PROCEEDINGS
NEVADA
MONTIC|ELLO /
HITE
eventh Session
i
Reconvened
April 26-27, 1972
r, Colorado
CALIFORNIA
CONFERENCE
In the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of
the Colorado River and its Tributaries - Colorado, New
Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
RECONVENED SEVENTH SESSION
OF THE
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF
POLLUTION OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS
OF THE COLORADO RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
IN THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, COLORADO,
UTAH, ARIZONA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, AND WYOMING
held in
Denver, Colorado
April 26-27,1972
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
2
The Seventh Session of the Conference in the
Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the
Colorado River and its tributaries in the States of
California, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico,
and Wyoming reconvened at 2 o’clock on April 26, 1972,
in Denver, Colorado.
PRESIDING:
Murray Stein
Chief Enforcement Officer - Water
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES PRESENT ON APRIL 26:
Irwin L. Dickatein
Director, Enforcement Division
Region VIII, U. S. EPA
Denver, Colorado
Norman B. Hume
Member, State Water Resources
Control Board
Sacramento, California
Richard L. O t Connell
Director, Enforcement Division
Region IX, U. S. EPA
San Francisco, California
Frank Rozich
Director, Water Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
Art E. Williamson
Director of Sanitary Engineering Services
Department of ffeaith & Social Service
Cheyenne, Wyoming
-------
3
PARTICIPANTS:
American Farm Bureau Federation
(by letter)
Sheldon G. Boone
Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Denver, Colorado
John T. Maletic
Program Officer
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado
C 0 N T E N T S
Page
OpeningStatement-Mr.Stein................... 5
Letter from American Farm Bureau Federation...... 8
S. G. Boone.... .•...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
J . T. Maletic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lii.
General Discussion...... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .140
Conclusions and Recommendations. . .... .. . ..... ... .169
-------
COLORADO RIVER E ORCEMENT CONFERENCE
REGISTRATION RECORD
APRIL 26 — 27, 1972
T. John Baer, Jr.
State Representative, Mesa Co.
P.O. Box 28
Laia, Colorado 815214
Kenneth Balcomb
Counsel; Cob. River Conservation
District
P. 0. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Tom Barker
Interstate Streams Engineer
State Engineer’ s Office
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Floyd A. Bishop, State Engineer
State Office Bailding
Cheyenne, WyomIng 82001
Sheldon G. Boone
USDA Representative
Western U. S. Water Plan
Soil Conservation Service
Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
a
Fred L. Boydston
Water Resources Engineer
Colorado Water Conservation Board
18145 Shern n
Denver, Colorado 80203
Irw in L. Dickstein
Director, Enforcen nt Division
Environn nta1 Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Dr. Robert A. Downs
Fnvironn ntal Coordinator
Colorado Health Departn nt
11210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Donald P. Dubois
Deputy Regional Administrator
Environn ntal Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Carl Eardley
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Enforcen nt
Environn ntal Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20)460
C. N. Feast
Newsletter Editor
Colorado Water Congress
1200 Lincoln
Denver, Colorado 80203
Robert W. Fiséher
Denver Water Departrr nt
11111 West Colfax
Denver, Colorado 80202
Roland C. Fischer
Engineer
Colorado River Water Cons. Dist.
Box 218
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Douglas W. Fraser
Attorney, New Mexico Environn ntal
Improveit nt Agency
18)43 Five Points Road, S. W.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Russell Freeman
Environmantal Protect iQn Agency
Enforcemant Division
Region IX
San Francisco, California
Ralph E. Gonzales
Law Student
555 East 10th Avenue, Apt. 1)4
Denver, Colorado 80203
-------
REGISTRATION RECORD - COLORADO RIVER ENFORCENENT CONFERENCE 4/26-27/72
Donald L. Paff
Mninistrator
Colorado River
P. 0. Box 17118
Las Vegas, Nevada
Ival V. Goslin
Executive Director
Upper Colorado River Coinnission
355 South 1 4th East Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 811111
Robert H. Hagen
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado 80203
Sherman Hamilton
K TV
1089 Bannock
Denver, Colorado
Thc as P. Harrison
Director, Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson Street
Dellas, Texas
Nyron Holbort
Chief Engineer
Colorado River Board of Calif.
217 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, Calif.
Norman B. Hume
Mamber, State Water Resources
Control Board
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, Calif. 95814
Nick C. loannides
Water Resource Engineer
Colorado Water Conservation Board
18115 Sherman
Denver, Colorado 80203
De.vid Kennedy
Senior Engineer
Matropolitan Water District
111] . Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles, Calif.
Ardy Kurtz
Legislative Research
Colorado Fann Bureau
P.O. Box 56117
Denver, Colorado
H. Peter Larsen
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
T. J. Longlely
Water Resource Engineer
Colorado Water Conserv. Board
18115 Sherman
Denver, Colorado 80203
John T. Maletic
Program Officer
Colorado River Water Quality
Improvement Program
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
L. D. Morrill
Deputy Director
Colorado water Conservation
Board
1845 Sherman
Denver, Colorado 80203
Martha M. Nicodemus
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
Richard 0 Cornell
Director, Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region DC
San Francisco, California
Kent Olsen
Assistant to the President
Atlas Minerals
910 Security Life Bldg.
Denver, Colorado
Donald E. Owen
3130 Shasta Way
California Dept. of Water
Resources
Sacramento, California
Conin. of Nevada
-------
k-B
REGISTRATION RECORD - COLORADO RIVER ENFORCE VENT CONFERENCE LV26 27/72
John M. Rademacher
Technical Coordinator for
&iforcèment—Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Wathington, D. C. 2O 460
Dick O’Reilly
Reporter
RQcky Mountain News
O0 West Colfax
Denver, Colorado
Frank 3. Rozich
Director, Water Poflution Control
Division
Colorado State Health Department
1 1210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Cathy Ruggiero
Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
Car]. L. Slingerland
Staff Engineer
New Mexico Interstate Stream
Ca n.
State Capitol
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Felix L. Sparks
Director
Colorado Water Conservation Board
18145
Denver, Colorado 80203
James R. Vincent
Chief, Review and Evaluation Branch
NFIC—D
Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado 80225
Art Williamson
Wyoming State Health Department
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Thomas R. Woizien
News Reporter
KLZTV
123 Speer Boulevard
Denver, Colorado 80217
Steve Wynkoop
Reporter
The Denver Post
Denver, Colorado
W. Perry
Rocky Mountain News
Denver, Colorado
Rheta B. Piere
Administrative Officer, Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 201460
C. C. Tabor
Chairman, Arizona Water Quality
Control Council
R 1, Box 19
Weilton, Arizona 85356
3
-------
5
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. MURRAY STEIN
MR. STEIN: Let’s reconvene.
The State-Federal conference in the matter of
pollution of the waters of the Colorado River and its
tributaries Is reconvened.
Due to the weather, the court reporter didn’t
arrive. I understand she is in Albuquerque. Several of
the conferees didn’t arrive. They are in various places,
such as Salt Lake City and other delightful spots. We
are going to try to see what we can do here.
Here is what we are going to try to do. Any
papers that I have we will file with Mrs. Piere and we
can get this back and get this added and printed in the
record. So I think we can have at least a complete
record of what we have.
I think we possibly should have a notation of
how many conferees we have here, just for the record, to
indicate the scope of the problem we have, because
obviously before we come to an agreement we are going
to have to clear with the other conferees.
-------
6
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
Do you want to start, Art?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Art Williamson, from Wyoming,
conferee.
MR. O’CONNELL: Richard O’Connell, EPA.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Irv Dickstein, EPA.
MR. ROZICH: Frank Rozich, Colorado.
MR. HUME: Norm Hume, California.
MR. STEIN: That means four of the seven States
are not here. At least it’s pretty close to a quorum if
you cow t the Federal Government.
The suggestion is this. We know we have
several people who wish to make statements. We also
have, since the last conference and since we adjourned,
asked the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the
Interior to come up with some proposals, and I am very
happy to say that the Department of the Interior did meet
the deadline and has come up with a comprehensive and
formidable proposal.
I would suggest that any people who have stated
that they wish to make statements or that we have communi
cations from, that we put these before the conferees. I
just have one communication here which perhaps we might
be able to read. Then we will hear from the Bureau of
-------
___________________ _________ ______ 7
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
Reclamation on its proposal. I think that has been sub-
mitted to the States. We do have a resolution which was
submitted by the States last time and I think we might
have some suggested conclusions and recommendations by
the Federal conferees.
If we can pretty much get to agreement tonight,
as I understand it, the States would be willing to try to
reach the other conferees, the representatives of the
other States by telephone 1 and then we can meet briefly
tomorrow and we may be able, I think, to come to a com-
plete agreement and wrap this up. Is this a correct
understanding?
If it is, let us proceed. I think before we
go into the material that the Federal conferees and the
States have we should have the benefit of all the other
people making representations. By the way, the Soil
Conservation Service has a representative here too.
First I have a letter from the American Farm
Bureau Federation, which says:
-------
merican Farm Bureau Federation
Apri121 1972
Mr. Murray Stein
Chief Enforcement Offtcer .-Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Stein:
The American Farm Bureau Federation with its 2,057,665 member families
in 49 states and Puerto Rico appreciates this opportunity to present to the
Eawironmental Protection Agency views relative to the mineral quality of the
Colorado River.
Farm Bureau policy is to support and cooperate in the abatement of water
pollution. Farm Bureau policies stress that plans for pollution control and
abatement should be based on careful research and decisions made on factu*l in-
formation and constructive objectives.
The Colorado River salinity problem is complicated by many factots,
including an international compact, in reviewing the river’s record, we note
that in the headwaters the total disiolved solid concentrates are about 50 mg/i
or less. As the vater moves downstream this salinity gradually increases until
at Imperial Dam the long-tern concentration from present development is at levels
of about 865 mg/i. Much of this increasing salinity occurs as the result of
natural erosion.
Salinity in the waters of the Colorado River is, of course, of long historic
record. Observations recorded as early as 1903 show that irrigators became aware
of some salinity increases resulting from use of water in agricultural production,
and long before that natural sources had been observed as major sources of salinity.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that the average annual salt output from
irrigation will occur within a range of zero to two tons per irrigated acre in the
Colorado River Basin.
Local irrigated areas overlying marine shales containing large quantities
of soluble salts may have annual increases exceeding two tons per irrigated acre
while areas covered with salt free loeasial mangle overlying glacio fluvial,
deposits have practically no salt backup.
From the Bureau’s report it is noted that there are in excess of 1.6 million
acres in irrigation in the Upper Colorado Basin States and more than 1.3 million
acres in irrigation in the Lower Colorado Basin States. In spite of all this
development of Colorado River water use in agriculture production, the principle
source of salinity pollution continues to be from natural sources. From available
WASHINGtON OFFIC
4?5 I$1H ST rtT. N.
WASHING TOM. C. C 200(
A i# CODS lOt • 52$-
—,
CAllS ADDRU$i AMYAR$St
-------
Mr. Murray Stein April 21,, 7972
9
reports we note with interest that sources of salinity are 47 percent from natural
sources and 37 percent from irrigation. Remaining percentages are from other sources.
We have had the opportunity to review portions of the report of Regions VIII
and IX of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled “The Mineral Quality Problem
in the Colorado River Basin,” dated April 197L We have found it helpful. The
salinity problem has been the subject of numerous earlier reports, each making a
contribution and each recognizing the very difficult problem of setting arbitrary
standards. Mandating and allocating numerical salinity standards under current
knowledge of feasibility and current financial capabilities, recognizing existing
treaties and states rights to water development, are indeed complex problems.
We believe it is essential that stu.dies underway, as well as planned studies,
include 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. Studies need to be completed that develop the costs involved, identify
the control means, and specify the time required to achieve specific degrees of
control for particular levels of the river.
From a base of facts which answer these unknowns, a comprehensive salinity
control plan for the river can be produced. The plan must have engineering
feasibility, political acceptability, and be administratively viable to the various
institutions.
The American Farm Bureau, therefore, recouauenda that the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Office of Saline Water, the environmental Protection Agency, and ocher federal
agencies, in cooperation with state water agencies, move forward as rapidly as
possible to complete the necessary studies on the Colorado River to identify the
sources of salinity pollution, the coat of control procedures, the time required to
achieve controls, and the improvement in water quality which will accompany such
control measures.
We further rec nend that maximum attention be given to providing states
and interstate groups opportunity to make inputs and cooperate to the fullest
possible extent with federal agencies in the studies and in developing a comprehensive
salinity control plan which will be workable as well as acceptable.
We think it is important to recognize that water quality may be degraded
until control measures become operable.
We believe a numerical salinity standard should not be established until
the control measures have been constructed and their operation proved practical.
We request that these views be made a part of the record of the Colorado
River Basin Water Quality Project and the joint Federal-State Conference in the
matter of the interstate waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries.
These views are expressed in cooperation with the member State Farm Bureaus
of states that encompass the Colorado River Basin.
Sincerely,
Clifford C. Mc lntire, Director
Natural Resources Department
-------
10
S. G. Boone
MR. STEIN: This will be put in the record.
If there is no comment, I would like to call
on Mr. Boone from the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Boone.
SHELDON 0. BOONE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. BOONE: I am Sheldon Boone of the Soil
Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
I want to submit a supplemental statement of this
Department here today.
Following the conference on the
Colorado River at Las Vegas, Nevada, on
February 15-17, 1972, the U. S. Department
of Agriculture has given further considera-
tion to the Environmental Protection Agency
report on the Mineral Quality Problem in
the Colorado River Basin and to the oppor-
tunity to address this problem through
programs of’ this Department. Because such
a high proportion of the salt load of the
-------
S. G. Boone
Colorado River is reported to come from
lands devoted to irrigated agriculture,
grazing and forest use, this Department
is concerned with any programs which might
be utilized to help reduce the salinity
problem. Likewise, we believe that many
of the programs of the Department can make
valuable contributions in this effort.
We are presently examining the
magnitude of our program inputs to make a
more definitive appraisal of our present
and potential contribution to physically
reduce the salt load of the Colorado River
system. As you know, this Department has
been working with farmers and ranchers for
many years to improve on-farm agricultural
water management techniques. We anticipate
that much of our on-farm activities will
significantly complement the proposed
Colorado River Improvement Program.
In addition the Department has
undertaken to evaluate a number of programs
relating to irrigation water management,
-------
12
S. G. F oone
erosion control and sediment delivery.
