sources of inflow between Glen Canyon and Lake Mead equals about
10 percent of the average dissolved-solids load of the Colorado River at
Lees Ferry. Springs in the lower Little Colorado River contribute about
half of the measured increase in dissolved-solids discharge in the Colo-
rado River between Lees Ferry and Grand Canyon.
LaVerkin Springs discharge almost 100,000 tons of dissolved solids
annually to the Virgin River; this contribution is about one-fourth of
the measured dissolved-solids discharge of the Virgin River at Little-
field, Arizona.
The annual dissolved-solids contributions of major springs, streams,
and spring-fed tributaries to the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam
and Lake Mead and to the Virgin River are summarized in Table C .
Table C
Contribution from major springs and tributaries
between Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams
Dissolved-solids discharge
Source in thousands of tons per year
Paria River 30
Little Colorado River above Blue Spring 130
Springs in Lower Little Colorado River 550
Bright Angel Creek 7
Tapeats Creek 12
Kanab Creek (base flow) U
Havasu Creek (base flow) 2k
Total inflow in Colorado River
(Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead) 757
LaVerkin Springs (inflow to Virgin River) 98
Total inflow to Colorado and Virgin
Rivers 855
-------
BASIC STUDIES
The minimum annual inflow of 855,000 tons from these sources results in
an increase in dissolved-solids concentration of about k"J milligrams per
liter (0.06 ton per acre-foot) in the Colorado River on the basis of an
annual flow of 11 million acre-feet.
E. Agricultural Sources of Salinity
It is anticipated that development of new irrigation projects may
increase the total dissolved solids in the Colorado River. Return flows
from the irrigated lands pick up salts from the soils and underlying
shales and transport them to the river system.
Studies in the basin thus far have been limited to a comparison of
total dissolved solids in the inflowing water and the return flow water.
Until recently no attempt had been made to determine losses of water or
total dissolved solids by deep percolation, to detect underground aqui-
fers that might be augmented with return flow, or to evaluate changes in
chemical characteristics (other than total dissolved solids) resulting
from development.
Studies prior to irrigation would be helpful, but they have not been
made in most areas, so comparisons must be made when new land is added or
new storage is made available. The Seedskadee Project area may present a
comparison between "before" and "after" irrigation conditions after sev-
eral years of full irrigation on the lands.
Salt balance conditions exist when the amount of dissolved solids
carried off the land is equal to that amount added. Pickup of salt as
used in this report represents an unbalanced condition shown by the in-
crease of total dissolved-solids load in the runoff over the total load
in the applied water. This pickup from an area could result from natural
sources, such as precipitation runoff, and/or irrigation return flows.
Salt pickup chargeable to irrigation would be only that additional which
occurs as a result of irrigation and should not include the amount of
prior pickup off the land resulting from natural sources.
The small amount of data presently available gives indications of
much variation in the amount of pickup from land due to irrigation. The
estimated salt pickup in this report is based on values of zero and 2
tons from newly irrigated land. Zero or minimum conditions occur gen-
erally after initial leaching in areas where soils are loose and con-
tain very little salt. The 2 tons per acre was selected as the higher
end of the range for the average pickup over a project' area. It was
also assumed in this report no additional pickup would result from water
applied to presently irrigated lands.
Quality of water studies have been made in several areas to deter-
mine storage and irrigation effects on water quality. Three of these
-------
BASIC STUDIES
worthy of mention are the Florida Project, Vernal Area, and Eden Project
and are described in the following paragraphs:
1. Florida Project
Construction of the Florida Project was completed in 1965. The Lemon
Reservoir on Florida River regulates the flow of the river for irrigation
of 19,450 acres of land including 5,730 acres not previously irrigated and
13,720 acres in need of supplemental water.
In order to obtain quality information under preproject conditions,
flow and quality data were collected at several points in the Florida
Project area beginning in 1958- A study has been made of these data for
the period 1958-63 to show the effect irrigation of these lands has on
the quality of return flows leaving the project under the condition of
no storage.
An attempt was made in this study to measure the effect of irriga-
tion in the Florida area on the quality of water in the Animas River
below its confluence with the Florida River. It was found that the
difference in concentration, however, is scarcely discernible and is
within the limits of error of measurement of both flow and quality.
Florida Project, Colorado
Acre- Pickup Loss
feet Differ- (tons/ (tons/
Year or tons Inflow Outflow ence acre) acre)
195B A.F. 99,BOO 90,360 9,440
Tons 14,315 15,470 +1,155 0.0&
1959 A.F. 28,260 14,300 13,960
Tons 4,900 4,365 525 0.04
1960 A.F. 73,130 60,600 12,530
Tons 10,600 11,730 +1,130 0.08
1961 A.F. 58,490 41,430 17,060
Tons 9,100 8,970 130 0.01
1962 A.F. 67,070 48,470 18,600
Tons 10,220 10,220 0 0
1963 A.F. 45,800 33,750 12,050
Tons 7,889 7,100 789 0.06
From the above" tabulation it is apparent that there has been a very
small amount of pickup measured in the river downstream from the project.
The concentration of total dissolved solids in the inflowing water ranges
from O.l4 to 0.17 ton per acre-foot, and that of the outflowing water
ranges from 0.17 to 0.30. About 13,720 acres were irrigated prior to
construction of the project facilities.
36
-------
BASIC STUDIES
Irrigation has been practiced for many years in the Florida area
without adverse effects "because of the extremely good water and the good
drainage conditions.
The Florida Project soils and the adjoining Pine River Project soils
are naturally low in salinity and alkalinity, and the amount of dissolved
solids removed from these projects is about equal to the amount deposited
indicating negligible pickup.
2. Vernal Area
A cooperative research study is being conducted in the Ashley Valley
surrounding Vernal, Utah, by the Bureau of Reclamation with financial
support provided by the Federal Water Quality Administration. This study
is the initial phase of a large-scale research project entitled, "Predic-
tion of Mineral Quality of Return Flow Water from Irrigated Land/' which
was initiated in the latter part of FY 1969. The primary objective of
this project is to develop a digital simulation model which will accu-
rately predict the quantity and quality of irrigation return flows from
an entire irrigation project with known soil, groundwater, geologic and
hydrologic characteristics. With such a model the water quality impact
of a proposed irrigation development including its alternatives could
be more accurately assessed. This would allow selection of the optimal
design of proposed project features in order to minimize any adverse
effects on water 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.
Ashley Valley was selected as the initial study area. Characteri-
zation studies of this area are currently underway. Initial runs of an
elementary simulation model were made during 1970 using present data.
The model will be refined and additional data collected during the next
2 years. Field studies are anticipated at other locations with various
soil and geologic profiles to verify the model under a wide range of
conditions.
Another project is directed toward the dual objectives of increasing
the knowledge of the basic processes controlling the movement of salts in
the soils and minimizing salt pickup by return flows. Utah State Univer-
sity initiated this project, "Quality of Irrigation Return Flow," during
FY 1969 under a Federal Water Quality Administration research grant.
With data from the laboratory and the greenhouse lysimeters, a digital
simulation model was developed to predict the movement of salts with the
corresponding changes in the quality of applied irrigation water in the
soil. Using this model, on-farm irrigation practices and rate and timing
of irrigation applications were planned to manage the salinity concentra-
tion of soil moisture within acceptable limits for the crop grown and at
the same time minimize the salt pickup by the return flows.
37
-------
BASIC STUDIES
The University established a 4o-acre test fann near Vernal, Utah,
in 1970 and will field test the laboratory model in 1970 and 1971. Re-
sults of these tests will be coordinated with the Bureau of Reclamation
study in Ashley Valley.
Preliminary results indicate that it may be feasible to seasonally
store salts contained in the irrigation water in the deeper soil zones
during low streamflow periods and then flush these salts out during
higher streamflows, thereby reducing the wide seasonal variations in
stream salinity concentrations. With further refinement of the model it
is expected that on-farm irrigation practices can be planned to obtain
high irrigation efficiencies, a salt balance in the root zone, and also
to minimize the pickup of additional salts from the soil profile by the
return flows.
3. Eden Project
Quality of water data have been collected in the Eden Project area
for the 14-year 1955-68 period. The amount of dissolved solids (as meas-
ured in Big Sandy Creek) picked up from project lands area has varied
considerably over the years. Because of many variables from year to
year in water supply, return flows, irrigated acreages, and other in-
fluencing factors, results from this study have not been conclusive.
Collection of data should be continued for a few more years during which
time attempts should be made for better controls of the influencing fac-
tors. Preproject data are very limited making preproject and postproject
comparisons impractical.
k. Other Studies
Considerable variation in the effects of irrigation return flow on
water quality is to be expected. Differences arise due to the size of
the irrigated areas, the number of times the return flow is reused, prop-
erties of the soils and drainage area, number of years land has been ir-
rigated, nature of aquifers, rainfall, dilution, temperature, irrigation
methods, storage reservoirs, vegetation, and type of return flow channels.
Consumptive use, return flow, and salinity studies are now being con-
ducted by Federal agencies in cooperation with State and local agencies.
Some of the study areas are purposely being held small to achieve better
control, but they Will be as representative as possible of existing proj-
ects. The results pertaining to the quantity of return flow will be very
helpful in estimating effects on water quality of return flows from larger
areas where measurement of inflow and outflow is not always possible or
practical.
Special studies in areas of the basin will continue to be made from
time to time to determine water quality conditions, and studies of proj-
ects, such as Florida, Vernal Area, and Eden, should be repeated or
38
-------
BASIC STUDIES
continued in order to evaluate changes with time. The Seedskadee Ex-
perimental Farm area was monitored for quality of water for the period
1968 to July 1970. Data are presently "being studied to see the effects
of irrigation on quality of return flows. Projects which may need ad-
ditional investigations include the Grand Valley (presently under canal
lining study) and Uncompahgre Projects in Colorado and possibly some
direct diversion projects along the Colorado River below Hoover Dam,
such as Palo Verde Valley and the Colorado River Indian Reservations.
An important consideration in quality studies is measurement of return
flows because this information is a key factor in evaluating the ade-
quacy of drainage and determining if salts are being accumulated or
leached from a project.
F. Municipal and Industrial Sources of Salinity
Salt loads contributed to the Colorado River system by municipal
and industrial sources are minor, totalling about 1 percent of the
basin salt load. Future increases in salt loads from these sources are
expected to be small relative to the total basin salt burden.
Most municipal and industrial wastes have relatively low salinity
concentrations and complete elimination of such waste discharges would
have little effect on salinity concentrations in the main river system.
Since these wastes are point sources of salinity, control of a source
could be achieved if salinity levels in the waste being discharged
(i.e., industrial brines) warrant such control.
G. Summary of Sources of Salinity
Salinity concentrations in the Colorado River system increase several-
fold between the high quality of headwater tributaries and the lower reaches
of the river. This increase results from two basic processes—salt load-
ing and salt 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 concentrat-
ing effects result from concentrating the river salt burden in lessor
volume of water when streamflow depletions are caused by consumptive use.
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 groundwater discharges, and discrete sources such as
mineral springs, seeps, and other identifiable point discharges of sa-
line waters. Man-made sources include municipal and industrial waste
discharges and return flows from irrigated lands.
39
-------
BASIC STUDIES
Streamflow depletions contribute significantly to salinity in-
creases. 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. Evapora-
tion from reservoir and 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
are also a source of streamflow depletions.
-------
PART V. EVALUATIONS OF EXISTING SALINITY CONDITIONS
A. Quality of Water Stations
A primary purpose of this report is to summarize water quality con-
ditions for the Colorado River Basin. Tnis part summarizes mineral
quality under both historical and present conditions of water resource
development and utilization. Anticipated changes in future mineral qual-
ity are discussed in Part VI. Other water quality parameters are dis-
cussed in Part IX.
Evaluations of the mineral quality of water in the basin are based
on quality of water and streamflow records at 17 selected stations.
Each station is considered to reflect flow and water quality conditions
at its location. Records were generally available at each station for
the time period considered by this report, 19*11 to 1968. Where records
were not available, missing data were estimated by correlation with
other stations.
Basic data summarized in this report were primarily obtained from
records of the Geological Survey developed by a continuing program for
collection of water data which is supported in part by a transfer of
funds from the Bureau of Reclamation.
Locations of the 17 key stations are snown on Figure 1 . Avail-
ability of flow and quality records for each station is shown on Fig-
ure 7 • The scarce and method of derivation of basic data for each
of the stations are briefly discussed in the following sections.
1. Key Stations with Complete Records
Records of flow and water quality are available for all or nearly
all of the 1941-68 period for the Green River at Green River, Utah
(Station No. 4); Colorado River near Glenwood Springs, Colorado (Sta-
tion No. 6); Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado (Station No. 7); Gun-
nison River near Grand Junction, Colorado (Station No. 8); Colorado
River near Cisco, Utah (Station No. 9) > an^- San Juan River near Bluff
Utah (Station No. 11). Minor extensions only were needed to fill in
short periods of record for a few of these stations. The Glenwood
Springs gage was moved from above to below the Roaring Fork at the end
of water year 1966. Subsequent Glenwood Springs gage records were ad-
justed by subtracting the Roaring Fork flows. All records were ob-
tained from the Geological Survey.
2. Key'Stations with Partial Records
Green River near Green River, j/yoming (Station No.' l)_1--Flow rec-
ords are available at this station from April 1951 and quality records
1*1
-------
Colorado River Basin
Flow and Quality of Water Records
1941 - 68
Green Rivir near Gr««n Rivtr, Wyoming
Green Rlv*r near Greendale, Utah
Ducheine Rivtr n«ar Randlett, Utah
Green River at Green River,Utah
San Rafael River near Green River, Utah
Colorado River near Glenwood Springs,Color ado
Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado
Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado
Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
San Juan River near Archuleta, New Mexico
San Juan River near Bluff ,Utah
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona
Colorado River near Grand Conyon,Arizona
Virgin River at Littlefield , Arizona
Colorado River below Hoover Dam Arizona-Nevada
Colorado River below Parker Dam Arizona-California
Colorado River at Imperial Dam Arizona -California
Sampled quality record
Measured flow record
Correlated quality record
Correlated flow record
Fig. 7
-------
EVALUATIONS OF EXISTING SALINITY CONDITIONS
from May 1951- The records have teen extended back to 19^1 by correla-
tion with nearby stations.
Green River near Greendale, Utah (Station No. 2). — Flow measurements
or comparable data are available for this station for the report period,
bat chemical quality data are available only for the years 1957 through
1968, inclusive. Extensive correlations with other available records on
the Green River system were employed to develop estimates for dissolved
solids.
Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah ( Station No . 3 ) • - - Flow records
have been obtained continuously since 19^3 ani quaTity~data are available
for 1951 and 1957 through 1968. Correlations with other stations in the
Duchesne River system were employed to estimate the data for the missing
period.
San Rafael River near Green River , Utah (Station No. 5)«~ - Correla-
tions were used to estimate flow at this gage from 19^1 to 19^5 after
which measurements of flow were available. Quality sampling started in
19^6 and is complete for the remainder of the study period except for
1950- Extensions of available data provided satisfactory estimates of
mineral quality for the missing years.
San Juan River near Archuleta, New Mexico (Station No. 10 ). — For the
period 195^ to 1968 flow and quality data presented are a combination of
measurements obtained near Archuleta and at Blanco, New Mexico, with a
few adjustments and correlations. ' Correlations were employed to estimate
the data for
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona (Station No. 12). — This sta-
tion has complete flow records available for the study period bat lacks
quality of water measurements for 19^1, 19^2, 19^6, and 19^7 « Quality
data for these years were estimated by extensive multiple correlations
using data for the Colorado River near Cisco, Utah, and near Grand Can-
yon, Arizona; the Green River, Utah; and the San Juan River near Bluff,
Utah.
£o^r^o_Rr\rer_near_Grand_Canyon, Arizona (Station No. 13_1±- - Flow
records are available for the report period and chemical quality records
are also available except for the period December 19^2 to August 19^3-
Quality data for the period of missing records were estimated from rec-
ords at upstream stations.
Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona (Station No. l*Q.--Flow records
are available for the"~report period, but quality data are available only
from July 19^9 to December 1963. Detailed correlations were employed to
estimate the data for the missing 'period.
Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Arizona- Nevada (Station No. 15 j«- -
Discharge and quality records are available for the 1968report period
except for the period November 19^ to September 1950- Quality data
-------
EVALUATIONS OF EXISTING SALINITY CONDITIONS
for this period are based on specific conductance with chemical analyses
only at intermittent intervals.
Colorado River belov Parker Dam, Arizona-California (Station No. 16).
— Flow records for the report period are available for the Geological Sur-
vey gage below Parker Dam. Quality data were obtained from the Metropoli-
tan Water District of Southern California which takes samples at the Lake
Havasu intake pumping plant.
Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Arizona-California (Station No. 17)«
—Flow records are available for the report period. Records from January
19^1 through September 19^2 are from the station, Colorado River near
Picacho, California. Records from October 19^2 through September I960
are based on the combined records of discharge obtained at gaging sta-
tions on Colorado River at Ymaa, All American Canal near Imperial Dam,
Gila Gravity Main Canal at Imperial Dam, Yuma Main Canal at Laguna Dam,
and North Gila Valley Canal at Laguna Dam less that of Gila River near
Dome, Arizona. Records after September I960 are based on the combined
daily discharge of Colorado River passing Imperial Dam and at gaging sta-
tions on All American Canal near Imperial Dam and Gila Gravity Main Canal
at Imperial Bam.
Quality data for the period January 19^-1 to 19^3 were obtained from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture salinity laboratory at Riverside,
California. Quality data since 19^3 were obtained from Geological Sur-
vey records and are based on data for the Yuma Main Canal below the Colo-
rado River Siphon.
3. Other Quality of Water Stations
In addition to the key stations discussed above, there are many more
points at which water quality data are obtained. Most of these sampling
stations are operated by the Geological Survey; however, some are operated
by other Federal, State, and private agencies.
The type of data obtained and the purpose of the sampling vary with
each station. Many of the stations provide data for the special studies
described in Part IV, Basic Studies.
B. Methods of Chemical Analyses
Published quality of water records consist of a combination of stream
discharges with chemical analyses of stream water samples collected at
more or less regular intervals. The reliability of the records depend on
the accuracy of the streamflow records, the frequency of collection and
representativeness of the samples, the stability of the samples during
-------
EVALUATIONS OF EXISTING SALINITY CONDITIONS
the storage periods prior to making of the analyses, the completeness
and accuracy of the individual analyses, and the manner in which the
individual samples are combined before analysis to represent increments
of stream discharge.
Most of the chemical analyses of water samples which provided the
water quality data were made in the laboratories of the Geological Sur-
vey at Washington, D.C., Albuquerque, N. Mex., and Salt Lake City, Utah,
using standard procedures by chemists specifically trained in water anal-
ysis. Daring the 28-year period considered there were numerous changes
in laboratory techniques and procedures mostly due to introduction of new
instrumental methods. New procedures were adopted only after careful in-
vestigation to insure results consistent with those obtained previously.
Some of the quality of water records are based on analysis of samples by
Bureau of Reclamation laboratories. Bureau of Reclamation results and
methods have been checked by the Geological Survey to insure comparable
records. Analyses by the Metropolitan Water District have been made by
standardized procedures and appear to be comparable with analyses by the
Geological Survey. It is probable that errors in the load computations •
due to errors in chemical analyses are less than those due to changes in
the samples upon storage, inaccuracies in sampling, or inaccuracies in
the determination of stream discharges.
C. Historic Mineral Quality
1. Total Dissolved-Solids Concentrations
Historic streamflow, total dissolved solids (salinity) concentra-
tions, and salt-load data for the 1? key stations for the 19^1-68 period
of record are presented in Tables 1 to 1? with each table number corre-
sponding to a station number.
To simplify tabulation, monthly values of flow and total dissolved
solids loads were rounded to the nearest 1,000. This resulted in some
differences between the recorded and the computed monthly concentrations
when the flows were low, for example, below 1,000 acre-feet in the San
Rafael and Duchesne Rivers. Similarly, minor differences from published
data in monthly concentrations occur in isolated instances in the flow
and quality tables for the other stations.
The addition of quality of water data for 196? and 1968 produced
little change in long-term averages in comparison to the 19^1-66 period.
Six of the stations show no change; at six, the concentration increased
by 0.01 ton per acre-foot, and at three it increased, by 0.02 ton per
acre-foot. The average concentration for the Virgin River station for
the period 19^1-66 was 2.26 tons per acre-foot while the average concen-
tration for the period 19^1-68 was 2.29 tons per acre-foot, and the San
Rafael River station concentration was increased from 2.2 to 2.3 tons
per acre-foot.
-------
EVALUATIONS OF EXISTING SALINITY CONDITIONS
The water quality at the Lees Ferry and the four other key stations
on the Lower Colorado River has "been affected by abnormal conditions dur-
ing the 1959-68 period because of low runoff in 1959, I960, and 1961 and
the filling of Lake Powell during the period 1963-68. Figure 8 shows the
historical weighted average salinity concentration for these five stations.
During the first year of storage in Lake Powell in 1963, the flow at
Lees Ferry was reduced to 1,384,000 acre-feet with a salinity concentra-
tion of 1.27 tons per acre-foot. The average concentration for the 1941-68
period was 0.75 "ton per acre-foot.
The salinity concentration increases between the Lees Ferry station
and the Grand Canyon station primarily as a result of the additions of a
large salt load from the Blue Springs located on the Little Colorado
River. The 1963 flow at the Grand Canyon station was 1,384,000 acre-feet
with a salinity concentration of 1.4l tons per acre-foot. The previous
low flow was 4,186,000 acre-feet in 1934 with a salinity concentration
of 1.32 tons per acre-foot. It is interesting to note that the 1963 con-
centration was only 0.09 tons per acre-foot higher than the 1934 concen-
tration.
The Grand Canyon station has the longest water quality record on the
Colorado River, 1926 to 1968. It is also of interest that the average
salinity concentration for the period 1941-68 is only slightly higher than
the average salinity concentration for the period 1926-40, 0.84 and 0.8l
ton per acre-foot, respectively.
Generally the salinity concentration increases at each succeeding
downstream station as a result of depletions by diversions, reservoir and
stream evaporation, and consumptive use by irrigated crops and phreat-
ophytes, and by salt loading by inflowing springs, streams, solution of
salts from the streambeds and reservoir basins, and possibly by irrigation
return flows. The flows of the Bill Williams River often dilute the flow
of the Colorado River in Lake Havasu which sometimes results in a decrease
in the salinity concentration from the Below Hoover Dam station to the
Below Parker Dam station. Figure 8 shows the concentration changes be-
tween the five lower stations on the Colorado River. Note also that Lake
Mead has a dampening and delaying effect, about 2 years, on the salinity
concentrations at the downstream stations. This is especially noticeable
for the high salinity concentrations of 1963 at the Lees Ferry and Grand
Canyon stations.
2. Ionic Loads
In addition to the total dissolved-solids concentration of a water
supply, the relative chemical composition may be of significance for some
types of water use. Annual summary of ionic loads in tons-equivalent for
the 1941-68 period have been included in this report to further depict
quality conditions at six key stations: Green River at Green River, Utah;
46
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
EVALUATIONS OF EXISTING SALINITY CONDITIONS
Colorado River near Cisco; San Juan River near Bluff; Colorado River at
Lees Ferry; Colorado River below Hoover Dam; and Colorado River at Im-
perial Dam. Tables 20-25 give ionic loads for the six principal ions:
calcium, magnesium, sodium, "bicarbonates, sulfates, and chlorides. The
specific conductance, sodium adsorption ratio, and total dissolved-solids
concentrations are also shown. At each station the amount of potassium
is negligible, and carbonates are generally not present.
D. Present Modified Condition
Present modified flow, as defined for this report, is the flow ex-
pected at any point with all upstream existing projects in operation for
the full period of study. It was estimated at the various stations by
assuming a recurrence of past water supply conditions and by deducting
from the annual historical flows the depletions that would have resulted
from the operation of all upstream projects constructed and in operation
since that year. Besides adjusting for minor projects a correction was
made for the historical operation and evaporation of the Colorado River
Storage and Fontenelle Reservoirs in order to obtain unregulated flows
at each station. Estimated present evaporation was then deducted to ob-
tain present modified flows. Present evaporation from the Colorado River
Storage Project and Fontenelle Reservoirs was estimated to be 6-'+9,000 acre-
feet per year. This would include evaporation from Lake Powell of 533,000
acre-feet, Flaming Gorge 5^,000 acre-feet, Navajo 30,000 acre-feet, Cure-
canti Reservoirs 15,000 acre-feet, and Fontenelle Reservoir 17,000 acre-
feet. These are average figures which were chosen to represent present
conditions rather than using the 1968 historical evaporation since a single
year record could show an above-or-bslow normal condition. Present evapo-
ration of the Lover Basin Reservoirs was assumed the same as historical
since these reservoirs have been operating for a number of years.
Historical flows since 19^1 have been affected by the transmountain
diversions of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Duchesne Tunnel of Provo
River Project, Roberts Tunnel of the City of Denver, and a number of
small in-basin developments. More recently the Collbran, Paonia, Smith
Fork, Silt, Florida, Hammond, and Emery County Projects and Vernal Unit
of Central Utah Project have come into operation. Also, evaporation from
the storage units—Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, Curecanti and Fon-
tenelle— is now in effect along with the Hayden Steamplant, Utah Construc-
tion Company steamplant, expansion of Hogback Indian lands, and the minic-
ipal and industrial uses in Wyoming. The depletions from these projects
have been extended back to 19^1, from the time they became operational, so
that when new projects are imposed on the present modified condition the
anticipated effects can be estimated. In the near future several projects
now under construction will become operational. The addition of these new
depletions results in slight increases in dissolved-solids concentrations
under present modified conditions over the 19^1-66 period.
-------
EVALUATIONS OF EXISTING SALINITY CONDITIONS
Quality data for present modified conditions were computed by tak-
ing into consideration the weighted average of the concentrations of
total dissolved solids for the various transmountain diversions. The
change in dissolved solids resulting from the in-basin developments
were computed on the basis of an assumed pickup of 2.0 tons of dissolved
solids per acre of irrigated land and a depletion of 1.5 acre-feet of
water per irrigated acre. Modified flows and quality for present condi-
tions are shown in Table l8.
As in previous reports, present modified flows are used as a basis
for developing the anticipated effect of the participating projects and
other developments.
Following is a description of the storage units, now constructed,
for which the evaporation losses were considered as depletions in the
computation of present modified flows.
1. Glen Canyon Unit
The Glen Canyon Dam is located on the Colorado River in Arizona
h miles south of the Utah-Arizona boundary and 15 miles upstream from
Lees Ferry. The bulk of the reservoir lies in Utah. At a normal water
surface elevation of 3>700 feet m.s.l., Lake Powell would extencl 186
river miles up the Colorado River and 71 miles up from the mouth of the
San Juan River. River mile 71 on the San Juan River is 133 river miles
from Glen Canyon Dam. This 27,000,000-acre-foot reservoir will regulate
the flow of the river for compact delivery purposes and for power genera-
tion and thus permit exchanges for upstream consumptive use of the water.
Fish and wildlife conservation ani recreation will also be of major sig-
nificance. Storage commenced March 31> 1963, in Lake Powell.
2. Flaming Gorge Unit
Tais storage unit is located on the Green River in northeastern Utah
ani southwestern Wyoming. The primary purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit
are the regulation and storage of flood flows of the Green River and the
generation of hydroelectric power. The reservoir has a storage capacity
of 3>789>000 acre-feet. The stored water assists in complying with the
terms of the Colorado River Compact and will, by exchange, furnish an
irrigation supply for the participating projects in the Upper Basin States.
In addition there will be benefits from fish and wildlife conservation and
recreational facilities. Storage commenced November 1, 1962, at Flaming
Gorge Reservoir, and from the records taken immediately below the dam it
appears that the reservoir releases will be more uniform in quality than
uncontrolled streamflow prior to reservoir construction.
3- Navajo Unit
The Navajo Dam and Reservoir are located on the San Juan River in
northwestern New Mexico and southwestern Colorado. Total storage capacity
-------
EVALUATIONS OF EXISTING SALINITY CONDITIONS
of the reservoir is 1,709,000 acre-feet. This reservoir regulates the
fiow of the river for irrigation of the Hammond Project, the Navajo In-
dian Irrigation Project, and for other uses including by exchange poten-
tial uses above the reservoir and transmountain diversions to the San
Juan-Chama Project. It also helps regulate the flows of the Colorado
River at Lees Ferry. Other purposes include recreation, sediment con-
trol, fisn and wildlife propagation, and flood control. Storage began
July 1, 1962, and the effect on quality is recorded at the Archuleta
station below Navajo Dam.
4. Curecanti Unit
Facilities of the Curecanti Unit, located in west-central Colorado,
include the Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal Dams, Reservoirs, and
Powerplants. The primary purposes are regulation and storage of flood
flows of the Gunnison River and generation of hydroelectric power. In
addition benefits will be provided to recreation, fish and wildlife con-
servation, and irrigation. The reservoirs of the Curecanti Unit will
help regulate the flows of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry. The stor-
age capacity provided is 9^1,000 acre-feet at Blue Mesa, 117,000 acre-
feet at Morrow Point, and 27,000 acre-feet at Crystal Reservoir with
total reservoir evaporation losses estimated to average 15,000 acre-
feet annually for all three -units. Storage was initiated late in 1965
at the Blue Mesa Reservoir and on January 2k, 1968, at the Morrow Point
Reservoir. Construction has not yet been initiated on Crystal Dam, and
it possibly should have been considered as a future development, but
since the annual evaporation will amount to only about 300 acre-feet its
effect is insignificant.