It is anticipated that this evaluation
would (1) show the relationship of
erosion and sediment production to salt
loading, (2) identify those lands which
have the highest potential to affect salt
loading through erosion and sedimentation,
(3) identify watershed areas where management
and treatment practices will reduce salt
loading, (Li.) identify f ’ ’4 areas in which
improved irrigation system and management
practices can be utili 1, (5) show the
relationship between such practices and
salt loading, (6) quantify the effects
which can be achieved through technical
or financial assistance programs of the
Department, and (7) identify the inipacts
of alternative salt load reduction programs
on the agriculture, livestock and forest
industries.
Many of these points will be
considered through the Department’s
participation in the Western U. S. Water
-------
13
S. G. Boone
Plan. However, more concerted effort
and detailed investigation is needed.
This Department is now considering ways
to make these investigations in order
to make a more definitive statement.
When our plans for further action can
be outlined in more detail, we will
advise the chairman of this conference.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any questions?
I have one general question. I believe I spoke
to Mr. Loomis at the headquarters of Agriculture last
week about other things. I wonder if there is any notion
that you can give us of when we can expect to get further
information from the Department of Agriculture?
MR. BOONE: I can’t give you an exact date. I
know we are working on it and will be working on it in
the next few months, but I can’t give you a date at this
time.
MR. STEIN: You don’t have any notion whether
it is within a question of months that we are going to--
MR. BOONE: Well, I think it would be within
-------
‘ 4
S. G. Boone
a question of months, yes.
MR. STEIN: I tell you the reason I ask the
question, and I don’t know if this view is shared by
most people, but I have been dealing with this problem
for a long time, maybe almost a quarter of a century.
At least I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the
best way we are going to reduce salt in the Colorado
River Basin is exactly through the program you are out-
lining here. I think there might be a limit to what the
Bureau can do structurally or we can do. I think the
agricultural processes and practices might be the clue
to really controlling this problem.
MR. BOONE: Well, I think we would like to find
out more about this possibility, right.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
We will now hear from the Bureau of Reclama-
tion, Department of the Interior, Mr. Maletic.
JOHN T. MALETIC, PROGRAM OFFICER
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. MALETIC: Mr. Stein, conferees, ladies
-------
15
J. T. Maletic
arid gentlemen.
On behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation I am
happy to introduce into the record the Bureau report on
the Water Quality Improvement Program to the Colorado
River.
MR. STEIN: Since this report is so important,
this report will be entered into the record in its
entirety without objection.
(Which said report follows:)
-------
16
COLORADO RIVER
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FEBRUARY 1972
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Rogers C. B. Morton
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Ellis L. Armstrong
-------
‘7
F 0 R E W 0 R D
The waters of the Colorado River are progressively increasing in
salinity. A great concern over this situation and a need to imple-
ment a solution has been expressed by those who depend on this great
river as a lifeline. This salinity control imperative extends to the
Republic of Mexico and has become an important aspect in our inter-
national relations with that nation.
This report sets forth a plan of attack in the form of a comprehen-
sive 10-year Water Quality Improvement Program. It identifies poten-
tial solutions both short and long range. Investigations are sched-
uled for control of salinity at point sources, diffuse sources, and
irrigation sources. These investigations have been structured and
integrated with programs involving desalting, weather modification,
geothermal resources and basin-wide water resources management.
The objective of the program is to maintain salinity concentrations
at or below levels presently found in the lower main stem of the
Colorado River. In implementing this objective, the salinity prob-
lem will be treated as a basin-wide problem recognizing that salinity
levels may rise until control measures are made effective while the
upper basin continues to develop its compact apportioned waters.
11
-------
18
The Bureau of Reclamation has statutory responsibility to study all
possible means of improving the quality and alleviating the ill
effects of water of poor quality in the Colorado River basin. This
responsibility is provided for in three separate public laws author-
izing the (1) Colorado River Storage Project and participating Proj-
ects, (2) Navajo Indian Irrigation Project and San Juan-Chama Project,
and (3) Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
111
-------
19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword . . . . 11
Sununary
Introduction . 1
II Previous Studies and Findings 12
Water Resources of the Upper Colorado
Basin—i3asicData (USGS) .. . 13
Upper Colorado River Basin Cooperative
Salinity Control Study (USBR) 14
Need for Controlling Salinity of the
Colorado River (CRBC) 15
Quality of Water-Colorado River Basin (USD1) 16
Computer Simulation of the Hydrologic-
Salinity Flow System Within the Upper
Colorado River Basin (USU) . . 16
Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower
Colorado River-Salton Sea Area (USGS) 17
The Mineral Quality Problem in the
Colorado River Basin (EPA) . 18
Lower Colorado Region Comprehensive
Framework Study (WRC) . 20
Upper Colorado Region Comprehensive
Framework Study (WRC) ..... 21
III Program Objective 23
IV Program Structure •. 25
Departmental Responsibilities 26
Organization ...... 29
Program Elements 30
Program Costs 31
Program Financing and Repayment 31
Related Program Features 34
Allied Programs 36
V Effect of Program . 37
VI Description of Water Quality Improvement Program .... 49
Basin-Wide Activities 50
Mathematical Model for Colorado River 51
Economics of Water Quality Management 53
Institutional and Legal Analysis 54
Ion Exchange Desalting 56
iv
-------
20
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Irrigation Source Control 53
Irrigation Scheduling and Farm Management 58
Objectives 58
Program Evaluation 60
Proposed Areas 61
Water Systems Improvements and Managements .... 62
Grand Valley 63
Lower Gunnison 63
Uintah Basin 63
Colorado River Indian Reservation 64
Palo Verde Irrigation District 64
Point Source Control 64
LaVerkin Springs 65
Littlefield Springs 67
Blue Springs 67
Paradox Valley 68
Crystal Geyser 70
Glemrood-Dotsero Springs 71
Diffuse Source Control 72
Price River 72
San Rafael River 73
Dirty Devil River 74
McElmo Creek 74
Big Sandy River 75
Other Diffuse Sources Considered 75
VII Allied Programs 77
Western U.S. Water Plan 77
Desalting 78
Weather Modification 80
Geothermal Resources 82
Operation and Maintenance Activities 83
Water Quality Prediction Investigations 84
Research 87
-------
21
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Projected Program Reductions - Colorado
River at Imperial Dam . . . . . . . . . . xviii
2 Projected Concentrations of Total Dissolved
Solids (mg/i) at Imperial Darn ..... 9
3 Projects Depleting Colorado River Water .. ii
4 Potential Effects and Costs - Point and
Diffuse Source Control Projects ................ 40
5 Potential Effects and Costs - Irrigation
Scheduling and Management and Water
Systems Improvement Projects . 41
6 Projected Program Reductions - Colorado
River at Iniperia]. Daan . . . . . 45
vi
-------
22
LIST OF FIGURES
Nu ,er
1 Geocheaical Cycle of Surface and
Gr md Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Colorado River Water. Quality
laproveasut Progra* .. ..... . ....... ... . .... .. .. .. 32
3 Location of Salinity Iaprovea.nt Projects-
Colorado River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4 Runoff Producing Areas - per
Colorado River Basin • . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
S Hydrologic Systea for Simulation Submodel ......... 86
vii
-------
23
SU 44ARy
The Situation
Waters of the Colorado River are becoming more saline. Great concern
and a sense of urgency to halt the rise have been expressed by those
who depend upon the river as a lifeline. The salinity control impera—
tive extends to the Republic of Mexico and has become an important
aspect in our international relations with that nation.
At the headwaters the average salinity 1/ (concentration of total dis-
solved solids) in the Colorado River is less than 50 mg/l and pro-
gressively increases downstream until, at Imperial Dam, the present
modified 2/ condition is 865 mg/i. Projections of future salinity
levels without a control program suggest that values of 1,250 mg/i
or more will occur at Imperial Dam by the year 2000. One projection
used in the Lower Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Study 3/
foresees such a level being reached by 1980. Should these increases
1/ Salinity as used in this report refers to the concentration of
€otal dissolved solids and is reported in milligrams per liter (mg/i).
This unit of concentration is nearly equivalent to parts per million
(ppm) up to concentrations of 7,000 mg/i.
2/ Present modified refers to the historic conditions (1941-1968)
iodified to reflect all upstream existing projects in operation for
the full period.
3/ Water Resources Council.
viii
-------
2 1
in salinity levels occur, the agriculture in the Imperial, Coachella,
Gila, and Yuma Valleys would be further threatened. Also, a poorer
water quality would be diverted to the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California and the Las Vegas Valley Water District, caus—
ing further economic losses to the very large block of domestic water
users in California and Nevada. Upon completion of the Central Arizona
Project, water users in the Phoenix and Tucson areas would be similarly
affected.
The Proposed Solution
General Approach and Authority
A comprehensive 10-year Water Quality Improvement Program has been
structured and integrated with programs involving weather modifi-
cation, geothermal resources, desalting, and the Western U.S. Water
Plan. These programs, when implemented, could maintain salinity in
the lower main stem at or below present levels.
The Water Quality Improvement Program has an investigation and an
implementation phase. The authority for the investigation is derived
from Public Laws 84-485, 87-483, and 87-590 relating to the Colorado
River Storage Project and Participating Projects, Navajo Indian
Irrigation Project and San Juan-Chama Project Act, and the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project Act, respectively.
ix
-------
25
Feasibility studies would be initially performed on a total of
16 irrigation, point, and diffuse salinity sources with related
basin-wide planning involving development of a mathematical model
of the Colorado River, economic analysis of water quality, analysis
of legal and institutional matters, and the investigation of poten-
tials for improving water quality at points of diversion.
Early emphasis is being placed on those activities most likely to
achieve water quality improvement at least cost. Construction of a
mathematical model may reveal better ways to operate the river system
to generate water quality benefits without incurring capital invest-
ment costs for structural control measures. Irrigation source control,
involving close integration of on-farm irrigation water scheduling and
management, with water systems improvement and management, is expected
to significantly reduce salt loadings. Some measuring devices may be
required to implement the irrigation scheduling and management program
which is now being implemented. This can be expected to achieve early
benefits at minimal cost.
Following the full operational establishment of the irrigation sched-
uling activity, water users would be expected to operate the program.
This could be contractually tied to water systems improvements and the
related cost-sharing arrangements with the irrigation districts or
other entities involved. The irrigation scheduling and water systems
x
-------
26
improvement activities need to move together along with parallel
improvements of on-farm irrigation systems, the latter to be done
primarily through private investment with technical assistance from
the Soil Conservation Service and some financial aid from the
Rural Environmental Assistance Program.
Program Elements
The specific Water Quality Improvement Program elements and the fiscal
years during which the work is presently scheduled to be accomplished
are as follows:
Mathematical sinvlation submodel, 1972-1973
Economic evaluation of water quality, 1972-1976
Institutional and legal analysis, 1972-1973
Ion exchange process systems, 1972-1974
Irrigation scheduling and management, 1972-1979 (Grand Valley Basin,
1972-1978; Lower Gunnison Basin, 1974-1979; Uintah Basin, 1974-
1978; Colorado River Indian Reservation, 1974-1978; Palo Verde
Irrigation District, 1974-1978)
Water systems improvement and management, 1972-1976 (Grand Valley
Basin, 1972-1975; Lower Gunnison Basin, 1973-1976; Uintah Basin,
1974-1976; Colorado River Indian Reservation, 1972-1974; Palo
Verde Irrigation District, 1974-1976)
xi
-------
27
Point source control projects, 1972-1978 (LaVerkin Springs, 1972-
1973; Paradox Valley, 1972-1975; Crystal Geyser, 1972-1973;
Glenwood—Dotsero Springs, 1972-1976; Blue Springs, 1973-1978;
Littlefield Springs, 1974-1975)
Diffuse source control projects, 1974-1977 (Price River, 1974-1977;
San Rafael River, 1975-1977; Dirty Devil River, 1976-1978; McElmo
Creek, 1976-1978; Big Sandy River, 1974-1978)
Very little basic data are available regarding the control of diffuse
sources. Beginning in fiscal year 1972 basic data will be collected
on these sources.
These investigations and the implementation of the irrigation sched-
uling and management work would cost about $18 million over the 10-
year period. Of this amount, $395,000 is currently being used to
initiate the program, increasing to $1,005,000 in fiscal year 1973.
Allied Programs
Important allied programs include weather modification, desalting,
geothermal resources, research, and the Western U.S. Water Plan.
Weather modification research now underway is expected to develop,
by 1980, a reliable and workable system for increasing precipitation.
The Upper Colorado River Basin will be one of the first areas where
xii
-------
28
region-wide applications could be made. It is estimated that up to
2 million acre-feet of new water could be added to the river system.
This would serve to significantly improve the salinity levels.
Desalting will initially involve the installation of a research and
development prototype facility using the reverse osmosis process. The
prototype plant would have a capacity of 15 mgd and could be expanded
to 150 mgd. The facility would be located in the lower reach of the
river. If expanded to a capacity of about 150 mgd, the salinity levels
in the lower reach would be greatly improved. This would be a coopera-
tive effort between the Office of Saline Water and the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Geothermal investigations are now being conducted by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Office of Saline Water. These investigations
could ultimately lead to additional sources of water. This water
could be fitted into the overall river basin management plan to achieve
further improvements in water quality.
Research is underway or scheduled which would provide valuable inputs
to the salinity control effort. Included is such work as developing
better predictions of irrigation return flow quality, deriving the
systema for assessing ecologic impacts of water resource projects,
xiii
-------
29
developing procedures for management and use of saline water, testing
advanced irrigation systems, and identifying waste-water reclamation
opportunities.
It will be the responsibility of the Westwide Study to present the
varied and complex alternatives for development, regulation, and use
of all waters of the Colorado River Basin, examine tradeoffs between
alternatives, prepare plans and cost estimates, and recommend priority
of future studies and development. Close coordination and cooperation
will be maintained between the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program and the Westwide Study to assure the preparation of a sound,
well integrated plan of development for the Colorado River Basin.
The Organization
The many activities involved will require close coordination of the
work with Federal, State, and local agencies and private and public
groups having a mutual concern and interest in the program. Overall
responsibility for the program has been assigned to the Bureau of
Reclamation. Within this agency, immediate responsibility for direc-
tion has been given to the Assistant Commissioner - Resource Planning,
with strong coordinative ties with the Assistant Commissioner -
Resource Management. Field planning, construction, and operation
activities will be handled by the Regional Directors, Regions 3 and 4,
xiv
-------
30
with technical assistance as needed being provided by the Engineering
and Research Center. A new division is being established at the
E R Center as a focal point for the program to serve the multifaceted
coordination and leadership activities involved.
The Implementation
Assuming all projects now under investigation or scheduled to be
investigated are implemented, the program is expected to involve
capital expenditures in the order of magnitude of $400 to $500 million.
These costs are to be shared with the beneficiaries. Therefore, an
essential feature of the feasibility studies and the related basin-.
wide studies will be to develop equitable cost sharing and repayment
formulas. New institutional arrangements may be required not only
as related to cost sharing and repayment, but also to the operation
and maintenance of the constructed facilities. The urgency of the
salinity conditions in the lower reach makes it imperative that move-
ment from the study to the construction phase be expedited. This could
be done for individual projects within a period of 1 to 2 years follow-
ing completion of a favorable finding of feasibility. In the interim,
as previously stated, some salinity improvements can be anticipated
through alteration of river operations using the mathematical model
and from the irrigation scheduling and management activities.
xv
-------
31
Construction of the water system improvement projects would involve
periods of 4 to 5 years. Most of this work could be completed by
fiscal year 1981. Of the point source control projects, LaVerkin
Springs, Crystal Geyser, Littlefield Springs, and Paradox Valley
could be constructed in a period of 3 to 4 years. On this basis,
construction could be completed during fiscal year 1980. Blue Springs
and Glenwood-Dotsero Springs will involve consideration of many com-
plex factors regarding the engineering plan and related environmental
and social considerations. Construction, even if found feasible in
all respects, could not be started before 1978 on Glenwood-Dotsero
Springs and 1980 on Blue Springs. The lack of data on the diffuse
source control projects could delay construction starts until fiscal
year 1979 or later.
The Effects of Programs
The average annual salinity concentration of the Colorado River at
Imperial Dam during the period 1941 to 1968 (most recently published
data) was 751 mg/i. The annual salinity concentrations during this
same period have ranged from a minimum of 649 mg/l in 1949 to a max-
imum of 918 mg/i in 1956. The monthly salinity concentrations of the
Colorado River at Imperial Dam during the period 1941 to 1968 have
experienced an even wider range from a mininvm of 551 mg/l in December
1952 to a maximum of 1,000 mg/l in January 1957.
xvi
-------
32
Levels of salinity concentrations presently found in the lower
Colorado River vary depending on the type period used to describe
the level. As indicated above, the average for a year is greater
than the level during the period 1941 to 1968 and the peak monthly
concentration is even greater than the level for a year.
To depict effects of the Water Quality Improvement and Allied Pro-
rams, Table 1 was developed showing the projected reductions in
salinity concentrations for each program and the estimated effects
on the synthesized salinity levels at Imperial Dam.
The values in the table are initial estimates based on the average
hydrologic conditions for the period of record 1941-1968.
The 1970 average annual value of 865 mg/i has been derived on the
assumption that present developments in the basin were completed and
operating during the period of record. In other words, the effects
n water quality of all present developments have been extended back
to 1941 from the time they became operational.
Similarly, the average annual values for the years 1980, 1990, and
2000 were synthesized to reflect the influence on water quality dur-
ing the period of record of water resource developments expected to
xvii
-------
Table 1
PROJECTED PROGRAM REDUCTIONS - COLORADO RIVER AT IMPERIAL DAM
(Average annual values in mg/i - 1941-1968 period of record)
1970
1980
1990
2000
Estimated Salinity Level
(Full development - no
control program)
865
1000
1200
1250
Range
(750-1060)
(860-1220)
(1040-1470)
(1080-1530)
Projected Program Reductions
Water Quality Improvement
Program
(-)
(-60)
(-160)
(-160)
Allied Programs
( -)
(-60)
(-195)
(-245)
Total Program Reduction
-
-120
-355
-405
i stimated Salinity Level
(Full development with
control programs)
865
880
845
845
Range
(750-1060)
(740-1100)
(685-1115)
(675-1125)
L J
L J
-------
3I
be completed by those dates. These estimates nust be regarded as
initial approximations. The feasibility and related studies, but-
tressed by additional research, will improve reliability of the
estimates.
It should be recognized that the values in the table are cc nputed
average annual values at Imperial Dam under the stated assumptions.
The average annual modified value for 1970 of 865 mg/i based on the
1941 to 1968 period would probably have ranged from an annual mini-
mum of 750 mg/i to an annual maximum of 1,060 mg/i. However, with
Lakes Powell and Head regulating the Colorado River, it would require
several consecutive low-flow years to produce an annual salinity con-
centration of 1,000 mg/i, or higher, at Imperial Dam.
Historically, records at Imperial Dam show that the average salinity
concentration for January 1957 was 1,000 mg/i and for December 1967
it was 992 mg/i. Six other months in the period i94l-1 68 have had
average concentrations above 960 mg/i. However, with present devei-
opment, it is probable that the average monthiy concentrations for
these 8 months wouid have exceeded 1,000 mg/i. Furthermore, with
present developments, the 1,000 mg/i mean monthly concentration at
Imperial Darn would have been exceeded in 40 months during the period
1941-1968.
xix
-------
35
It is not possible to predict future salinity concentrations for any
particular month, nor can it be assumed that past flow and concen-
tration cycles will be repeated in the future.
It is premature to define numerical standards of salinity levels at
Imperial Dam now or in the next 2 or 3 years. 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.
Program Appraisals
Appraisal of program progress and direction will be made at intervals
of 2 years. The factors to be considered include: (1) kinds of phys-
ical control works needed, (2) economic viability of proposed control
works, (3) public acceptance and commitment to the proposals, (4) poten-
tial impacts of evolving technology, and (5) relationships within the
basin-wide management plan.
xx
-------
36
I INTRODUCTION
The waters of the Colorado River system serve millions of people
in many ways. It is a vital link in sustaining cities and farms,
mines and industry, recreational space and wildlife, and areas of
great aesthetic value to the Nation. The water is used for irri-
gating crops, producing energy, providing recreation, sustaining
cattle and wildlife, supporting industry, and supplying the common
daily needs of people for drinking, washing, bathing, cleaning,
heating, cooling, watering lawns and gardens, protecting property,
and removing wastes. These many uses place varying demands not
only on the quantity but also on the quality of water. In the
Colorado River, quantity and quality are inseparable. Tomorrow’s
needs are to be met by augmenting quantity and improving quality.
The latter is the concern of this report and is to be regarded as
an integrated facet of an overall comprehensive basin management
plan for use and development of the water resources.
At its headwaters, the Colorado River has a total dissolved solids
concentration of 50 mg/i 1/ or less. As the water moves downstream
through this vast arid region, there is a gradual increase in salinity
1/ Refers to milligrams per liter. This unit is nearly equivalent to
parts per million (ppm) up to concentrations of 7,000 mg/i.
1
-------
37
to the Imperial Dam. here the present modified 2/ average concen-
tration is 865 mg/i. This increase arises as a result of both
natural processes and the activities of man. Wherever rain falls,
natural solute erosion occurs. This process embraces the geochemical
reactions that take place as water moves through the hydrologic cycle.
The pathways and some of the important reactions involved in this
cycle are depicted in Figure 1. The process has been active over
geologic time. Even with the extensive developments by man, the
natural processes are still the principal source of salinity in the
Colorado River.
While the geochemical processes add a large variety of dissolved
matter to the water, only 10 elements make up 99 percent or so of
the dissolved constituents. These are hydrogen, sodium, magnesium,
potassium, calcium, silicon, chlorine, oxygen, carbon, and sulfur.
The elements occur in solution as various ions, molecules, or radi-
cals. The major part of the dissolved constituents in the Colorado
River are made up of the cations calcium, magnesium, and sodium, and
the anions sulfate, chloride, and bicarbonate. These, plus minor
amounts of other dissolved constituents, are commonly referred to as
salinity.
2/ Present modified refers to the historic conditions (1941-1968)
modified to reflect all upstream existing projects in operation for
the full period.
2
-------
38
— t
Soil water
1. C 2add d . forming onic acid
2. Reaction cf soil minerals with
cirbonic acid to form soluble
bicarbonates
3. Precipitation of colloidal iron.
atumioum. and silica; of
c arbonates as solubility limit
reached
4. Cation enchange
ii
Ground water
I. Cation esdiange
2. Sulfate reduction by anaerobic
bactena, substituting
bicarbonate for the sulfate
____ O flowtooc e.a
Cwfles .roersl uiatter bach
FIGuRE 1 —Geochemical cycle of surface and ground waters.
3
-------
39
Development of the water resources in the Colorado River Basin took
place gradually from the beginning of settlement around 1860 and
has been continuing. In the Upper Basin, 1.4 million acres were
irrigated by 1920. The pace of development slowed thereafter with
the result that in 1965, 1.6 million acres were under irrigation.
In addition, the water exported from the Upper Basin amounted to
about 500,000 acre-feet per year and consumptive use of water for
municipal and industrial purposes depleted about 30,000 acre-feet
per year.
Initial development in the Lower Basin was slow because of difficult
diversions from the Colorado River and its widely fluctuating flow.
However, with the completion of the Boulder Canyon Project in the
1930’s, the development accelerated and about 1.3 million acres are
now under irrigation. In this regard, the Colorado River now pro-
vides 75 percent of the water to southern California where nore than
half of that State’s 20 million people live.
The importance of salinity in water supplies was recognized as early
as 1903. At that time, the initial work was done to identify desir-
able salinity levels for maintenance of crop production under irri-
gation. A limited amount of water sampling and analysis of the river
was being performed, primarily by t! ’ Geological Survey. The main
purpose of these early tests was to evaluate the suitability of the
water supply for irrigation and other uses. In tine, it became clear
4
-------
L O
that a gradual rise in the salinity of the river was occurring as the
water resources were developed.
Salt-concentrating effects were produced by evaporation, transpira-
tion, 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 large reservoirs, pro-
duced offsetting beneficial effects by minimizing these fluctuations.
Prior to their authorization, it was known that the Colorado River
Storage and Participating Projects, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project,
San Juan-Chaina Project, and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project would
cause significant increases in salinity levels. This was expected
to arise primarily from the increased consumptive use of water and
transport of high quality water out of the basin. Recognizing the
concern of the Colorado River water users, Congress stipulated that
studies be made of the water quality in the basin and that control
plans be developed. The stipulation was expressed in the authoriz-
ing legislation for the projects.
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
5
-------
41
basin, biennial reports were started in 1963 and have continued since
that time. These reports cover the basic studies and evaluations of
salinity conditions, the anticipated effects of additional develop-
Inewts, the effect of salinity on water use, the potentials for salin-
ity 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 better defining the water quality conditions of the basin.
In 1963, efforts were directed towards evaluating various 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 of 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 Reclan ation, 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
restrictions in fiscal year 1970 prevented funding the studies.
6
-------
42
Also in 1968, the two agencies cooperated to develop a proposed salin-
ity 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 annually. The second phase was
to involve implementation of a basin-wide 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 prepared and
issued a report in 1970 entitled “Need for Controlling the Salinity
of the Colorado River.” The EPA also completed a report on the
mineral water quality. The report, entitled “The Mineral Quality
Problems in the Colorado River Basin,” was completed in 1971 and
pulled together the studies made during the period 1963-1970.
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 Upper
and Lower Colorado Region. These reports, abstracted in the next
section of this report, recommended continuing studies of the Region’s
increasingly complex water quality issues and suggested various salin-
ity control measures. Concurrently, the Bureau of Reclamation, with
the assistance of the several States involved, developed the program
7
-------
143
described herein for controlling the salinity of the river. The rec-
ommendations contained in the reports of the various organizations
were considered in developing this program.
The progress reports by the Bureau of Reclamation, the salinity
report by the Colorado River Board of California, the Upper and
Lower Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Studies of the Water
Resources Council, and the EPA report, have served to identify and
better define the issues involved. The important fact emerging is
that salinity is projected to increase 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 are considerably above the present modified average concentra-
tion of 865 mg/l.
8
-------
TABLE 2
Projected Concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids
(mg/i) at Imperial Dam
(Average values)
Year
Source 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
EPA 1,060 - - 1,220 -
CRBC 1,070 - 1,340 - - 1,390
WRC 1,260 - 1,290 - 1,350
IJSBR 1,000 1,200 1,250
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
CRBC: Colorado River Board of California
WRC: Lower Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Study (Water
Resources Council)
USBR: Bureau of Reclamation
The differences in the values reported by the various agencies
arise from assumptions made regarding completion dates for water
development projects, estimates of the amount of salt loading or
concentration effects produced by these projects, the period of
9
-------
245
analysis used, and estimates of the time involved for the effects
to emerge in the lower reach. The IJSBR projection is based on
progressive accomplishment of the projects listed in Table 3 with
completion assumed to occur by the year 2000.
It is significant that all studies by the various agencies pre-
dicted that proposed developments will cause a considerable increase
in the future salinity of the river. Even under current salinity
conditions, some irrigators are resorting to special practices in
using the water to grow salt-sensitive crops. Some areas have
drainage conditions which could be magnified if higher salinity
water were used. Municipal and industrial users are faced with
considerable expense in treating water. It is clear that allowing
the salinity of the river to increase will result in considerable
additional economic injury.