It is expected that operation of the Curecanti Unit on the Gunni-
son River will improve the quality of the Colorado River below Grand
Junction during the late summer months.
5. Fontenelle Reservoir
Fontenelle Reservoir, located 0.1 the Green River above Green River,
Wyoming, has a storage capacity of 3^5,000 acre-feet and regulates the
flow in the Green River above Flaming Gorge Reservoir. It will be used
to supply water to the Seedskadee Project lands after the project is
completed.
50
-------
PART VI. ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
In order to estimate the probable effect of the authorized or contem-
plated developments on the quality of water at certain points along the
Colorado River, the developments have been generally listed in downstream
order. By means of operation studies the estimated effects of each devel-
opment can be shown at the pertinent stations. These results are tabu-
lated in Table l8 for the new period of. record used in this report. The
table was computed on the basis of the 19^-1-68 average annual flow and
total dissolved solids. An additional station, "Colorado River above
Parker Dam," was included in the table only for purposes of clarification
and maintaining continuity in computations. It should be noted that future
concentrations were estimated without consideration to possible future con-
trol measures.
The anticipated future conditions evaluated in Table 18 would result
from the construction of the Colorado River Basin Projects and non-Federal
developments. Pickup of dissolved solids from newly irrigated lands has
been computed for two assumed conditions, zero and 2 tons per acre pickup.
Following is a discussion of the various projects including a brief
description of the physical conditions for each development authorized or
contemplated for authorization and the anticipated effect of each on the
quality of water at appropriate key stations. It should be recognized
that the acreages and depletions as listed could change with change of
plans on some of the contemplated projects. The figures presented below
and in Table 19 are those which were current at the time of writing this
report. In addition to the developments listed, a number of smaller pri-
vate industrial developments either under construction or contemplated
will result in certain depletions and will have some effect on water
quality.
The effects of all upstream developments are carried on down to and
including Imperial Dam.
A. Description of Projects
1. Above Green River near Green River, Wyoming
Seedskadee Project.—This multipurpose project is located adjacent to
and will divert water from the Green River in southwestern Wyoming to irri-
gate about 58,000 acres of land. Municipal and industrial water, recrea-
tion, and fish and wildlife protection are other purposes of the project.
A depletion of 1^5,000 acre-feet is anticipated when the project is fully
developed. Fontenelle Dam and Powerplant are now complete, but irrigation
of the project lands is awaiting results from the development farm now
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
undergoing tests in the project area. The irrigation of 15,000 acres is
in question until a determination has been made of the effect the mining
of trona will have on land subsidence and irrigation development. The
Seedskadee area has not "been previously irrigated except for the land in
the experimental development farm so it affords an opportunity to deter-
mine the effect irrigation has on water quality under the given soil and
crop conditions. Present depletions amount to about 20,000 acre-feet in-
cluding evaporation.
Industrial developments in southwestern Wyoming.—These include
Westvaco, Green River and Rock Springs municipal and industrial, Stauffer,
Allied Chemical, and other industries. They will consumptively use another
86,000 acre-feet above Green River, Wyoming, when fully developed. The
only industry in Wyoming below the Green River near Green River, Wyoming,
gage would be Utah Power & Light Company's steam-electric powerplant on
Hams Fork which will consumptively use about 8,000 acre-feet.
The effect of Seedskadee irrigation project and industrial develop-
ments on water passing the Green River, Wyoming, gage would be an increase
in concentration from Q.kk to 0.52 ton per acre-feet if no dissolved solids
are leached from the land; and if 2 tons per acre are picked up, the con-
centration would increase to 0.63 ton per acre-foot.
2. Between Green River near Green River, Wyoming, and Green River
near Greendale, Utah
Lyman Project.—This is a multipurpose project located in southwest-
ern Wyoming. Project facilities consist of two dams and reservoirs. One
will be located at the Meeks Cabin site on the Blacks Fork in Wyoming and
will provide 33,000 acre-feet of storage capacity. The other will be lo-
cated at the China Meadows site of the East Fork of Smith Fork in Utah and
will provide 13,000 acre-feet of storage capacity. The project will have
the primary purpose of providing supplemental water to b2,6jk acres of
existing farmland along with fish and wildlife and recreation benefits.
Construction of Meeks Cabin Dam is nearing completion. This project will
give an opportunity to study the effect on quality of adding supplemental
water to lands already irrigated. The resulting new depletion will be
10,000 acre-feet.
Utah Power & Light Co. and Others.--This steam powerplant is at
Kemmerer, and it is anticipated that depletions of this and other indus-
trial developments will amount to about 8,000 acre-feet. (See descrip-
tion above under "Industrial developments in southwestern Wyoming.")
These projects, together with those above the Green River near Green
River, Wyoming, gage, would cause an increase in concentration of the
water at the Green River near Greendale gage of from 0.59 ton per acre-
foot at present to 0.69 and 0.78 ton per acre-foot'for zero ton per acre
and 2 tons per acre pickup from newly irrigated land, respectively.
52
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
3. Above Duchesne River near Randlett
Central Utah Project (Bonneville Unit).—The Bonneville Unit will
include a transmountain diversion of water from the headwaters of the
Duchesne River in the Uinta Basin portion of the Colorado River Basin to
the Bonneville Basin. Related developments of local water sources will be
made in both basins. The project will develop water for irrigation, munic-
ipal and industrial use, and power production. It will also provide bene-
fits to recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control, water quality control,
and area redevelopment.
The net depletion to the Green River will be 166,000 acre-feet of
which 136,000 is exported to the Bonneville Basin and the balance is
depleted in the Uinta Basin.
Central Utah Project (Upalco Unit).—The Upalco Unit will be located
in Duchesne County near Roosevelt, Utah. The plan of development is pri-
marily to provide supplemental irrigation water for Indian and non-Indian
lands along Lake Fork River and to enhance recreation, fish, and wildlife
while maintaining flood control. The mean annual stream depletion is esti-
mated to be about 10,000 acre-feet.
Central Utah Project (Uintah Unit).—The Uintah Unit of Central Utah
Project will provide a full supply to irrigate 7,800 acres of new lands
and supplemental water to other lands on the south slope of the Uinta
Mountains in the Uinta and Whiterocks Rivers drainage areas. The new
annual depletion will be about 30,000 'acre-feet.
The increase in concentration from present to future at this station
would be from 0.96 ton per acre-foot to 1.73 and 1.8l tons per acre-foot
for zero and 2 tons per acre pickup, respectively.
k. Between Green River near Greendale, Duchesne River near
Bandlett, and Green River at Green River, Utah
Four County, Colorado.—This non-Federal development, as proposed,
would divert 40,000 acre-feet of water through the Continental Divide
for use in Colorado. The water would be transported from the headwaters
of the Yampa River through Rabbit Ears Pass to the North Platte Basin,
from which basin an equivalent amount of water would be directed by ex-
change over Willow Creek Pass into the Colorado River drainage, thence by
transbasin diversion to Lafayette, Erie, Broomfield, Brighton, Thornton,
and Ft. Lupton*
Hayden Steamplant.—This plant in Colorado now using lj-,000 acre-feet
will eventually require 16,000 acre-feet of water.
53
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Cheyenne, Wyoming.—The city of Cheyenne diverts water from the Little
Snake River to a tributary of the North Platte in exchange for water di-
verted from Douglas Creek for municipal use "by the city of Cheyenne. This
transmountain diversion is now using about 7,000 acre-feet and will ulti-
mately deplete the Colorado River by an additional 2^,000 acre-feet.
Savery-Pot Hook Project, Colorado-Wyoming.—This project is located
in the Little Snake River Basin in southern Wyoming and northwestern
Colorado. The authorized project plan calls for construction of an
18,600-acre-foot-capacity reservoir on Savery Creek and a 65,000-acre-
foot-capacity reservoir on Slater Creek. This storage will make possible
the irrigation of 17,920 acres of new land and will provide supplemental
water for land presently irrigated. Plan modifications are being consid-
ered in the definite plan studies now underway. Depletion of the Little
Snake River by the Savery-Pot Hook Project would amount to 27,000 acre-
feet annually.
Central Utah Project (Jensen Unit).--This unit will be located along
the Green River east of Vernal in Uintah County in Uinta Basin, Utah.
Storage of water in Tyzack Reservoir on Brush Creek together with pimping
from the Green River will supply Mj-0 acres of new land and 3,6^0 acres of
presently irrigated lands. Approximately 15,000 acre-feet of water is an-
ticipated to be depleted by this project.
The estimated increase in concentration at the Green River, Utah,
gage from present to future would be 0.6k ton per acre-foot to 0.73 and
0.78 ton per acre-foot for the zero and 2 tons per acre pickup, respec-
tively. Projects affecting the flows would include all developments
above the gage.
5. Above San Rafael River near Green River, Utah
With inclusion of the Emery County Project under present modified
conditions, the only anticipated future effect would be steam-electric
plants depleting about 5,000 acre-feet of water and replacing an esti-
mated k,000 acres of presently irrigated lands with industries.
6. Above Colorado River near Glenwood Springs
Denver, Englewood, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo. Colorado.--Expan-
sion of municipal supplies for these four cities will eventually deplete
the Colorado River by 216,000 acre-feet above present uses. These are
transmountain diversions from the Blue, Fraser, and Eagle Rivers in the
headwaters of the Colorado River. The diversions would vary according
to runoff each year.
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
M&E— Green Mountain . - -Water stored in Green Mountain Reservoir will
be released for industrial use in the vicinity of Kremmling, Colorado,
and in Garfield County, Colorado. This depletion will ultimately be about
12,000 acre-feet.
Homestake Project, Colorado.— The Homestake Project in Colorado, under
construction by the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs, will divert an
average of 14-9,000 acre-feet annually to the eastern slope from the head-
waters of the Colorado River although the diversions will vary from year
to year.
The above depletions would increase the dissolved- solids concentra-
tion at Glenwood Springs by 0.08 ton per acre-foot under either condition
of pickup.
7. Between Colorado River near Glenwood Springs and
Colorado River near Cameo
Independence Pass Expansion. — This development consists of enlarging
and lining an existing collection system on the western slope in Colorado
with provisions for winter operation. The water will be collected from
the headwaters of Roaring Fork for transmountain diversion to the Arkansas
River Basin. The new depletion to the Colorado River will be about 1^,000
acre-feet annually with possible storage in enlarged Twin Lakes Reservoir.
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. — Construction is still continuing on this
project. This transmountain diversion project will transfer water from
the headwaters of the Colorado to the Arkansas River. It is a multipurpose
development to supply supplemental irrigation water, municipal water, and
water for power production. In addition the project will also control
floods originating above pueblo, retain sediment, preserve fish and wild-
life, and provide recreation opportunities. The average annual depletion
will be 70,000 acre-feet, including 1,000 acre-feet of evaporation from
the Ruedi Reservoir on the west slope.
— Ruedi Reservoir. Colorado. — Storage rights in Ruedi Reservoir
would permit the use of 38,000 acre-feet for oil shale development along
the Colorado River in Colorado. The water would be stored in Ruedi Reser-
voir on the Fryingpan River and then released through natural channels to
the points of use in the oil shale areas. A possible future alternative
use for all or part of this water would be for irrigation purposes.
West Divide Project, Colorado. --The West Divide Project will provide
115,600 acre-feet of water for irrigation and 77,500 acre-feet for munici-
pal and industrial use. The irrigation rater will supply nearly 19,000
acres of new land and a supplemental supply to 21,000 acres of land pres-
ently irrigated. The new depletion of Colorado River water will be 76,000
acre-feet annually. Project water will be obtained from a series of
55
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Colorado River tributaries south of the river in west-central Colorado with
most of the storage planned for the 105,000-acre-foot Placita Reservoir.
The above-described projects, together with those above the Glenwood
Springs station, would increase the concentration at the Cameo Station
from 0.60 ton per acre-foot under present modified conditions to 0.73 and
0.75 "ton per acre-foot for future conditions assuming zero and 2 tons
pickup per acre, respectively.
8. Above Gunnison River near Grand Junction
Fruitland Mesa Project, Colorado.—This project is located in west-
ern Colorado in Gunnison River Basin. A U8,235-acre-foot storage reser-
voir on Soap Creek and diversion from Crystal and Curecanti Creeks would
provide water needed for 15,870 acres of newly irrigated land and 7,000
acres of land now irrigated. Project uses will increase Colorado River
depletions by 28,000 acre-feet per year.
The project water for irrigation use has been determined by labora-
tory analysis to be of excellent quality. Likewise, most of the return
flow considered as part of the project water supply will be diluted with
higher quality direct flow.
Bostwick Park Project, Colorado.—This small project is located in
Montrose and Gunnison Counties in west-central Colorado. Storage regu-
lation will be provided by a 13,520-acre-foot reservoir on Cimarron
Creek, a tributary of the Gunnison River. Only 1,610 acres of new land
will be irrigated and the increased depletion to the Colorado River will
be It,000 acre-feet. Some additional water will be provided to land now
irrigated. The water of Cimarron Creek has been determined by laboratory
analysis to be of good quality for irrigation. The Bostwick Park Project
is now under construction and is scheduled for completion in the latter
part of 1970.
Dallas Creek Project. Colorado.--The Dallas Creek Project will de-
velop water of the Uncompahgre River and tributaries for irrigation and
municipal and industrial use. The project will provide water for 15,000
acres of new land and supplemental water for 8,700 acres of land pres-
ently irrigated. Depletion of the Colorado River will amount to 37,000
acre-feet annually.
The project water supplies will be suitable in quality for irriga-
tion and for municipal and industrial uses as well.
At the Gunnison River near Grand Junction station the concentration
would be increased by O.Ot ton per acre-foot with no pickup and 0.08
with 2 tons per acre pickup.
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
9. Between Colorado River near Cameo, Gunnison River near
Grand Junction, and Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
Dolores Project, Colorado.—The Dolores Project will divert water
from the Dolores River Basin to the San Juan drainage for the irrigation
of 6l,000 acres. Some 32,000 acres will be new landj the remaining
29,000 acres of land are now receiving a partial supply. This project
will divert lUO, 000 acre-feet of water from the Dolores River of which
8,700 acre-feet will be depleted and the balance returned to the San Juan
River.
Return flows from lands in the Montezuma Valley are presently used
for irrigation of land in McElmo Canyon outside the project area. Anal-
yses show these flows have relatively high concentrations of soluble salts.
They are successfully used for irrigation, however, because of internal
drainage characteristics of the soils. The salt concentration of these
flows is not expected to increase with project development.
San Miguel Project. Colorado.—The San Miguel Project will regulate
flows of the San Miguel River for irrigation, municipal and industrial
use, recreation, flood control, and fish and wildlife conservation. The
project will supply water to 26,000 acres of new land and 12,500 acres
of land now receiving a partial supply. Depletion of the Colorado River
will be about 85,000 acre-feet.
The Colorado River near Cisco gage is affected by all upstream devel-
opments on the Colorado, Gunnison, and Dolores Rivers and their tribu-
taries. These transmountain diversions and in-basin projects increase
the concentrations from 0.91 to 1.08 tons per acre-foot with no pickup
and to 1.12 with 2 tons per acre pickup.
10. Above San Juan River near Archuleta
San Juan-Chama Project.—Construction is underway on this transmoun-
tain diversion project with delivery of water to the Rio Grande Basin ex-
pected to be initiated in 1971- The project will divert an average of
110,000 acre-feet annually from the headwaters of the San Juan River
across the Continental Divide to the Rio Grande Basin. The effect of
this depletion on the Colorado River will be that some dissolved solids
will be transported out of the basin and less high quality water will be
available downstream for dilution of lower quality water.
The water will be used in New Mexico for municipal and industrial
developments and for irrigation.
Nava.lo Indian Irrigation Project.—Construction activities are under-
way on this project, but completion of construction and delivery of water
are several years away. The direct diversion of 508,000 acre-feet of
water annually from the Navajo Reservoir to 110,000 acres of lands south
57
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
of the San Juan River is contemplated. None of these lands are presently
irrigated and the effect of irrigation on the quality and quantity of re-
turn flow is difficult to predict.
There will toe times under ultimate basin development when the San
Juan Valley lands below Farmington, New Mexico, will be dependent largely
upon return flows for their supply of irrigation water. There are very
little data upon which to base estimates of the quality of the return flow.
Miscellaneous records from the San Juan, Animas, and La Plata Rivers indi-
cate some periods of low flow water of questionable quality, especially
from La Plata River system where some of the lands are known to be of ma-
rine origin. Practically all of the lands in the Navajo Indian Irrigation
Project which would contribute return flow at the Hogback, however, are of
fresh water origin with low salinity and alkalinity as determined by soil
borings. To ascertain the quality of return flow with any degree of cer-
tainty, additional field data will be necessary prior to completion of de-
finite plan investigations. The estimated depletion is 250,000 acre-feet
annually.
The effect of the San Juan-Chama and Navajo Indian Irrigation proj-
ects in the quality of water at this station would be small since the
water is presently of very good quality and the station is located only
a short distance below the Navajo Dam where there would be no return flows.
The increase in concentration would be from 0.23 ton per acre-foot present
to 0.2l* ton per acre-foot for both zero and 2 tons per acre pickup.
11. Between San Juan River near Archuleta and San Juan River
near Bluff
Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado-New Mexico.—The Animas-La Plata
Project will develop flows of the Animas and La Plata River systems for
irrigation, municipal and industrial use, recreation, and fish and wild-
life conservation. The project will supply water to U6,500 acres of new
land and 25,600 acres of presently irrigated land. The new land will in-
clude 17,200 acres of Indian land. The total new depletion will amount
to nearly 146,000 acre-feet. Project features include four storage dams,
lengthy canals, and several diversion dams.
Preliminary water quality studies indicate that irrigation will not
present any particular quality problem, and the additional return flow
at the state line may be somewhat improved over the present.
Expansion Hogback.—This direct diversion to Indian lands adjacent
to the San Juan River will result in a new depletion of about 10,000 acre-
feet annually. These lands, in the vicinity of Shiprock, New Mexico, have
been developed in small blocks by the Bureau of Indian Affairs over a
period of years with further expansion planned for the future. The seep-
age and return flows return direct to the San Juan River, but the quality
of these flows has not been determined.
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Utah Construction Company.--In northwestern New Mexico, a large steam-
electric power-plant, which has been partially completed by Utah Construc-
tion Company for the Navajo Indian Tribe and the Arizona Power Authority,
is now using 15,000 acre-feet out of an estimated 40,000 acre-feet when
the plant is complete.
The San Juan River near Bluff gage would be affected by all develop-
ments on the San Juan River above the gage. Especially notable would be
return flows from the Indian Irrigation Project. The result would be an
increase from 0.63 to 0.91 and 1.25 tons per acre-foot, respectively, for
the zero and 2 tons per acre pickup from new irrigated lands.
12. Between Green River at Green River, Utah, San Rafael
River near Green River, Utah, Colorado River near
Cisco, San Juan River near Bluff, and Colorado River
Resources, Incorporated, Utah.—Resources, Incorporated, proposed to
construct a large powerplant in Utah near Lake Powell using coal from the
Kaiparowits Plateau for fuel and water from Lake Powell for plant oper-
ation. The expected annual depletion to the Colorado River would be
102,000 acre-feet, based on the company's application to the State of
Utah for that much water. The exact date of this depletion is not known
at present.
M&I in Arizona.—The Upper Colorado River Compact allocated 50*000
acre-feet to Arizona from the Upper Colorado River system and of that
amount about 15,000 acre-feet is presently being used.
The remaining 35>000 acre-feet will be used in that portion of
Arizona within the Upper Basin and would be diverted above Lees Ferry with
most of it being used by the Navajo Powerplant at Lake Powell.
The total depletions and salt pickup above Lees Ferry increase the
concentration at the Lees Ferry gage from 0.84 to 1.01 tons per acre-foot
with no pickup, and with 2 tons of pickup the concentration increases from
0.84 to 1.09 tons per acre-foot.
13. Above the Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona
Dixie Project, Utah.—The recently authorized Dixie Project will,
through construction of a multipurpose dam on the Virgin River, provide
a full water supply to 6,900 acres of new land and a supplemental water
supply to 10,000 acres of existing irrigated land. About 5,000 acre-
feet of municipal and industrial water will be provided to the city of
St. George. Cedar City, Utah, can also exercise an existing agreement
to divert up to 8,000 acre-feet of water out of the basin from upper
tributaries.
59
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
A principal concern of the downstream users in Arizona and Nevada
will be in regard to the effect of project operations on water quality
and the amount of flood waters available for leaching purposes. In this
regard the effect of the highly mineralized LaVerkin Springs, which enter
the river above the proposed Virgin River Dam, is of considerable impor-
tance .
The estimated increased depletion of the Virgin River due to total
project development will be 1*8,000 acre-feet per year. Disposal of the
waters of the LaVerkin Springs would increase the estimated annual deple-
tion by the quantity of water removed from the river system. The average
annual flow of the Virgin River at Littlefield under present conditions
based on January 19^-1 through December 1968 records is 151,000 acre-feet.
Concentrations would increase from the present 2.29 to 3-3^ and 3.^8 tons
per acre-foot under zero and 2 tons pickup, respectively.
lb. Between the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Virgin River at
Littlefield, and Colorado River below Hoover Dam
Southern Nevada Water Project, Nevada.--The Southern Nevada Water
Project, now under construction, will provide supplemental municipal and
industrial water to the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson,
and Boulder City and to Nellis Air Force Base. It will also provide water
to the potential Eldorado Valley development.
In the ultimate stage of development of the project, the estimated
total annual diversions from Lake Mead by the existing Boulder City and
Basic Management, Inc., water systems will be 52,000 acre-feet. The esti-
mated total annual diversions by the project will be 328,000 acre-feet,
giving a total ultimate annual diversion from Lake Mead to the project
area of 380,000 acre-feet.
The estimated net annual depletion due to the project and existing
systems will total 262,000 acre-feet allowing for creditable return flows
of 118,000 acre-feet. The diversions in 1968 from Lake Mead were 29,790
acre-feet by Basic Management, Inc., and the Las Vegas Valley Water Dis-
trict, and 3,230 acre-feet for Boulder City and the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area, a total of 33,000 acre-feet. No creditable return flow
from these diversions was listed in the "Compilation of Records in Accord-
ance with Article V of the Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States
in the Arizona v. California Dated March 9, 196V' for calendar year 1968.
If we assume for purposes of computations in this report that unidentified
return flows from the 33,000 acre-feet diverted in 1968 would be in about
the same proportion to diversions as was assumed in the determination of
depletions for the Southern Nevada Water Project, there would be a return
flow of about 10,000 acre-feet. This would give a depletion for 1968 of
about 22,000 acre-feet and the additional annual depletion with full de-
velopment of the Southern Nevada Water Project would be 2^0,000 acre-feet.
60
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
It has been assumed in this report that the Colorado River return
flows from the Southern Nevada Water Project would carry as much salt as
would be pumped from the river. It is possible that measures may be taken
that would result in a reduction of salts returned to the river. Various
proposals have been made for removing or reclaiming the return flow dis-
charged into Las Vegas Wash in order to control pollution problems in the
las Vegas arm of Lake Mead. If any of these proposals are adopted, they
will be evaluated in future progress reports.
A portion of the Southern Nevada Water Project allotment of 262,000
acre-feet will be used by the Southern California Edison Company by divert-
ing 30,000 acre-feet annually from the Colorado River for thermal power
production purposes at a site about 3 miles downstream from Davis Dam.
Use of this water until July 1, 2006, by the Southern California Edison
Company is in accordance with two contracts—one with the State of Nevada
and the Southern California Edison Company and one with the Bureau of Re-
clamation and the State of Nevada. This depletion is included in the de-
pletion anticipated for the Southern Nevada Water Project and would not
cause an additional depletion.
The Southern Nevada Water Project, plus all developments above Lees
Ferry and on the Virgin River, would affect the salinity at the Colorado
River below Hoover Dam station. Salinity concentrations would increase
from 1.03 tons per acre-foot at present to 1.29 and 1.38 tons per acre-
foot for estimated future concentrations under conditions of zero and
2 tons per acre pickup.
15. Between Colorado River below Hoover Dam and Colorado
River at Imperial Dam
Fort Mohave Indian Reservation.—The Fort Mohave Indian Reservation,
located below Davis Dam, is allocated water by the Supreme Court Decree
to irrigate 18,97U acres of land in Arizona, California, and Nevada with
a maximum annual diversion from the Colorado River of 122,6W acre-feet.
The consumptive use required for irrigation of these lands is estimated
to be h acre-feet per acre, which would result in main-stream depletion
of about 76,000 acre-feet annually. The Bureau of Indian Affairs reports
that a major portion of this reservation is under development contract.
The consumptive use of k acre-feet per acre for irrigation of the
Fort Mohave, Chemehuevi, and Colorado River Indian lands is based on the
rate presented in Colorado River Basin Project hearings before the Sub-
committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, House of Representatives. This value is under study and
may be subject to change in future reports.
Chemehuevi Indian Reservation.—The Chemehuevi Indian Reservation,
located above Parker Dam, is allocated water by the Supreme Court Decree
61
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
to irrigate 1,900 acres of land in California with a maximum annual diver-
sion from the main stream of the Colorado River of 11,3*4-0 acre-feet. The
consumptive use required for irrigation of these lands is estimated to be
k acre-feet per acre, which would result in a main stream depletion of
about 7,000 acre-feet annually. Full development of this reservation is
expected by 1990.
Central Arizona Project.—The Colorado River Basin Project Act au-
thorizes the Central Arizona Project for the purposes of furnishing irri-
gation and municipal water supplies to the water-deficient areas of Ari-
zona and western New Mexico through direct diversion or exchange of water.
This project will provide a supplemental water supply to lands now being
irrigated. Water will be made available only to lands having a recent
irrigation history. The Central Arizona Project must stand shortages up
to its full allocation if there is insufficient main stream water to
satisfy an annual consumptive use of 7>500,000 acre-feet allocated under
the Supreme Court Decree of March 196*4- to the States of Nevada, Arizona,
and California. When shortages occur, diversions to the Central Arizona
Project will be limited to assure California water users U,^4-00,000 acre-
feet of main stream water. With present development, as reflected in the
present modified flow listed in Table l8, there would be an average of
2,1^7,000 acre-feet available for diversion to the Central Arizona Project.
With a small cutback of 25,000 acre-feet in California's historic diver-
sion, there would be 2,172,000 acre-feet, which is all that could be di-
verted with a canal capacity of 3,000 c.f.s. California diversions would
eventually be reduced to U, 14-00,000 acre-feet while the Central Arizona
Project supply would gradually reduce to U33,000 acre-feet when all of
the future depletions listed in Table 19 are made.
Contracts—Boulder Canyon Project.--Separate contracts have been
signed with the City of Kingman, Arizona, the Lake Havasu Irrigation and
Drainage District, and the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District
for diversion, respectively, of 18,500 acre-feet, 1^,500 acre-feet, and
51,000 acre-feet annually. Although some new lands may be developed for
irrigation in the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, other
lands now irrigated will be taken out of production due to future munici-
pal and industrial development. As a result, it is probable that the di-
version under the contract with the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage
District would cause no appreciable increase over the present depletions
from existing irrigation in the District and municipal and industrial de-
velopment would result in an increased depletion of about 6,000 acre-feet
per year. All of the diversions to the city of Kingman would be a deple-
tion because of the distance of the city from the Colorado River. Diver-
sion to Lake Havasu Irrigation and Drainage District would cause an
increased depletion of about half of the diversion. It is estimated the
maximum diversions allowed under the three contracts would cause an in-
creased depletion of about 31,000 acre-feet per year.
62
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Lover Colorado River Indian Reservation.—The Lower Colorado River
Indian Reservation is located along the Colorado River just below Parker
Dam, Arizona, with most of the land in Arizona and the remainder in Cal-
ifornia. The Supreme Court Decree allocated 717,lW acre-feet of diver-
sions to the Colorado River Indian Reservation for irrigation of 107,588
acres of land. The consumptive use required for irrigation of these lands
is estimated to be .U acre-feet per acre, which would result in an annual
main stream depletion of ^30,352 acre-feet. The consumptive use in 1968
from irrigation of 46,7^8 acres is estimated to be 186,992 acre-feet.
This leaves an additional depletion of about 2^3,000 acre-feet per year
for future developments.
Lower Colorado River Channelization Project, Arizona-California.—
Between Davis Dam and Parker Dam, the channelization work in the Mohave
Valley Division was completed in 1960 to salvage an estimated 109,000 acre-
feet of water per year. However, the permanence of 4^,000 acre-feet of
that salvage is dependent on future maintenance in the Topock Gorge Divi-
sion. The work in the Topock Gorge Division would also salvage an addi-
tional 28,000 acre-feet per year.
Between Parker Dam and Imperial Dam, work in the Palo Verde Division
to salvage 10,000 acre-feet of water per year has been completed and is
considered to be reflected in the 1968 streamflow records. Work in the
Cibola Division to salvage 3^,000 acre-feet per year was completed in
1970 but is not considered to be reflected in the 1968 streamflow re-
cords. Work in the Parker and Imperial Divisions to salvage 39,000 acre-
feet per year has not yet been started.
In summary, at the end of 1968 channelization work to salvage 119,000
acre-feet of water per year was complete, and work to salvage 103,000
acre-feet per year was either underway or planned.