10
-------
Table 3 46
— Proj ecta deplatthg Col Mo River water
New New irriga-
depletion tion land
Project and state (ac.-ft.) (acres)
Above the gage Green RIver at Green River, Wyoming
Seedskadee, i yoning 145,000 58,000
Westvacn a r ) Others, Jyoaing 86,000
Betw en tho rhOve gage and th • gage Green River near Greendale, Utah
Lyuan ., Wyooing 10,000 0
Utah Rover B Ligot ecU others, Wyoming 8,000
Above inc gage Ducheene River near Rendiett, Utah
Cectrs. Jtah ro .ct, Utah
Bonneville Uoi 166,000 2/
U 1c ‘dolt
Uintah Unit 30,000 7,800
Between the gager Green River near Greendale, Utah, and uchesne River near Ran&lett, Utah,
anO the gage Green River at Green RIver, Utah
r County, Colorado 40,000 2/
ilayden Oteamplant, Colorado 12,000
Cheyenoe-Laramie, Wyoming 24,000 2/
Savery-Pot Rook, Colorado—Wyoming 27,000 17,920
Central Utah Proj ect
Jensen Unit 15,000 440
Above the gage San Ra!ael r.eer Green River, Utah
Utah Power & Light, daery County, Utah 5,000 1/
Above the gage Colorado River near Glenvood Springs, ColoradO
Denver-Fnglpwood, Colorado 216,000
Green Mountain I, Coloredo 12,000
Roiaestake Project, Colorado 49,ooo
Between the above gage and gage Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado
independence Pass pension, Colorado 14,000 2/
Frying n-Arkansas. Colorado 70,000 2/
Ruedi ) I, Colorado 38,000 v
West Divide, Colorado 76,000 19,000
Above the gage Gwinisor. River near Grand Junction, Colorado
Fruitland Mesa, Colorado 28,000 15,870
bostwick Park, Colorano 4,000 1,610
Sallas Cr , ei, Colorado 37,000 15,000
.cege Colorado River oear Cameo, Colorado, and Guimleon River near Grand
Junction, Colorado, a J the gage Colorado River near Cisco, Utah
Bolores, Colorado /140,000 32,000
n Miguel, Colorano 85,000 26,000
Abcv the gage San Juan River near Archuleta, New Mexico
San Juan-Cha , New Mexi:o 4/l1O 0O 2/
Bavs c Indian Irrigation, New Mexico —‘508,000 110,003
Between the above gage and the gage San Juan River near Bluff, Utah
Anirac-La Plate, Colorado-New Mexico 146,00) 46,500
ix neion d ;og ck, New Mexico 10,00) 0
Jtah Construction Co., New Mexico 25,000 1/
Return flow--Dolores and Bavajo Indian Irrigation, Colorado and New Mexico 311,000 3r /
Between the gages Green River at Green River, Utah; San Rafael River near Green River, Utah;
Colorado River near Cosco, Utah; and San Juan River near Bluff, Utah; and the gage
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona
Resources, Inc. L’ta l 102,00)
Arizona M ,I, Arizona 35,000 1/
Sa lvage __________
Subtotal Uppor S 1 1,892,00o 350,143
Between the above gage si) toe uge Colorado P)ver near Grand Canyon, Arizona 0 0
Above the gage Virgin River e L_ttl fteln, Arizona
Dixie Project, Utah 5/48,000 6,900
Between the gages Colorade River near Grand Canyon, Arizona, and Virgin River at Little-
field, An zone, and the gage Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Arizona- Nevada
Southern Nevada Water Project, Seve4a _‘240, 0 00 1/
Between the above gage and the gage Colorado Ri .er t e1ov Parser Dais, Arizona-CalIfornia
Fox-i l ’ohave and Ches buev4 Indian, Arizona, Cal :forr.ia, and Nevada 83,000 20,930
Central Ar) zone, Ai-j ionai/ 433,000
Reduced MetropoLte . Wa’er Cistrict Dlversionai/ 433,000
King n, ArLzo:t 18,o oo 1/
Mohave Valley I&D D striet, Arizona 6,000 1/
Lake iiavasu DIstriCt, ArIzona 7,000 1/
Salvage -87,000
Reduce) MetrcpclItao Water DIstrict DIversion i/ 199,000
Between the above gage and the gage Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Arlzor .a-Coloradn
Cclorado RIver Indian, ArIzona-CalifornIa 243,000 60,840
Salvage 104,000
Subtot.al Lc wer Bas 255,000
Total Colorado River 2,147,000 438,780
J in-basin depletion without Irrigated lands.
2/ Transmiontain diversIon.
)J : —basir transfer fror Dolores River drainage to the Lao Juan River draInage--estimated 53,000-acre-foot re-
turn fllw the S&n J. an Ricer.
1/ Diwersionc at Bavajo ReservoIr, esti ted 258,000-acre—foot return flow to the San Juan River below the
gage near Archuleta, Rev ‘-‘exzo.
5/ Inciudcs a traosssouOtaln diversion to Great Bastn.
J Pendi l ’s ) ! deveio ent, toe Mohave Thereat Plant will use rt of this water which will be diverted below
Hoover Don.
7/ The CeOtral Arizona Project diversions will vary, depending on the depletions by other projects on the
river. Under present isc’dified conditions eazi diversions to Central Arizona could be 2,172,000 acre-feet but
vito to) I depictions by the projects tabulated, the eaxi,sm diversions would be 433,000 acre—feet. Also with full
deptet or,s by the projects tabulated, the diversions to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California would
be re!u.e,i to an annual 550,000 acre-feet froc its present diversions of 1,182,000 acre-feet. This will provide
l99, XX. acre-feet uceded to develop the other tabulated projects in the Lower Basin in addition to the 433,000
acre-feet delivered to the Central Arizona Project.
11
-------
147
II PREVIOUS STUDIES AND FINDINGS
The program for controlling salinity in the Colorado River has
evolved from prior studies. Those of most relevance to the pro-
gram were performed by the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of
Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency (and its predecessor
agencies), Water Resources Council, Colorado River Board of
California, and Utah State University.
The USGS studies were of the definition type. They trace historic
salinity levels, estimate salt loading from specific sources, and
identify salt contribution from various river reaches. The Bureau
of Reclamation studies report on the past, present modified, and
future water quality conditions in the basin. The effects of salin-
ity on water uses and potentials for salinity control are discussed.
The EPA study describes salinity conditions in the basin, evaluates
the nature and magnitude of damages to water users, examines alterna-
tive salinity control measures, and provides recommended measures and
programs for control of the salinity levels. The Colorado River Board
of California also defined the nature and magnitude of the problem
and presented a plan for controlling the salinity at or near present
levels. The Water Resources Council Task Forces drew heavily on the
prior studies and developed estimates of future salinity conditions
and identified potential control measures. Utah State University
12
-------
48
performed a computer simulation of the hydrologic-salinity flow
system in the Upper Basin.
Differences in findings among the various studies occurred, partic-
ularly as related to quantitative displays of historic salinity con-
ditions, salt loading, concentrating effects, contributions from
various sources, and economic impacts. Because there was nonuni-
formity in assumptions, data sets, and procedures, the quantitative
findings should be expected to differ. On the other hand, the con-
clusions derived are generally similar. The major sources of salin-
ity were identified as arising from natural point and diffuse sources,
irrigation, evaporation, out-of-basin transfers, and municipal and
industrial uses. The largest portion of the mineral burden was found
to originate in the Upper Basin. The natural sources were thought to
be the major contributors to the salt loading. Salinity was projected
to continually increase in the lower reaches unless control programs
are implemented. The impact of the increasing salinity levels was
found to be primarily economic. While salinity levels increased over
time, the composition of the water with respect to individual ions
remained relatively stable.
Water Resources of the Upper Colorado Basin-Basic Data (USGS )
In 1964, the U.S. Geological Survey published its report entitled
“Water Resources of the Upper Colorado Basin-Basic Data” as
13
-------
149
Professional Paper 442. This report is based on data for the 1941-
1957 period. In summary, the report states that if the developments
of 1957 had not been in existence then: (1) the hypothetical average
yearly water yield at Lees Ferry would have been about 15.2 million
acre-feet rather than the 12.7 million measured, (2) the hypothetical
average concentration would have been about 250 mg/i rather than
observed values of about 500 mg/i, and (3) the hypothetical dissolved
solids discharge would have been about 5.2 rather than observed amounts
of about 8.7 million tons annually. Substantially all the increase in
dissolved solids discharge was construed by the investigators to be
an effect of irrigation on 1.4 million acres of land. They estimated
the average increase to be 2.4 tons per irrigated acre per year. From
one part of the area to another, this average was said to range from
about 0.1 to 5.6 tons. The report did not indicate which portion of
this increase was due specifically to irrigation and which to natural
sources.
Upper Colorado River Basin Cooperative
Salinity Control Study (USBR)
In cooperation pith the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion (now the Office of Water Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency), the Bureau of Reclamation in July 1969 completed a report
entitled “Upper Colorado River Basin Cooperative Salinity Control
14
-------
50
Study.” The report is currently under review by EPA and has not
yet been released. It deals with the control of salinity from spe-
cific identified sources, appraises potential salt-load reduction
values, and evaluates status of the economic feasibility of salin-
ity control. The need for a coordinated salinity control program
for the entire Colorado River is stressed.
Need for Controlling Salinity of the Colorado River (CRBC )
The Colorado River Board of California published a report entitled
“Need for Controlling Salinity of the Colorado River” in August 1970.
Using available data, the report traces the average salinity prin-
cipally at hoover, Parker, and Imperial Dams and makes projections
for the years 1980, 2000, and 2030. The historical average is based
on the years 1963-1967 and shows values below Hoover Dam to be
730 mg/i and at Imperial Dam 850 ng/l. Below Hoover Dam, values of
830 and 1,090 mg/i are projected for the years 1980 and 2030,
respectively. Comparable projections for Imperial Dam suggest
1,070 mg/i in 1980 and 1,390 ng/1 in 2030. The salinity is esti-
mated to cause $8 to $10 million damage annually for each salinity
increase of 100 mg/i. The report identifies a number of potential
salinity control projects which, if constructed, might serve to
maintain salinity near present levels.
15
-------
51
Quality of Water - Colorado River Basin (USD1 )
Biennial Progress Reports on the “Quality of Water - Colorado River
Basin” are prepared by the Department of the Interior. The initial
report was issued in 1963 and the latest report is dated 1971. The
report displays the past, present modified, and estimated future
quality of the Colorado River at 17 gaging stations for the period
of 1941-1968. The future quality condition as used in this report
is an estimate of the situation after the presently authorized
developments, projects proposed for authorization, and private
developments are placed in operation. The report estimates the
present modified average concentration below Iloover Dam to be
760 mg/i and with future known developments, 1,010 mg/l. At
Imperial Darn the comparable projections are 865 and 1,250 mg/i,
respectively, under the same conditions. No time period is speci-
fied in the report to identify when khe projected concentrations
would be reached.
Computer Simulation of the Hydrologic-Salinity Flow
System Within the Upper Colorado River Basin (USU )
Salinity conditions were investigated by Utah State University.
In 1970, they issued a report entitled “Computer Simulation of
the hydrologic-Salinity Flow System Within the Upper Colorado
River Basin.” This study employed an electronic analog computer
16
-------
52
in developing a simulation model of the hydrologic and salinity
flow systems of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Estimates were
derived based on the 1931-1960 period and reflect cropping and
riverflow regulation conditions as of 1960. The estimated salt
load at Lees Ferry was 8.6 million tons per year of which approx-
imately 4.3 million tons originated from natural sources, 1.5 mil-
lion tons from within the agricultural system, and 2.8 million tons
from other inputs to the system; thus, natural sources are thought
to contribute 50 percent of the salt load, agricultural sources
17 percent, and unidentified sources 33 percent. The report states
that the agricultural salt load and cropland consumptive use
increase the total dissolved solids concentration within the Upper
Basin by 104 and 113 mg/i, respectively. The model was designed
to predict the effects of various possible water resource manage-
ment alternatives.
Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River-
Salton Sea Area (USGS)
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-E, entitled “Salinity
of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River-Salton Sea Area,” was
published in 1971. The report sho that during the period 1926-
1962, the chemical regimen of the Colorado River at Grand Canyon
and upstream, although probably somewhat different from the virgin
regimen, was relatively stable. There may, however, have been
17
-------
53
small increases in average mineral concentrations, particularly
toward the end of the period, caused by construction of reservoirs,
increased irrigation, and out-of-basin diversions. The research
also found that most of the mineral burden of the Colorado River,
like most of its flow, originates in the Upper Basin. The largest
individual increment to the mineral burden of the Colorado River
below the compact point and above Imperial Dam was found to be the
Blue Springs located near the mouth of the Little Colorado River,
The report further shows that a principal increase in salinity in
the lower reach is derived from irrigated land in the Parker and
Palo Verde valleys. The increasing out-of-basin diversions are
also reported as contributing to the rising salinity concentration
levels.
The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin (EPA )
In 1971, the EPA released its report entitled “The Mineral Quality
Problem in the Colorado River Basin.” In this report, salinity and
streamflow data for the 1942-1961 period of record were used as a
basis for estimating average salinity concentrations under various
conditions of water development and use. Under these conditions,
concentrations at Hoover Dam were estimated to average about 700 and
760 mg/l in 1960 and 1970, and 880 and 990 mg/l in 1980 and 2010,
respectively. At Imperial Dam, the report estimates 760 and 870 mg/i
18
-------
5)4
for 1960 and 1970, and 1,060 and 1,220 mg/i for 1980 and 2010 condi-
tions. The findings of the study with respect to salinity sources
were that natural sources accounted for 47 percent of the salinity
concentrations at Hoover Darn. The remainder was accounted for by
irrigation (37 percent), reservoir evaporation (12 percent), out-of-
basin exports (3 percent), and M I uses (1 percent).
The present annual economic detriments of salinity were estimated
to total $16 million. The report further advises that if no salin-
ity controls are implemented, it is estimated that average annual
economic detriments would increase to $28 million in 1980 and $51 mil-
lion in 2010. More than 80 percent of these detriments would be
incurred by irrigated agriculture and the associated regional economy
located in the Lower Basin and the southern California water service
area.
The investigation examined three salinity control alternatives:
(1) augmentation of basin water supply, (2) basin-wide salt load
reduction program, and (3) limitation on further depletion of basin
water supply. The study concluded that the salt load reduction pro-
gram appeared to be the most feasible of the three alternatives. It
then proceeded to develop a broad conceptual plan and related costs
for such a program.
19
-------
55
Lower Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Study (WRC )
The report by the Water Resources Council dated June 1971 states
that high levels of dissolved mineral salts in surface and ground
waters are the major water quality problem in the region. With
few exceptions, most surface and ground-water supplies have mineral
concentrations exceeding 500 mg/i, and many exceed 1,000 mg/i. The
salinity of the supplies affects domestic, industrial, and agricul-
tural uses.
The Colorado River enters the region at concentrations exceeding
500 mg/i, varies between 500 and 900 mg/i at most diversion points,
and increases to as high as 1,100 to 1,150 mg/i for short periods
of time at Imperial Dam. Salinity increases in the Colorado River
from Lees Ferry, Arizona, to Imperial Dam are due principally to
inputs from saline springs and the concentrating effects of con-
sumptive use and reservoir evaporation.
Dissolved solids concentrations in the Colorado River are estimated
to increase about 55 to 75 percent between 1965 and 2020, with the
exception of Imperial Dam where the concentration is estimated to
double. These results are based on the assumptions that the Central
Arizona Project is in operation and no salinity controls are incor-
porated in future developments.
20
-------
56
Upper Colorado Region Comprehensive Framework Study (WRC )
This report by the Water Resources Council dated June 1971 states
that salinity is the most serious water quality problem in the
Colorado River Basin. Salt-loading and salt-concentrating effects
of consumptive use or depletion are the primary causes of salinity
increases. Salt loading principally results from salts contributed
from diffuse and point sources of geologic origin and from salts
carried in irrigation return flows.
Future dissolved solids concentrations were estimated for 1980,
2000, and 2020. The TDS concentration at Lees Ferry, Arizona,
assuming no salinity improvement program, is projected at 820 mg/i
for the year 2020, or 40 percent greater than the 1965 concentra-
tion. The major cause of the projected salinity increase is con-
tinued development of the region. It includes the additional stream
depletions for irrigation, thermal power production and export, and
the additional salt leached from newly irrigated lands.
State and Federal representatives in both the upper and lower
Colorado regions agreed that the salinity improvement programs
outlined in the Upper and Lower Colorado Framework Study documents
would be part of a basin-wide approach to salinity management.
The salinity improvement program consists of a salt-loading reduction
21
-------
57
program which maintains concentrations at Lees Ferry at about 600 mg/i
through the year 2020.
22
-------
DO
III PROCRMI OBJECTIVE
Building on the prior investigations of the salinity conditions in
the Basin, The Bureau of Reclamation initiated a Water Quality
Improvement Program in early 1971. The objective of the program
is to maintain salinity concentrations at or below levels presently
found in the lower main stem of the Colorado River. In implementing
this objective, the salinity problem will be treated as a basin-wide
problem, recognizing that salinity levels may rise until control
measures are made effective while the upper basin continues to develop
its compact-apportioned waters.
In moving toward this objective, corollary activities will, to the
extent found feasible, encompass:
1. Stimulating improvements in management of water supplies
in water systems,
2. Coordinating and integrating implementation of salinity
control measures with basin-wide water resource manage-
ment plans,
3. Recommending institutional and legal arrangements essen-
tial for efficient and equitable accomplishment of salinity
control,
23
-------
59
4. Removing salinity or otherwise controlling the concentra-
tion levels econoriically, safely, and without adverse side
effects to the ecology and the environment,
5. Providing the requisite means for public participation in
the choice of and commitment to water quality improvement
measures, and
6. Initiating the needed installation of structural and non-
structural measures for salinity control to achieve sub-
stantial salt load reductions in this decade and early in
the subsequent decade.
24
-------
61
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 waterflows according to the Colorado
River Compact of 1922, (2) meet commitrients 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) pro-
tect 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 riust 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 require-
ments certain considerations are paramount: (1) There can be wide
fluctuations in the concentration of dissolved solids above Lake
Powell as a result of annual variations in precipitation and the
26
-------
62
management of the available water resources, (2) the total available
water resources of the river are allocated by interbasin and inter-
state compacts and the international treaty, (3) the treaties and
decrees have apportioned water 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 Storage 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 Navajo
Indian Irrigation Project and San Juan-Chama Project states:
“The Secretary of the Interior is directed to continue his
27
-------
63
studies of the quality 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 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 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,
Colorado, contains similar language pertaining to water qualIty
reports and stipulated that the first report should be provided
by January 3, 1963, to be followed by submission of reports
every 2 years thereafter.
These acts provide authority to this Department for basin-wide
planning of a salinity control program. Feasible salinity control
projects involving construction will require congressional author-
izations. 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
28
-------
6
such as the Office of Saline Water, the Office of Water Resources
Research, the Geological Survey, Bureau of Land 1anagement, 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 con-
tributions can be made by each of these agencies to the successful
conduct of the comprehensive program for salinity control.
Orgar.i zat ion
The immediate responsibility for direction of the Colorado River
Water Quality Improvement Program has been assigned to the Assistant
Commissioner - Resource Planning with strong coordinative ties with
the Assistant Commissioner - Resource Management. The field planning,
construction, and operation activities will be handled by the Regional
Directors, Regions 3 and 4, with assistance as needed being provided
by the Engineering and Research Center. A new division to be entitled
“Division of Colorado River Water Quality” will be established within
the Engineering and Research Center in Denver to serve as the focal
point for the program. The Division chief will report directly to
the Assistant Commissioner - Resource Planning. Leadership responsi-
bilities of this Division will cover such activities as coordinating,
developing, and expediting the program; closely working with and inte-
grating elements of the program with other governmental entities; and
developing coordinative ties with Federal, State, and local agencies
29
-------
65
and public and private groups having a mutual concern and interest
in the salinity control program. Program progress will be monitored,
policy positions analyzed, and recommendations developed for consid-
eration by the appropriate decisionmaking levels within the Department
of the Interior. The Division will maintain close liaison with the
Westwide management team to insure compatibility and integration of
its program with the Western U.S. Water Plan. Work involving the
allied programs will continue to be planned and implemented accord-
ing to current procedures that will be closely observed to insure
timely application of results to the salinity control program.
Program Elements
The program is structured to investigate the feasibility of con-
structing point, diffuse and irrigation source control projects;
initiating immediate nonstructural control measures in the field
of irrigation scheduling and management; and conducting essential
supporting studies of basin-wide applicability. The latter involve
institutional and legal matters, mathematical modeling of the river
system to measure impacts and guide choices, economic analysis of
water quality costs and benefits, and prospects of adopting alter-
native conceptual bases for the program such as controlling salinity
on a large scale at diversions to points of use rather than control
of sources (or combinations thereof).
30
-------
66
Figure 2 identifies the specific elements of the program and indi-
cates the period during which the work is proposed to be accomplished
and Figure 3 shows the location of the various projects.
Program Costs
Currently the program is funded at a level of $455,000, with a
proposed expansion of the program to 51,005,000 in fiscal year 1973.
The planning activities as scheduled in fiscal years 1972 through
1931 total approximately $18 million. Construction activities
which may be required within this time frame could involve costs in
the order of magnitude of $400 to 500 million. Such funding would
be determined by congressional authorization and appropriate non-
Federal cost sharing and repayment. The most promising prospects
for achieving salinity control have been screened and, therefore,
effort will be concentrated on feasibility investigations to expe-
dite movement of salinity control projects through th congressional
authorization processes.
Program Financing and Repayment
The investigation program would be financed by the Federal Govern-
ment under the authority of laws previously cited herein. As feasi-
bility of specific control projects is demonstrated, beneficiaries
31
-------
.
I
-.
T-
mllll
w-w
IilI!IIl!IIIlI
u
j
J
film
uw
IIlI! Ii !IIf I I
4 LL4 LU
I
iTilhlifiJi
ffl1ff
II flllIiiil
llIllllll1ll11
ii
tIIIMI
fIfIIH-
lI iiiii iIIIlI iiIIII ill II DhIII
U_J_1U_I .IUhIflhIIIIIIIII 111111
IIIIIIIUIIIHII!!IIJIIHTJ1TI1
IIlItIII i!P II If IllIllIlI f f!! UI
I.Ii .IIIJ,!IIII1IlIII IIIl!f lii i
m —
IIIIIiI
UL L
flT
I IIIIIIII IIIII
- u
!!!!t!IIIIIIII
4 4
‘llMllllll
67
19721 73 174 175 176 77 178 179 180181 1
lllllhIIIilllIll
Ii
nn
IlIllhllilIlIll
lllillllilu1
— t4cf
i IIlIIIJ 111111111 II !
ItIU lIlIHUhl I lI Ut
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 & MANAGEMENT _____________________________________
Grand Vail ey Basin — — 3 — i
Lower Gunnison Basin — — —
Uintah Basin — — — — — — — — — — — — I
Gob. River Indian Reservation — — — —
Palo Verde Irrigation District — — — — - _____________________________________________
W4TER SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT 8 MGT _______________________________
Grand Valley Basin - 1.
Lower Gunnison Basin———————-I______________________________________
Uintah Basin—— —I____________________________________
Gob River Indian Reservation — — — — -
Palo Verde Irrigation District— — —— -
BASIN WIDE ACTIVITIES _____ _________
Mathematical Model of Colorado River— ________ _______
Economic Evaluation of WaterQuaIify—— ____________
Institutional a Legal Analysis — — ——
Ion Exchange Process Systems — — —- ______________________
‘I
m r
111111 11111111
UM
IlillIllIUfil
ii hT i l i lilil
JiI1III !IIIlIfJJIfT1IIHIII!IIIfflhI!IJl
.. .-
‘1111111111111
IIll illilli
lIllIJIlIlIllIf
IIIUIIIIIIHIIHIHIIIIIIIUIHUIT1IIIIIIIIIIUjT!UinIHnniI II iIIIiiIIi.,.,iI,,i,,ui,i,,,.,i, .,,,.....,..
IIIIItIIII HIflIIIIIIJIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIIIIItIIIIIflhIIIIIIIIII(IIIII
IIIIIl IIIIIIiiIFh!IIIllhtIIIIIIIIIJIIlIIIIIllIlIIIlIIIlIlIIlIIIIIIIlIlIIIlIIIlIIlllIIIIIIlIIIII
‘ ‘
IIIlIiIIIIIIIIIIKIIIIIIHHUllhIIlIIIiIIIlllIIIIlIIllIIIlIIlIIIIIIIlIllIlIIIll
lllhlItU !HIII IIIIUIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIItIII!llhIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIHIHhI I
IIIiIItIIflhIiIIllhlIiI IIIIIIIi!IIIDuIIlIIIiII IlIIIIIVhIIllhlIIIIIIIIlIIIIIII
]
ItIIIllIIIlfII IIIlIIIIIIHIDIItIIUhIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(IIIIIIIIUhIIIlU I
I!II IIIIIIiIiiiIIiIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIilIII!! IIIiI IIII!IIIItI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIlI —) .
IU lWU I! IiIII!IIIIItlIItIjI IUIIIIIIIIIIIIIII UiIIIIIiiiIIiiIi
- - ItII!111 1 11 11!II ItIIIIIIIIIIi, .I.I . .
1 IJ T !J i I
IIi; j
Figure 2
COLORADO RIVER
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJ ECTS
DATA COLLECTION
FEASI BILITY
_____________________________ IllIlIllIIIIIlIIIlIIllllil
* DISTRICTS TAKE OVER
OPERATION OF
PROGRAM
CONSTRUCTION or COMPLETION
ACTIVITY
32
-------
68
U/N TAH BASI
PRICE RIVER
SANDY CREEK
SAN RAFAEL RIV
YSTAL
GE YSER
DEVIL RIVE
U
La VERKIN
SPRINGS
FIGURE 3
LOCATION OF SALINITY IMPROVEMENT
PRO 1 JECTS CQLO. RIVER BASIN
DIRTY
A
LITTL
N
WER
C
CREEK
E
w
x
E
33
-------
69
will be identified and cost-sharing and repayment formulas will be
developed. Through such cost sharing, it is anticipated that direct
non-Federal financial support would be forthcoming to implement the
construction phase of the program. This may require new institu-
tional arrangements not only as related to repayment hut also to
operation and maintenance of constructed facilities.
As indicated under the corollary principles guiding the program,
every effort would be made to move the feasible projects into the
construction phase within a period of 1 to 2 years following a
favorable finding of feasibility.
Related Program Features
Provision is built into the program to undertake other supporting
and feasibility investigations. As now developed, the program
draws heavily on precedent studies. The more detailed investiga-
tions to be done under this program may reveal that some of the
projects should not he implemented because of economic, physical,
or environmental considerations. Accordingly, concurrent analysis
of other alternatives will need to be conducted. The kind of work
contemplated here would involve a careful analysis of the salinity
sources in the Lower Basin. Previous studies have failed to ade-
quately investigate the lower reach from Parker to Imperial Dam.
Such work will, therefore, be fitted into the program and would be
34
-------
70
accompanied with other items such as prospects for desalting return
flows from the Palo Verde Irrigation District and a general study
of brine disposal possibilities in the lower reach of the river.
Should findings of the supporting studies involving the use of the
ion exchange processes prove attractive, then an analysis would be
needed to identify the best ways to use the process in the overall
program.
The program will be faced with uncertainties with respect to poten-
tial advances in technology not only in the field of desalting but
also in other areas such as development of antitranspirants, evap-
oration suppression, enhancement of salt precipitation reactions
in large reservoirs, and development of lower cost energy sources
(breeder reactors and fusion).
In consideration of the foregoing, decision points will be utilized
in the program to determine direction as the feasibility and related
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 of the measures to the States
involved. An appraisal of program direction and a description of
program accomplishments will be made to Congress at 2-year intervals
as part of the biennial report on continuing studies of the quality
of water of the Colorado River Basin. The directive for preparing
35
-------
71
the biennial report is contained in three separate public laws which
authorized the (1) Colorado River Storage Project and participating
projects, (2) Navajo Indian Irrigation Project and San Juan-Chama
Project, and (3) Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
Allied Programs
Allied programs of the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies will
be coordinated with this salinity control effort. The allied pro-
grams, particularly those involving augmentation of water supply,
can be expected to have important impacts on the concentration of
dissolved constituents in the river system. Accordingly, as these
plans emerge, their impacts will be assessed and measured for effec-
tiveness along with the specific control projects identified in the
water quality improvement program. A discussion of the allied pro-
gram is provided in a subsequent section of this report.
36
-------
72
V EFFECT OF PROGIW1
The amount of salt load reduction that can be achieved through
control of point sources, diffuse sources, and irrigation sources
cannot, at this time, be estimated with a high degree of accuracy.
Good data exist on the annual salt tonnage output from the point
and diffuse sources but detailed engineering plans are needed to
determine the amount of salt load reduction possible, the cost,
and the feasibility of the plan. Also, the ongoing research by
Colorado State University now being financed by EPA, and the
research underway by the Bureau of Reclamation will need to be
completed to derive reliable estimates of salt load reduction and
concentrating effects generated by the irrigation scheduling and
water systems improvement programs.
Recognizing the foregoing limitation, the Water Quality Improve-
inent Program as now scheduled is estimated to achieve a reduction
of about 140 mg/i at Hoover Dam and 160 mg/i at Imperial Dam
including Blue Springs. This assumes that all point and diffuse
source projects, irrigation scheduling and management activities,
and the water system improvement and management projects now
included in the program are implemented.