It is estimated that an additional 100,000 acre-feet of water per
year could be salvaged by phreatophyte eradication and control. The loca-
tions where work would be done have not been finally selected. For pur-
poses of this study, locations of salvage developed for the Pacific
Southwest Water Plan have been used. It indicated salvage of 88,000
acre-feet would be above Imperial Dam; of this amount, 59?000 acre-feet
would be above Parker Dam and 29,000 acre-feet would be between Parker
and Imperial Dams. The combined annual salvage above Parker Dam from the
channelization and phreatophyte eradication and control programs would be
87,000 acre-feet. Between Parker and Imperial Dams, the salvage from the
combined programs would be 104,000 acre-feet. The total salvage above
Imperial Dam is 191,000 acre-feet.
In addition to developments above Hoover Dam, the Central Arizona
Project, development of Indian lands on the Fort Mohave, Chemehuevi, and
Colorado River Indian Reservations, a decrease in diversions through the
63
-------
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Colorado River Aqueduct by the Metropolitan Water District, separate con-
tracts to various water users, and increases to the water supply resulting
from salvage "by channelization and phreatophyte control of the Lower Colo-
rado River will all contribute to changes in the salinity concentration at
Imperial Dam.
Salinity concentrations at the Colorado River below Parker Dam station
would increase from the present 1.01 tons per acre-foot to 1.27 and 1.37
tons per acre-foot for the zero and 2 tons per acre pickup conditions,
while the concentration at Imperial Dam would increase from the present
1.18 tons per acre-foot to 1.57 and 1.70 tons per acre-foot for the zero
and 2 tons per irrigated acre pickup conditions.
-------
PART VII. EFFECTS OF SALINITY ON WATER USE
Water quality can be a limiting factor in the use of a water supply.
Different water uses require different water qualities, and a supply may
thus be acceptable for some uses but unsuitable for others. Most water
uses have a range of quality within which a supply may be acceptable for
that use. Use of water at the low quality end of this range may impose
an economic, a social, and/or a political penalty on the water user in
comparison to use of the water at a higher quality. The suitability of
the quality of a water supply for use is thus a relative matter and must
be evaluated with regard to specific uses and the social and economic
aspects of such use.
A major objective of this report is to assess the suitability of
Colorado River water for various beneficial uses. The following sections
discuss the physical and economic effects of salinity on water uses in
the Colorado River Basin. The effects of water quality on water uses as
measured by parameters other than salinity are discussed in Part IX.
A. In-stream Use
The major in-stream uses of water in the Colorado River Basin include
hydroelectric power production, propagation of fish and aquatic life, rec-
reation (including water contact sports), and aesthetics. Within the
range of salinity concentrations expected in the foreseeable future, sa-
linity should have no significant effects on these uses.
B. Irrigation Use
A major portion of the basin water supply is consumptively used for
irrigation. Any effects of water quality on this use are thus of major
importance. Crops grown in the basin differ in sensitivity to a salt
concentration in the soil root zone, with some crops tolerating signifi-
cantly higher concentrations in the root zone than the more sensitive
crops. Also, most crops require a lower salinity concentration in the
root zone during the germinating and seedling stage than they do later
in the growing cycle. Salinity concentrations in the root zone are af-
fected by the salinity concentration of the irrigation water, the rela-
tionship of consumptive use to the water supplied to the crop by irriga-
tion and rainfall, and the drainability of the soil. If, however, all
other factors remain unchanged, the salinity concentration of the root
zone will vary with the salinity concentration of the irrigation water.
Thus an increase in the salinity concentration of the irrigation water
will decrease the productivity of the crops if its tolerance limit of
salinity concentration in the root zone is exceeded. Because of the
-------
PART VII. EFFECTS OF SALINITY ON WATER USE
many factors affecting the salinity concentration in the root zone, an
exact irrigation water concentration that will damage a crop cannot be
determined.
Damage to crops can be prevented by applying additional irrigation
water to flush the salts from the soil. If natural drainage or an ex-
isting drainage system is inadequate to remove the additional water, it
may be necessary to install additional drains. Without sufficient water
for flushing the salts from the soils the grower has the choice of pro-
ducing less per acre or of switching to a crop that is more salt toler-
ant. The more salt-tolerant crops, however, generally have a lower eco-
nomic return than the salt-sensitive crops. Therefore, it is probable
that, if the salinity concentration of the irrigation water becomes high
enough to cause damage to crops, the grower will suffer a decrease in his
economic return.
In the Upper Basin, salinity concentrations during the irrigation
season are relatively low except in local areas. The impact of salinity
on irrigation in the Upper Basin is thus minimal.
In the Lower Basin, present peak salinity concentrations are ap-
proaching critical levels for some salt-sensitive crops and, while suit-
able for irrigation of most crops, are believed to be high enough that
in some cases decreases in crop yields could occur. Although Colorado
River water is accepted for irrigation use, future increases in salinity
may thus involve the incurring of a small but significant economic loss.
C. Industrial Use
Colorado River water has not been widely used for industrial pur-
poses within the basin, but extensive use has been made of this water
from transmountain diversions outside the basin. Since the quality of
the water diverted from the Upper Basin is relatively high, only minimal
pretreatment is required for most industrial uses. In the Lower Basin,
the higher salinity levels in the diverted flows may require more exten-
sive pretreatment for some types of industrial uses.
The quality of water required for industrial use varies widely- and
is dependent upon the purposes for which the water is utilized. Within
any industrial plant, water may have several functions.
Cooling is the largest single use of industrial water supplied from
the Colorado River, ranging from 57 percent to 80 percent. Because avail-
able water is limited, recirculatory cooling systems are the prevalent
type. About 3,000 mg./l. is the maximum salinity concentration that can
be used in a system unless it is constructed of corrosion-resistant mate-
rial. Salt concentrations are held below this limit by blowdown
66
-------
EFFECTS OF SALINITY ON WATER USE
(discharging a part of the cooling water to waste and replacing it with
water having a lower salinity concentration). Usually the cooling water
and boiler system water are treated to inhibit scale formation and cor-
rosion. The amount of cooling water needed by a specific industry is
proportional to the salinity concentration of the available water. The
cost of treating both cooling and boiler water also varies proportionally
with the salinity concentration.
Tables 20-25, showing yearly summaries of the ionic loads at six sta-
tions, can be used by industry to evaluate the water available to meet its
needs.
D. Domestic Use
For domestic water use, it is desirable to have a safe, clear, pot-
able, aesthetically pleasing water supply which meets the recommended lim-
its of the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards of 1962. Fligh
salinity levels affect the taste of drinking water and may affect the di-
gestive system in some people. Water hardness, whi^h generally increases
with increases in salinity concentrations, also requires more soap and
laundry additives to achieve acceptable cleaning results. If the water
becomes too hard, softening of the supply in large-scale municipal plants
or in individual home units may be required. Sealing of water heaters
and corrosion of pipes also accelerate with increased salinity or hard-
ness levels.
Water quality in the Upper Basin will generally meet the Public
Health Service standards with normal levels of treatment—settling, fil-
tration, and disinfection. In some cases only disinfection is required.
In contrast to the Upper Basin, the water supply at most points in the
Lower Basin does not meet the Public Health Service recommended limits
for total dissolved solids, exceeding the maximum acceptable limits at
times. Mineralized water supplies with salinity concentrations in the
range of those values observed in the Colorado River, however, are com-
monly accepted in the southwestern United States, with little detriment
to the potability of the supply. The use of this mineralized supply im-
poses an increased treatment cost as hardness levels are high enough that
water softening is provided for some of the supply in addition to normal
treatment.
Softening of Colorado River water is extensive enough that small in-
creases in hardness affect softening costs appreciably.
67
-------
PART VIII. THE POTENTIAL FOR SALINITY CONTROL
tarv HT leglfative acts Discussed in Part I authorize the Secre-
tary of the Interior to study means of improving the quality of water in
the Colorado River Basin and to develop comprehensive plans for achieving
takenWS?h ST oh^ e?ancan!nt- A ™>*»* of activities^ have been Sndlr-8
SomTof th.f6 °^e?^ves °f ^aluating various salinity control aspects
Some of these activities were previously discussed. The following sec-
°r the potential for
A. Technical Possibilities for Salinity Control
There are a number of salinity control measures which could be poten-
tially useful for minimizing and controlling salinity in the Colorado
River Basin. These measures, which may be divided into measures for in-
creasing the water supply and measures for reducing the salt load, are
listed in Table D .
Various factors such as economic feasibility, lack of research, and
legal and institutional constraints limit the practicality of most meas-
ures. The most practical means of augmenting the basin water supply in-
clude importing water from other basins, importing demineralized sea
water, and utilizing weather modification techniques to increase precipi-
tation 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 and facilities, desalination of
saline discharges from natural and man-made sources, and desalination of
water supplies at points of use.
B. Feasibility of Salinity Control
Eight potential alternative salinity control programs incorporating
a variety of control measures were formulated by the Federal Water Quality
Administration to provide the basis for evaluating the costs and salinity
control effects of a basinwide control program. These alternatives in-
cluded 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, diversions of streams
and improvement of irrigation practices and facilities. The Federal Water
Quality Administration estimated that the programs have a potential salt-
load reduction of up to 3 million tons annually and possibly could reduce
average salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam by about 200 to 300 mg./l.
68
-------
THE POTENTIAL FOB. SALINITY CONTROL
Table D . Possibilities for Salinity Control
I. Measures for increasing water supply
A. Water conservation measures
1. Increased watershed runoff
2. Fhreatophyte control
3. Optimized water utilization for irrigation
a. Reduced consumptive use
b. Improved irrigation efficiency
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 high saline discharges
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 ground water recharge
c. Reduced sediment production
B. Control of man-made sources
1. Municipal and industrial sources
a. Evaporation of high saline discharges
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
69
-------
T3E POTENTIAL FOR SALINITY CONTROL
The four flow augmentation programs evaluated were based on three
potential sources of water: increased precipitation and runoff through
weather modification, interbasin transfer of water, and importation of
demineralized sea water. Since investigations of the potential feasi-
bility of interbasin transfer of water into the Colorado River Basin
are prohibited by law until after 1978, the evaluation of such programs
was limited to the effects of flow augmentation on salinity concentra-
tions and did not include an evaluation of the feasibility of interbasin
transfer or of potential sources of surplus water. The volume of flow
augmentation assumed to be provided by the programs evaluated ranged
from 1.7 to 5.9 million acre-feet annually. Resulting reductions in aver-
age salinity concentrations at Hoover Dam ranged from 100 to 300 mg./l.
Desalination of water supplies diverted from the Lower Colorado River
for use in Southern California was evaluated as an alternative to reducing
salinity levels in the river system.
C. Salinity Control Investigations
Both the Bureaa of Reclamation and the FWQA. have participated in a
number of basic studies directed toward the objectives of developing and
demonstrating methods of minimizing salinity concentrations in the Colo-
rado River system. In addition to the research efforts previously dis-
ctissed in Section E, Part IV, several salinity control investigations
have jj.st been completed or are in progress. These investigations are
discussed below.
1. Cooperative Salinity Contro?- Reconnaissance Study
Early in BY 1968, the FW'^A. 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 discontinuance of the study during FY 1970. Tne results of the
study to date will be presented in a report to be released at a later
date.
Reconnaissance level preliminary plans were developed by the study
for two salinity control projects and cost estimates prepared for a num-
ber of control methods. One preliminary plan developed was for the
Paradox Salinity Control Project which would reduce the heavy pickup of
salt by the Dolores River as it crosses a salt anticline in Paradox
Valley in western Colorado. Control would be achieved by regulating peak
flood flows and conveying the streaiiflow through a lined canal past a
recharge area for a saline ground water system. Estimates of project
costs and salinity control benefits were prepared which indicated this
project may be economically feasible.
70
-------
THE POTENTIAL FOR SALINITY CONTROL
A preliminary plan was also prepared for a project to control the
salt load from Crystal Geyser, an abandoned oil test well which periodi-
cally discharges highly mineralized water in mach the same manner as a
geyser. Control would be achieved by collecting the geyser discharge
and pumping it to a lined impoundment for evaporation. Cost estimates
for this project also indicated marginal economic feasibility. A proj-
ect of this type may be potentially applicable to control of some of the
more concentrated small mineral springs if suitable land area for an
evaporation poni can be found and evaporation rates are high enough.
For control of irrigation return flows, the costs of impounding and
evaporating the flows at two topographically different sites were esti-
mated. The costs of deep well injection of relatively small quantities
of the more concentrated return flows were also estimated. The feasibil-
ity of controlling irrigation return flows by evaporation or deep well
injection would appear to be doubtful at this time on the basis of salin-
ity control benefits alone.
The cost of lining canals and distribution systems in several exist-
ing irrigation projects as a salinity control measure was also investi-
gated. The economic feasibility of this type of control measure was not
evaluated, however, as the effectiveness of canal lining in reducing salt
loads from irrigated areas has not been fully determined.
2. Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration Project
This project, located near Grand Junction, Colo., was initiated in
FY 19o9 under a FrfQA 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 aquifer con-
taining highly saline ground water. Seepage from canals and laterals
contributes to the recharge of this aquifer. This recharge displaces
the saline ground water 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 loai discharged to the river.
A major portion of the canals and some of the laterals serving a
study area of about h,6QQ acres were lined with concrete in 1969 and
1970« Most of the lining was accomplished by a corporation of local
irrigation and drainage districts which direct the demonstration proj-
ect. Colorado State University is conducting the data collection
activities and evaluating the salinity control effects under contract
from the corporation. 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 losses from the con-
veyance system. This model will allow the results of the demonstra-
tion project to be projected valley-wide upon completion of the study
and form the basis for future salinity control activities in this loca-
tion. Completion of the demonstration project, including all post-
construction studies, is scheduled for mid-1972.
71
-------
THE POTENTIAL FOR SALINITY CONTROL
3« Other Related Investigations
A research project entitled, "Effect of Water Management on Quality
of Ground Water and Surface Recharge in Las Vegas Valley," was initiated
by Desert Research Institute in late 1969 under a FW^ research grant.
This project will evaluate, amDng other things, the movement of salts in
the ground water system and the exchange of salts between the ground wa-
ter and surface waters of Las Vegas Wash. Research results will help
define the optimum approach to control of this salt source. Completion
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. Sa-
linity Laboratory. Work underway or planned covers a wide range of
salinity management aspects and should provide data applicable to basin
salinity problems.
D. Completed Salinity Control Projects
Daring the latter part of FY 1968, the F^QA 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, Colo., was selected as
the pilot demonstration project. The Bureau of Reclamation's contractor
completed plugging the Meeker well on August 3, 1967, 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 recharge area at an improved quality, and that plugging
the wells will not cause a permanent decrease of the' annual flow in the
White River.
Costs for plugging the two wells totaled $^0,000. It is estimated
"by the Federal Water Quality Administration that the present worth of
total benefits which will accrue to Colorado River water users is approxi-
mately $7 million. Thus, this project demonstrated the economic feasibil-
ity of plugging similar flowing saline wells in addition to demonstrating
72
-------
THE POTENTIAL FOR SALINITY CONTROL
significant local water quality improvement. The high "benefit-cost ratio
for this project would indicate that plugging wells discharging consider-
ably lesser amounts of salt would be economically feasible.
Another flowing well near Rock Springs, Wyo., which contributed ap-
proximately 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 re-
duce average salinity concentrations by about 6 mg./l. under present con-
ditions. Although this change in salinity concentrations is small vith
respect to present salinity levels, the resulting economic benefits are
significant. These annual benefits are estimated to range from $^00,000
in 1970 to $1 million 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.
73
-------
PART IX. OTHER WATER QJALITY ASPECTS
Although salinity is considered to be the most serious water quality
problem in the Colorado River Basin, there are a number of other water
quality problems of varying degrees of significance which warrant discus-
sion. The following sections discuss the most significant sources of
water quality degradation and the effects of such degradations on water
uses as measured by various parameters.
A. Source of Water Quality Degradation
1. Municipal Wastes
Municipal wastes are described herein as those liquid-carried wastes
of domestic and service industry origin. Within the Colorado River Basin
the majority of the discharges from waste water treatment plants enter the
river system and are the primary sources of bacteriological and organic
pollution. Most of the municipal waste sources in the basin receive sec-
ondary treatment plus disinfection which is the minimum degree of treat-
ment required by the Basin States.
Compliance schedules have been established for municipalities whose
waste discharges are not meeting the water quality standards set by the
States. At the present time, pollution from municipal waste sources is
confined to those reaches of stream immediately downstream of the waste
effluent, and measures are being taken or have been planned for the con-
trol or abatement of pollution from these sources.
2. Industrial Wastes
Industrial wastes are defined as those spent process waters, cooling
waters, wash waters, and other waste waters associated with industrial
operations. The pollutants derived from industrial wastes other than sa-
linity are toxic materials, oils and grease, floating materials, radioac-
tivity, oxygen-demanding substances, heat, color-, taste-, and odor-
producing substances, and bacteria.
The pollution problems associated with the discharge of industrial
wastes in the Colorado River system have been generally confined to local
reaches of stream. An exception occurs, however, with the discharge of
uranium mill effluents because of the persistent nature of the radioactiv-
ity in these effluents. Two enforcement conferences were called by the
FW^A (formerly the Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control) in the Animas River and the Colorado River Basins in
an attempt to find solutions to the problems associated with uranium mill
discharges. The majority of the uranium mills in the Colorado River
-------
OTHER WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Basin have "been closed "but there still exists the potential for water
pollution from the remaining mill tailings piles.
With the establishment of Water Quality Standards on interstate
streams and compliance schedules for the implementation of these stand-
ards, the pollution from industrial waste sources in the basin has been
or is being abated or controlled.
3. Sediment
Prior to construction of the storage units of the Colorado River
Storage Project, most of the larger tributaries and the main stem of the
Colorado River carried large loads of sediment, particularly in their
middle and lower reaches.
For example, in 1957 the suspended sediment load of the Colorado
River at Lees Ferry, Ariz., gaging station was recorded at 1^3 million
tons. This sediment was detrimental to water diverters for consumptive
use as well as to high-type fishery and other recreational uses. The
construction of Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, Curecanti Unit, Navajo, and
Glen Canyon Dams has produced dramatic changes in the sediment load
transported by these streams. For example, the relationship bstween the
water and sediment flows at Lees Ferry during the 19^8-66 period is
illustrated in Figure 9 • In 1959 "the cofferdam utilized in the construc-
tion of Glen Canyon Dam was finished and diversions began through the tun-
nels. Sediment was deposited behind the cofferdam in 1959 and I960 at a
sufficient rate to gradually fill the cofferdam lake with the result that
by 1962 the annual sediment load at Lees Ferry had increased to 67 mil-
lion tons. This load dropped to 2.2 million tons in calendar year 1963
with the closure of Glen Canyon Dam and initial storage in Lake Powell.
Lake Powell and other Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs are now
effectively trapping and storing almost all of the sediment originating
in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Lake Powell traps approximately 80
percent of the sediment that normally would flow into Lake Mead. By
storing the sediment in the Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs,
the streams immediately below the dam have been changed to relatively
clear trout water fisheries as well as desirable boating and recrea-
tional areas.
Suspended sediment records have been maintained at key locations to
measure the changes taking place. Some of these stations are shown in
Tables 39 to W- and include Green River near Jensen, Utah; Green River at
Green River, Utah; Colorado River near Cisco, Utah; San Juan River near
Bluff, Utah; Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz., and Colorado River near
Grand Canyon, Ariz. Because the sediment load was essentially eliminated
by the Glen Canyon Dam, sediment measurements at Lees Ferry were discon-
tinued in September 1966.
75
-------
a
16
i-
a
"•1*
UJ
!-
o
l»
1
§3
b.
f 6
z
<
4
Z
0
WA'
FL
PER
OW
1948 I95O I95Z 1954 1956 1958 I960 1962 1964 1966
YEARS
i
--
.
_
I
I
III
5
H
C
I
i
1948
1950
1952
C
EDII
LO
1954
MIEN
AD
[
1956
YEARS
1958
120
100
e
(
•--
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
COLORADO RIVER
AT LEES FERRY
SEDIMENT 8 WATER FLOW
Fig. 9
76
-------
OTHER WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
k. Agricultural Wastes
Neglecting salinity pollution, pesticides, and fertilizers are the
primary water pollutants associated with agriculture in the Colorado
River Basin.
The chlorinated hydrocarbon group, e.g., DDT and Toxaphene, are the
most persistent pesticides and are of primary concern because of their
long-range impact. The organic phosphate compounds do not persist in
the environment for the period the chlorinated hydrocarbons do, but they
are more toxic to fish and humans. Data have been collected showing that
pesticides are present in sufficient quantities at certain locations in
the Lower Colorado River to be harmful to fish and aquatic life. Tha use
of these compounds in areas above public water supply intakes requires
that adequate precautions bs taken to preclude entry into the river system.
Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers are the most commonly used in the
basin. Studies conducted in other areas of the United States show a rela-
tionship between the concentrations of nutrients from agricultural lands
and water quality problems caused by excessive fertilization of aquatic
plants. The 1966 water quality study by the FWQA indicated that signifi-
cant quantities of phosphorus were contributed from irrigated agriculture
along the Lower Colorado River. Within the Colorado River Basin the ani-
mal waste pollution is minimal because outside surface water has been pre-
vented from entering the feedlots either by directing the drainage away
from the operation or by locating the facility in a favorable topographic
position. Feedlot wastes, moreover, do not generally accumulate within
the basin since facilities are set up to distribute the wastes onto adja-
cent farmland.
5» Mine Drainage
During 1966 to 1968 approximately 75 locations were sampled to de-
termine the heavy-metal concentrations contributed by mine drainages,
tailing piles, and natural sources within the Colorado River Basin. The
streams with degraded reaches are listed in Table E which also shows
the major sources and effects of the pollution. Many of these streams
have heavy-metal concentrations in excess of PHS Drinking Water Stand-
ards and destroy aquatic life in about 120 miles of stream channel.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with any state or
interstate agency "to demonstrate methods for the elimination or control,
within all or part of a watershed, of acid or other mine water pollution
resulting from active or abandoned mines." Efforts are currently under-
way to initiate an agreement under the provisions of this act to evaluate
the effectiveness of several mine drainage control methods in the south-
western portion of the State of Colorado.
77
-------
OTHER WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Table E. Mine Drainage
Area of
Sources and Effects, Colorado River Basin
Stream
investigation
Major sources
Effects
Blue River
Tenmile Creek
Headwaters to mouth
at Frisco, Colo.
Wilfrey Mine; pump fail-
ure at Amax tailings
ponds.
Some areas devoid of
aquatic life due to
high heavy-metals con-
centrations
Eagle River
Homestake'Creek
near Redcliff to
Minturn, Colo.
Mineral spring near
Belden, Colo.; former
seepage from old tail-
ings pile; New Jersey
Zinc Corp. decant.
Aesthetics; destruc-
tion of biological
productivity; high
heavy-metals concen-
tration; predomi-
nantly zinc.
Gnnnison River
Lake Fork
Headwaters to Lake
City, Colo.
Golden Fleece Mine.
Aesthetics in north-
west portion of Lake
San Cristobal.
Uncompahgre
River
Headwaters through
Dexter Creek, up-
stream of Ouray,
Colo.
Red Mountain Creek; via
Genessee, Rouville, and
Joker Tunnels, and Red
Mountain adit; natural
sources.
Aesthetics; low pH;
high heavy-metals and
mineral concentra-
tion; devoid of
aquatic life.
Dolores River
Mouth of Coal Creek
to Dolores-
Montezuma County
line.
St. Louis and Elaine
Tunnels; Silver Swan
adit; and others.
Aesthetics; minimal
effect due to neutral-
ization of mine drain-
age by natural river
alkalinity.
San Miguel
River
Upstream of con-
fluence with South
Fork.
Iron Springs; Perm Tun-
nel ; other mine drains;
natural sources.
Aesthetics; high heavy-
metals concentration;
minor effects on bio-
logical productivity.
San Juan River
Animas River
Headwaters through
Mineral Creek
south of Silver-
ton, Colo.
Cement Creek, north
Mineral Creek via Bag-
ley, American, and
Koehler Tunnel; other
adits, mills, and mine
drains, natural
sources.
Aesthetics; high heavy-
metals concentration,
particularly zinc;
many areas devoid of
aquatic organisms.
La Plata River
Headwater to Hes-
perus, Colo.
Natural sources.
Minimal effects.
Mancos River
Headwaters to con-
fluence of Middle
and East Forks.
Natural mineral seep.
Some destruction of
aquatic life, par-
ticularly fish.
78
-------
OTHER WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
B. Water Quality Parameters Other Than Salinity and Sediment
1. Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved-oxygen concentration is a measure of the water capacity
to support life and assimilate organic wastes. The records show that the
dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the Colorado River Basin are generally
above established standards. However, a marked reduction in the concen-
tration can be found during the summer months below some municipal and
industrial discharges and in some streams with very low flows. A 1966
investigation indicated that there might be a wide diurnal variation in
the -oxygen concentrations in some reaches because of the large amount of
algae in the streams with oxygen saturation being reached during a sunlit
day and a minimal concentration occurring at night when oxygen is used
by the plants.
2. Temperature
The Colorado River Basin water temperatures .vary widely, reaching
the highest levels during the summer months when they vary from near
freezing in the high mountains to above 90° F. in the lower reaches. Warmer
temperatures may increase the rate of growth and the decomposition of
organic matter and of chemical reaction, resulting in bad odors and tastes,
and also decrease the dissolved oxygen concentration available to sustain
a fishery.
Changes in water temperature in the basin result primarily from
natural climatic conditions. The large reservoirs, however, may affect
the stream temperatures for a considerable distance below the reservoir.
Temperature records indicate that Flaming Gorge Reservoir has little or
no effect on winter temperatures but cools the summer temperatures of the
Green River up to 5° F« a"t "the Green River, Utah, station. Nava.jo reser-
voir appears to have no effect on the temperatures of the San Juan River
at the near Bluff station. Lake Powell appears to warm the winter tem-
peratures of the Colorado River at the Grand Canyon station by up to 10° F.
and cool the summer temperatures by about the same amount.
Thermal springs, waste-water discharges, and irrigation return flows
may increase the temperatures in the receiving water, but the added heat
is usually dissipated in a relatively short distance from the source. Flow
depletions and changes in stream channel characteristics may also increase
the effects of natural climatic conditions causing cooler or warmer water
temperatures.
Temperature increases due to municipal and industrial waste discharges
have been minimal; however, the construction of thermal powerplants in the
basin with a return of the cooling water to the streams or reservoirs pre-
sents a potential for temperature increases. Any thermal discharge coupled
with flow depletion could have a significant effect on water temperatures.
79
-------
OTHER WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Tables 26 through 38 contain the temperature records of 13 stations.
3-
The pH of the waters in the Colorado River Basin usually range rrom
about 7 to 8 pH units with the exception of those streams receiving acid
mine drainage. In this latter case the pH is lowered to levels which pre-
clude the establishment of aquatic life and the use of the river for a
fishery and other purposes.
k. Heavy Metals
Various heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, iron, manganese,
.arsenic, and cyanide are found in the waters of the basin. These vary
from trace amounts to potentially hazardous levels. The presence of these
heavy metals is generally contributed by drainage from active and inactive
mining operations.
Iron and manganese concentrations frequently exceed the Public Health
Drinking Water Standards in many basin streams. This is particularly evi-
dent in the upper reaches of the Colorado and San Juan Rivers and their
tributaries. A 1966 water quality survey showed that heavy metal concen-
trations have a marked effect on the aquatic life. Toxicity of these met-
als to aquatic life is dependent not only on the toxicity of a single
metal but also the synergistic effects of two or more metals. Certain
reaches of stream are completely devoid of bottom organisms and fish be-
cause of these toxic effects.
5. Toxic Materials
In addition to the toxic effects of heavy metal concentrations, toxic
materials are also contributed to the stream through industrial and agri-
cultural operations. Limited long-term monitoring at four surveillance
stations located on the Colorado River has detected the pesticides DDD,
DDE, DDT, dieldrin, and endrin. There are, however, no data available for
pesticides in other streams of the basin. A comprehensive evaluation of
the effects of pesticides upon water quality cannot be made at this time
because of the lack of water quality data and incomplete knowledge of the
physiological and other effects of pesticides in human, wildlife, fish, and
other biological forms. The mere presence of a pesticide in water does
not necessarily indicate serious pollution. In recent years, however,
several fish and bird mortalities, attributed to residual pesticides, have
occurred downstream of and in irrigation drains along the Lower Colorado
River.
6. Nutrients
Nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, are believed to be the
most conducive to the growth of algae. The sources of these nutrients are
80
-------
OTHER WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
runoff from agricultural lands, municipal and industrial waste waters,
and natural runoff. Phosphorus is normally found in only limited quan-
tities, in unpolluted water. Sufficient nitrogen is generally available
naturally in basin waters to stimulate algae growth.
Quiescent reservoir waters are more susceptible to excessive plant
growths than are rapidly flowing streams. Excessive growth of aquatic
plants are present in the Las Vegas Bay (a highly used recreational area
on Lake Mead) as a result of large nutrient inputs derived primarily
from municipal and industrial effluents 'from the metropolitan Las Vegas
area. The extensive algae growth has affected the use of the lake as a
public water supply.
The nutrient concentrations in other lakes in the basin have reached
levels which can support excessive algae growths. An excessive algae
growth has been cited as the probable reason for a fish kill which oc-
curred in the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in late 1963.
In the lower reaches of the Colorado River excessive aquatic plant
growths have been associated with fertilization by nutrients discharged
to irrigation return canals. A small increase in the nutrient levels in
the river has been attributed to heavy recreational activities along the
river below Davis Dam.