The total capital costs for the point and diffuse source control
projects are in the order of magnitude of S150 to $200 million
37
-------
73
excluding Blue Springs. Insufficient data preclude making an
order of magnitude estimate for this point source. The irrigation
scheduling and management costs would total $4 to $5 million within
the program period. Subsequently, this program would be continued
by the water users. Order of magnitude costs for improvement of
the water systems have been made and these range from $240 to
$300 million. Summation of the capital costs far the point and
diffuse source control projects exclusive of Blue Springs, the
water systems improvement projects, and the irrigation scheduling
and management activities indicates an order of magnitude of $400
to $500 million.
Relating the program accomplishments to time periods, it is esti-
mated that the program if implemented according to the proposed
schedule could achieve a reduction of 60 and 160 mg/l at Imperial
Dam by 1980 and 1990, respectively. The control measures included
for the 1980 reduction include LaVerkin and Littlefield Springs
under the point source control program and the irrigation source
control programs in the Grand Valley and Lower Gunnison Basins plus
the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Palo Verde Irrigation
District. The reduction by 1990 would he achieved through control
of the remaining point, diffuse, and irrigation sources.
To provide requisite initial guidance to the selection of projects
to be studied at the feasibility level, a ranking based on cost
38
-------
7L
effectiveness has been prepared. This along with other factors
such as. quantities of potential salt load reduction, reliability
of currently available data regarding the projects, knowledge of
the kind and capacity of physical works required, prospects for
achieving early effects through salt load reductions and potential
economic viability of the projects were considered. The cost effec-.
tiveness is based on dollars per ton per year amortized over a
50-year period. The data are shown in Table 4, Potential Effects
and Costs - Point and Diffuse Source Control Projects, and Table 5,
Potential Effects and Costs - Irrigation Scheduling and Hanagement
and Water Systems Improvement Projects.
The irrigation scheduling and water systems improvement programs
are to be closely integrated. Both programs contemplate heavy
participation of the water users. The irrigation system improve-
ment program would provide direct benefits to the water user
organizations. This would include such factors as labor savings,
more efficient water deliveries, reduced operational costs, and
providing a basis for more efficient layouts of irrigated fields.
Accordingly, in compiling the cost effectiveness, it was assumed
that one-half of the capital costs of the water systems would be
paid for by the water users as a benefit to the irrigation system
of the project. The remainder of the cost is assumed to be allo-
cated to salinity control and would he subject to cost sharing.
39
-------
Table 4
Potential Effects and Costa — Point and Diffuse Source Control Pro fects
Present
salt
Estlanted
Effect at
Effect at
Construction
Construc-
Cost
Projects
loading
(1,000’s
ton/yr)
reduction
(1 ,000’s
tonlyr)
Hoover Dan
(ag /i)
Imperial
Dais
(mg/I)
cost
($1,0 00,000’s)
tion
period
(FY)
effectiveness
(dollarsltonlyr)
LaVerkin Springs
San Rafael River
Paradox Valley
Price River
Dirty Devil River
Littlefield Springs
Glenvood-Dotsero Springs
Big Sandy River
Mc lino Creek
Crystal Geyser
Blue Springs*
Total
100
190
200
240
200
30
500
180
115
4
550
2310
80
90
180
100
80
30
200
80
40
4
250
1130
-6
—7
—14
—8
—7
—2
—15
—7
—3
1
—16
—90
—8
—8
—15
—9
—8
—2
—17
—8
-4
1
—19
—100
8-10
10—15
25—35
15—20
15—20
6-8
40-60
20-25
10—15
1—2
150-200
1975—78
1979—81
1977 —80
1979—81
1980—82
1977—79
1978—81
1979—80
1980—82
1975—76
2.00—2 .50
2. 20—3. 30
2. 80—3. 90
3.00-4.00
3. 80—5 .00
4.00-5.30
4.00-6.00
5. 00-6. 30
5 .00—7 .50
5.00-10.00
* Insufficient data to eetiaiate coat
** Total values are rounded
U,
-------
Potential Effects and Cost.
Irritation Scheduling and Management and Water Systems Improvement Project .
Areas
Present Salt
Loading
(1000$. tons/yr)
Estimated
Reduction
(1000’. tons/yr)
Effect
Hoover
(mg/i)
at
Dam
Effect
Imperial
(mg/i)
at
Dam
Irrigation
Scheduling
Cost.
($1,000,000)
Water Systems
Improvements
Coat
Effectiveness
(dollars/ton/yr)
Total Cost
($1,000,000)
Assumed Federal
Goat
($1,000,000)
Lower Gunnison Basin
1,100
300
—23
-26
1—1.5
80—100
40-50
2.70 - 3.30
Uintah Basin
450
150
—12
—14
1—1.5
40-50
20—25
2.70 - 3.30
Grand Valley Basin
700
200
-15
-17
0.8—1.0
70—80
35—40
3.50 - 4.00
Palo Verde Irrigation
District 90
23
0
—5
0.4—0.5
30—40
15—20
13.00 - 17.00
Colorado River Indian
Reservation 30
7
0
-50
—2
-60
0.3—0.5
4-5
20—30
240—300
10—15
120—150
28.00 - 43.00
---
Tota ls* 2,370
*Values øhown are rounded
ro
0 \
-------
77
At this time, the separation of effects between irrigation sched-
uling and water system inprovements cannot be made. The effects
will vary between areas depending upon soil, geologic, drainage,
and topographic conditions, as well as the condition of present
irrigation systems and the irrigation efficiencies now being
attained by the water users. It is reasonable, however, to assume
that irrigation scheduling and managemcnt will have a significant
effect and for this reason early implementation would be a desir-
able feature of the program.
The total reduction of 160 mg/i at Imperial Dam as now estimated
cannot maintain the salinity levels at or below present levels.
Other measures involving combinations of desalting, weather mod-
ification, vegetation management, and channelization are required.
Vegetation management and channelization measures could be
installed in accordance with the Colorado River Basin Project
Act. Through these measures, there could be a water recovery of
perhaps 200,000 acre-feet during the period 1980 to 1990 in the
vicinity of Imperial Dam. This would achieve a substantial
reduction in concentration at Imperial Dam at a cost less than
some of the other control measures. Difficulties of implementing
such a program are recognized. The program would need to protect
the fauna and achieve environmental enhancement. Research into
these areas is needed.
42
-------
78
Increased confidence in weather modification leads to the assuinp-
tion that 1 million acre-feet of additional flow could be expected
by 1980 and possibly 2 million acre-feet by 1990. The additional
water would be a significant advantage of this method.
Desalting will also be an important function in maintaining salin-
ity at the present level. A specific desalting process can be
designed to maintain the flow and quality desired at a given loca-
tion permitting wide flexibility. It is estimated that desalting
500,000 acre-feet from a concentration of 1,000 to 735 mg/i would
result in a 20 mg/i reduction in the concentration at Imperial
Dam by 1980. Increased desalting by 1990 and the year 2000 could
bring about reductions of 75 and 125 mg/i, respectively.
The interactions of the various control measures are physically
related to one another and hence the order and time of accomplish-
ment are important in assessing the overall effect.
The average annual salinity concentration of the Colorado River at
Imperial Dam during the period 1941 to 1968 (most recently pub-
lished data) was 751 mg/i. The annual salinity concentrations
during this same period have ranged from a minimum of 649 mg/i in
1949 to a maximum of 918 ing/i in 1956. The monthly salinity con-
centrations of the Colorado River at Imperial Dam during the period
43
-------
79
1941 to 1968 have experienced an even wider range from a minimum of
551 mg/i in December 1952 to a maximum of 1,000 mg/i in January 1957.
Levels of salinity concentrations presently found in the lower
Colorado River vary depending on the time period used to describe
the level. As indicated above, the average for a year is greater
than the level during the period 1941 to 1968 and the peak monthly
concentration is even greater than the level for a year.
In order to depict the effects of the Water Quality Improvement
and Allied Programs, Table 6 was developed showing the projected
reductions in salinity concentrations for each program and the
estimated effects on the synthesized salinity levels at Imperial
Dam.
44
-------
U,
Table 6
PROJECTED PROGRAM REDUCTIONS - COLORADO RIVER AT IMPERIAL DAM
(Average annual values in mg/i - 1941-68 period of record)
1970
1980
1990
2000
Estimated salinity level
(Full development - no
control program)
Range
Projected program reductions
865
(750—1,060)
1,000
(860-1,220)
1,200
(1,040—1,470)
1,250
(1,080—1,530)
Point, diffuse, and irri-
gation source control
(_)
(-60)
(-160)
(-160)
Vegetation management
and channelization
C-)
C-)
(-50)
(-50)
Desalting
C—)
(-20)
(-75)
(-125)
Weather modification
J-)
(-40)
(70)
( .70)
Total program reduction
-
-120
355
-405
Estimated salinity level
(Full development with
845
845
control programs)
Range
865
(750—1,060)
880
(740—1,100)
(685—1,115)
(675-1,125)
-------
81
The values in the table are initial estimates based on the average
hydrologic conditions for the period of record 1941-1968.
The 1970 average annual value of 865 mg/i has been derived on the
assumption that present developments in the basin were completed
and operating during the period of record. In other words, the
effects of water quality of all present developments have been
extended back to 1941 from the time they became operational.
Similarly, the average annual values for the years 1980, 1990, and
2000 were synthesized to reflect the influence on water quality dur-
ing the period of record of water resource developments expected to
be completed by those dates. These estimates must be regarded as
initial approximations. The feasibility and related studies, but-
tressed by additional research, will improve reliability of the
estimates.
It should be recognized that the values in the table are computed
average annual values at Imperial Dam under the stated assumptions.
The average annual modified value for 1970 of 865 mg/i based on the
1941 to 1968 period would probably have ranged from an annual mini-
mum of 750 mg/i to an annual maximum of 1,060 rig/i. However, with
Lakes Powell and Mead regulating the Colorado River, it would require
several consecutive low-flow years to produce an annual salinity con-
centration of 1,000 mg/i, or higher, at Imperial Darn.
46
-------
82
Historically, records at Imperial Darn show that the average salinity
concentration for January 1957 was 1,000 mg/i and for December 1967
it was 992 mg/i. Six other months in the period 1941-1968 have had
average concentrations above 960 mg/i. However, with present devel-
opment, it is probable that the average monthly concentrations for
these 8 months would have exceeded, 1,000 mg/i. Furthermore, with
present developments, the 1,000 mg/i mean monthly concentration at
Imperial Darn would have been exceeded in 40 months during the period
1941-1968.
It is not possible to predict future salinity concentrations for any
particular month, nor can it be assumed that past flow and concentra-
tion cycles will be repeated in the future.
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. These
nust be coordinated with allied programs and fitted into a basin-wide
water resources management plan. The studies nust develop the full
costs involved, identify the control means, assess benefits, identify
beneficiaries, present financial plans, display the tradeoffs, and
specify the time required to achieve specific degrees of water quality
improvement for particular reaches of the river. The comprehensive
plan for water quality improvement must be engineeringly feasible,
47
-------
politically acceptable, and administratively viable through appropri-
ate institutions. This then would permit the salinity levels to be
maintained at an average annual level of about 845 ng/l while the
Upper Basin States continued to develop up to their apportionment
under terms of the Colorado River Compact.
It is premature to define numerical standards of salinity levels at
Imperial Dam now or in the next 2 or 3 years. 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.
48
-------
8Z
VI DESCRIPTION OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The prior studies of water quality in the Colorado River by the
Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA, and the Colorado River Board of
California have served to define the problems and outline potential
control measures. They are not, however, sufficient to undertake
imediate construction of control measures. Cost effectiveness
analyses have been prepared on the basis of reconnaissance studies.
For example, point sources of salinity have been geographically
identified, salinity concentrations have been 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 measure-
ment of salt loading cannot be made because adequate records are not
available. Moreover, practical methods for controlling the salt
loading from such sources still need to be developed.
With respect to irrigated lands, it is anticipated that improvement
in management and use of water on the irrigated farms will result in
reduced salt loading thereby improving the quality of the receiving
stream. Such action, buttressed by improvements in water conveyance
systeE s, involving seepage reduction through canal lining and improve-
ment in operational techniques, also is expected to contribute toward
49
A.
-------
85
reduced salt loadings in the river. Complex interrelationships of
human activities and physical field conditions nust be analyzed to
determine the amount of salt load reduction that could be achieved.
This chapter describes the details of the various elements of the
program. Details of some of the projects are lacking due to the
scarcity of knowledge and basic data for making judgments prior to
undertaking the studies. The studies and activities are described
in the approximate order in which they are expected to yield the
greatest returns for the least investment of funds. These activ-
ities are described in the following sequence: the mathematical
model for the Colorado River, other basin-wide activities which
will have a bearing to some degree on all the investigations, irri-
gation source control, point source control, and diffuse source
control.
Basin-wide Activities
These activities will include the development of a mathematical
simulation model of the Colorado River system, further development
of economic evaluation methods for water quality as an adjunct to
the model, an in-depth study of the legal and institutional aspects
involved, and the potential application of salinity reduction proc-
esses which have not been previously investigated.
50
-------
86
Mathematical Model for Colorado River
To aid in evaluating the Water Quality Improvement Program, a math-
ematical simulation model for the Colorado River System is being
developed. The model employs various aspects of systems analysis,
probability theory, mathematical statistics, and operational research.
In addition, computer science, engineering mathematics, and numerical
analyses are utilized. The model would simulate the river system for
both water quantity and water quality. Quality will be displayed in
terms of the total dissolved constituents and the major anions and
cations. Models already in existence will be used to the maximum
extent possible.
In concept, the model incorporates the use of deterministic and/or
probabilistic inputs and demands to measure system response or yield
under specific operational criteria. The model consists of five
fundamental computational blocks which are primarily submodels of
the overall system. Each primary submodel can be used independently
for a particular system objective. Initially the model will be devel-
oped with the first two subnodels. Subsequently, the remaining three
submodels will be incorporated.
The five computational blocks or submodels are as follows:
1. Data analysis submodel. This block is utilized to analyze
and evaluate the basic time series data. The block is used to
51
-------
87
develop builder functions to relate quantity and quality and
transfer information from one point to another in the system.
Statistical information and equations are developed to allow
the synthetic generation of a longer time series from a shorter
series while preserving the statistical characteristics of the
shorter series.