7. Bacteria
The coliform group of bacteria is used as an indicator of pollution.
This group is made up of bacteria of diverse origin including that found
in the intestinal tract of humans and other warmblooded animals as well
as in the soil and on vegetation. High coliform counts in waters indi-
cate the probable presence of pathogenic organisms where bacterial con-
tamination from sewage or animal wastes appears likely.
In recent years analytical procedures have been developed whereby
coliform bacteria of fecal origin can be identified. Fecal coliform
tests measure bacteria from both man and animal. All the states of the
basin have set standards for fecal coliform as the bacterial indicator
of pollution.
High bacterial counts were observed at many locations in the Colo-
rado River Basin during the 1966 water quality study. A number of these
resulted from raw sewage discharges into a stream. In some cases, how-
ever, it was because of poor disinfection of the municipal waste water
treatment plant effluents. The raw sewage discharges which were ob-
served during the 1966 survey have been or are scheduled to be corrected
by the addition of ponding treatment.
Bacteriological pollution has also been observed in popular recreation
areas. For example, the fecal coliform densities in Lake Mead have been
81
-------
OTHER WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
observed at densities higher than the standards set for body contact rec-
reation (100/100 ml.).
Bacteriological pollution has an effect on most of the uses cited
earlier. In those cases where it exceecfe the criteria set for body con-
tact recreation, it results in the closure of swimming areas. With high
coliform counts, the use of water as a public water supply is impaired.
8. Radioact ivity
An assessment of the radioactivity in the basin waters should also
consider strontium 90 (Sr-90) radionuclides associated with atmospheric
fallout in addition to radionuclides associated with industrial activi-
ties. Strontium 9°.» like the radionuclide Ra-226, is damaging to human
bone cells. The effects of Ra-226 and Sr-90 are additive.
Radioactive pollution from industrial waste water effluents, i.e.,
uranium mills, was, prior to I960, the major source of radioactive pollu-
tion in the basin. The majority of the mills have been closed down but a
significant portion of the increase of radioactivity originates from the
abandoned tailings piles. In combination with other radionuclides (e.g.,
Sr-90) the waters of the Colorado River system are now approaching or ex-
ceeding the recom-nended limits for radioactivity.
Radioactivity does impair the water for beneficial use when concen-
trations exceed certain limits. For example, the Public Health Drinking
Water Standards set a mandatory limit of 3-0 picocuries Ra-226 and 10
picocuries/liter Sr-90. Moreover, the combination of these two radio-
nuclides should conform to the following relationship: Sr-90 .». Ra-226
-------
PART X. CONCLUSIONS
These studies indicate an overall increase in the concentration of
total dissolved solids at the various points on the Colorado River and
its tributaries under the conditions described. The quality of water
will still be acceptable for present and most projected uses although
some quality control measures are desirable in order to keep the future
concentrations within usable limits.
Salinity is introduced into the Colorado River system from various
sources but the natural source contributes the major portion of total dis-
solved solids. The addition of large storage units throughout the entire
basin has dampened out the longtime and annual fluctuations in water qual-
ity.
The dampening influence on water quality fluctuations by many reser-
voirs in the basin will make it possible to more accurately forecast the
quality of water delivery to the many projects and points of diversion
in the basin.
The tributaries with exceptionally high dissolved-solids content
have minor effect on the dissolved-solids concentration of the Colorado
River as the volume of water and total tonnage of dissolved material
represent only a very small portion of the total.
Tne special studies of irrigation projects that have been undertaken
and their effect on the chemical quality of water permit these preliminary
conclusions:
1. The early years of irrigation are generally the most detrimental
to downstream water quality. This is primarily due to an abundance of
soluble salts not previously exposed to a large amount of water.
2. Firm determinations cannot be made during the early years of de-
velopment regarding the ultimate effect of irrigation. The primary fac-
tors in establishing equilibrium are the availability of soluble salts in
the soils, the capacity of the ground water reservoirs, and the uniform-
ity of irrigation practice in the area in question.
3. Each irrigated area has a different effect on qaality depending
upon properties of the soils and substrata in the drainage area, number
of years the land has been irrigated, number of times return flow is re-
used, nature of the aquifers, rainfall, amount of dilution caused by sur-
face wastes, temperature/ storage reservoirs, vegetation, arid types of
return flow channels.
83
-------
CONCLUSIONS
U. Future studies should consider other aspects of water quality
effects, such as ion exchange, selective precipitation of salts, and
changes in chemical composition (hardness, concentrations of specific
constituents, etc.) on the river systems.
Programs to alleviate salt contributions to the river system are
now underway in local areas.
Pollution to the Colorado River Basin other than salinity have not
"been a major problem in the past and with careful surveillance and con-
trol measures may not become a major problem in the future.
References Cited
lorns, W. V., Hembree, C. H., and Oakland, G. L., 1965; Water Re-
sources of the Upper Colorado River Basin—Technical Report: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Professional Paper Ml, 37^ pages.
-------
Table I
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Green River near Green River, Wyoming
Units-IOOO
Month
1912
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.'
June
•1 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
Miy
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
•3 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
June
.« July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
•fey
June
5 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
Miy
June
6 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.F.) (Tons)
Ifenth
1953
195k
1955
1956
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
1958
ftncen-
Flox tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.I (Tons)
1.183
.1.5
1.631
To obtain r£/l nultiply T/Ar by 735
-------
Concen-
Flo» tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.r.) (Tons)
2k0.71
Table I
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Green River near Green River, Wyoming
Units-1000
rear Kmth
Jan.
7eb.
tter.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov,
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
ter.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
HIT.
Apr.
tty
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Sec.
Total
Jan.
Fet>.
Ifer.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
tfer.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
»ov.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.f.) (Tons)
To ottein c«,'l cultlply T/AF ty 735
86
-------
Table I
Colorado River Basin
Flow and Quality of Water Data
Green River near Green River, Wyoming
(Annual Summary)
Units —1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Average
Flow
(A.F.)
1,109
1,154
1,680
1,265
1,150
1.225
1,926
1,113
1,205
2,096
1,972
1,496
1,084
1,183
838
1,621
1,548
1,046
953
698
559
1,451
1,002
1,136
1,964
911
1,523
975
35,883
1,282
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
0.48
.45
.38
.42
.45
.46
.37
.46
.45
.38
.36
.40
.43
.39
.45
.38
.38
.45
.44
.47
.43
.38
.41
.40
.44
.52
.39
.49
.42
(Mg./l)
340
330
9 fin
' •*] i
33?
T*R
272
T*7
•nn
278
267
293
T1S
287
•m
217
282
332
320
347
319
276
302
296
322
382
287
363
307
T.D.S.
(Tons)
527
518
641
536
519
564
714
510
541
792
716
597
465
462
381
612
594
473
415
330
243
545
412
458
861
473
594
482
14.975
535
Sampled quality record May 1951 to December 1968; remainder by
correlation.
Measured flow record January 1941 to September 1945; and April
1951 to December 1968; remainder by correlation.
87
-------
Table 2
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water
Green River near Greendale, Utah
Units -1000
Data
Jin.
Feb.
Ifcr.
Apr.
*y
Jose
-1941 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Joy.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*-y
June
-1942 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
«or.
Dee.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
-1943 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Rov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
>by
June
-1944 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
mi.
Apr.
*y
June
-1945 Juty
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
»y
June
-1946 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lor.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flow tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tone)
1.672
Sit
.52 799
Itonth
Jan.
Feb.
•fcr.
Apr.
June
-1947 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Msr.
Apr.
May
June
-1948 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
-1949 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Rov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
May
June
-1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Miy
June
-1951 July
Aug*
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
-1952 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Flov
(A.F.I
Coneen-
tratlon T.D.S.
(T. /A.F.I (Tons)
a.W?
1.1*58
.53 766
,61 969
2,1*9
,5S 1,117
)fcnth
-1954
Jan.
yet.
Msr.
Apr.
May
June
53 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sbv.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Fet.
fcr.
Apr.
Kay
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
total
Jan.
Feb.
*r.
Apr.
May
June
-1955 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Jov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
mr.
Apr.
M»y
June
-1956 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Soy.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Hay
June
-1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
M>r.
Apr.
»y
June
-1958 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
for.
Dec.
Total
Flo»
(A.F.I
Concen-
tration
(T./A.F.I
T.D.S.
(Tonal
1.282
.VI 1. Oil
1,310
.52 677
To obtain mill multiply T/AF by 735.
-------
Table 2
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Oualitv of Water Data
Green River near Greendale, Utah
Units-1000
'Jan.
Feb.
tfer.
Apr.
»y
June
-1959 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Ifcr.
Apr.
W»jr
June
-1960 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
tor.
Dee.
Total
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
"V
June
-1941 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
«OT.
Dec.
Tottl
An.
Feb.
HUT.
Apr.
»w
June
-1»6Z July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
far.
Dec.
Total
Jkn.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
"W
June
-WJ J"lT
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
total
Feb.
mr.
Apr.
>*r
June
Sept.
Oct.
Dee.
Total
Concen-
Jlov tntlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (t./A.T.) (Tone)
31 33—
1.190 .58
973 .58 563
170
1,258
770 I
Teb.
mr.
Apr.
my
June
-1965 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
JIov.
Dec.
Total
Mir.
Apr.
»y
June
-1966 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
»r.
Apr.
»y
June
-1967 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Xov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Ifer.
Apr.
»y
June
-1968 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
mr.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»>y
Jane
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(AJ.) (T./A.F.) (Tonel
Ifcntb
Jsn.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Mov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
mr.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.-
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
mr.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
mr.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
mr.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Rov.
Dec.
Total
Flew
(A.F.)
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.F.) (Tons)
To obtain •(/! wltlply T/AF by 735.
-------
Table 2
Colorado River Basin
Flow and Quality of Water Data
Green River near Greendale, Utah
(Annual Summary)
Units —1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Avoraj'.e
Flow
(A.F.)
1.521
1,517
2.089
1.672
1.497
1.547
2,447
1,458
1,583
2.625
2,334
2.149
1.282
1.249
1.021
1,894
2,020
1,310
1,190
973
781
2,019
170
1,258
1,437
1,189
Jj804
1,691
43,727
1,562
Concentration
(T./A.F.) (Mg.
0.63
.63
.44
.54
.55
.52
.47
.53
.61
.47
.48
.52
.57
.47
.53
.41
.50
.52
.58
.58
.59
.51
.78
,61
.79
.75
.... ._..8l..
.75
.56
A)
462
465
327
397
406
380
343
387
450
348
352
382
416
348
387
300
368
380
424
425
433
373
575
450
584
550
599
548
411
T.D.S.
(Tons)
957
959
928
903
826
799
1,143
768
969
1,244
1,118
1,117
725
591
538
774
1,011
677
687
563
460
1,024
133
770
1,142
889
1,469
1.260
24,444
873
Sampled quality record October 1956 to December 1968 (fragmentary);
remainder by correlation.
Measured flow record entire period.
90
-------
Table 3
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah
Units-1000
Concen-
Flov tmtlon T.D.S.
H..T.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
Coneen-
Flov tntlon T.D.S.
(A.F.> (T./A.F.) (tons)
tenth
1953
1951"
1955
An.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
An.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
An.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
An.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
195? July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
1956
1957
Ooaeen-
riow (.ration T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.I (Tona)
366
LOT 32_
.qlt L?P
To obtain cf/1 rultlrly T/AT by T35
91
-------
Table 3
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah
Units-1000
T«r Itopth
Jan.
Apr.
M»y
19551 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Total
Jac.
Mir.
Apr.
May
June
1960 July
Aug.
Sept.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
M«y
June
1961 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROY,
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Fee.
H>r,
Apr.
»y
June
1962 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jen.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
*»y
June
1963 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lor.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
,„,, July
i961 Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
(lov.
Dec.
Total
To
Concen-
Flcv tratlon T.D.S.
(A.f.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
1| j-1!' !"5
=1 — l-t'9 22
5 2.00 1ft
^. — ^* ' ? n
3 — t ^5 - -^9
6 — ; .00 i^
— s — — f^- — ^ —
11 l.-iil T>
i3 — — *.5** ?n
IS l.n fr
23 __.e^ ___^_
— P~ — ^4^" — ^ —
£ ;.*1 . .... {?
i£ — — ^»A*T - g1
£3 — j-r>^ . gi
1- 4.00 L
1 _ -J«,QQ_ !u
1 — ^-QG ',
5 — ?'**_P IP
i£ — -l-*i" ]_fj_
iCc i r-n ^n^
-_.2i_ _L-IQ- _«__
^9.. J . i._7 ?r.
._ 10 _ 1^5Q_ __.. 1 5
2 3-^53- 1
— , — 3 — — r,r* 7
3 ._ -_.-- 2_aC."-- •• — T _
1 UTQp _ !i___
L_ 3.0.P _ l^__
\3 1.15 _ ... i g
13 - T . h 7 ?g
?7 _ j -ji ___ ._?o
ll^ 1 -5^ infi
2J _ .. .PI 17
_ IQ _ J..OiL. _.5i__
70 , fo J« p
PP -6h *,(-.
jLS. -_lj?__ fsQ
g? ^-JU ?f
L ^^VS 11 _
- i( ?.sn_ i_n __
X5 l_7T pfi
._X5__._ 1 .fifl _ __ iL _
_? 3__ _ 1«?^ ?n
505 n ino
ie i 17 ?i
22_ _ i _ili_ 33 _
10 i on 1°
„ 5. _ . _l^?Q_ _ 16 _
_ _31_ _ .07 30
_ gp _ .itl_ 3P
.5 ^_7 ,0_C ?
^ ~ l%q ^~-
J: 7 1.11 5
yo5 PO •"51
10 •>;. ^ 2P
15. - ^L.rC_ i-2
c,c _ 4,rQ.7 cC
1 f. 1 Fl "f!
•? •> rf-ir. i
3 n «^ n
(_ P.SG. 1^
_11 T .~*£ . £(.
TO 1 ."" ?1;
33 i.pi -,,
?^ ,GC 1^
J'l 1 .):!* cr>
ir* : . 71 - n^
5C _^Pp i r,
- ?5? , .L5 . ]H
12 I*."-'7 *>3
-0 Pa.05 ^n
12 p.].? -,-•
-° 1 .7'L ^i
5^1 PU :rA "
£c i|t- o> "
3-1. l .f"L ^P
. "it5 _jJi!i -ii_
?5? _ .lju i^n
?!* i _?7 -Vt
?fl i ].n ^^
. 13 1 ^Ql pc;
20 i . 77 ^q
p? i J»*; ^o
3? i.n? "n
5P? .QI «;^«
Year >fcnth
Jan.
Feb.
>br-
Apr.
»^y
June
July
Aug.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec,
Jan.
Fet.
Apr.
Msy
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Fet,
I*r.
Apr.
Hey
July
Sept,
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Dec,
Feb
Apr.
*tey
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
July
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Conc*n-
Flov tration T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T /A.F ) (Tons)
_ . _^
.
•
/
-------
Table 3
Colorado River Basin
Flow and Quality of Water Data
Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah
(Annual Summary)
Units —1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Averse',.'
Flow
(A.F.)
694
526
460
698
407
324-
569
298
641
574
448
1,035
326
188
245
303
456
416
166
160
145
505
210
356
905
306
591
582
12,534
448
Concontrntion
(T./A.F.)
0.75
.88
.99
.74
1.08
1.16
.86
1.14
.78
.87
1.06
.60
1.12
1.48-
1.32
1.07
.94
.79
1.33
1.20
1.35
.81
1.28
.96
.80
1.24
.84
.91
.92
(Mg./l)
554
647
725
544
795
851
632
836
570
636
783
440
825
1,087
969
788
690
581
979
882
994
595
938
704
586
910
618
672
674
T.D.S.
(Tons)
523
463
454
517
440
375
489
339
497
497
477
619
366
278
323
325
428
329
221
192
196
409
268
341
721
379
497
532
11,495
411
Sampled quality record December 1950 to September 1951; November
1956 to December 1968; remainder by correlation.
Measured flow record October 1942 to December 1968; remainder by
correlation.
93
-------
Table 4
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Green River at Green River, Utah
Units-1000
Concen-
Flov tr«tion T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.i (Tone)
'ear Ifanth
-1953
-1955
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
•fey
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
June
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
my
June
-1956 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
-1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
-1958 Jl*y
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Ooncen-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.j (T./A.F.) (Tonal
.67 2.225_
.66 1.807
It. 021 .51 g.pit's
1.060
lt,212 .57 2
To obtain »g/l .ultlply T/A7 by 735.
-------
Table 4
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water
Green River at Green River, Utah
Units-1000
Data
Jan.
Feb.
Apr.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dsc.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»y
June
67 j^y
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
68 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept,
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Coneen-
Flow tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.I (T./A.F.I (Tons)
300
5, aii
tenth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
. Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
i*>y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(A.F.)
tratlon T.D.S.
(T./A.F.) (Tons)
To obtain mg/1 multiply T/AF by 735.
95
-------
Table 4
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Qualify of Water Data
Green River at Green River, Utah
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Average-
Sampled q
Measured
Flow
(A.F.)
4,608
4,622
4,294
4,417
4,260
3,519
5,523
3,928
5,129
5,476
4,738
6,712
3,334
2,638
2,791
4,021
5,808
4,212
2,884
2,864
2,265
5,601
1,576
3,242
5,211
2,966
4,227
4^589
115,455
4,123
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
0.71
.65
.60
.58
.60
.61
.54
.58
.59
.59
.60
.62
.67
.68
.62
.51
.53
.57
.62
.57
.64
.55
.79
.63
.65
.76
.77
.70
.62
(Mg./l)
522
475
439
430
441
449
398
425
435
433
442
457
491
503
456
374
387
422
459
422
471
404
579
463
560
556
51/
454
T.D.S.
(Tons)
3,271
2,989
2,565
2,582
2,558
2,148
2,991
2,270
3,039
3,223
2,847
4,172
2,225
1,807
1,733
2,045
3,060
2,421
1,802
1,645
1,450
3,077
1,241
2,044
3,412
2,260
3,257
3,225
71,359
2,549
uality record entire period.
flow record entire period.
96
-------
Table 5
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
San Rafael River near Green River, Utah
Units-1000
Ifanth
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*>y
June
-iglil July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*»y
June
-19te July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dee.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-19113 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Jem.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-191* July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Jaa.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
.191,5 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
«ov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-19k6 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Soy.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flo» tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.l (T./A.F.) (Tons)
139
1.8 261
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
•fey
June
-19VT July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
-1948 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
DOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-10A9 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1951 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1952 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flow tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
135
ttontb
-1953
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
NOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
M»r.
Apr.
(fey
June
5k July
Sepi.
Oct.
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
My
June
-1955 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
NOT.
Dec.
Total
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
-1956 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
NOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1956 Jujy
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
NOT.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flow tration T.D.S.
(A.F.I (T./A.F.) (Tons)
U.O
a.6
1.5 252
To obtain ag/1 multiply T/AF by 735.
97
-------
Table 5
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
San Rafael River near Green River, Utah
Units-1000
Jan.
Feb.
Mur.
Apr.
»y
June
-1959 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr,
"ay
June
-19& July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Ifcr.
Apr.
*»y
June
-19& July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dee.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
my
June
-1962 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Htr.
Apr.
*>y
June
-1963 J«iy
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
•fcy
June
-19ft July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
*OY.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Floic tr»tlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
tfi
g.6
_UB_
196
2.7
157
Year Itmth
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
fcy
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
Msy
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dee.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Nar.
Apr.
n>y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Coneen-
Flow tratlou
.F.) (T./A.F.)
T.D.S.
(Tons)
To obtain Bg/1 •ultlplj T/AF by 735.
-------
Table 5
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
San Rafael River near Green River, Utah
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
_AY_rra£t;_
Flow
(A.F.)
139
137
73
149
85
69
111
62
135
53
75
314
81
36
29
33
189
172
21
46
48
112
46
57
184
33
54
72
2,615
93
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
1.9
2.1
2.9
1.8
2.5
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.0
3.2
2.7
1.5
2.9
3.8
3.5
2.6
1.7
1.5
3.9
2.6
3.3
1.8
3.5
2.7
1.8
4.0
3.1
3.0
2.3
(Mg./l)
1,420
1,530
2,140
1,300
1,850
2,310
1,900
1,960
1,490
2,370
2,020
1,090
2,130
2,800
2,560
1,940
1,280
1,080
2,840
1,890
2,390
1,300
2,600
2,020
1,310
2,960
2,250
2,240
1,660
T.D.S.
(Tons)
268
286
213
263
214
217
287
165
274
171
206
466
235
137
101
87
330
252
81
118
156
198
163
157
329
133
165
219
5,891
210
Sampled quality record November 1946 to September 1949; November
1950 to December 1968; remainder by correlation.
Measured flow record October 1945 to December 1968, remainder by
correlation.
99
-------
Table 6
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Units-1000
Month
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
May
June
191*! July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
19^2 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
19<>3 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
«»y
June
. IgU* July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Ifer.
Apr.
June
• 19*5 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
. 191*6 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T._/A.F.) (Tons)
1.82T
620
Month
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
191*? July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
19W July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jin.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
191*?. July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
• 1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
• 1951 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
- 1952 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Concea-
tration T.
(T./A.F.)
'
(Ok
2,10*3
tenth
Jan.
Feb.
Mtr.
Apr.
May
June
- 1953 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
*>y
June
- 1951* July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
my
June
- 1955 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
»r.
Apr.
*>y
June
- 1956 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Msr.
Apr.
»y
June
- 1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
i*y
June
- 1958 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Jiov.
Dec.
Total
Coneen-
Flcv tration T.D.S.
-------
Table 6
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Units-1000
Concm-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.I (T./A.F.I (Ton.)
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
H>r.
Apr.
*>y
June
July
Aug. •
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dee.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
>*>y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hoy.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Scnr.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(A.F.I
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.F.) (Tons)
To obtain »g/l aultlply T/AF by 735.
101
-------
Table 6
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Glenwood Springs,Colorado
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
AvcTflo.e
Flow
(A.F.)
1,713
1,903
1,827
1,494
1,764
1,542
2,298
1,881
2,036
1,458
1,891
2,443
1,563
855
1,051
1,455
2,462
1,680
1,341
1,466
1,209
2,407
922
1,021
1,764
1,024
1,210
1,350
45,030
1,608
Sampled quality record
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
0.34
.33
.33
.35
.31
.36
.28
.32
.32
.38
.33
.32
.39
.55
.49
.41
.32
.35
.42
.39
.44
.33
.53
.52
.38
.47
.46
.42
.37
October 1941
(Mg./l)
254
239
244
257
230
262
207
236
235
276
241
238
290
404
364
299
238
261
311
Z85 •
322
240
392
381
279
347
S3 1
312
272
to December
T.D.S.
(Tons)
591
620
607
523
553
549
648
604
652
548
619
791
616
470
520
591
797
596
567
568
530
786
492
529
670
483
555
573
16,648
595
19bS; remainder
By correlation.
Measured flow record entire period.
102
-------
Table 7
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado
Units-1000
Month
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*>y
June
-1941 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1942 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
»y
June
-1943 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»y
June
-1944 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
»ov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
reb.
Mr.
Apr.
*>y
June
-1945 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
M»y
June
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flcv tration T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
2,554
1.M4
Hath
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
•*>y
June
-1947 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1948 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
•••y
June
-1949 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
My
June
-1951 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
*y
June
-1952 J"^
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(A.F.)
Concen-
tration
(I./A.F.I
T.D.S.
(Tons)
4.134
.50 2,051
Ifcnth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
-1953 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1954 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Apr.
June
-1955 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
-1956 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
-1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1958 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Flov
(A.F.)
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.F.) (Tone)
1,303
2,820
1,542
To obtain Bg/1 multiply T/AF by 735
103
-------
Table 7
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado
Units-1000
tenth
Jan.
Feb.
tor.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
MIT.
Apr.
n»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
mi.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
tfcr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
(or.
Dec.
Total
rio»
CbMM-
tratlon T.D.S.
(T./A.r.) (Tom)
To obtain «g/l multiply I/A? by 735.
10k
-------
Table 7
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
A vi' rare
Flow
(A.F.)
3^072
3,489
2,946
2,680
3,027
2,554
3,806
3,226
3,368
2,516
2,948
4,134
2,531
1,565
1,946
2,391
4,326
. 2,820
2,262
2,413
2,033
3,985
1,571
1,934
3,035
1,800
2,144
2,439
77,229
2,758
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
0.55
.54
.52
.53
.50
.54
.43
.50
.49
.59
.52
.50
.59
.83
.70
.59
.45
.55
.61
.58
.64
.46
.79
.68
.50
.71
.64
.60
.55
(Mg./l)
402
394
379
388
369
198
317
365
364
433
380
365
436
612
513
430
334
402
449
429
469
338
582
498
369
519
468
439
406
T.D.S.
(Tons)
Ir681
1T869
Ir521
Ir415
1,520
If384
1.641
1.604
1.666
1.482
1,526
2,051
1.502
1,303
1,358
1,398
1,966
1,542
1,381
1,407
1,298
1,830
1,243
1,310
1,658
1,272
1,364
1,458
42,651
1,523
Sampled quality record entire period.
Measured flow record entire period.
•105
-------
Table 8
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado
Units-1000
Montb
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
-1941 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Apr.
June
-1942 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
-1943 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
•*>y
June
-1944 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
-1945 -^
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
•«« 2£
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Coneen-
Flov tration
(A.F.) (T./A.F.)
T.D.S.
(Tons)
.8?
1,262
1.06
1.336
Mmtb
Flow
(A.F.I
Concen-
tration
(T./A.F.1
T.D.S.
(Tons'!
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
my
June
-1947 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
»r.
Apr.
•fey
June
-1948 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
»ov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Hsr.
Apr.
»y
June
-1949 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
»r.
Apr.
Hay
June
-1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Her.
Apr.
May
June
-1951 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
K>y
June
Sept.
Oct.
Itov.
Dec.
Total
—$-
1,33?
.99
i.a
7T
200
=£
" L3L
2.90 128
g,6?2 .67 1,781
Ooneen-
Flov tration T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Toga)
1.50 105
l.a 122-
To obtain ng/1 nultiply T/AF by 735.
106
-------
Table 8
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado
Units-1000
Cancen-
Flon tratlon T.D.S.
(A.7.) (I./A.T.) (Ton.)
g.go
zdfl
1,355 -96
Apr.
My
June
•196! July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
ret>.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
1966 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOT.
Pec.
Total
reb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
,J July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
68 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
ret>.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dee.
Total
Jan.
rel>.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
Coocen-
riov tratlon
(A.r.) (T./A.r.)
T.D.S.
(Tone)
l.T^g
971
-rift-
Itinth
Jan.
ret).
Mr.
Apr.
Mr
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
ret>.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jar.
reb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
ret).
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug..
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
reb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
reb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.r.) (T./A.r.) (Ton»)
To attain ««/l auldply T/AT b)r 735.
10?
-------
Table 8
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Average
Flow '
(A.F.)
2.493
2.674
1,784
2,225
1,818
1,262
1,938
2,361
2,121
1,335
1,136
2,672
1,312
645
1,017
1,101
3,381
2,262
981
1,332
Ir106
2U35_
892
1,355
2,673
971
1,057
1,477
47,516
1,697
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
.83
.77
.88
.69
.82
1.06
.83
.70
.76
.99
1.03
.67
1.02
1.65
1.13
.99
.61
.71
1.21
.88
1.06
.66
1.32
.96
.65
1.28
1.20
.98
.86
(Mg./l)
611
•565
649
510
606
778
609
511
555
727
754
490
751
1,210
833
726
448
524
892
644
778
486
969
704
479
938
884
722
628
T.D.S.
(Tons)
2,072
2,057
1,576
1,543
1,499
1,336
1,605
1,643
1,601
1,320
1,165
1,781
1,340
1,062
1,152
1,087
2,062
1,613
1,191
l,Ib/
1,171
1,411
1,1/6
1,298
1 , /42
1,239
1,271
l,45l
40,631
1,451
Sampled quality record entire period.
Measured flow record entire period.
108
-------
Table 9
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
Units-1000
nth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
Jane
- 19*1 Jul»
tag.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
- 19*2 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
- 19*3 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
«OY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
- 1°M July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
1*7
June
• 19*5 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
• 19>>6 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
«OY.
Dec.
Total
Coneen-
Flov tratlon
(T./A.F.1
30?—
219
,058 • .91 3,680
Manth
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
19117 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Bee.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
19M July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
191.9 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
llov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
1951 J^
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
1952 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
JfaT.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.I (Tons)
pnk i .^7 gk-i
186 1.66 308
6.291 .Tk It.636
3.0fl6
7,718 .66 5,063
Year Mpnth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
- 1953 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
- 195U July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
May
June
- 1955 *»!y
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1956 J^
Aug.
. Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
- 1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
- 1958 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Ooneen-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
306
3.01A
2.293 l.Mt 3.PQQ
f,i q.frre
To obtain ««71 aultlply T/AT by 735.
109
-------
Table 9
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Qualify of Water
Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
Units-1000
Data
Month
Jan.
Feb.
(tar.
Apr.
My
June
- 1959 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mu-.
Apr.
N«y
June
- 19& July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Itov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*y
June
- 1961 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
n»y
June
- 1962 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Mov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
tor.
Apr.
»«y
June
- 1963 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
>pr.
Miy
June
- 196V July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Coneen-
tration, T.D.S.
(T./A.F. 1 (Tons)
887
1.08
it.ocB
1.05
3.556
».ta%;
zzSt
i.^at
3,*33 1-06 3,639
Year
ttontii
Jan.
Feb.
Ifcr.
Apr.
*>y
June
-1965 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
tey
June
- 1966 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
Miy
June
- 1967 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
Miy
June
- 1968 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Ucv.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
Miy
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Kir.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flov tration T.D.S.
(A.F.) fT./A.F.) (Tona)
fi.TPP
Tear Ifcntb
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
Miy
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
?eb.
Mir.
Apr.
Miy
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
June
July
•Aug..
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.F.) (nan)
To obtain «g/l miltiply T/AF by 735.
110
-------
Table 9
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Yoar
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Avcraue
Flow
(A.F.)
7,067
7,098
5,214
5,840
5,504
4,058
6,258
6,291
6,338
4,074
3,986
7,718
4,062
2,293
3,185
3,568
8,888
6,044
3,214
4,002
3,395
6,576
2,585
3,433
6,722
3.163
3r14fc
4,185
137.907
4,925
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
80
.77
.86
.74
. 76
.91
.73
.74
.75
.94
.94
.66
.97
1.44
1.07
.96
.63
.72
1.08
.87
1.05
.68
1.31
1.36
.73
1.10
1.14
.92
.84
(Mg./l)
588
568
634
546
562
667
539.
542
555
690
693
482
714
1,060
789
706
463
529
796
642
77~
501
962
779
535
807
842
680
620
T.D.S.
(Tons)
5.653
5.483
4.498
4.336 .
4.210
3.680
4.587
4.636
4,783
3.823
3,758
5,063
3.944
3,299
3,420
3,428
5,602
4,348
3,481
3,493
3.556
4.484
3,384
3.639
4,892
3,471
3,602
3,869
116,422
4,158
Sampled quality record entire period.
Measured flow record entire period.
Ill
-------
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
T./A.F.) iTona)
Table 10
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
San Juan River near Archuieto, New Mexico
Units-1000
127 •
XS2I Honth.
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
*T July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sox.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
*8 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
- 19J*9 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
1951 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOY.
Dec.
Total
An.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
1952 Jul,
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Flov
(A.F.)
Ooncen-
tration
(T./A.P.)
T.D.S.
(Tone)
1,552
321
To obtain .g/1 wltlplj T/AF by 735.
112
-------
Table 10
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
San Juan River near Archuleta, New Mexico
Units-1000
Tear
Eth
Jta.
Fell.
Mr.
Apr.
My
Jbae
- 1959 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
XOT.
Dec.
Total
An.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
I960 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•OT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*»
June
1961 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
«*y
June
19& July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
Jkn.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*?
1963 July
Axe-
Sept.
Oct.
tor.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*T
JUD>
19» July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lor.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flow tration T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Toon)
=ifc
.27 117
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
- 1965 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
1966 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*>y
June
1967 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
KOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
1963 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
Jiily
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
"•r
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•OT.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flov tration T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
.2k
tenth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.1
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Flov tration T.D.S.
fA.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tona)
To obtain wt/l multiply T/AF by 735.
113
-------
Table »0
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
San Juan River near Archuleta, New Mexico
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Average
Flow
(A.F.)
2,574
1,366
818
1,251
891
456
760
1,203
1,420
564
413
1,552
563
545
537
539
1,647
1,332
436
1,029
750
872
232
437
1,511
961
402
392
25,453
909
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
0.17
.19
.21
.18
.21
.28
.22
.18
.19
.24
.28
.21
.26
.28
.24
.22
.20
.24
.27
.23
.24
.21
.28
.27
.21
.24
.27
.27
.22
(Mg./l)
123
143
155
133
153
205
161
134
142
180
208
152
195
202
178
164
147
174
199
166
173
151
206
197
158
175
199
195
158
T.D.S.
(Tons)
430
266
173
227
185
127
166
220
276
138
117
321
149
150
130
120
330
315
118
233
177
179
65
117
324
229
109
104
5,495
196
Sampled quality record, October 19^ to December 1968; re-
mainder by correlation.
Measured flow record entire period.
Adjusted quality and flow record for station near Blanco,
October 19^5 to November
-------
Table II
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
San Juan River near Bluff, Utah
Units-1000
An.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
•*>y
June
-1941 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
toy.
Dec.
Total
Jam.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
"«y
June
-1942 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
-1*43 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
JOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
i*>y
June
-1944 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
•*jr
June
-1945 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
JOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*»
-1946 *"*
"** July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
tor.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tonal
kk .<»
,28 S4_
1-02 &L-
887 .77 681
Hjnth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
">y
June
-1947 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan. '
Feb.
Mr.
. Apr.
»r
June
-1948 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1949 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
-1951
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dec.
Total
Ooncen-
Flow tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.I (T./A.F.I (Tons)
3,11.0 Jifi 9J_6_
Ikl l.lg
~ —
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
i*>y
June
-1953 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
n»y
June
-1954 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1955 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1956 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»w
June
-1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.1 (Tons)
2.QQ9 .51
2,298
1,116
To obtain «g/l multiply T/AF by 735.
115
-------
Table II
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water
San Juan River near Bluff , Utah
Units-1000
Data
tooth
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
(by
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
tfer.
Apr.
tfey
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Ifer.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*>y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
M»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Flov
(A.F.)
Ooneen-
tratlon
(T./A.?.l
T.D.S.
(Tone)
To obtain ag/1 -iltlply I/AT by 735.
116
-------
Table II
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
San Juan River pear Bluff, Utah
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Averasio
Flow
(A.F.)
U,8Q9
2,21*7
1,1*91*
2.291
It588
887
1.677
2.1UO
2.1*87
851*
691
5.551*
967
1.011
910
838
2,909
2,298
712
1.607
1.26U
1.U80
579
795
2,51*6
1,51*8
791
1.060
1»5.12U
1.612
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
.51*
.53
.6U
.1*8
.59
.77
.65
.1*6
.U7
.68
.79
.U5
.73
.77
.73
.6U
.51
.1*9
.01
.53
.66
.59
1.10
.08
.5U
,6U
1.05
.82
.60
(Mg./l)
•felt
7flfl
U72
353
im
561*
1*76
335
3U5
1*98
579
333
533
566
539
1*69
378
357
597
387
1*86
1*36
806
722
398
1*73
772
606
U39
T.D.S.
(Tons)
2.625
1.185
959
1,101
935
681
1,087
976
1.168
579
5U1*
1.156
701
779
667
535
1.1*98
1,116
57H
847
836
877
635
7«l
1,379
996
a 1 1
OJJ.
Of**
zo,y2b
1/5*2
Sampled quality record entire period-
Measured flow records entire period.
117
-------
Table 12
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona
Units-1000
Gmcen-
Flcw tretion T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
.66
31
1.39
1.S1
6.165' l.t* 6.^86
g^p 1-60
__1-flL
13,019 tts
1.27 SQlt
a.tf g§
766
118
-------
Table 12
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona
Units-1000
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1965 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1966 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Boy.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
•fcy
June
-1967 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»y
June
-1968 JWy
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Ooneen-
Flow tratlon T.D.S.
(T./AJ.) (Tons) ,
7.739 .70 3.'i39
£50
nth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
• Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Flo»
(A.F.)
Coneen-
tratlon T.D.S.
(T./A.F.l (Tonsi
To obtain «g/l aultlplr T/AF by 735.
119
-------
Table 12
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Qualify of Water Data
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Av«':lVH',0
F 1 DVJ
(A.F.)
17,857
1UJ93
11,1*13
13,019
11,769
8f751
1U.OU6
12.885
lU.6oi»
10.802
9.901
17,903
8.729
6,165
6,966
j^658
18,700
13,139
7,061
8,790
7.31U
1U.U39
1.38U
3j2U2
11,585
7,739
7,5bO
a,7«2
297,990
10 .6U2
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
.70
.63
.73
.65
.72
.8»»
.68
.66
.68
.75
.79
.6U
.66
1.0J+
.91*
.75
.6«
.71
.y6
.81
.97
.71
1.27
1.1O
• 7B
.70
.88
... .^5
(Mg./l)
51U
H66
539
U8l
531
617
1*98
U87
501
551
581
1*68
630
761
691
553
U97
519
70»«
593
710
525
93^
811
572 .
517
621
PTT
552
T.D.S.
(Tons)
12rU8l
9,381
8,375
8.525
8.501
7.3*6
9,513
8,531
9,95^
8,098
7.833
11.396
7 f »*85
6,386
6.5U8
6.513
12,61*6
9,280
6^766
7,092
7,065
10,319
1,758
3,578
9,008
5^39
6,387
7,725
223,929
7,997
Sampled quality record November 1942 to October 1945, October
1947 to December 1968-, remainder by correlation.
Measured flow record entire period.
120
-------
Table 13
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Grand Canyon .Arizona
Units-1000-
tl9 1.62 679
Ugz 1.36 681.
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»y
June
53 jmy
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Pet.
Mar.
Apr.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
tor.
Apr.
•fey
June
•1955 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*»y
June
-1956 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
H»y
June
-1957 jjjy
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*y
June
-1958 July
Aug.
S«pt.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.I (Tons)
8.6Q1.
7,175
1.1.1.
.73 9,851.
To cJit.ln «g/l nultlply T/AF by 735.
If Correlated.
121
-------
Coneen-
Flov tratlon r.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.r.) (TOES)
Table 13
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River near Grand Canyon,Arizona
Units-1000
To obtain win wilclply T/AF by 735.
Concen-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.I (T'./A.r.) (Tonsi
Year >tonj.h
Jan.
Fet).
Ifcr.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Deo.
TotaX
Jsn.
Feb.
ftr.
Apr,
M»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Ifcr.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total «
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Msy
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total •
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.F.i fTon^
122
-------
Table 13
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Qualify of Water Data
Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Avcrap.p
Flow
(A.F.)
18.796
ll» .925
11.621*
13.330
12.115
9.119
ll*,3l*7
13,009
1U ,622
10.836
9.93U
18.106
8,80 1*
6.300
7.287
8.773
18.910
13,l»6l
7,308
9, 15 4
7.739
1H.839
1,630
3 5R?
11 ,773
J.J. t M J— '
8 ,2^0
fi,O^P
Q,Tn
•?05,958
10.927
Concent
(T./A.F.)
0.77
.68
.86
.75
.8^?
.96
.79
.75
.77
.87
.92
.75
.99
l.li*
1.03
.82
.70
.73
1.05.
.86
1.07
.73
1.1*1
1.21*
.86
.77
.93
,9U
.81*
ration
(Mg./l)
567
502
631*
5*9
613
705
579
551*
566
6U2
676
. 551
726
837
756
601
516
538
769
629
781*
536
1.030
913
636
566
681
691
6U*
T.D.S.
(Tons)
1U.503
10 .186
10.033
9.9U8
10 .097
8.7*»2
11.295
9.799
11.251*
9,^62
9.133
13.582
8.693
7.175
7.1*91*
7t17l*
13,263
9.851*
7,61*8 _
7.833
8.252
10.817
2.291
l*tl*50
10 .185
6,333
7.U38
8,817
255,751
9,131*
123
-------
Table 14
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona
Units -1000
Month
Jan.
Feb.
MM-.
Apr.
*>y
June
-1941 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Har.
Apr.
May
June
-1942 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
tor.
Apr.
H>y
June
-1943 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
»y
June
-1944 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
An.
Feb.
tfer.
Apr.
May
June
-1945 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*y
June
_1946 July
Aug.
Sept.
dot.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flow trstlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.l (Tons)
169 2.1*2 1*09
Conoen-
tratlon T.D.S.
(T./A.F.l (Tote)
Io obtain «g/l multiply T/AF by 735.
-------
Table 14
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water
Virgin River at Littlefield .Arizona
Units-1000
Data
Itonth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1959 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Xov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1960 Julf
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»y
June
-19*1 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Kov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1962 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
Jfcy
June
-19*3 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hoy.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
-1964 a*
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Xov.
Dec.
Total
Flov
(A.F.)
Concen-
tration
(T./A.F.)
Mapth
-1965
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
»' July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Xov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
' Apr.
June
SI July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hoy.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
-1968 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dee.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
l*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Ooneen-
Flov tratlon T.D.S.
(A.T.I (T./A.F.I (Tons)
13
tenth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
»ov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Rov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hor.
Dec.
Total
Flov
(A.F.)
Concen-
tration
(T./A.F.)
T.D.S.
(Tons)
To obtain »g/l multiply T/AF by 735.
125
-------
Table 14
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona
(Annual Summary)
Uniis-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Aver a co.
Flow
(A.F.)
427
186
179
181
181
169-
131
111
163
lift
112
267
98
140
133
82
133
272
91
84
108
137
85
87
154
162
124
124
4,239
151
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
1.37
2.01
2.15
1.92
2.43
2.42
2.56
2.65
2.17
2.65
2.93
1.46
3.00
2.61
3.16
3.05
2.61
1.68
2.87
2.79
3.14
2.14
3.14
3.01
2.12
2.30
2.72
2.53
2.29
(Mg./l)
1,000
1,480
1,580
1,410
1,790
1,780
1,890
1,950
1,600
1,950
2.150
1.070
2,190
1,920
2T330
2.230
1,920
1,230
2,100
2,060
2.300
1,570
2,300
2.200
1,560
1,690
1,980
1,860
1,680
T.D.S.
(Tons)
583
375
385
347
441
409
336
294
354
313
328
390
292
365
421
249
347
457
260
236
338
293
266
261
327
372
337
314
9,690
346
126
-------
Table 15
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada
Units-1000
Concen-
Flow tratlon T.D.S.
(A.f.i (T./A.f.) (Tons)
Jec.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Fet.
Ifcr.
Apr.
Hay
-1954 JUDe
1954 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
flov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
tfer.
Apr.
»y
-»» X
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
-"56 Jaly
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
»r.
Apr.
Msy
June
-"57 J^y
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Hir.
Apr.
M>y
June
- 1958 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flow tration T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) (Tons)
i.iiq
To obtain «g/l «ultlply T/AF by 735.
*KevUed
JL/ EttlMted or partially ettinated.
11 Average of adjacent values.
12?
-------
Table 15
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River below Hoover Dom, Arizona -Nevada
Units-1000
nth
Fell.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
Sept.
Oct.
JOT.
Dec.
total
Feb.
mr.
Apr,
My
Sept.
Oct.
Dee.
Total
Apr.
• Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•ov.
Dec.
Total
An.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»r
June
1M2 **»
-1M2 Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dee.
Total
An.
Feb.
Ifcr.
Apr.
"W
June
.«, July
•1963 Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
•or.
Dee.
Total.
Jkn.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
»y
June
Jul,
-!»** Aug.
Stpt.
Oct.
•or.
Dee.
Total
now
(A.F.)
Concen-
tration I.D.S.
(T./A.F.l (Tons)
.86 gig
1ST *»*
Cancen-
Flxw tretlon T.D.S.
(A.F.) (T./A.F.) /TOM
, l|62
i /.op ? flft?
8,163 .98 8,0lt
Apr.
*y
June
Julj
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hoy.
Dec.
Tottl
Jen.
Feb.
Her.
Apr.
my
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
»ov.
Dec.
Total
An.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
An.
Teb.
Mr.
Apr.
">y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lor.
Dec.
Total
Jen.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
DEC.
Total
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dee.
Total
Qone*&-
Flov tntion T.D.S.
(A.y.) fr./Aly.) (ran.)
To obtain ig/1 •ultlplT T/AF br 735.
1/lHlaated or partially aitlaatid.
128
-------
Table 15
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Arizona, Nevada
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Aver ace
Flow
(A.F.)
14.889
15.762
12.715
14,427
12.512
10,585
10,959
13,051
13,566
12.016
9,870
15,816
11,302
10,514
8,589
7,812
9,323
11,877
9,282
8,997
8.586
8,615
8.533
8.163
7.792
7,777
7,932
7,839
299,101
10,682
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
1.00
.98
.90
.94
.92
.91
.94
.90
.83
.84
.91
.85
.89
.94
1.09
1.14
1.04
.86
.84
.91
.95
.93
.92
.98
1.10
1.01
.92
.95
.94
(Mg./l)
735
717
665
693
676
668
690
660
610
614
671
623
656
693
804
839
763
634
621
671
697
685
677
722
809
743
675
699
687
T.D.S.
(Tons)
14,897
15,381
11,502
13,607
11,512
9,626
10,283
11,713
11,250
10,046
9,005
13,401
10^093
9,913
9,393
8,918
9,681
10,243
7,841
8,209
8,139
8,033
7,882
8,014
8,574
7,857
7,282
7,457
279,752
9,991
Measured flow record entire period.
129
-------
Table 16
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River below Parker Dam, Arizona-California
Units-1000
To obt«ln «g/l miltlply T/AF by 735.
130
-------
Table 16
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River below Parker Dam, Arizona-California
Units-1000
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
ret.
Kir.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hoy.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Keb.
Ifcr.
Apr.
(toy
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Ifcr.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*>y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
>OT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Teb.
(fcr.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
lov.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(A.F.)
Concen-
tration
(T./A.f.)
T.D.S.
(Tone)
To obtain «g/l multiply T/aF by 735.
131
-------
Table 16
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River below Parker Dam, Arizona - California
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Avcrnao
Flow
(A.F.)
14,749
15,159
12,079
13,842
12,033
10,141
10,663
12,651
13,060
10,473
8,672
15,413
10,649
9,671
8,141
6,869
7,997
10,892
8,186
7,794
6,975
7,159
7,251
6,651
6,356
6,683
6,322
6,643
273,210
9,758
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
1.02
.96
.90
.91
.90
.89
.91
.88
.82
.84
.88
.83
.84
.89
1.01
1.10
1.04
.86
.83
.86
.91
I/ .95
.93
.92
1.04
1.03
.94
.94
.92
(Mg.A)
750
709
661
669
660
658
670.
647
603
618
645
612
617
652
745
806
762
635
609
631
669
699
681
679
765
755
689
692
673
T.D.S.
(Tons)
15,052
14r662
10r858
12,596
10r808
9.075
9.725
11.144
10,716
8.801
7,612
12,838
8,944
8,584
8,255
7,532
8,288
9,412
6,786
6,696
6,350
6,810
6,718
6,147
6,615
6,863
5,929
6,252
250,068
8,931
I/ Partially estimated.
Records furnished by Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
-------
Table 17
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Arizona-California
Units-1000
Jta.
Feb.
H>r.
Apr.
*>»
June
-1*43 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOT.
Dec.
total
Concen-
Vlov tratlon
(AJ.) (T./A.F.1
1.010
.97 i.iAi
111.Tit l.OB 15.917
' l.ooit .9U l.QgB
: l.ia» .«» l.QilS
.69 1.066
11.Us .9U 10.679
Itontb
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
»y
Jun«
-1547 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1948 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1949 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Itov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Ifer.
Apr.
»y
June
-1950 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
ftr.
Apr.
ifcj-
June
-1951 JW*
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
total
Jan.
Feb.
»r.
Apr.
»y
June
-1952 *"»
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Concen-
Flow tratlon T.D.S.
(A.F.I (T./A.F.1 (Tons)
1,073
Ifcnth
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
-1953 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
• Apr.
My
June
-1954 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Apr!
June
-1955 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
June
-1956 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1957 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
BOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mr.
Apr.
My
June
-1958 f111*
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bor.
Dec.
total
Flow
(A.F.)
Ooncen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.F.) (Tons)
7.858
10,500
i.oi 10,626
To obtain mf/l «,lttply T/AF by 735.
133
-------
Table 17
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Quality of Water Data
Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Arizona-California
Units-1000
Month
Jan.
Feb.
»r.
Apr.
June
-1959 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
•1960 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Itov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
M»r.
Apr.
June
-1961 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
-1962 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
M»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
-1963
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
*>y
June
Sept.
Oct.
«ov.
Dec.
Total
Flov
(A.y.)
Concen-
tration T.D.S.
(T./A.F.) (Tons)
1A9
1*58
Month
1.12
6,616
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
my
June
-1965 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Mov.
Dec.
Total
Jen.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
*y
June
-1966 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Itir.
Apr.
»y
June
-1967 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
tfer.
Apr.
Hay
June
-1968 July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
•fey
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Mov.
Dec..
Total
Jan.
Fen.
Mar.
Apr.
»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(A.F.)
Concen-
tration
(T./A.F.)
T.D.S.
(tons)
5.615
7.133
tenth
Jen,
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mir.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total .
Jan.
Feb.
Hir.
Apr.
*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.'
Total
Concen-
tration
(A.F.I (T./A.F.) (Tons)
To obtain »g/l multiply T/AF by 735.
-------
Table IT
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Qualify of Water Data
Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Arizona — California
(Annual Summary)
Units-1000
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Avc-rar.o
F low
(A.F.)
14,024
14,714
11,345
13,205
11,390
9,486
10,041
12,036
12,567
9,906
8,053
14,815
10,045
9,030
7,708
6,266
7,344
10,500
7,695
7,107
6,293
6,458
6,522
5.900
5.703
5,849
5,615
5,741
255,358
9,120
Concentration
(T./A.F.)
1.07
1.08
.94
.95
.95
.95
.97
.93
.88
.90
.96
.91
.94
1.00
1.14
1.25
1.17
1.01
1.02
1.06
1.12
1.11
1.08
1.12
1.25
1.22
1.15
1.15
1.02
(Mg./l)
785
795
692
698
700
701
711
687
649
659
709
669
689
735
839
918
860
744
749
111
820
818
791
824
916
896
842
846
751
T.D.S.
(Tons)
14.980
10J679~
10^841
9T041
9.711
11.242
11.104
8f887
7.764
13 ,4~85
9r411
9.024
8,797
7,828
8,598
10,626
7,843
7,511
7,020
7,189
7,016
6,616
7,109
7,133
6,430
6,611
260,958
9,320
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Table 1?
projects depleting Colorado River water
New Irriga-
tion land
(acres)
Project and state
Jfev
depletion
Above the gage Green River at Green River, Wyoming
Seedskadee, Wyoming ll»5,000 58,000
Westvaco and others, Wyoming • 86,000 I/
Between the above gage and the gage Green River near Greendale, Utah
Lynan, Wyoming 1O,OOO 0
Utah Power & Light and others, Wyoming 8,000 I/
Above the gage Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah
Central Utah Project, Utah ,
Bomeville Unit 166,000 2/
Upalco Unit 10,000 0
Uintah Unit 30,000 7,800
Between the gages Green River near Greendale, Utah, and Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah,
and the gage Green River at Green River, Utah .
Pour County, Colorado >tO,000 2/
Hayden Steaniplant, Colorado 12,000 I/
Cheyenne-Laramie, Wyoming £14,000 2/
Savery-Pot Hook, Colorado-Wyoming 27,000 17,920
Central Utah Project ,.
Jensen Unit r 15,000 MtO
Above the gage San Rafael near Green River, Utah •
Utah Power & Light, Bnery County, Utah 5,000 i/
Above the gage Colorado River near Glenwood Springs, Colorado •
Denver-Eoglewood, Colorado 216,000 2/
Green Mountain MH, Colorado f2'™ %/
Homestake Project, Colorado • • • «9,OOO dj
Between the above gage and gage Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado
Independence Pass Expansion, Colorado '9?? 4y
Frylngpan-ArkanBas, Colorado a'~v! TV
Rued! MM, Colorado 3S,OOO I/
West Divide, Colorado 76,000 19,000
Above the gage Guflnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado
Fruitland Mesa, Colorado . '. I'^t i'ao
Boetwick Park, Colorado Jt'rwi li'nno
Dallas Creek, Colorado JfjUUU J.?,uw
Between the gages Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado, and Cojinison River near Grand
Junction, Colorado, and the gage Colorado River near Cisco, Utah .,
Dolores, Colorado p£'onn pfiooo
San Miguel, Colorado o>,uuu do,wj
Above the gage San Juan River near Archuleta, New Mexico .
San Juan-Chama, New Mexico Vrnft'ooo 110 OOO
Havajo Indian Irrigation, Sew Mexico -J SOH.OOO nu.ouu
Between the above gage and the gage San Juan River near Bluff, Utah
Aninas-La Plata, Colorado-New Mexico IA'QQQ o
Expansion Hogback, Sew Mexico pc'noo
Utah Construction Co., Hew Mexico • ,T?'nno
Return flow—Dolores and Navsjo Indian Irrigation, Colorado and New Mexico -Jii.ooo
Between the gages Green River at Green River, Utah; San Rafael River near Green River, Utah;
Colorado River near Cisco, Utah; and San Juan River near Bluff, Utah; and the gage
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona ^ L/
Resources, Inc., Utah 3s"oOO !/
Arizona Mil, Arizona 111!".!! -8o|oQO
salvage ] uSgaSoo 350,ito
Subtotal Upper Basin n n
Between the above gage and the gage Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona o
Above the gage Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona .SAs.OOO 6,900
Betweenethe°gageB Colorado'River near Grand Canyon, Arizona, and Virgin River at Little-
field, Arizona, and the gage Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Arizona-Nevada g, ^ .
Southern Hevada Water Project, Nevada - - • • • • •••••• " " ' ' -*
Between the above gage and the gage Colorado River below Parker Dam, Arizona-California
Fort Mohave and chenehuevi Indian, Arizona, California, and Nevada .• 1,33000
Central Arizona, Arizona!/ y -Im'oOO
Reduced Metropolitan Water District Diversions!/ • • • • ^OQO \J
Klngnan, Arizona 6^000 I/
Mohave Valley IKD District, Arizona '^^ -^i
Lake Bavasu I&D District, Arizona '.'.'.".!'.!!!!'.! -Sl'ooO
Reduced Metropolitan Water District Diversions!/ . - - • • • • • • • • -. • • • -199,000
Betwee^ the^bovrgage and the gage Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Arizona-Colorado ^ ^^
Colorado River Indian, Arizona-California _ -IQlt.OOO
Salvage ' '.'.'.'. 255,000 BS,&36.760
1/ In-basin depletion without irrigated lands.
% S0SSn^srererroMnDolores River drainage to the San Juan River drainage--ertlmted 53,000-acre-foot re-
'^ ^vertionTatlSvajT^servoir, estl^ted 258,OOO-acre-foot return flow to the San Juan River below the
gage near Archuleta, Nev Mexico._ j _^ ^ ^^ ^^
, will use part of this water which will be diverted belov
S. Central Arizona Project diversions vill
river UMer present odified
acre-feet. Also vith full
™
acre-feet aelivered to the Central Arizona Project.
137
-------
Table 20
Bait*: l.OOol./ Dissolved constituent loads of Green River at Green River Utah
Calen- Mean
dar
year
W41
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
discharge
(a.f.)
4,608
4,622
4,294
4,417
4,260
3,519
5,523
3,928
S.129
5,476
4,738
6,712
3,334
2,638
2,791
4,021
5,808
4,212
2,884
2,864
2,265
5,601
1,576
3.242
5,211
2,966
4,227
4.589
115,455
4,123
Cal-
ciua
(Ca)
21
20
17
18
18
15
21
16
22
24
20
30
15
12
12
15
22
16
12
11
10
21
7
14
22
13
21
20
485
17
Ionic
Mag-
nesium
(Mg)
14
13
11
11
11
9
13
10
13
14
12
18
10
7
7
9
13
11
7
6
6
12
5
8
14
10
13
13
300
11
loads in
Sodium
(Ha)
20
17
15
16
14
12
17
13
17
17
15
22
13
11
11
11
17
14
11
10
9
17
8
11
19
13
18
18
406
14
tons equivalent
Bicar-
bonate
(HC03)
21
20
18
20
20
17
24
17
24
27
22
33
16
12
12
16
23
18
12
12
10
22
7
14
22
13
18
v!9
509
18
Sul-
fate
(S04)
28
25
21
21
20
16
23
18
23
24
22
31
18
15
14
15
24
19
15
13
12
23
11
15
28
20
30
28
572
20
Chlo-
ride
(CD
6
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
6
4
3
3
4
5
4
3
3
3
4
2
3
5
3
4
4
113
4
SAR!/
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.4
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
KxlO6
at 25° C.
3/
*775
*715
*670
682
679
689
615
647
671
669
656
692
730
755
695
575
587
640
696
604
707
621
854
686
721
820
811
74.1
684
T.D. S.
Tons
3,271
2,989
2,565
2,582
2,558
2,148
2,991
2,270
3,039
3,223
2,847
4,172
2,225
1,807
1,733
2,045
3,060
2,421
1,802
1,645
1,450
3,077
1,241
2,044
3,412
2,260
3,257
3.225
71,359
2,549
n>R/l
}il
475
439
430
441
449
398
425
435
433
442
457
491
503
456
374
387
422
459
422
471
404
579
463
481
560
566
517
-
454
Colts: l.OOQi.'
I/
Table 21
Dissolved constituent loads of Colorado River near Cisco. Utah
Calen-
dar
year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
194S
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
Mean
discharge
(a.f.)