2. Simulation subinodel. Provides an operational simulation
of the basin based on a series of nodes with five system objec-
tives utilized in each node, handles surface and ground-water
flows, and specifies the operating constraints or conditions
of flow, storage, and quality that must be met.
3. Sensitivity and impact analysis submodel. Identifies
effects of factors such as changes in frequency distribution
curves and ranks the impacts of operational influences; e.g.,
how do irrigation demands effect power production.
4. Linear optimization submodel. Identifies the optimal
economic operating conditions required to achieve specified
system objectives.
S. Dynamic system submodel. With operational rules specified,
this submodel provides a dynamic optimization of the system for
specified objectives such as water quantity and quality at each
node point moving either up or downstream.
52
-------
88
The model will make it possible to evaluate the quality changes
under various flow regimes so time changes of quality can be pre.
sented on a probability basis. The effects of salinity control
projects, weather modification, vegetation management and chan-
nelizaUon, desalting and augmentation by import, and water resource
development could be analyzed through use of the model, The model
will be of great value in developing alternative plans of water use
and regulation, It could be used to optimize plans, defIne changes
in present operating criteria for salinity control, and evaluate
impacts of salinity control projects and new water resource develop-
ments on the salinity of the svsten.
Economics of Water Quality Management
Proposals for salinity r anagement actions will be evaluated to
identify potential benefits and costs. Because the proposed salin-
ity control measures are expected to be costly, sensitivity analysis
will be made on various components, Alternative remedial actions
will be analyzed along with associated impacts, both beneficial and
adverse, Beneficial effects from reductions in salinity concentra-
tion in the river include the avoidance of decreased crop yields,
maintenance of higher quality municipal and industrial water, and
savings in water treatment costs. The estimation of secondary and
indirect effects on the economy resulting under conditions with and
without alternative salinity control measures will also be considered.
53
-------
89
Equally important but not as easily quantified are the intangible
detriments, such as possible environmental effects and the interna-
tional relationship with Mexico.
The economic appraisal will utilize the simulation model of the
entire Colorado River Basin. The structure and inputs for opti-
mization submodels will be developed. The comprehensive work done
by the EPA will be reviewed to determine modifications and additions
of the most value to program needs. This definition-type study is
currently underway. It will bring together all the past research
efforts and outline a plan of action for subsequent years. New
economic evaluation procedures will be explored. Data gaps will
be filled and optimization submodels formulated to test the eco-
nomics of alternative salinity management projects. This would be
followed by economic evaluations of individual projects and the
overall proposed system of salinity control.
Institutional and Legal Analysis
Operations of the Colorado River are controlled to a large degree
by compacts, Federal laws, State laws, power and water contracts,
an international treaty, and a U.S. Supreme Court decree. These
legal and institutional arrangements place constraints on a water
quality improvement program. It is therefore important that every
54
-------
90
potential corrective action includes consideration of institutional
and legal aspects along with engineering and economic feasibility.
New legislation or special interbasin agreements may be necessary
before certain programs can be accomplished. This analysis will
document and identify the operational constraints and establish
the legal framework that may be required to pursue implementation
of salinity control measures.
Some of the controlling documents are:
Colorado River Compact - November 24, 1922
Boulder Canyon Project Act - December 21, 1928
California Limitation Act - March 4 1929
Seven-Party Water Agreement - August 18, 1931
Boulder Canyon Project Water Contracts - February 21, 1930,
through the present
Boulder Canyon Project Power Contracts - April 26, 1930,
through the present
Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act - July 19, 1940
Mexican Water Treaty, 1944
Upper Colorado River Basin Compact - October 11, 1948
Colorado River Storage Project Act - April 11, 1956
Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California - March 9, 1964
Lake Mead Flood Control Regulations - July 29, 1968
55
-------
91
Colorado River Basin Project Act (Public Law 90-537, 90th
Congress, approved September 30, 1968)
Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado
River Reservoirs - Jtnie 10, 1970
State Water Laws
Winters Doctrine
Eagle Coi mty Case
Contracts for Sale of Water from Boulder Canyon Project and
Colorado River Storage Project Reservoirs
Other Contracts Related to Thermal Powerplants
Water Quality Act of 1965 and Amendments
Environmental Protection Act
Executive Orders of the President
Ion Exchange DesaltinE
The Office of Saline Water is conducting a parametric study 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. This study would
determine the plant boundary costs of reducing the salinity in
100 mg/l increments down to a lower limit of 500 mg/l.
The study is considering the various costs of regeneration, pos-
sible costs of resins if billion gallons per day plants were
56
-------
92
built, and various salinities of feed water from 750 up to
1,000 mg/l. Feed-water flows to be considered in the study will
range from 500 to 5,000 cfs.
A small ion-exchange pilot plant is being installed at a selected
site on the Colorado River to verify the theoretical results of
the parametric study. Housing for the pilot plant and power for
operation would be furnished by the Bureau of Reclamation. Veri-
fication runs are expected to take 90 days.
Ion exchange was selected for special study because it may hold
better prospects for most economically reducing the salinity of
water having concentrations of 700 to 1,300 mg/i by 200 to
500 mg/i than other desalting processes. This study will provide
an opportunity to analyze alternative concepts of salinity control
not heretofore critically studied. Involved would be control of
the salinity at levels required for a particular uSe, with the
water being trcated within the delivery system to the use areas.
Should the initial studies show favorable economical relationships,
feasibility studies of large-scale installations could be made and
integrated into a system analysis of the river using the ion-exchange
process at or in key water-delivery systems.
57
-------
93
Irrigation Source Control
The principal irrigated areas contributing to the salinity of the
Colorado River system are the Grand Valley and Lower Gunnison Basins
in Colorado; the Uintah Basin in Utah; and the Colorado River Indian
Reservation in Arizona and the Palo Verde Irrigation District lands
in California. To alleviate this source of salt loading and the con-
centrating effect caused by the consumptive use of water, on-farm
irrigation scheduling and water management will be undertaken. This
program will be coordinated with water systems improvement and manage-
ment programs within each of the areas. Completed research indicates
that improved on-farm irrigation scheduling and water management is
likely to be among the least expensive methods of reducing salinity
levels.
Irrigation Scheduling and Farm Management
Objectives . The principal objective of this program as related to
the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program is to reduce
the salt loading of the Colorado River contributed by irrigation
return flows. By minimizing irrigation water’s contribution to
the ground-water regime that is in contact with saline geological
formations, a substantial reduction in the total volume of salt
being yielded to Colorado River is expected. Some water would he
58
-------
9)4
salvaged through a reduction of nonbeneficial consumptive use in
seeped and shallow water table areas, The salvaged water and the
reduced diversions would be available for further uses such as
increasing water available for other withdrawals, increasing stream-
flows in some river reaches, or increasing reservoir storage for
multipurpose uses.
The principal objectives of this program as related to the irri-
gators include an increased net return through greater yields and
improved crop quality with lower production costs. Irrigation
scheduling and a farm management program will help assure the
efficacy of irrigation for agricultural production and reduce its
overall environmental impact on the water and land resource. A
desirable feature of this program is that the benefits will be suf-
ficient to support an initial level of irrigation improvement.
Three levels of obtainable irrigation efficiencies can be realized
on an operating irrigation project. The first is realized by the
irrigator when making proper and timely irrigation applications
without an increased labor input. The second level of improved
irrigation efficiency will be realized through additional labor
involvement in the on-farm operation.
The third increment of irrigation efficiency is associated with
improved on-farm irrigation systems and improvement of the total
59
-------
95
distribution system. This final level can only be realized with
a substantial investment. Improvement of the on-farm irrigation
systems could be accomplished through private investment with some
assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Environ-
mental Assistance Program.
The primary technique employed by this program is the development
and dissemination of information on timing of irrigations and their
applied amounts with a computer program. By developing an accurate
and timely water budget and giving operational considerations to
the root zone reservoir, the basis for high irrigation efficiencies
can be maintained and the first increment of improved irrigation
efficiency realized. Through employment of other good management
tools, proper operational techniques along with the right irrigation
system, these improved irrigation efficiencies can be further opti-
mized within the physical constraints of an irrigated area. Through
interaction with irrigators and improved education and communication
with the involved organizations, these criteria can be developed and
implemented.
Program Evaluation . The very essence of the effectiveness of this
program is motivation at all levels, but most important at the
farmer/irrigator level of involvement. With a program of this
nature, motivation can best be developed by evaluating the program
-------
96
and identifying its benefits and the beneficiaries. By showing a
farmer real benefits associated with this program, he will be
stimulated to respond to a suggested irrigation schedule and become
motivated to make an effort to improve his irrigation operation.
His level of response will directly affect his level of returns.
When these benefits are large enough, the farmer or another direct
beneficiary will be expected to finance a portion of this program’s
operation and provide the capital investment needed. Measurements
of the present and future conditions with regard to such items as
crop yields, crop quality, water use, fertilizer use, production
costs, and ground-water levels will need to be documented. This
documentation of the effects of this program on the initial areas
will thus allow easier implementation on subsequent areas.
Proposed Areas . It is believed that the earliest and most dynamic
results on quality will be obtained through irrigation scheduling
in the Upper Basin. This program will, therefore, be initiated
immediately in the Grand Valley area of the Upper Basin. In fiscal
year 1974, this program is scheduled to be expanded into other areas
in the Upper Basin and introduced into two areas in the Lower Colorado
River Basin. The initial areas to be considered for irrigation sched-
uling under this program are:
1. Grand Valley Area (Presently there are 76,000 acres being
served by private districts and the Grand Valley Project in
this area.)
61
-------
97
2. Lower Gunnison Basin (Present irrigated acreage is 160,000
acres). Projects under construction will add 17,000 acres to
this area.
3. LJintah Basin (170,000 acres are located in this area).
4. Colorado River Indian Reservation (The present irrigated
area here is 55,600 and projected to increase to 99,400.)
5. Palo Verde Irrigation District (There are 91,500 acres of
land irrigated in this area.)
Water Systems Improvements and Management
An important adjunct to on-farm management of water involves improve-
ment of the water conveyance systems to reduce losses and increase
operational efficiency. Such activities, when meshed with improve-
ments in on-farm irrigation water use efficiencies are important
water conservation measures. Reductions in the amount of deep
percolation losses from farms and conveyance systems can be expected
to reduce salt loadings. The effect on salinity reductions will vary
according to many factors. Involved would be the nature of the soil
and substrata, present water management practices, conditions of the
conveyance system, and the natural and artificial drainage conditions.
62
-------
98
The studies scheduled will identify the improvement works needed in
irrigation systems throughout the Grand Valley, Lower Gunnison and
Uintah Basins, the Colorado River Indian Reservation, and the Palo
Verde Irrigation District.
Grand Valley . The Grand Valley in Colorado contributes an average
of over 700,000 tons of salt annually to the Colorado River. About
76,000 acres are irrigated in Grand Valley. The amount of salt
contributed by the irrigated area is unknown, but has been estimated
in various studies as being 300,000 to 700,000 tons annually. It has
been estimated that an irrigation scheduling and water systems
improvement program will reduce the salt contribution by 30,000 to
200,000 tons annually - a potential reduction of 2 to 15 mg/l in con-
centration at Hoover Dam.
Lower Gunnison . The Lower Gunnison subbasin in Colorado contributes
an average of about 1,100,000 tons of salt annually to the Colorado
River. About 160,000 acres are irrigated in the subbasin. An irri-
gation scheduling and water systems improvement program could reduce
the salt contribution. The amount of reduction needs to be deter-
mined by the feasibility investigation.
Uintah Basin . Drainage from the Liintah Basin contributes an aver-
age of 450,000 tons of salt annually. About 170,000 acres are
63
-------
99
irrigated in the Iiintah Basin. Lining the canals and laterals
could reduce the salt contribution. The amount of reduction needs
to be determined by the feasibility investigation.
Colorado River Indian Reservation . The irrigated lands of the
Colorado River Indian Reservation are not yet in salt balance.
These lands contribute an average of about 30,000 tons of salt
annually to the Colorado River. About 55,600 acres are now irri-
gated, and this is projected to increase to 99,400 acres by 1980.
Palo Verde Irrigation District . The Palo Verde Irrigation District,
a locally developed district, has irrigated about 90,000 acres for
many years. In 1970, the irrigated acreage was 91,500 acres which
is thought to be near the maximum that will be irrigated in the
district. This irrigated land is the major source of return flow
to the river between Parker and Imperial Dams. These lands con-
tribute an average of about 90,000 tons of salt annually to the
Colorado River.
Point Source Control
Point source control involves salt removal from a localized area
contributing an inordinately high salt load to the river system.
The principal point source control projects in the program include:
LaVerkin Springs, Littlefield Springs, Blue Springs, Paradox Valley,
64
-------
100
Crystal Geyser, and Glenwood-Dotsero Springs. Within the basin,
28 point sources have been identified and these 6 held the most
favorable prospects for achieving the control desired. Among those
rejected at this time, based principally on flow-concentration
relationships, were Warm Kendall Springs, Steamboat Springs, Jones
Hole Creek-Whirlpool Canyon, Pagosa Hot Springs, flavasu Springs,
and 17 other small salt load contributing wells, springs, and mine
drainages.
Feasibility studies have been scheduled for the six major sources
listed. The studies will be carried only as far as is necessary
to make a decision regarding the desirability of recommending
construction.
The estimated cost for these studies in the 10-year program is
approximately $2.5 million. With appropriate authorization and
funding, all prolects found feasible could be under construction
within the 10-year period with several scheduled for construction
as early as fiscal year 1975. This prestunes that legal and insti-
tutional problems of water rights and the Colorado River Compacts
are worked out and arrangements made for repayment.
LaVerkin Springs
The LaVerkin Springs study is underway and is scheduled to be com-
pleted in fiscal year 1973. Construction could begin in fiscal
65
-------
101
year 1975 and be completed in fiscal year 1978. These warm springs
discharge about 10 cfs into the Virgin River in a reach of about
1,800 feet located 1 mile northeast of Hurricane, Utah. They add a
salt load of about 100,000 tons per year to the Colorado River. The
spring water contains significant amounts (37 picogranhs per liter)
of radioactivity in the form of radium 226. However, the concentra-
tion in the Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona, in October 1966
was only 0.45 picograms per liter which is lower than the standards
set by the Public health Service for a public water supply. The
control could be achieved either by evaporation of the collected
waters or by the use of desalting. The evaporation plan might
involve the use of from 4 to 10 wells to tap the springs’ water
source, then conveying the water via a lined channel to an evapo-
ration pond.