7,067
7,098
5,214
5,840
5,504
4,058
6,258
6,291
6,338
4,074
3,986
7,718
4,062
2,293
3,185
3,568
8,888
6,044
3,214
4,002
3,395
6,576
2,585
3,433
6,722
3,163
3,146
4,185
137,907
4,925
Cal-
CiUm
(Ca)
35
34
28
30
28
24
32
33
32
24
23
34
24
19
21
22
42
29
22
23
24
33
21
22
32
20
22
23
756
27
Ionic
Mag-
neslun
(MK)
22
22
18
16
16
15
17
18
18
15
14
19
15
13
13
13
18
15
13
13
12
14
11
13
17
13
12
15
430
15
loads In
Sodium
(Ma)
34
33
27
26
25
22
27
27
29
24
23
27
25
22
22
21
31
26
22
21
22
26
21
21
28
22
24
23
701
25
tons equivalent
Bicar-
bonate
(HC03)
24
24
19
22
21
16
22
24
24
16
14
26
15
10
12
13
29
19
12
14
12
22
10
13
22
12
13
15
495
18
Sul-
fate
(SOU)
51
49
41
37
36
34
39
38
39
33
32
39
34
30
30
30
44
36
31
31
32
35
30
28
37
30
31
32
989
35
Chol-
rlde
(CD
15
15
13
14
14
11
14
15
16
14
13
15
15
13
14
13
19
16
13
13
13
15
13
14
17
13
14
14
398
14
KxlO6
SARl/
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.1
1.4
2.2
3.1
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.6
2.4
1.9
2.2
1.6
2.8
2.2
1.7
2.4
2.7
2.1
_
1.9
at 25°
3/
*900
*870
*960
848
867
1,010
821
826
859
1,040
1,010
724
1,060
1,570
1,180
1,060
721
814
1,200
964
1,150
764
1,390
1,110
807
1,170
1,210
991
_
934
C. T.D
Tons
5,653
5,483
4,498
4,336
4,210
3,680
4,587
4,636
4,783
3,823
3,758
5,063
3,944
3,299
3,420
3,428
5,602
4,348
3,481
3,493
3,556
4,484
3,384
3,639
4,892
3,471
3,602
3,869
116.422
4.158
.5.
mg/1
588
568
634
546
562
667
539
542
555
690
693
482
714
1,060
789
706
463
529
796
642
770
501
962
779
535
807
842
680
_
620
_ Correlated
y Sodium adsorption ratio
3_/ Specific conductance.
Mg/1 of ion - 735 x Ionic load x atonic st. of ion r discharge (af).
138
-------
Units
: l.OOoi''
Ca len- Mean
dar discharge
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
la.t.)
4,899
2,247
1,494
2,291
1,588
887
1,677
2,140
2,487
854
691
2,554
967
1,011
910
838
2,909
2,298
712
1,607
1,264
1,480
579
795
2,546
1,548
791
1,060
45.124
1,612
Dissolved
Table 22
constituent loads of San
Juan Riv
er near
Bluff. Utah
Ionic loads in tons equivalent
Cal-
(Ca)
23
10
8
10
8
6
9
9
11
5
4
10
6
6
5
4
13
9
5
7
7
7
4
5
10
7
5
6
219
8
Mag-
nesium
(MR)
8
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
5
4
2
3
3
2
2
2
5
4
3
3
96
3
Sodium
(Na)
12
5
5
5
5
4
6
5
5
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
7
5
4
5
5
5
3
4
6
5
5
5
137
5
Bicar-
bonate
(HCOi)
18
8
6
8
6
4
6
7
8
3
3
8
4
4
4
3
9
7
3
5
5
4
2
3
8
5
4
4
159 .
6
Sul-
fate
(S04)
23
11
S
10
9
7
11
9
11
6
6
10
7
8
7
5
13
10
6
8
8
8
7
8
13
10
8
9
257
9
Chlo-
ride
(CD
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
1
SAB?/
1.1
1.0
1.3
.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
.9
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.4
2.1
2.1
1.2
1.4
2.3
1.6
, ,
KxlO6
at 25° C
3/
608
582
699
537
647
818
694
498
516
724
812
488
754
803
769
673
555
527
853
563
702
637
1,110
979
589
683
1,040
835
641
Tons
2,625
1,185
959
1,101
935
681
1,087
976
1,168
579
544
1,156
701
779
667
535
1,498
1,116
578
847
336
877
635
781
1,379
996
831
874
26,957
963
T.D.S.
mg/1
394
388
472
353
433
564
476
335
345
498
579
333
533
566
539
469
378
357
597
387
486
436
806
722
398
473
772
606
439
Units: l.QOoiV
Table 23
Calen- Mean
dar
year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
discharge
.
60
46
49
50
48
39
48
48
54
45
43
61
44
39
38
36
58
47
39
38
38
52
11
21
51
32
39
47
1,221
44
Bicar-
bonate
(MC03)
68
51
39
42
44
39
55
48
58
44
41
70
36
29
33
37
82
58
30
36
31
61
6
13
41
26
27
33
1,178
42
Sul-
fate
(S04)
115
84
74
74
71
64
82
71
82
70
67
92
66
57
56
52
92
70
55
54
59
76
15
31
78
49
57
70
1.883
67
Chlo-
ride
(CD
24
19
21
22
22
20
20
21
24
20
20
24
20
18
18
18
25
22
18
17
18
22
6
11
23
13
18
21
545
19
SAR2/
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.9
2.3
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.4
2.0
1.7
1.9
1.5
3.0
2.4
1.9
1.9
_
1.7
KxlO*
at 25° C.
3/
*770
*700
808
732
*800
*910
*760
748
769
844
882
710
943
1,130
1,020
840
766
782
1,010-
851
1,030
763
1,350
1,200
865
802
-
831
T.
Tons
12,481
9,381
8,375
8,525
8,501
7,346
9,513
8,531
9,954
8,098
7,833
11,396
7,485
6,386
6,548
6,513
12,646
9,280
6,766
7,092
7,065
10,319
1,758
3,578
9,008
5,439
6,387
7,725
223,929
7,997
D.S.
mg/1
:$&•
466
539
481
531
617
498
487
501
551
581
468
630
761
691
553
497
519
704
593
710
525
934
811
572
517
621
647
-
552
I/ Except SAR, specific conductance, and mg/1.
2/ Sodium adsorption ratio.
37 Specific conductance.
Mg/1 of ion -735 x Ionic load x atomic of ion ? discharge (a.f.).
*Correlat
139
-------
1.00QJ/
Dam. Arlt.-Nev.
Ionic loads in tons equivalent
Calen-
dar
Tear
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Mean
discharge
(a.f.)
14,889
15,762
12,715
14,427
12,512
10,585
10,959
13,051
13,566
12,016
9,870
15,816
11,302
10,514
8,589
7,812
9,323
11,877
9,282
8,997
8,586
8,615
8,533
8,163
7,792
7,777
7,932
7.839
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
107
109
80
90*
76*
63*
66*
80*
79*
70*
56
86
66
65
61
54
61*
68
52
55
54*
55*
52*
51*
54
49
47
47
Mag-
nesium
(MB)
44
48
37
44*
36*
32*
33*
38*
39*
35*
31*
45
31
30
27
29
30*
31
25
25
27*
25*
24*
25*
26
26
24
26
Sodiua
(Na)
83
88
67
77*
64*
54*
59*
67*
69*
59*
53*
79
58
58
56
54
58*
58
44
48
48*
48*
45*
48
54
52
47
49
Bicar-
bonate
(HC03)
50
56
44
52*
45*
38*
40*
47*
48*
43*
37*
55*
41*
39*
33*
30
35*
41
33
32
31*
31*
31*
28
28
27
27
29
Sul-
fate
(SOU)
143
146
108
122*
98*
83*
87*
104*
104*
89*
76*
116*
85*
85*
81*
76*
82*
87*
67*
70*
71*
71*
66*
69
71
69
64
65
Chlo-
ride
(CD
43
43
31
39*
34*
29*
31*
34*
35*
32*
28*
40*
29*
29*
31*
31*
33*
30*
23*
26*
28*
26*
25*
29
32
30
27
SAR?/
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.5
KxlO6
at 25^ C.
1,110
1,070
1,010
1,040
1,020
1,010
1,020
989
947
963
978
938
974
1,030
1,190
1,230
1,140
948
944
1,000
1,040
1,100
1,020
1,070
1,220
1,150
1,060
1.100
T.D.
Tons
14,897
15,381
11,502
13,607
11,512
9,626
10,283
11,713
11,250
10,046
9,005
13,401
10,093
9,913
9,393
8,918
9,681
10,243
7,841
8.209
8,139
8.033
7,882
8,014
8,574
7,857
7,282
7.457
S.
Bg/1
735
717
665
693
676
668
690
660
610
614
671
623
656
693
804
839
763
634
621
671
697
685
677
722
809
743
675
699
Total 299.101 1,853*
893*
,644* 1.070*
2.455*
873*
279.752
66*
32*
31* 2.2
1.040
9,991
687
Units;
1.000^
Table 25
Dissolved conaltutent loads of Colorado River at Imperial Daa« Ari«,-Calif.
Ionic loads In tons equivalent
Calen-
dar
rear
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Mean
discharge
(a.f.)
14,024
14,714
11,345
13,205
11.390
9.486
10,041
12.036
12.567
9,906
8.053
14.815
10,045
9,030
7,709
6.266
7.344
10,500
7.695
7,107
,293
.458
.522
.900
.703
5.849
5.615
5.741
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
95
102
73
82
69
56
62
73
73
57
47
82
57
53
51
45
53
65
47
46
42
43
44
38
40
40
36
36
Mag-
nesium
(MK)
42
45
34
42
38
31
34
38
38
30
26
46
32
29
29
24
27
30
22
20
19
21
19
19
20
21
19
20
Sodiua
89
91
64
77
66
56
60
69
64
54
49
83
57
56
56
51
56
69
49
48
47
51
49
47
50
53
48
49
Bicar-
bonate
(HC03)
48
51
40
49
41
34
37
45
46
37
31
54
38
35
29
24
28
39
28
26
23
24
24
22
21
22
22
23
Sul-
fate
(506)
130
139
98
114
98
80
86
1OO
96
76
65
113
79
74
75
67
73
87*
63*
60*
57*
61
59
55
59
60
53
5*
Chlo-
ride
(CD
49
46
31
39
36
31
34
36
35
30
27
44
31
31
32
31
34
37*
28*
29*
29*
31
29
28
31
32
28
29
SAR*/
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.3
KxlO6
at 25° C.
31
1,140
1,140
1,040
1,070
1,070
1,060
1,080
1,060
986
1,010
1,060
1,010
1,030
1.070
1,230
1.350
1,310
1,100
1,100
1,160
1,220
1,270
1.220
1,270
1,390
1.380
1,310
1,310
T.
Tons
14,980
15,917
10.679
12,545
10,841
9,041
9,711
11,242
11,104
8,887
7,764
13,485
9,411
9,024
8,797
7,828
8,598
10,626
7.843
7.511
7,020
7,189
7.016
6,616
7,109
7,133
6.430
6,611
D.S.
BE/1
785
795
692
698
700
701
711
687
649
659
709
669
689
735
839
918
860
744
749
777
820
818
791
824
916
896
842
846
Total 255.538 1.607
815 1.658 941 2.231* 928*
260,958
9,120
57
29
34
80*
33*
2.5 1.120 9.320
751
mgTl.
I/ Except SAB, specific conductance, and
\l Sodium adsorption ratio.
3_/ Specific condustance.
MJB/1 of ion - 735 x Ionic load x atomic at. of ion t discharge (a.f.).
•Estimated or partially estimated.
11*0
-------
Table 26
Temperature of Water
Green River near Green River, Wyoming
(Units: °F)
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1954
1955
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
33*
34
34
34
34*
32
32
32
33
33
32*
363
33
Feb
32
34*
34*
34
34*
33
32
33
33
34
333
33
, 33
37*
35*
34
37*
36*
33
35*
35
36
351
35
—
41
47*
47*
41
44
46
50
48*
46*
40
4,6
44
44
43
627
45
54*
56*
53
54*
57*
55*
54
57
52
60*
53
58
55
53
57*
53
54
935
55
56
64*
63*
58
.. 63*
62
61
64
63
68*
61
63
59
58
63
58
59
1,043
61 .
65*
66*
71
68
67
66
66
66
67
72
73*
67
68*
69
65
71
68
68
1,225
63
63
66
70
64*
68*
63*
69
68
65
69*
72*
65
69
66
67
67
68
61
1,200
67
Sept
56*
61*
63*
58
56
57
56*
59
58
59*
57
63*
58
55*
61*
58
57
992
58
Oct
44*
48*
50
46
48
44
47
45*
45*
49
53*
49
49
45
46
50*
758
47
Sov
34
35
40*
40
35*
'34*
36*
38*
37
36
36
401
36
33
33*
33
33*
34*
32
32
33
32
-TT-
32
32
392
33
568
595
571
571
561
564
562
571
47
50
48
48
47
47
47
48
Table 27
Temperature of Water
Green River near Greendale, Utah
(Unit: °F.)
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
33 33 34 46 54 64 68
41 37 38* 41* 41 42 45
41* 38 39* 40 42* 46 49*
44 41* 39 39 39 39 41*
41 39 38* 39 40 41 43
41 39 39 39 39 39 41*
241 227 227 244 255 271 287
40 38 38 . 41 42 45 48
Aup
67
47
50*
42*
45
45*
296
49
Sept Oct
48
43*
48* 54*
51 53*
44 4.5
46* 46*
46 50
235 339
4,7 4.8
Nov
36
53*
53*
53*
46*
48
52
341
49
Dec Total
32
47
46* '533
49 551
46 505
46 512
46* 516
312
45
Mean
44
46
42
43
43
44
*Incomplete Records.
141
-------
Table 28
Temperature of Water
Green River at Green River, Utah
(Unit: °F.)
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
19i7
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
Jan
33*
34*
33*
34*
34
32*
35*
32*
32
32
331
33
Feb
37*
35*
36*
39*
32*
35*
37*
33*
32
316
35
Mar
40*
44*
39*
44*
36*
44*
43*
47*
48
38*
37
460
42
Apr
53*
54*
48*
52*
SB*
50*
53*
52*
55*
58*
48*
50*
50*
681
May
60*
58*
61*
59*
65*
59*
62*
59
64*
64*
57*
59*
727
61
June
65*
66
67*
67*
68*
67*
68*
65*
72
72
62*
64
803
67
July
75*
.. «* .
77*
77*
77
. '5*
75*
73*
79*
76*
74*
78*
72
72*
1,053
75
Aug
76*
74*
75*
73*
74*
77
73*
75*
80*
75*
73*
64*
889
74
Sept
69*
67*
68*
68*
70*
69
64*
71*
67*
63*
59
735
67
Oct
54*
59*
57*
57*
58*
53*
54*
52
444
56
Nov
44*
42*
40*
43*
46*
40*
39
42*
39
43
418
42
Dec Total
35*
35*
33*
33*
33*
34* 666
35*
33* 639
36*
33*
32 605
32 596
404 638
34
Mean
56
53
50
50
53
*Irtco«Bpl«te Records.
Table 29
Temperature of Water
Colorado River near Glenvood Springs. Colorado
(Unit: °P.)
JTear
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
Jan
35
33*
33
32
32
32*
33*
32
32
32
32
32
34
32
32*
33*
32
553
33
Feb
35
33
33*
33
35*
32
32
33
34
32*
32*
33*
33
36
32
33*
34*
33*
598
33
Mar
39
39*
34
39*
38*
36
37
38
37
39*
38
39*
36
37
41
36*
39*
37*
38*
717
38
Apr
46
47
45
45
50
45*
47*
45
43
47
46
47
44
45*
50
45*
47*
46
44
874
46
May
51
50*
SI
50
49
54*
52
52
48
49
52
50
53
48
53*
52
49*
51
50
51*
1,015
51
June
54
54
53
55
55
59*
56*
59*
52*
55
56
56
58*
53
58
55
52*
57*
54
54
1,105
55
July
62
63
62
62*
64*
68*
66*
65
58
61
64
63
65*
60*
67*
65
58*
66*
64*
62*
1,265
63
AUR
65
63*
62*
62*
62*
65
66*
62
61
65*
64*
63*
66
61
65*
65
60*
65
62*
61
1,265
63
Sept
60
59
57*
58
57
60
59
57
54*
56
56*
59*
53*
57*
60*
61
52*
59*
57*
55*
1,146
57
Oct
49
51
47
48*
48
49
50
47
47
46
45
49*
46
49
55*
47*
47*
46*
47
46*
959
48
Nov
41
4V
34
36
38
39
36*
34
35
37
35
37*
36
40*
44
36*
40*
38*
36
35*
748
37
Dec
36
35
32
32*
32
32
33*
32*
32*
33*
32
32*
32*
34
32
32*
34*
32
32*
621
33
Total
571
550
548
554
581
563
557
535
548
554
557
583
574
535
567
552
543
557
Hean
*.»
46
46
46
48
47
46
45
46
46
46
49
48
45
47
46
45
46
^Incomplete Record
Table 30
Temperature of Water
Colorado River Below Colorado-Utah State Line
(Units: °F)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
-Total
Mean
Jan
34
34
35
32
33
32
200
33
Feb
37
34
37
34
37*
36
215
36
Mar
44
41
43
45
47
220
44
Apr
51
52
51
54
52
52
312
52
May
60
57
56*
62
58
293
59
June
63
68
62
59
67
62
381
64
July
69
73
76
68
75*
72
433
72
Aug
73*
74
72
70
73
73
64*
499
71
Sept
67
67
65
61
62
63*
385
64
Oct
57
59
54
55
54
52
57*
388
55
Nov
45
46
40
45
43
41
260
43
Dec
37
35
34
35
34
175
35
Total
648
621
615
623
628
Mean
54
52
51
52
52
*Inccoplete Record.
-------
Table 31
Temperature of Water
San Juan River near Archuleta, New Mexico
(Units: °F)
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
_ 33
33
33*
34*
32
37
32
33
32*
33
32
35
39*
41
37
39
555
35
Feb
40
38*
36*
38
39*
33
38
36
33
37
32
37*
34
42
39
40
. 39
41
672
37
46
47
41
48*
47*
41
44
42
39
43
37
45*
43
43*
41
42*
40
41
39
809
43
48
54
53
51*
57
60*
48
50
45
44
50
46
51
51
45
45*
44
46
43
931
49
55
58
58*
55
59*
64*
54
56*
51
51
54
52
57
55
60
53
49*
48
51
48
1,088
54
58
67
65
61
67
69*
60
65
54
59
57*
57
68
64
64*
54
53
55
55
59
1,211
61
July
69
74
76*
70
80*
67
72
61
66
67
70
74*
75
64
62
61*
62*
58*
61
1,289
68
69
72*
75
75*
76*
73*
72
69*
66*
69
67
73
74
75
64
59
55*
57
52
55
1,347
67
62
64*
67
66*
69*
72*
63*
62
59
61
60
68
64
68
62
60
58
50
55
1,190
63
52
59
54*
55
52
52
53*
50*
54
53
61
59
51
52
52
809
54
39
44
42*
40
43*
39*
35
39*
38
42
41
50
52*
48
52
55
50
46
790
44
Dec
34
37*
33
33*
35*
34
36*
36
34
42
45*
43
47
4!) '"
43*
43
615
38
Total
648
64T"
597
571
599
631
650
589
574
581
613
Mean
54
53
50
51'
48
50
52
54
48
48
51
•Incomplete Record
Table 32
Temperature of Water
San Juan River near Bluff, Utah
(Unit: °F.)
Year
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
Jan
35*
34*
32*
34*
34*
34*
38*
35*
36
36*
34*
39*
35*
36*
33*
33*
39
36
33*
32
698
35
Feb
40
39
40
39*
36*
42
43*
39*
39
42*
38*
43
41*
40*
37
39*
41
39
40
41
798
40
Mar
44*
47*
48
43*
48*
51
42
47*
44
44
45
47
44*
47*
47*
47
47*
48
50
48
928
46
Apr
50*
59*
54
52*
56*
67
54
52
58*
50*
54*
51
56*
53*
53*
58*
57
56
54*
1,044
55_
May
59*
64
61
60*
68
62*
61*
59*
64
59
61
57*
61
60*
61*
60
62*
66*
55
63
1,223
61
June
68*
70
66
67*
65
74*
65*
68*
68
65
69*
64
68
71*
68*
70
66
73*
70
70
1,365
.. «8.
July
75*
78*
75*
75*
74
76
74*
75
76*
72
74*
76*
76
74*
75*
76
75
81
77
79
1,513
76
Aug
75*
76
73
73
73
74*
75
71
72
74
69
72
75
72*
72*
72*
75
78*
75
72
1,468
73
Sept
67*
67*
68*
67*
69*
68
67*
63*
68*
66
65,
68*
66
63*
69*
63*
66
71
70
68
1,339
67
Oct
56
54*
54*
58
55*
54
61
60*
54*
56*
56*
53*
56*
57
55*
54*
58
56
57
57*
1,121
56
Nov
44
42*
42*
40*
40*
44
45
43
43*
44*
41*
41*
43*
42*
43
50
47
41
43
818
43
Dec
34*
33*
37*
35*
35*
41*
35*
40*
34*
35
40*
34*
41
37
32
36
579
36
Total
642
653
648
701
650
657
646
678
689
656
663
Mean
54
54
54
58
54
55
54
56
57
55
55
55
*Incomplete Record
-------
Table 33
Temperature of Water
Colorado River at Leea Terry, Arltona
(Unit: °F.)
lear
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1965
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
Jan.
36
36
35
36
37
34
41
38
36
37
34*
34*
34*
47*
52*
44*
45*
656
39
Teh.
42
40
39
41
44
36
40
45
45
45
42*
40*
40
45*
50*
42*
46*
722
42
Mar.
49
48
45
49
48
46
48
52
49
52
51*
46
48*
46*
50*
58*
46
48*
879
49
Apr.
58
59
54
57
63
54
57
57,
55
65
59
. 57*
50*
45*
50*
52
47
50*
989
55
Kay
62
63
61
61
68
61
63
61
63
74
66
60*
56*
50*
51*
S3
52
57*
1.082
60,
June
68
67
67
67*
74
69
70
67
69
82
75
68*
58*
56*
55*
58
57
63*
1,190
66
July
77
78
75
80
80
76
78
73
76
83
80*
76*
63*
60*
67*
64
64*
66*
1.316
73
Aug.
76
77
77
78
78
76
79
74
75
80
74
79
77
67*
56
68*
65
67*
68*
1,391
73
Sept.
72
70
70
70
71
70
72
68
71
70*
67*
72
66*
74*
65
68*
68*
1,184
70
Oct.
58
62
68
63
61
61
60
60
59
65
59
56*
61
63*
70*
67*
63*
66
66*
1,178
62
Nov.
47
48
44
47
48
46
42
44
49
48
45*
50*
60*
61*
52*
57*
57
59*
904
50 '
Dec.
37
40
36
37*
36
37
40
' 36
38
40
38*
36*
40*
56*
42*
So*
48*
52*
739
41
Total
290
SS9
676
624
613
707
671
681
677
698
582
145
690
681
605
666
604
55s
658
688
12,230
Mean
57
56
59
56
—57-
56
58
58
• 57
55
56
55
57
57
*Bated on Incomplete Record!
Table 34
Temperature of Water
Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arliona
(Unit: °F.)
Tear
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
Jan.
41
37
39
39
36
35
36
36
37
39
37
39
38
37
44
39
37
37
J6
37
35
36
44*
50
48
45*
45*
1,059
39
Feb.
46
40
43
44
39
43
39
37*
43
42
41
41
45
37
43
45
45
42
41
44
40
40
45
49
48
47*
48*
1,157
43
Mar.
51
47
50
48
46
52
47
49*
50
50
46
50
50
47
50
51
48
50
50
51
45
49
47
50
50
50*
48*
1.322
49
Apr.
55
57
57
56
61
58
55
59*
58
59
57
58
62
55
59
57
56
62
58
57
56
59
49
52
54
49*
52*
1,527 1
56
««y
63
60
65
64
64
65
63
66*
64
65
65
62
69
63
67
62
63
67
«5
64
60
63
61
54
58
57*
55*
,694
63
June
69
68
69
66
71
68
70
71
71
71
71
68
72
70
73
67
70
73
73
75
69
69
71
58
62
62*
63*
1,860
69
July
76
77
78
72
78
76
79
79
79
79*
78
79
80
78
78
74
76
79
80
79
74
75
77
69
68
69*
68*
2,054
76
Au«.
77
77
77
76
77
77
77
78
76
77
79
77
77
79
75
78
79
78
79
78
77
77
70
70
70
70*
70*
2,052
76
Sept.
68
70
73
69 '
75
73
74
74
71
72
71
72
72
73
75
70
71
72
75
69
73
72
70
68
70
69*
70*
1,931
72
Oct.
58
62
63
62*
58
62
62
60
64
60
63
61
62
64
63
62
63
60
62
58
62
65
68
65
64
66*
66*
1.685
62
Nov.
41
47
50
44*
46
46
46
50
50
47*
50
50
50
50
45
47
49
49
50
45
53
55
58
60
58
59*
57*
1,352
50
Dec.
40
43
39
36
41
39
39
40
42
38*
38
38
40
42
37
39
39
40
40
38
43
46
50
53
48
50*
54*
1,132
42
Total
685
533
152
703
676
692
694
687
699
705
699
696
695
717
695
709
691
696
709
709
695
687
706
710
698
698
693
696
18,825
Mean
57
59
56
58
58
57
58
59
58
58
58
60
58
59
58
58
59
59
58
57
59
59
58
58
58
58
58
*Inco
plate Record
-------
Table 35
Temperature of Water
Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona
(Unit: °F.)
1947
1948
1949
liso
1952
1953
1954
1955
1958
1959
1960
1962
1963
1965
1967
1968
Total
Mean
46
42
46
48
51
49
48
54
48
50
48
53
51
54
56
51*
48*
1,046
50
tnconplet(
49
46
51
51
53
54
49
58
52
51
52
52
60
56
57
56*
- S7
1,118 1
53
i Record.
Mar
52
55
56
58
52
58
55
55
58
63
51
57
58
64
57
63
61
62
60
62*
63
,220
58
58
60
61
66
56
63
63
61
66
68
54
67
. 63
71
65
69
66
63
64
60*
. 64*
1,328
63
63
64
67
66
63
67
69
65
68
63
63
69
67
77
71
76
70
68
75
68*
66
1,425
68
71
72
69
70
68
70
70
69
68
68
69
72
70
81
78
75
76
76
77
74
79
1,522
72
72
72
76
73
73
79
76
73
71
74
71
77
72
81
80
79
81
81
81
83*
82*
1,607
76
70
69
72
72
76
74
76
75
70
71
74
74
76
79
78
79
79
82
81
82*
77*
1,586
75
68
68
69
69
70
70
73
71
70
66
68
69
77
71
76
75
75
74
76 '
76*
77
1,508
72
60*
62
61
65
64
65
62
63
62
65
61
66
64
68
68
70
71
74
69
^B —
72
70*
1,450
66
51
52
54
56
55~
55
57
56
56—
52
54
55
58
' 58
63
59
57
58
59—
59*
61
1,240
56
46
48
47
48
51
49
49
51
49
51
51
52
52
54
50
55
48
5C
46
50*
1,104
50
157
711
710
741
" 744
727
753
753
734
— W7~
747
721
756
761
814
797
807
804
794
792"
789
794
59
59
62
bV
61
63
63
61
62
60
63
63
66
67
67
66
bb
66
66
63
Tebie 36
Temperature of Water
Colorado Elver belov Hoover Ean, Arizona-Nevada
(Unit: °F.)
l5kT~
19 k2
19k3
1917
19k8
19k9
1950
1951
1952
1953
195k
1???
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
196k
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
57
57
57
56*
56*
56*
57*
5k*
52*
57*
55*
55*
56*
5T*
56*^
56*
58*
57*
57*
55*
55*
5k*
55*
5k*
56*
56*
55*
1,506
5«
56
55
55
55*
55*
55*
55*
52*
52*
55*
55*
55*
56*
55*
55*
5k*
56*
56*
55*
55*
54*
5k*
5k »
5k»
56*
55*
I,k7fi 1
55
55
5k
?5*
5k«
55*
55*
52*
52*
55*
5k*
55*
56*
T
5k*
56*
56*
?5*
5k*
53*
5k*
53*
53*
54*
5k»
5k«
,k6k 1
51-
55
56
5k
56*
5k«
5k*
55*
52*
52*
55*
5k*
55*
56*
53*
53*
5k*
55*
56*
54*
5k«
53«
54*
55*
5?*
54*
5k*
,46k i
56
56
5k
56*
55*
5k*
55*
52*
53*
55*
56*
56*
53*
53*
55*
56*
56*
53*
53*
55*
54*
55*
5k*
' 5k
5S
56
57
57"
55*
59*
55*
57*
56*
55»
56*
56*
56*
5k«
'55»
53*
56-
5k«
5k-
54*
55*
1,499
56
57
60
5.7*
55*
55*
61*
60*
61*
56*
63*
57*
56*
sfi*
55*
56*
56*
56*
55*
5k*
57*
56-
"50 •
55*
55*
1,477
S7
•59
5?
61
55*
55*
62*
. 6o«
56*
6k*
57*
57*
SS«
55*
56*
56*
56*
5k*
55*
54*
57*
56*
56*
55*
56*
55*
1.544
57
60
69
65*
56*
67*
63*
63*
55*
56*
65*
57*
57*
56*
56*
5P*
56*
56*
5k*
55*
5k«
57*
56*
57*
55*
56*
5k*
1,565
5P
— sr~
61
60
63*
63*
?<;*
68*
63*
65*
56*
56*
66*
58*
57*
58*
56*
59*
56*
56*
5k*
55*
5k*
56*
56*
56*
54*
55*
57*
1.63R
58
65
63
6k«
56*
66*
56.
64*
56*
" 5T*1
66*
58*
5P»
5P«
5H«
60 «
57*
55*
55*
55*
56*
56*
56*
55*
55*
•57*
1,635 1
60
61
60
55*
57*
59*
5k«
56*
56*
57*
5P*
58*
se*
58*
60*
57*
56*
5-5*
55*
56*
56*
56*
55*
55*
57*'
,59k
57
Ifi7
6kO
692
696
696
— ir-
699
695
6PC
659
671
71?
67E
679
666
66k
(If
675
675
655
657
6k 5
665
660
663
657
661
660
15,335
5f.
55*
58*
57*
56*
59*
57*
57*
56*
55*
57*
56*
56*
55*
55*
55*
55*
55*
55*
55
55
56
•Incomplete Record
-------
Table 37
Temperature of Water
Colorado River belov Parker Dec, Arizona-California
(Unit! °F.)
Year
195k
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1961
1962
1963
196k
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Mean
Jan.
to
V>
52
52
53
51
50
50"
51"
50"
5lt
51
50"
50*
717
51
Feb.
56"
I>8
52
53
57
5k
52
5*
53
52
50
55
52
52"
55"
795
53
Mar.
57
55
56
60
59
58
57
58
56
58
5k
57
56
5P
61
B60
57
Apr.
6k
60
6k
6k
6k
65
6?
65
65
63
61
6k
65
62
61.
955
6k
71
67
69
68
71
71
66
71
68
67
68
69
70
6P»
70
1,03k
69
June
7k
7k
75
7k
73
7k
66
711
72
72
72
72
7"
72
IS*
1.092
73
July
77
77*
TT
78
77
79
68
76
75
75
77
76
Tb
77
75"
l.lko
76
AUK
78
fi2
79
80
79
79
75
79
76
79
7«
7f>
77
7P
75*
1,172
78
Sept.
77
76
7P
76
78
76
7k
76
76
eo
76
7k
7k
7B
77
1,150
77
Oct.
72
72
7k
73
7k
71
70
71
73
7k
73
72
72
7?
72
1,065
72
Nor.
6k
6k
62
63
6k
6k
6k
61
65
66
65
65
63
«P
6k
962
fk
Dec.
56
57
53
5k
57
56
53
53
59
56
55
55
55
S7
5k
630
55
Total
7k6
7P3
7^3
797
805
800
763
TCP
7P8
793
779
791
TO
792
7P9
11,792
Mean
65*
bb
66
67
67
6k
bo
66"
66"
65"
66
t>
66
66
66
"Incomplete record.
Table 38
Terperatun* of Water
Colorado Plver at Icperlal FKK, Arizona-Cell fornli-
(Unit! °F.)
Year
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
196k
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
Pean
Jan.
57"
53
52
52
5k
52
51
51
kP
5k
50
52
52
678
52
Feb.
5k
59
57
5k
5k
56
58
58
51
55
51
56"
57
720
55
Mar.
61
6k
60
60
62
60
58
62
58
60
59
62
6k
790
61
Apr.
67
67
67
69
68
68
70
67
66
66
68
6k
68
en
67
Vay.
7k
72
77
7k
7k
•7k
7k
75
72
7k
75"
72
75
962
7k
June
Pi
81
60
62
80
81
80
79
80
77
76
78
62
1,039
80
July
8k
P6
8k
85
83
Pk
8k
Pk
ek
f»5
8k
95
86
1,096
8k
AUR.
ek
85
86
P6
8k
86
Bk
65
66
86
P5
86
Pk
1,107
65
Sept.
62
61
62
CO
fa
79
83
83
PO
80
bo
61"
62
1,05k
61
Oct.
72
71
7k
72
72
TO
73"
76
75
71
Tlw
75
72
9kk
73
NOT.
57
61
61
62
61
5K
6k
62
63"
6k»
OJW
6k»
6k«
80k
62
Pec.
51
5k
55
5k
53
53
57
5k
55
5k"
55*
52"
5k«
701
5k
Tctel
82k
63k
835
630
P26
521
636
636
Plfi
828
siy
827
PkO
10,77k
T'ean
69
70
70
69
69
70
70
68
69
69
70
69
•Incomplete Record
146
-------
Table 39
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Sedimentation Data
Green River near Jensen, Utah
Weighted
mean
Flow concen- Load
(1,000 tratlon (1,000
A.F.I (p-P.m.) tons)
Weighted
mean
Plow concen- Load
(1,000 tratlon (1,000
A.F. 1 f-D.D.m. ^ tonn
Flov coaeen* Load
(1,000 tratlcn (1,000
Flow concen- load
(1,000 tratlon (1,000
) (p.P.m.) toatl A.?.) (p.p.m.1 tog«)
Year l$ol "^ Year 1967
5 "SS k 163 . 2ltO 5A
5^.1 5.020
84^ 2.46O
IIP
—®r —KO~ t«
-------
Table 40
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Sedimentation Data
Green River at Green River, Utah
Month
Weighted
Bean
Flow concen- load
(1,000 trallon (1,000
A.?.) (p.p.».) tons)
Weighted
mean
Flow concen- Load
(1,000 tration (1,OOO
A.F.I (p.p.m.) tons)
Weighted
mean
Plov concen- Load
(l,OOO tration (1,000
A.P.) (p.p.m.) tone)
Weighted
mean
Flow concen- Load
(1,OOO tration (1,000
A.P. ) (p.p.m.) tons)
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
Mar
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
(torch
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Itov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
M*y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept,
Oct.-
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Ktiv.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Tear 1941
100 420 57
3,400 583
5.300 1,560
3.966 1,690
1.172 8,080 12.890
1,146 4,030 6,286
267 12JI30 4,416
1ST 5,400 1 336
„„ 1,740
168 430 ..
4.668 ;,58o 33,US
Year 1942
112 "55591
Year
rear
3.790 1.363
10,420 12,170
92
84
1.400
1.348
656
5.523
141
3.700
Year 1948*
230
._ X560
1415
5.129
tear 1950
43
100
Year 19 :>•*
Year 1956
I '610
0 310
126
128
It2
300
12
190
-48-
Year 1964
2,190 ' 10,4?0
-------
For
TABLE 40
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
HISTORICAL FLOW AND SEDIMENTATION DATA
Green River at Green River, Utah
Month
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(1,000
A.F. )
300
303
361
518
8lQ
1.207
546
228
189
253
239
248
5,211
181
166
393
390
566
325
146
146
157
193
158
148
2,969
196
169
256
260
504
1.134
508
247
?31
?SO
24?
220
4.227
Weighted
mean
concen-
tration
(p. p.m. )
Year 1965
300
540
2,110
3,300
3.130
3.530
3.440
4,510
2,320
1,120
360
420
2,570
Year 1966
200
150
5,110
1,090
1,450
610
740
2,200
2,070
1,260
1,660
4,090
1,810
Year 1967
430
4oo
l.UUo
700
2tPSO
3., £3.0
2,270
1,010
1,790
450
L?0
IPO
2.000
Load
(1,000
tons)
124
222
1,034
2,327
3,486
5.804
2.555
1,399
596
384
117
143
18,191
50
35
2,730
579
1,115
269
148
437
442
332
357
§23
7,317
115
93
503
248
1,952
5,602
1,571
641
561
152
39
36
11.5-13
Flow
(1,000
A.F.)
p4o
106
?h\
275
708
1248
426
345
241
230
221
209
1J589.
Weighted
mean
concen-
tration
(p. p.m. )
Year 19t>«
120
600
590
1,440
1600
1570
'640
4,670
'160
310
70
i4o
1270
Year
Load
(1,000
tons )
42
161
195
538
1540
2)662
372
2193
52
96
20
39
7910
r — ——
Year
149
-------
Table ki
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Sedimentation Date
Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
Month
Weighted
mean
Tlov concen- Load
(1,000 tratlon (l.OOO
A.?.) fp.p.a.) ton»',
Weighted
mean
Flov concen- Load
(1,000 tratlon (1,000
A.f.) (p.p.a.) toot)
Month
Weighted
nean
Tlov ooncen- Load
(1,000 tratlon (1,000
A.?.) (p.p.a.) tonil
Jan.
Kb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Jeb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Kb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
«OT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Kb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOT.
Dec.
Total
Tear 19T2
Year 1943
. &^ *
2.130 610
222-
gfe _ _
170 42
122 Si.
7.099 2.420 23.396
Tear 1943
1.959 I.SSO' 4.216
1.499 670 1.373
225 _?..jgp_ 619
5.git j.glO
Tear 1944
1^400 301
6.^7 1.010 . 6.7^2
Tear 195O
"
_
2.oto
__ _ i.oio _
l.LH 690 1.01(5.
^47 570 268
138 1.270
— i-
0 16
128 222_
329 1^1)50.
l.li9S
23S 14.930
1.110
610
S. SOS l.QliO 7.759
««r 19ft6
U6
-t*
I9t
S.77U 2.011
iSB_
S.-iSO
glS
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
fee.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Peo.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Kb.
March
April
Kay
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
NOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
ret.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Bov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
ta>.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
Year 1960
16J4 120
g.ObO
7.510 1.752
_ 3.280
l&t 690
ito 2to _
1.1430 It ,473
Year 1955
U° 12_
3.120 1.160
2.58Q _ 2.205_
1.024
l4o
2JO
177 160
165 40
4.004 1.050 5.725
108 ii.Sto 1-??3
321 3.020 1.316
752 3.360 3.434
669 1.300 1.215
IBs 4.710
Jpg 44n
119 W
3.395 1.140 _
Year 1962'
182
2.7QQ
540
1.375 g.630
g.859 1.650
1.952 1.360
661 3.990-
3,170
1.260
239
6.869 1.9gQ
Year 1958
2.032 2.140
1,560 920
iBo~
150
-------
For
TABLE Ul
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
HISTORICAL FLOW AND SEDIMENTATION DATA
Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
Month
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(1,000
A.F.)
200
169
278
438
697
1129
185
120
114-5
175
153
174
3,lb3
1*6
136
1P5
19?
U62
713
327
175
17 P
Weighted
mean
concen-
tration
Year 1966
6^0
1*00
2,220
2,2l*0
1,200
1*10
250
200
650
230
110
h,kOO
1,200
Year 19^7
lUo
lUo
210
260
2r620
2.250
2.5PO
7.520
1.620
Load
(1,000
tons)
174
92
838
1,337
237
63
32
129
55
23
1,041
5,162
27 .
26
53
69
1.61*5
2.182 -
l.ll*7
1.791
393
17~U IPO U 3
211
2U1
3,1^6
205
193
171
230
667
1,171
306
365
159
213
257
2UP
U.1F5
200
590
1.7PO
Year 196?
3PO
7l+0
270
1.P90
3.0UO
1.560
1.360
P.O
350
210
PO
2,020
5.8 _
191*
7.62P
107
195
62
591
2.763
2.1jpl
565
14,537
IP
101
7?
2P
11.52JL_
Weighted
mean
Flow concen- Load
(1,000 tration (1,000
A.F.) (p. p.m.) tons)
Year
Year
Year
151
-------
Table 42
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Sedimentation Data
San Juan River near Bluff, Utah
Month
Weighted
mean
Flow concen- Load
1,000 tratlor. (1,000
fp.P.n
"•.'sighted
mean
Flow ccr.cer.- Load
(1,000 tration (1,OCC
A.F.) (p.p.m.) tons;
Weighted
near,
Flow concer.- Load
(1,000 tratlon (1,000
A.F. ) (p.p.is.? tons)
Feb.
March
April
Kay
Jane
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jar..
Fet.
Karen
April
Kay
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
r»c.
Tctal
Jan.
Fet.
yjirch
April
M»y
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
5ov.
>c.
Total
Fet.
Karcb
April
Xay
June
Ju^
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
ND».
Dec.
Total
Jar..
Frt.
March
April
Jtejr
June
Ju'^
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Tct«l
Jan.
fet.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Year - '.':-
Year 1^-
17.260 l.i<
152
-------
TABLE k2
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
HISTORICAL FLOW AND SEDIMENTATION DATA
For San ,Tna.n River near Bluff. TThn.'h
Month
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(1,000
A.F.)
1PP
Weighted
mean
concen-
tration
(p. p.m. )
Year ^9^ s
Q.S10
Load
(1,000
tons)
1.S78
IPO 6,1*70 i ,os6
8s 6.660 77Q_
16S 17.S60 3.Qto
288
22.7UO
8.Q10
1*1 Q 6.0SO 3.UU8
PQS ^870 ?f^SS
218 3STQOO 10,6SO
177 6,S70 i,s8^
1QO S.lUO l.^PS
232
S.l*20
1.712
23S 6,610 2,11S
2 Sl*6 n .kOo iQ.kkQ
1Q8
Year i o^
^.P^O
' ^Q
1PQ P.07O ^63
1QQ
l .878
PSP ^,DPO i xn^6
267 ? . l*6o SQ!*.
1P7
i .810
•^12
si* 6,s^o i*8o
ill; ?1 770 1 1*P3
to IP.^PO 7?i
OS
1* .030
SP1
70 p.o^?o 10^
72
1 ,SSO
5F
61*
79
31
7P
P9
7,600
Year 1967
PlO
2,0l;0
1*00
lt.120
8.070
7S^
Q.l*!;^
61*
17P
166
17
1*37
977
39 is.^^n P13
151
9.679
9^ 2s'PPo 3.30P
31
39
791
7,Pno
Q ISO
•^'ni*o
i^.if^n
329
1*73
161
16.602
Weighted
mean
Flow concen-
(1,000 t rat ion
A.F.) (p. p.m.)
Year 19_6P
36 2.370
5U 5.0l*0
50 3.910
P3 6,750
ll*P 6.550
21*0 7.730
P2 15,130
176 53,150
1*1 6,060
56 3,390
1*9 l.POO
Load
(1,000
tons)
113
370
266
762
1,319
2,533
1,687
12,722
33P
25P
120
1*5 770 1*7
1,060 ll*,?.l*0
Year
20,535
Year
'
153
-------
Table 43
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Sedimentation Data
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona
Month
Flow
(1,000
A.F.)
Weighted
ne&n
ccr.cen- Load
tration (1,000
(?.P.m.) tons)
Weighted
mean
Flow concen-
(1,OOO tration
A.F.) (p.p.n.)
Load
(1,000
tons)
Weighted
mean
Flow cor.cen- Lead
(1,000 tration (1,000
A.F.) (p.p.m.)
Flew
(1,000
Weighted
mean
concen-
tration
Jan.
Feh.
March
April
Kay
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Fet.'-
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Sov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Marcjh
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Dor.
Dec.
Total
Year vr.2
275
9.900
•Estimated
-------
Table 44
Colorado River Basin
Historical Flow and Sedimentation Data
Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona
Month
Weighted
mean
Flow concen- Load
(1,000 tration (1,000
A.F.). (p.p.m.) tons)
Weighted
mean
Flow concen- Ijoad
(1,000 tratlon (1,000
A.?.) fp.p.a.) tone)
Month
Weighted
mean
Flow concen- Load
(1,000 tration (l,OOO
A.F.) (p.p.m.) tons)
Weighted
mean
Flow concen-
(l,OOO tration
A.P.) (p.p.m.)
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
Kay
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOY.
Dec.
Total
Jan.'
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
NOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
I*b.
March
April
Kay
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
SOT.
Bee.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hov.
Dec.
Total
J«a.
ftb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Dee.
Total
Year
Year igls
6, QUO 22,000
7.g?Q 3-PTO
3.910
±9S a.ooo
too" 1.1.30
9.119 5.150 ~oT.9l'
186
i.390
— ^11^ .
Year 1951
155
-------
For
TABLE 44
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
HISTORICAL FLOW AND SEDIMENTATION DATA
Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona
Month
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Flow
(1,000
A.F.)
608
539
568
1,251
2.282
2.282
724
879
767
675
612
586
11,773
52Q
524
718
865
1,011
789
698
694
623
567
589
670
8,277
648
564
701*
B01
P61
Weighted
mean
concen-
tration
(p. p.m. )
Year 1965
3,270
1,960
3,410
6,380
3,180
1,310
2,290
1,790
1,990
160
470
1,370
2,480
Year 1966
1.750
340
1,520
460
400
200
180
230
910
870
30
2,480
750
Year 1967
?00
1?0
150
100
200
Load
(1,000
tons)
2,704
1,436
2,638
10,864
9,860
4,074
2,256
2,138
2,080
144
393
1,091
39,678
1.260
240
1,488
547
557
212
168
218
770
668
23
2,263
8,414
Q?
lli7
IPli
PPQ
Til no PQ£
693
786
713
it 59
1*95
597
8,032
4, Poo
P 110
6,500
87Q
100
570
2.010
4.51Q
P.P.PP
5U5
?no
46 1
PP. 176
Flow
(1,000
A.F.)
658
534
900
1.07P
976
925
P65
775
675
61*7
675
665
9,373
Weighted
mean
concen-
tration
(p.p.m. )
Year 19fc>tf
£50
1.930
1.410
1.31*0
4PO
300
1,430
5,980
460
1.030
340
210
1.290
Year
Load
(1,000
tons)
578
1.402
1.721
1.960
636
3fiO
1.678
6.298
1*20
909
312
1PP
16.4P2
Year
156
-------
JAMBS L. OOILVIH
Secretary-Manager
o] Cl0ater
144 Weri Colfa* Avenue Denver, Colorado 80202 Pkone 222-5S11
COMMISSIONERS
ANDREW KORAN, JR., Pie.ident WILLIAM G. TEMPLE, 1st Vioe-Pre.iJent
JOHN A. YELENICK A. ASBORNO CHARLES F. BRANNAN
March 14, 1972
Mr. Murray Stein, Director
Enforcement Proceedings Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Crystal Mall Bldg. 2
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Stein:
On February 17, 1972, at the close of the Colorado River Enforcement
Conference, it was announced that 30 days from that date would be allowed
for interested parties to submit statements to you to be included in the
official record of that hearing and conference. Therefore, we respect-
fully request that this letter be considered as a statement of the Board of
Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver and be included
in and made a part of the record of the hearing and conference held in
Las Vegas, Nevada February 15 through 17, 1972.
The Board of Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver is
charged with the responsibility of supplying water to the Denver metro-
politan area for all the municipal uses associated therewith. Presently
the water system created by the Board of Water Commissioners is
serving nearly three-quarters of the people of the Denver metropolitan
area, that is, more than 800,000 people are dependent upon this system
for this most necessary commodity to sustain life. Although growth in
this metropolitan area has occurred at a high rate for some years, the
growth experienced in recent months has been at such a high rate that
it is almost unbelievable.
At the present time more than half the people served by this system
receive water diverted from the Colorado River and its tributaries.
This water is transported through the various tunnels of this system
from the Western Slope to the metropolitan area. Water to meet the
needs of future growth of the area, must necessarily come from the
Colorado River and its tributaries through the systems presently con-
structed or additional facilities now in the planning stages of the Board
-------
Mr. Murray Stein, Director March 14, 1972
of Water Commissioners. These diversions from the Colorado River
to the Eastern Slope, commonly called transmountain diversions, are
accomplished under the constitution and laws pertaining to water rights
of the State of Colorado. Such diversions are also recognized to be
within the provisions and intent of both the Colorado River Compact and
the Upper Colorado River Compact.
As a major user of waters from the Colorado River, the Board of Water
Commissioners is concerned with what many consider to be a serious
problem on that river, that is the salinity problem. Because of that
concern, we have reviewed the report of the Environmental Protection
Agency, dated 1971, entitled "The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colo-
rado River Basin. " Although numerous comments could be made regard-
ing the content of that report, many would, no doubt, duplicate those al-
ready voiced at the hearings, and to avoid such duplicity, only the few
following comments are submitted at this time.
1. In appendix A of the report, on pages 10 and 11, reference is
made to the present quantities of water diverted outside the
Colorado River Basin, and estimates are given regarding
plans for future increases in the amount of exportation in the
various states of the Colorado River Basin. The following
statement is found on page 11 of that appendix:
"The increase in out-of-basin diversions, particularly
those in the Upper Basin, will result in further degra-
dation of mineral quality in the Colorado River system
unless some means are found for augmenting the basin's
water supply with good quality waters. "
It should be pointed out that, in Colorado the amount of water
planned for exportation out of the Basin, falls within the allotted
share of Colorado River water to Colorado by the Colorado
River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Compact for
beneficial consumptive use within the State of Colorado. In
other portions of the report it is indicated that waters ex-
ported from the Basin in Colorado contain a salt load which
is taken out of the Basin. If these waters were to remain
in the Colorado River Basin, the salt load contained in those
waters would also remain in the Basin. The waters would,
at some time in the future, be used within the State in a
manner which would cause them to be consumed thereby
-------
Mr. Murray Stein, Director March 14, 1972
leaving the salts in the remaining flows of the Colorado River.
It is also within the realm of possibility that those waters, or
a portion thereof, would be used for irrigation purposes, and
the return flows therefrom would, in addition to the above,
contribute to the salt loading, that is, carry back to the stream
additional mineral salts from the lands.
2. From Table 4, page 39 of appendix A, it is evident that the total
dissolved solid concentrations during the run-off months is sig-
nificantly less than during the base flow months. In Colorado,
due to the priority doctrine, in most instances transmountain
diversions from the Colorado River Basin occur primarily
during the high run-off months and thereby have only little,
if any, effect upon the flow of the river during the base flow
months. The report seems to indicate that the intent is to
manage the river so that the total dissolved solids concentrations
will not go above a certain level during any month of the year.
Table 4 seems to indicate that the base flow months would be
the critical months with respect to such an intent.
3. In the Summary report, Chapter 7, under Alternatives for
Management and Control of Salinity, an approach is suggested
which would limit economic or water resource development
that is expected to produce an increase in salt loads or stream
flow depletions. Elsewhere in the report are contained lengthy
discussions including estimates of the economic and other
impacts of the present and increased salinity levels of the
Colorado River. However, the report contains no estimates
of economic and other impacts which would occur if the above
approach,unrealistic as it may be, were allowed to occur. As
stated earlier in this letter, this metropolitan area is growing
rapidly, and its water supplies for that growth must come
from the Colorado River. Curtailment of those necessary
supplies is unacceptable.
4. In Table 1, page 15 of the Summary report, three percent of the
salt concentration of the Colorado River at Hoover Dam is
attributed to exports out of the basin in the amount of 465, 000
acre feet per year. In comparison, on page 17 the following
statement is made:
"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
the Hoover Dam. "
-------
Mr. Murray Stein, Director March 14, 1972
Such a comparison, pointing out that only one of the many point
sources, according to the report, causes nearly double that
associated with exports of water from the Basin, should cause
consideration of solutions to the problem with a more realistic
perspective applied to exportations from the Basin.
The resolution of the conferees of the Colorado River Basin states developed
during the hearing and conference of February 15 through 17, 1972, suggests
a positive approach to resolving the salinity problem, which appears to be
the most logical approach at this time. We do, however, wish to emphasize
the intent of paragraph 2 found on page 3 of the resolution, which is, that
the Upper Basin must continue to develop its compact portion of the water.
The program for controlling the salinity problem suggested in the resolution
must go forward. However, in the meantime, this Board has no alternative
but to provide those additional waters necessary for the growing population
of this metropolitan area.
The Board of Water Commissioners of Denver recognizes the need to
maintain the rivers and streams of the West in quality conditions, and
is interested in this problem on the Colorado River. Therefore, this Board
desires to cooperate with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Colorado
River Basin states, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies involved
in order that efforts may be directed to resolution of the salinity problem.
J. L. Ogilvie, Manager
JLO/em
-------
DANIEL F. LAWRENCE
Director
BERT A. PAGE
Controller
435 State Capitol
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
Tel: 328-5401
JAMES G. CHRISTENSEN
Auittant Dinctor
RAY H. ZENGER
Auittant Dinctor
March 14, 1972
Mr. 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 Mninistrator
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Stein:
The statanent of Utah Division of Water Resources concerning the
report on the Mineral Quality Problems in the Colorado River Basin is
transmitted herewith for the record.
This statement is in agreement with that made by Lynn M. Thatcher
for and in behalf of the Utah Division of Health. It is also in keeping
with the intent of the resolution of the Conferees of the Colorado River
Basin states at Las Vegas, Nevada, February 17, 1972.
del F.
Director
DFL:kb
Enclosure
-------
DANIEL F. LAWRENCE
Director
BERT A. PAGE
Controller
435 State Capitol
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
Tel: 328-5401
March 10, 1972
JAMES G. CHRISTENSEN
Auittant Director
RAY H. ZENGER
AMtittant Director
The Utah Division of Water Resources is in complete agreement with
the statement of the Utah Conferee in the matter of pollution of the
interstate waters of the Colorado River and its tributariesy as follows:
STATEMENT OF UTAH CONFEREE AT SEVENTH SESSION
OF THE CONFERENCE IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION
OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF THE COLORADO RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES*
Las Vegas, Nevada
February 15-17, 1972
I want to begin by expressing thanks to the Environmental Protection
Agency of the Federal Government, and its predecessors, for their accomplish-
ment in making available the report on the Mineral Quality Problems in the
Colorado River Basin. This report resulted frcm one of many recaimendations
made by the conferees, exemplifying the need for Federal resources to accomplish
development of information required to set up a fair, practicable, and enforce-
able program for control of pollution in the Colorado River.
I must point out that while I served for a period as temporary chairman
of the Colorado River Conferees during the time that an agreement was being
developed for selection of water quality standards, I do not at this time
*By Lynn Thatcher, Deputy Director of Health, Utah State Division of Health
-------
-2-
have any such relationship to the group and my statement is not in any way
related to any formal action by them. In fact, since the agreement on
development of standards was achieved by the Conferees in 1967, no further
formal action on this matter has been considered necessary, pending completion
of studies under way at that time.
The previous action of the Conferees to set standards, but to temporarily
exclude specific standards on salinity, was based on the concept and acknowledgement
that ultimately, when sufficient information becomes available, specific standards
will be set for all essential parameters. The Mineral Quality Problems report
mentioned provides part of the information needed to accomplish pollution control.
Our deliberations on this report should guide us on a continued course of action
toward the ultimate objective of water quality management.
The three recommendations which emerged in the final EPA report lead
me to propose more specific recommendations as follows. These are in harmony
with Utah's previous Garments on the report.
1. A salinity policy should be adopted for the Colorado River
System that will have as its objective the maintenance of
salinity concentrations at or below levels presently found
in the lower irain stem.
2. Implementation of this salinity policy objective for the
Colorado River System should be accomplished with acknowledgement
that the salinity problem must be treated as a Basin-wide
problem that needs to be solved to maintain Lower Basin
water salinity reasonably near present levels while the
-------
-3-
Upper Basin continues to develop its compact-apportioned water,
recognizing that salinity levels may rise until control measures
are made effective.
3. The adoption of numerical criteria should be deferred until
the potential effectiveness of the Colorado River salinity
control program is better known and because with the present
level of information it is not possible to establish equitable,
practicable and enforceable numerical standards.
4. The Bureau of Reclamation should be assigned the primary res-
ponsibility for investigating, planning and implementing a
Basin-wide salinity control program in the Colorado River
System, in order that Federal funds can be properly assigned
for solution of this truly interstate problem.
5. The Environmental Protection Agency should continue its dedi-
cation to the program by consulting with and advising the
Bureau of Reclamation, accelerating its on-going data collection
and research efforts, and transferring funds to the Bureau of
Reclamation.
6. The Office of Saline Water should contribute to the program
by assisting the Bureau of Reclamation as required to appraise
the practicability of applying de-salting techniques.
7. The Congress and Administration should be urged to accelerate
the salinity control program, including appropriation of adequate
funds.
-------
-It-
In support of these recommendations it is pointed out that language of
the Federal Act under which the Conference was called seems to lead ultimately
to the concept of "remedial action" with respect to pollutants entering the
River System. The proposed salinity control.program by the Bureau of Reclama-
tion certainly can be regarded as remedial action and seems to satisfy the
intent of the law and also to support the concept of no numerical standards
at this time because the very accomplishment of the suggested objectives of
the Bureau will provide us with necessary information to establish such standards
in a fair and equitable manner. It should be pointed out also that every
State has been in the process of taking important remedial action since the
Conference was first organized, and even before the seven states came to an
agreement on the establishment of water quality standards. This consists of
reviewing plans for new developments and imposing necessary controls. Without
such controls, many new sources of salinity could have developed and increased
the salinity problem throughout the Basin.
It must be stressed that delaying establishment of numerical
salinity standards will not diminish these remedial actions, but that
setting such standards with present inadequacies of knowledge could result
in unsound, inequitable and unenforceable standards.
Let me also throw out the caution that the concept of singling out the
salinity problem and taking action with respect to it alone, apart from other
Conference activities, denies the basic fact that no part of a pollution
problem can be separated from other parts. Salinity, radioactivity, heavy
metals, bacteria, viruses, are all part of the pollution picture and have to
be considered as an integrated whole.
-------
-5-
Much has been said in the past about the need to augment the Conferees
by brirging in representation of other resource interests in each State. This
has always been recognized as a valid concept, and to my knowledge has been
implemented in most cases. If the water resource groups in the various states
feel they have not had adequate representation in the quality problem, certainly
something must be done about it, and I, for one, would accept practical
suggestions as to how the Conferees group could be properly augmented by others.
I do not feel this problem has occurred in Utah, but I still would be receptive
to some modified approach which satisfied all groups in all states.
Another specific subject of today's session is the stabilization of
uranium tailings. This was discussed at length at the Sixth Session held in
Denver July 26, 1967, and we are considering today some suggested regulations
prepared by EPA.
At the Sixth Session it was agreed, among other things, that a long-range
program for tailings control should be developed and that any control procedures
adopted should be reasonably uniform among the Colorado River States. We
believe these are still valid points, and we can generally support the proposed
regulations.
I would like to close by strongly urging that this entire problem be
kept in proper perspective. It is truly an interstate problem, and it is
truly a water quality problem encompassing all aspects of water quality and
water pollutants.
UTAH-KVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Dihiel F. Lawrence, Dojpector
-------
(
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS
CHAIRMAN AND COLORADO
RIVFR CCMMISSICNTR
COACHE.LLA VALLEY COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
RAYMOND E. BADGER
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
WATER AUTHORITY
JOSEPH JENSEN
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
or SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
HAROLD F. PELLEGRIN
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
HEGI.'VED
E. P. A. ;:F^!Gi--J IX
Ifca 2«l I si FH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Colorado &iver Board of California
3O2 CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING
217 WEST FIRST STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9OOI2
VIRGIL L. JONES
PALO VEROC IRRI.:
EDGAt-: L. KANOUSE
POWER. Cirr OF Los ANGELES
CARL C. B£VINS
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
MYRON B. HOLBURT
CHIEF ENGINEER
March 21, 1972
Mr. Paul DeFalco
Regional Administrator, Region IX
Environmental Protection Agency
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. DeFalco:
During a regular meeting of the Colorado River Board
of California held on March 15, 1972, a resolution was
unanimously adopted by the Board urging that the Congress
and the Federal Administration accelerate the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program.
A copy of the resolution is enclosed.
Very truly yours,
'RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS
Chairman and Colorado
River Commissioner
enclosure
-------
Resolution of p,j „
COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
March 15, 1972
WHEREAS, a joint Federal-State Colorado River water quality
enforcement conference was held on February 15, 16, and 17, 1972;
and
l/HEREAS, representatives of the Colorado River Basin states
testified at this conference in support of an acceleration in the
on-going Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program; and
WHEREAS, the Conferees of the Colorado River Basin States
unanimously adopted a resolution, dated February 17, 1972, at
this conference supporting such acceleration and, in particular,
resolving that the fiscal year 1973 budgeted amount be augmented;
and
WHEREAS, the sum of $1,055,000 was agreed upon by the Colorado
River Basin states as the amount by which the fiscal year 1973 bud-
get should be increased in order to permit an efficient acceleration
of the Salinity Control Program; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Chairman of the conference stated that
the Environmental Protection Agency believes it to be 'imperative
that salinity control measures be accelerated in the Colorado
River Basin; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency can materially
assist in the development and implementation of salinity control
measures by funding the construction of demonstration salinity
control projects;
HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Colorado River Board
of- California hereby urges the Congress and the Federal Administra-
tion to accelerate the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
by:
(1) Augmenting the Bureau of Reclamation1s fiscal year
1973 budget for the program by 01,055,000; and
(2) The Environmental Protection Agency adopting and
funding, as demonstration projects, the plans, now
under development by the Bureau of Reclamation, for
salinity reduction measures at La Verkin Springs,
Grand Valley, and Paradox Valley.
-------
State of California )
) ss.
County of Los Angeles )
I, HAROLD F. PELLEGRIN, Executive Secretary of the Colorado
River Board of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by said Board
at a Regular Meeting thereof, duly convened and held at its
office in Los Angeles, California, on the 15th day of March 1972,
at which a quorum of said Board was present and acting throughout,
Dated this 16th day of March 1972.
HAROLD F. PELLEGRIN
Executive Secretary
-------
INTERESTED IN SAVING SOUTHERN UTAH'S ENVIRONMENT
issue)
I POS
POST OFFICE BOX 728
CEDAR CITY, UTAH 84720
February 14, 1972
Mr. Erwin Dickstein
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 900, 1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 30203
Dear Mr. Dickstein,
We are unable to send a representative to the Water Conference in Las
Vegas this week, but we have an item we would like to submit for
consideration.
One of our correspondents lives in Moab, Utah, and is concerned about
the possible effects of certain solar evaporation ponds built immediately
adjacent to the Colorado River.
He has submitted an article for publication in our periodical; we would
like to excerpt the relevent portion for inclusion in your hearing record.
We will also inclose some previously published material on the project,
which will more clearly identify the project, and who is involved.
Sincerely ,
* '
'
Lloyci Gordon
Executive Director
.. .TO COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT OUR ENVIRONMENT
.. .TO MAKE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO CAN DO SOMETHING
-------
ISSUE? — Page 2
THOUGHTS OF A CONCERNED MOAB CITIZEN
by Lee Turpin
Another serious factor in this matter is the very real threat of ecological
disaster in case one or more of the salt ponds were to lose its contents.
National Park Service authorities, who would have to deal with such a
disaster in Canyonlands National Park, Lake Powell, and other downstream
areas, have written analyses concluding that the probability of "earthquake"
destruction of the pond walls is low, and that in any event, the Colorado
River ecology would be self-correcting.
True, earthquakes are quite unlikely in canyonlands, but uncontrollable,
massive and devestating glash floods are NOT! Such unpredictable floods can
and do ravage major roads, tear out bridges, toss house-sized boulders around
like corks and cause massive land collapses and slippages. Those who live
in Canyonlands country get regular reminders of the awesome and unpredictable
power of such flash floods!
The earth-walled salt ponds, which contain hundreds of thousands of gallons
of heavy brine, were b uilt directly across an entire system of normally dry
water courses. One good storm, of the kind that hits once or twice every year
in the ivfoab vicinity, could, if it struck just to the east of the Dead Horse
Point plateau, quite easily breach one or more of the ponds and dump their
contents into the Colorado. And anyone who asserts that diddling with a little
table-sized, scale model test set-up could "prove" the ponds resistant to such
a flash flood just doesn't know the first thing about meaningful engineering
research.
What would be the resultant damage to the ecology of the Colorado and
its dowriver lakes in case of such a disaster? Only a lengthy scientific study by
a highly trained team of ecologists could say with reasonable certainty, but
the damage could very easily by heavy and long-lasting in Lake Powell. Marine
ecosystems are notoriously delicate.
But one thing is very certain Park Service officials who arbitrarily decide that
the Colorado River ecology would be in no serious danger from such a disaster,
and who limit their estimates of the probability of such an event to earthquakes
as a source, are being facetious at best, and blindly stupid at worst. With so
much in the way of sport, recreation and various water uses dependent upon the
Colorado River downstream of these unsightly, threatening salt ponds, isn't it
about time someone took a really serious look at the problem, a loo k divorced
from wishful thinking, shortsightedness and politics?
-------
RECEIVED
Box K Lander, Wyoming 825
News
February 15, 1972
Mr. Curtis M. Everts
Acting Regional Administrator
EPA Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Calif. 9^111
Dear Mr. Everts i
I wish to take this opportunity to heartily endorse the statement
by the Rocky Mountain Center on Environment on "The Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River Basin." The referenced statement was
presented at the Federal-State Enforcement Conference on the Colorado
River at Las Vegas, February 15-17, 1972.
In spite of the fact that I have not read the report, I am quite
familiar with problem areas in Wyoming. At the present time, I am pro-
testing the marginal irrigation projects to be activated by the China
Meadows Dam of the Bureau of Reclamation* s Lyman Project in Wyoming;
the taking of any more Desert Land Entries in the Soaphole Basin of
Sublette County, Wyoming, and the continued high salt-sediment run-off
of the Eden Project in Sweetwater County. All of these are environ-
mental folly.
If possible I would like to obtain a copy of the report cited
above. I would like to have it for reference material on the salinity
problem.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Ball
Editor
TABimmd
cc
Sen.
Sen.
Gale McGee
Clifford P. Hansen
Rep. Teno Roncalio
Gov. Stanley E. Hathaway
-------
RECEIVED
E. P. A. REC-.-ION IX
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CENTER oJJAR
4260 East Evans Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80222 • 303/757-5439
March 9, 1972
FOMCOE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
Kenneth R. Wright
Vice-Pretiden ts
H. Stanley Demps«y
John G. Welles
Stcnury - Treasurer
Michael Owen
Donald Aldrich
Montana
James B. Alley, Jr.
New Mexico
George B. Beardsley
John R. Bermingham
Edward P. Connors
W. K. Coor»
Kenneth Diem
Wyoming
Malin Foster
Utah
Robert M. Hart
Jerry Jayne
Idaho
Hugh E. Kingery
Mary Kozlowski
Nevada
Esteiia B. Leopold
Richard D. Lamm
W. E. Marshall
Frank H. Morison
Richard H. Olson
Ralph Sargent. Jr.
Kate Stonington
Robert K. Timothy
C. D. Tolman
Olin L. Webb
E. R. Weiner
William M. White, Jr.
Beatrice E. Willard
STAFF
Executive Director
Roger P. Hinsen
Director at Field Services
Albert G. Melcher
Attiaent to the Director
M. BuieSeewell
Director of Development
Max Appel
Editor
SigridH F
Mr. Curtis M. Everts
Acting Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. Everts:
The Board of Directors of the Rocky Mountain Center
on Environment has voted to request that the enclosed
Statement be included in the Proceedings of the
Federal - State Enforcement Conference on the Colorado
River, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 15-17, 1972. The
Statement was entered at the Conference as a ROMCOE
Staff Statement; the Board of -Directors desires that
the Statement represent a formal Board Statement.
Following the Statement is an Appendix reflecting added
comments by Dr. Estella Leopold, a Member of the Board,
as she has requested.
Sincerely yours,
ON ENVIRONMENT
5ger F. Hanson
Executive Director
RPHrbb
cc: ROMCOE Board of Directors
l»ecror of Rttttich
Hubert D. Burke
L*3*l Associate
Richard D. Hoadley
Admmiitntirt Assistant
Elena B. Slusser
Associate Dinctor of Development
Julie L. Barker
Bobbie L. Bishop
Betty L. Egan
Pat Kern
Debbie Milner
FORUMS
CLEARING HOUSE • ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS • PLANNING • COMMUNICATIONS
-------
Statement by the
Rocky Mountain Center on Environment
on
"The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin"
Presented at the
Federal-State Enforcement Conference
on the Colorado River,
Las Vegas, Nevada
February 15-17, 1972
Rocky Mountain Center on Environment
4260 East Evans Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80222
303/757-5439
-------
I he Rocky , iountain Center on tnvironment (RC.-lCGi:} has reviewed the Report on
"The mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin" of 1971, and appre-
ciates the oppcrtun ty to submit these r~nr.?ents for inclusion in the Conference
i"oceedings.
ROiCOE is a private, ron-profit regional environmental service center, providing
a iro'ad range of env! -oriental assistance to government, conservation groups,
'*- •'Stry and the general public in the eight Rocky /fountain States.
ROMCOE s r-cognizLc1 and been concerned about Colorado River Basin salinity
.~. -- .'al years, "" :e extremely rapid multiplication of the salt load in this
century s another e .ample of a stress on the ecosystem resulting from man's
abuse of the principles of ecology. The basic cause of this stress is the ex-
ceeding of "carrying capacity" of the land. The efforts to manipulate natural
process ^. to e.v ."act more resources and biological production than the region
can sup - rt wit in naturally-created limits is causing the collapse of an
clement 'f the ecosystem, i-ian in the Rocky Mountain West must learn to live
» .thin e ca .. Dili ties of natural systems.
-.11.
"^e logi: of the water development syndrome, which is the first cause of the
, .linity )rr >lem, goes like this:
(1) E< on mic growth, development and population growth are vital to the
fi tu e of the 'lest.
(2) EC-no lie growth and development depend almost entirely on development
an( r distribution of water supply.
O) In< reused water supply will require considerable accelerated water
development and redistribution projects.
(0 Ha' ?r development and redistribution will assure ever-expanding economic
gr vth and pooulation expansion.
(5) E/randing populations and economic growth will generate new demands
fo' increasing vater development and redistribution projects.
(6) P..---. rn to Seep 1.
1"' c'~<:ta :ions of otner root causes of the'salinity problem are: Western water
ia- ; the false alchemy of turning land into money by liberal sprinklings of
•it er; and accelerating gr«wth ethic pressures for more water-related "pork
ba rel" projects.
Western water law evolved at relatively the same time and under the same frontier
circumstances as the Mining Act of 1872. Both are in need of drastic revision.
It is imperative that Western states recognize water quality control and ecol-
ogical processes, as well as recreation, fish and wildlife and aesthetics, as
"beneficial uses" of water resources. It is essential that priorities of
-------
-2-
appropriated uses be restructured to balance beneficial uses. It is to EPA's
credit that this issue is identified in the Report; Western states can no
longer duck the question.
Current water wisdom and water law generate exploding developments that turn
"land into money." The massive water projects which stimulate rapid and
uncontrolled growth, to the primary benefit of.a1 small number of people and
to the detriment of the general public, are not predicated upon sound princi-
ples of land use. And the creation of new land use patterns is the ultimate
result of the projects. It is time to relate planning and development of
water resources to proper land use planning. Federal money should no longer
be used to perpetuate past mistakes which fail to recognize the inextricable
relationships between water resources development and land use decisions.
Water policy which has caused the IDS problem of the Colorado Basin needs to
be re-examined in a whole new perspective. Projects have been developed with-
out a true assessment of total social, posts and total social benefits. Re-
sulting salinity is but one "disbenefit" which has been ignored in the
accounting system for project justification.
In specific response to the Report, we would suggest a number of actions:
(1) there should be a moratorium, perhaps permanent, on any federal assist-
ance or approval of diversions out of the Basin. Federal money or
authorization should not be involved in any'project which is part of
a system resulting in such diversion. The projects mentioned in the
Report are not a complete listing; for example, the Bureau of Reclama-
tion is planning diversions from the Green to the Missouri Basin in
Wyoming and Montana. The EPA Report discusses the fact that these are
high-quality headwaters which will be diverted, reducing Colorado
River flows but not salt loads by an equivalent amount. Additionally,
most of these projects involve reservoirs, which increase evaporation
losses (although such losses are small compared to Lake Mead and
Lake Powell). Interbasin transfer economics often are not favorable
when subject to close scrutiny, as is indicated by a recent book by
Howe and Easter.
(2) An Interstate Commission should be created to address the salinity
problem comprehensively. This Commission should be a State-Federal
partnership. If left to their own devices, the states individually
will probably never resolve the problems and achieve the necessary
results in salinity control.. The. hi story of water quality control to
date substantiates this thesis. ^Proposals for lining irrigation
ditches, "flushing" salt-laden streams and building desalinization
plants are piece-meal approaches that avoid the basic issues.
In fact, we are dismayed by the discussion of several of the alterna-
tives to reduce the salinity problem. We cannot condone, at this point,
any approach which perpetuates the-^present philosophy of treating the
symptoms rather than the disease.! The approach of out-basin diversions,
augmentation into the basin, more storage and evaporation, and salinity
control and removal may well become a technological-economic treadmill.
-------
-3-
(3) h'jraericil criteria should be established. It is recognized that addi-
tional research is needed, but this should be conducted as rapidly as
possible. Again, the absence of numerical standards historically has
resulted in an absence of pollution control in America.
Additional nev; and innovative approaches should be investigated. A discharge
permit program for irrigation run-off might be established. To overcome the
problem of over-irrigation because of the fear of losing water rights, the
federal government might acquire water rights in lieu of irrigation water
payments. Such rights could then be used for the beneficial uses of quality
control (although such rights might be downstream of the areas where the
maximum need for ecological beneficial uses occurs).
itew nrthoc's or controlling and delivering irrigation water, such as those
used in Israel, should be implemented. (Hater can be metered and piped to plant
roots, using water with IDS concentrations of 1,000 to 2,000 ppm, apparently
based on Israeli experience.) Federal monies might better be spent on approaches
such as this rather than a continuation of the "conventional wisdom" methods.
ROi-ICOE believes that the national Environmental Policy Act's phraseology about
wisj stc.vai Jship and future generations must be taken seriously. Any program
which does not have specific elements for control of excessive consumption must
be re-exemined. Any program which does not demonstrate definite means for
conservation of resources is deficient. Hestern water use, both agricultural
and in'jnicipsl , at present does not conform to the intent of NEPA.
i-1cst cartcinly, as mentioned in the Report, land suitability should be a major
factor in "sessing federally-funded projects. Irrigation of lands of high
sa?~:r.ity or marginal agricultural productivity should not be permitted.
Similarly, federally-assisted water projects for municipal and industrial use
should i ^cognize the erosion and salinity suitabilities of land proposed for
ckvelcpnc-nt. Even though the total municipal contribution of salt load to the
Colorado R'iver is low, it is more readily susceptible to control than many
natural sources.
Additional fiT/Jinn for research and control is in order. It is indicative of
th? rov't ovise of the problem that the Bureau of Reclamation has a higher-than-
usual b-id^t vor project development, which will aggravate the water quality
prcMr..;. "A roallccati^n of funds from development to research and control is
in .
The: SUIT-/ ?h:;ld identify future consumptive losses more accurately. Massive
t'.crrc?.", ;v,v:or plents and oil shale development (with 1 1/2 to 3 barrels of
water •;"'";?:;.v... 2 p-r barrel of oil produced) will have significant effects.
The study should identify secondary impacts more carefully. If removal of
salt from irrigated land is accomplished by flushing, additional fertilizer
must !:•? ap.jlviid. This will cause a higher nitrate level in both surface and
ground waters, with potential adverse effects such as lake eutrophication and
oolcliin'-nria.' "This is but one example of a potential secondary disbenefit.
-------
-4-
The incidence of costs of salinity might be more precisely described. The
Report states that the cost incidence of salinity is largely assignable to
farmers. Yet the August, 1970, report by the Colorado River Board of Cali-
fornia states that water users are continuing to make large investments in
drainage facilities to maintain productivity. The costs are passed on to the
consumers. The cost incidence may therefore be assignable to a broader seg-
ment of society, including low-income people to whom increased food prices
are a major burden.
In institutional matters, a positive program for public participation should
be identified. This Conference is but one form of participation; other types
should be utilized as well.
It is noted that the study used a 5% discount rate in determining present worth
of investments in salinity reduction programs. If a more realistic 10% "oppor-
tunity cost" were used as the discount rate, the'investments would be much higher
in present worth. This argues against the high-investment technological control
alternatives and in favor of the alternative of "limited development." The
latter alternative is also an appropriate approach as regards numerical criteria
for salinity because the salinity vs. time curve flattens and becomes constant.
Also, it conforms most closely to the use of ecological principles in planning.
The Report states that this "limited development" alternative may cause benefits
to be foregone. In some cases, this may be 'true. However, because past benefit/
cost ratios have not assessed total costs, the1-'"benefits foregone" may well be
"disbenefits foregone" in many cases. The use of a more realistic discount
ratio will yield lower net dollar benefits; niany past projects have been
funded on the basis of an artificially low discount rate.
The alternative of limited development would reduce the difficulty of the control
cost allocation question, where Upper Basin states contribute the salinity but
Lower Basin states suffer the costs.
Some of the methods contemplated for control of natural diffuse sources will
start another round of technological band-aids'. Sealing of ground surfaces,
contour ditches to pick up run-off and carry it rapidly to streams and similar
methods will be quick-fixes, the secondary result of which will be disbenefits
in a broad range of categories. The study team should proceed farther in
identifying these secondary impacts and effects.
Alternatives involving desalinization which requires electrical power (such as
distillation or electrodialysis) should be discouraged.
The Report discusses out-basin diversions in terms of helping the Colorado River
quality problem. These diversions should be viewed in another way: the Colorado
River salinity problem diminishes the merits of further out-basin diversions.
In summary, ROi-ICOE finds much to praise in the EPA Report and work. Its con-
clusions and recommendations merit support. ROMCOE is directly involved with
only eight Rocky i-iountain states, not including California. However, parochialism
or regional chauvinism have no place in the problems addressed by the Report.
The ecosystem knows no political boundaries. Mexico and America are not separable
in terms of ecological processes, and the problem of salinity must be considered
in this frame of reference.
-------
APPENDIX
Comments by Dr. Estella Leopold
Member
Board of Directors
Reeky Mountain
eer on nvronmen
1. The proposed Interstate Commission should be asked to compile
comprehensive data on the entire mineral qucility problem
using technical assistance froia USGS. This information should
be available to the public.
2. The comments in the Statement about Israel's system should be
strengthened. It should be asked that a similar system be
attempted in the Colorado River Basin, that the proposed Commission
should try to implement this, or that EPA should urge that USGS
be funded to do this or at least to lay the groundwork for such
a system. '
3. Solar evaporation (black tents and collection pipe system) is
used successfully in Australia, and should be investigated as
a method to improve water quality before return flows enter the
river. This could be the responsibility of the water user.
4. Emphasis should be given to the paragraph on page -3 of the State-
ment starting "Additional funding 'for research and control is in
order." The research and control should be funded as higher
priority than o.evelopment of more projects, and related to the
comments on the Israeli system and USGS studies.
-------
EDUCATION --" CONSERVATION
WtMtye
AFFILIATE OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Woodworth Ave.
Mlssoula, Montana
Feb. 18, 1972
Mr. Curtis M. Everts,
Acting Regional Administrator
EPA Region IX
100 California St.
San Francisco, Calif.
Dear Mr. Everts :
The EPA is to be commended for its interest in the
mineral quality problem in the Colorado River Basin
and for offering concerned citizens an opportunity
to comment.
Unwise development and use of water for irrigation
has rendered a large portion of Montana's better
agricultural land almost useless. At the present
time farmer, rancher and agriculturally oriented
agencies are attempting to implement programs to
restore these lands.
The comments prepared by the Rocky Mountain Center
on Environment for the Conference on the Mineral
Quality Problems of the Colorado River express the
philosophy of the Montana Wildlife Federation and
I would like to concur in that paper.
The ^6 affiliated organizations spread throughout
the state is composed of representation of industry,
commerce, agriculture, labor and youth groups.
are dedicated to a quality environment for man and
wildlife. We feel that the wise use of our basic
resources, water and land, must be our primary
objective.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views.
Would you please include our endorsement in the
conference record?
Sincerely,
Donald Aldrich
Executive Secretary
Montana Wildlife Federation
THE WEALTH OF THE NATION IS IN ITS NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION DOES NOT END WITH CONVERSATION
-------
STATE OF ARIZONA
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Commerce Building First Floor 1601 West Jefferson Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007
PHONE: (602) 271-4845
^ rn
February 17, 1972 -v
ro
>m
- o
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr. -&• o
Regional Administrator ^ ^f
EPA - Region IX J^J X
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Mr. De Falco:
Your letter to Louis Kossuth, M.D., Commissioner of the
Arizona State Department of Health concerning model
regulations for the stabilization of radioactive tailings
piles has been forwarded to this office for comment.
Enclosed, please find a copy of our critique. Copies
of this information have also been made available to
James Channel 1 in Region IX, and Dr. HcBride at WERL.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Donald C. Gilbert
Executive Director
DG/cg
End.
-------
MEMO
To: Donald C. Gilbert
From: Lynn FitzRandolph
Date: February 2, 1972
Re: EPA Draft Regulations for Stabilization of Tailings Piles
I have reviewed the draft regulations sent to us by Mr. Paul DeFalco Jr.,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region VIII, which regulations were also
provided to us by Mr. E. C. Garthe of the Arizona State Department of
Health. I offer the following comments:
In the definition section on page 2. these regulations begin
with the definition of tailings pile. It is not clear from
this definition whether they mean to apply these regulations
to Uranium tailings piles or whether they would also apply
to such activities as Copper tailings piles which contain
small amounts of Uranium or other source materials. The
definition talks about radioactive material in concentrations
exceeding the existing background radioactivity of the surface
material adjacent to the pile, but gives no numbers with re-
gards to actual concentrations in terms of curriage per unit
weight or per unit volume.
Next, the definition of erosion includes the process of
transporting tailings material from the pile. Of course
this is not erosion and when erosion is discussed further on
in the regulations, with regard to stabilization, this
concept is not dealt with.
Next, the definition of an active tailings pile is unrealis-
tic. The following statement appears, "an active tailings
pile will remain in an 'active1 classification until the
owner or assignees request in writing reclassification as
an inactive pile from the Atomic Energy Commission or the
Appropriate State Regulatory Agency." It is obvious that
an active tailings pile is actually as defined in the pre-
vious sentence reading, "a pile either (1) currently re-
ceiving material, or (2) currently within the boundaries
of an active or operating mill." This realistic definition
appears to conflict with the further definition of an active
tailings pile and in any event a regulation such as requiring
that all piles are active until deemed otherwise, does not
belong in the definitions section.
On page 4 a statement of intent or policy is given. It
states first of all that this regulation is intended to
apply only to tailings piles defined as "inactive" by this
regulation. This statement, if it is appropriate, should
appear in a scope section of the regulations, that is at
the beginning of the regulations and before the definitions.
It would seem to be more reasonable to write regulations
-------
MEMO (Cont'd)
Page Two
for both active and inactive tailings piles, however, if they
intend to apply this only to inactive tailings piles, they
need to refer back to the definition of an inactive tailings
pile versus an active tailings pile to figure out exactly
which is which. From the definitions, one pile could be
both active and inactive at the same time, and it should
also be noted that no where in the regulations that follow
is there a formal process for approval by the appropriate
agency of transfer of status from an active to an inactive
category. Further, it would seem feasible that there could
be an inactive tailings pile (by a realistic definition)
within the site boundaries of an active mineral mill. In
such case it would seem appropriate to stabilize this in-
active tailings pile. However, the definition of the
inactive tailings pile does not allow for such a possibil-
ity.
The statement of intent on page 4 confuses the issue further
by stating that all tailings piles containing radioactive
materials are subject to this regulation on the date pro-
mulgated. The prior sentence said only that the regulations
applied only to inactive tailings piles, whatever they are.
Page 5. The actual regulations, number 2, states that the
State agency will determine, within six months after the
effective date of the regulation, whether inactive piles
in the State require additional stabilization; in such
case the State is to run after the owner of the pile or
prevjpus owner, to effect stablization. In the event,
such/the Tuba City pile, where the owner has gone and
abandoned the pile to the Indians, and has had the license
terminated, it would appear that such a regulation would
be exrpost-facto, hence Unconstitutional. There is no
escape clause in this regulation as written to get around
this problem.
Regulation number 4 states that new mills and reactivated
mills must submit plans for stabilization of any tailings
piles for review and approval. It further states that.no
tailings pile build up will be allowed until stabilization
plans have been approved. This would appear to apply to
active mills, however, the previous intent page stated
that these regulations applied only to inactive piles,
whatever they are.
Regulation number 7 requires the prior written approval
of the agency must be obtained before any tailings pile
is removed from an inactive pile. It is not clear whether
this regulation is meant to apply only to licensee's or to
anyone who happens to drive up to the pile with a truck.
If it is the latter, this regulation would need to be put
in a book seperate from our "Regulations for the Control
of Ionizing Radiation," in as much as these regulations
apply only to licensees and registrants. Hence, if someone
-------
MEMO (Cont'd)
Page 3
were to remove material from a pile, never having had a license,
for same, we could only site them for not having a license.
This type of regulation as stated actually belongs in the Statues
Regulation 8 looks good. I wrote it.
Regulation 9 speaks in terms of long-term maintenance require-
ments such as clean-out and repair of ditches, repair of fences,
irrigation)reseeding and replanting. It would appear more
appropriate to stablize a pile in such a fashion that no follow-
up work is necessary.
In conclussion I think our Regulations Part I is much better and
note that it has been adapted verbatim by at least one other
State
-------
RECEIVED
E. P. A. REGION IX
J(iNl6 I 4iFH'7Z
v31Cll2. VvlllD Southern California Regional Conservation Committee
April 20, 1972
Paul Dei'alco, Regional Administrator
ISnvironment Protection Agency, Region 9
760 1'arket Street
San Francisco, Ca 94102
1'y dear Sir:
'.Till you please include the following statement in the record of
the Hearing on Colorado Paver Salinity;
3e it resolved by the Southern California Regional Conservation
Committee that:
l) a salinity policy should be adopted by the U.S. Bnriron-
nental Protection Agency and the States of Arizona,
California, Colorado, ITevada, Hew llexico, Utah and Do-
ming to maintain salinity concentrations in the lower
main stem of the Colorado Hiver (below Lee's j?erry) at
or below levels presently found there;
2) "numerical water quality" criteria should be adopted by
the appropriate^states for key points throughout*the
Colorado Paver Basin to assure that the maximum mean
monthly salinity concentrations at Imperial Dam are
maintained below 1000 mg/1;
3) implementation of the recommended policy and criteria
should be accomplished in a basin-wide salinity control
program aimed primarily at man-caused increases in the
salt load. Limitation of further water resource develop-
ment should be considered as one means of implementing
the policy and criteria;
4) emphasis should be placed on control methods such as the
following: maintaining Lake Powell at 3600' level,
irrigation "scheduling" and improved agricultural prac-
tices such as use of tile drainage fields.
3e it resolved, further, that the SCRCG strongly opposes any
salinity control project aimed at natural resources of salinity
which would result in impairment of scenic beauty in Grand
-a
:-{~t
-------
Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon ITational Monument or
in neighboring defacto wilderness areas. In particular,
SCRCC opposes any development within the canyon of the
Little Colorado River to control the flow of Blue Spring.
The SCRCC reaffirms its opposition to channelisation pro-
grams on the Lower Colorado River which adversely affect fish
fish and wildlife habitat and the scenic values of the
River.
Dated and adopted: April 15, 1972
Harriet Allen, Chairman, SCRCC
3750 El Canto Drive
Spring Valley, Ca 92077
HA/r
» U. S. GOVERNMENT PHDJ TDJG OFFICE : 1912 722-920/462
------- |