An important consideration in these studies will be the loss in
water associated with the selected control method. This loss will
vary from a total loss of about 8,000 acre-feet per year in the
case of the evaporation plan to perhaps as small as 400 acre-feet
with some desalting processes. Very preliminary review of the evap-
oration plan suggests that construction costs could be from $8 to
$10 million. The alternative cost of desalting is under study, but
cost estimates have not yet been made. Removal of 80 percent of the
salt load is expected to reduce the salinity concentration of the
river below Hoover IDam by about 6 mg/l and 8 mg/l at Imperial Dam.
66
-------
102
Littlefield Springs
The Littlefield Springs discharge along, the south side of the
Virgin River about a mile upstream from Littlefield, Arizona.
These springs have a combined outflow of about 10 cfs with an
average salinity of about 2,900 mg/l, and contribute an annual
salt load of about 30,000 tons to the river system. The disposal
of these springs presents a special problem as the outflow is
presently collected and used for irrigation in the Littiefield
area. This problem, coupled with a general lack of data concern-
ing these springs, dictates the need to approach the study by
critically examining the limiting factors to determine the degree
of investigative effort required.
Initiation of the feasibility study is scheduled to begin in fis-
cal year 1974. Removal of the salt load from this source is
expected to reduce the salinity concentration by about 2 mg/i at
both Hoover and Imperial Dams.
Blue Springs
The Blue Springs area is located on the Navajo Indian Reservation,
Coconino County, Arizona, about 25 miles northwest of Cameron.
Spring flow originating from an 11.6-mile reach of the river between
miles 3.0 and 14.6 amounts to between 155,000 and 170,000 acre-feet
67
-------
J-u-j
per year with an average annual flow of 161,000 acre-feet or 222 cfs.
This is about half the average annual flow of the Little Colorado
River. The salt content of the springs averages 2,500 mg/l and adds
an annual salt load of 550,000 tons to the river. It is the largest
point source in the basin.
The high canyon walls and the inaccessibility of the area cause
major difficulties in collecting the spring discharge, desalting,
and disposing of the brine. The loss of water associated with
desalting would be very important, even with a process that has
minimum losses. Exceedingly difficult and costly solutions appear
to be involved. Controlling the springs will have a considerable
impact on the environment. The Blue Springs are a part of the
local Indian folklore. Matters with the Indians and the environ-
ment must therefore be evaluated. These engineering, ethnic, and
environmental factors will be appraised early in the study. The
need for progressing with the study will be continually assessed.
Paradox Valley
It is estimated that Paradox Valley, a collapsed salt anticline,
contributes about 200,000 tons of salt per year to the Dolores
River. A control project might reduce this salt contribution
about 180,000 tons per year. The removal of 180,000 tons per
68
-------
104
year could reduce the salinity concentration at Hoover Dam about
14 mg/i and 15 mg/i at Imperial Dam.
Previous studies suggest that the control works may include a
regulatory reservoir on the Dolores River above Bedrock, Colorado;
an evaporating reservoir on the Dolores River in Paradox Valley
to evaporate the saline flows from Paradox Valley; a bypass canal
to convey the regulated flows of the Dolores River through the
valley and around the evaporating reservoir; a West Paradox Creek
Diversion Darn; and a West Paradox Creek Diversion Canal to carry
the flows of West Paradox Creek around the evaporating reservoir.
An estimate of the construction cost would be in the range of $25
to $35 million.
The first year (fiscal year 1972) of investigations will include
data gathering, installing gaging stations and ground-water obser-
vation wells, and other preliminary fieldwork. The second year
(fiscal year 1973) would continue data gathering; map the reser-
voirs, damsites, and canal alinements; and conduct other fieldwork.
In subsequent years (fiscal years 1974 and 1975) the data would
be analyzed, a plan formulated, feasibility design and cost esti-
mates made, and a feasibility report prepared. Data gathering
would continue through the last 2 years to verify the analysis of
the data collected in the first 2 years. The construction period
might be from fiscal year 1977 through fiscal year 1980.
69
-------
105
Crystal Geyser
The Crystal Geyser results from a gas (carbon dioxide) accumula-
tion blowing water out of an abandoned oil test well at about 4-hour
intervals. This geyser spouts about 200 acre-feet of water and
4,000 tons of salt per year which flows west a few hundred feet into
the Green River.
The discharge could be collected and pumped to a nearby evaporating
reservoir to dispose of most of the 4,000 tons of salt. Removal of
4,000 tons of salt per year would reduce the salinity concentration
at hoover Dam by less than 1 mg/l. During the first year (fiscal
year 1972), fieldwork will be accomplished. Desigr s and estimates
would be made and a feasibility report prepared in the second year
(fiscal year 1973).
Preliminary appraisals indicate that the control works could include
an equalizing reservoir, pumping plant, evaporating reservoir, and
a discharge line from the equalizing reservoir to the evaporating
reservoir. Estimated construction costs are in a range of $1 to
$1.5 million. The project would be scheduled for construction dur-
ing fiscal years 1975 and 1976.
70
-------
106
Gienwood-Dotsero Springs
The Gienwood and Dotsero Springs, located in Colorado, are estimated
to discharge about 25,000 acre-feet of water and over 500,000 tons
of salt per year. It is the second largest point source in the basin.
It is estimated that about 200,000 tons could be removed by collection
of the larger flows and desalting or evaporating them. Removal of
this salt load per year could reduce the salinity concentration at
Hoover Dam about 15 mg/i and 17 mg/i at Imperial Dam.
Investigations are underway for the collection of data. Collec-
tion and analysis of data, mapping of the conveyance route and
treatment area, other fieldwork, preparation of feasibility designs
and estimates would be accomplished in subsequent years with the
completion of a report scheduled in fiscal year 1976 or earlier if
insurmountable physical or economic problems are encountered.
As now perceived from very preliminary studies, it is anticipated
that control works might include a collection system for the saline
springs, a conveyance system, and a desalting system or evaporating
system to dispose of saline water. Order or magnitude estimates
suggest costs in a range of $40 to $60 million. Construction would
be scheduled during the period fiscal year 1978-1983.
71
-------
107
Diffuse Source Control
Diffuse source control involves salt loading and/or concentration
effects that are spread over comparatively large areas such as a
minor subbasin. The diffuse source control projects have not as
yet been sufficiently studied to formulate more than tentative plans
for which rough approximations of costs have been estimated. The
tentative plan for diffuse source control projects is to selectively
remove the more saline - over 1,500 mg/i - flows and desalting and/or
evaporating them. The irrigated areas on these streams would also be
investigated to determine if a water systems improvement and manage-
ment program or an irrigation scheduling and farm management program
might reduce the salt load.
Data gathering for the diffuse source control studies are underway.
Feasibility studies are scheduled to begin in FY 1974 and continue
through FY 1978. I)escriptions of these projects are given in the
following section.
Price River
The Price River at Woodside, Utah, drains about 1,500 square miles.
The flow averages about 74,000 acre-feet per year and contains about
240,000 tons of dissolved solids with concentrations up to 8,200 mg/i.
72
-------
108
Selective removal of 50 cubic feet per second during low flow periods
could remove about 100,000 tons of salt per year. Removal of this
amount of salt may require the desalting or evaporation of about
25,000 acre-feet per year. Removal of 100,000 tons of salt from
the river is estimated to reduce the salinity concentration at
Hoover Darn about 8 mg/i and 9 mg/i at Imperial Darn.
Data gathering on the Price River is underway and will continue into
subsequent years. The feasibility study could begin in FY 1974 and
be completed in FY 1977.
San Rafael River
The San Rafael River near Green River, Utah, drains about 1,670 square
miles. The flow averages about 95,000 acre-feet per year and contains
about 190,000 tons of dissolved solids with concentrations up to
6,400 mg/i. Selective removal of 75 cubic feet per second during low
flow periods could remove about 90,000 tons of salt per year. Removal
of this amount of salt could require the desalting or evaporation of
about 30,000 acre-feet per year. Removal of 90,000 tons of salt from
the river is estimated to reduce the salinity concentration at Hoover
Dam by about 7 mg/l and 8 mg/l at Imperial Dam.
Data gathering on the San Rafael River is underway and will continue
in subsequent years. The feasibility study could begin in FY 1974
and be completed in FY 1977.
73
-------
109
Dirty Devil River
The Dirty Devil River near lute, Utah, drains about 4,170 square
miles. The flow averages about 72,000 acre-feet per year and
contains an estimated 200,000 tons of dissolved solids with con-
centrations up to 2,500 mg/i. It is estimated that about 80,000 tons
of this salt could be removed which could drecrease the salinity con-
centration at Hoover Darn by about 7 mg/i and 8 mg/i at Imperial Darn.
Data gathering on the Dirty Devil River is scheduled to begin in
FY 1973 and continue in subsequent years. The feasibility study
could begin in FY 1976 and be completed in FY 1978.
McElmo Creek
McElmo Creek near Colorado-Utah State Line drains about 350 square
miles. However, McElmo Creek also receives return flows from lands
irrigated with water from the Dolores River. The flow of McElmo
Creek averages about 31,000 acre-feet per year and contains an
estimated 115,000 tons of dissolved solids with concentrations up
to 3,000 mg/l. It is estimated that about 40,000 tons of this salt
could be removed which could decrease the salinity concentration at
Hoover Dam about 3 mg/l and 4 mg/l at Imperial Dam.
74
-------
110
Data gathering on McElmo Creek is scheduled to begin in FY 1973
and continue in subsequent years. The feasibility study could
begin in FY 1976 and be completed in FY 1978,
Big Sandy River
Big Sandy River at the gaging station below Eden, Wyoming, drains
about 1,610 square miles. The flow averages about 30,000 acre-feet
per year with salinity concentrations up to 2,800 mg/l. However,
the flow of Big Sandy River at its mouth is estimated to be con-
siderably larger and also to have a higher salinity concentration,
It is estimated the Big Sandy River discharges 180,000 tons of dis-
solved solids into the Green River. It is also estimated that
80,000 tons of this salt could be removed which could reduce the
salinity concentration at Hoover Darn about 7 mg/i and 8 mg/i at
Imperial Dam.
Data gathering on Big Sandy River is underway and will continue in
subsequent years. The feasibility study could begin in FY 1974
and be completed in FY 1977.
Other Diffuse Sources Considered
Other diffuse sources were considered for inclusion in the program.
Blacks Fork and Henrys Fork in Wyoming were considered, but not
75
-------
I”
included as a diffuse source for selective withdrawal because the
salinity concentrations exceeded 1,500 mg/i only for short periods
each year. Blacks Fork and henrys Fork will be investigated as a
part of the other feasibility studies to determine other methods to
reduce their salinity contributions.
Irrigated areas along Upper Colorado River and Roaring Fork have
been listed as contributing heavy salinity loads to the Colorado
River. Insufficient data are available to determine a method of
reducing these contributions. These areas will also he investigated
as a part of the other feasibility studies.
76
-------
112
VII ALLIED PROGRAMS
The water quality improvement program as described previously may
be regarded as one facet of an overall water resource management
program of the basin. Water resource development 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 other
investigations for augmentation such as weather modification, geo-
thermal resources, and desalting. From such studies, a basin-wide
management plan for optimum use of the water resources will evolve.
Western U.S. Water Plan
The Western tJ.S. Water Plan, referred to as the Westwide Study, is
a Level B study of water resource development for the 11 Western
States. It was authorized by Public Law 90-537 and includes the
specific requirement for providing a plan for the further compre-
hensive development of the water resources of the Colorado River
Basin. As a part of the preparation of that program, augmentation
potentials from the fields of weather modification, geothermal
resources, and desalting will be evaluated and integrated into the
77
-------
113
plan. Additional water supplies available through better opera-
tional management, conservation, and salvage will be considered.
The satisfaction of the international obligations to the Republic
of Mexico will also be an integral part of the study.
The augmentation studies are underway and are being scheduled and
coordinated through the Westwide Study to provide the most reliable
degree of information attainable by 1977 which is the completion
date of the study. The Westwide Study would analyze the varied and
complex alternatives for development, regulation, and use of all
waters of the Colorado River Basin, examine trade offs among alter-
natives, and recommend priority of future studies and development.
Close coordination and cooperation will be maintained between the
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program and the Iestwide
Study to assure the preparation of a sound, well integrated plan
of development for the Colorado River Basin.
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 multimodular plant at a site to be determined by investigations
now being initiated for completion in fiscal year 1973. The
78
-------
114
design of this prototype plant would be based on the best reverse
osniosis desalting technology available. Design and construction
of the prototype plant is scheduled to be undertaken in fiscal
years 1974 and 1975. In subsequent years, studies would he made
of the application of the technology to specific point source
salinity and return flow locations within the Colorado River Basin.
The initial prototype plant would be sized for 15 nillion gallons
per day (mgd). Total capacity needs are estinated at 150 to 200 mgd
for installations at specific locations to he established by the
investigations. The initial prototype l5-ngd plant is scheduled to
be on stream in fiscal year 1975, with the balance of the capacity
scheduled to be built in the tine period fiscal year 1976 through
fiscal year 1979. The initial project would demonstrate the feasi-
bility of desalting high salinity flows in the Colorado River system
from a representative source. The acquisition of this technology
and experience could then be extended to apply to major point sources
of high salinity flows in the system. This program will be a joint
endeavor of the Office of Saline Water and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Its total cost is estinated at SllO million. To initiate the studies,
$200,000 will be available to OSPJ and $400,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation for work to be undertaken in fiscal year 1973.
Very significant salt load reduction can be achieved by such a
plant particularly if highly saline flows are desalted. Assume,
79
-------
115
for example, that the feed water has a concentration of 4,000 mg/i
and the product water 400 mg/i. Under these conditions, a 150-mgd
plant with a 90 percent plant factor would desalt 150,000 acre-ft/year
resulting in the removal of 735,000 tons of salt.
Weather Modification
The weather modification program considers only what can be done
by 1980. This restriction limits estimates of water supply
increases to the scope of reliable capability that can reasonably
be developed and feasibly be used within the next 10 years. 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
justifiable continuous operation could be initated in the Upper
Colorado River Basin within 10 years involving: (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. There
are eight major runoff-producing areas as shown on Figure 4.
Not considered are modification of winter precipitation in the lowcr
and mid-elevations of the basin and summer precipitation throughout
the region. Feasible development of these water augmentation poten-
tials will probably require more sophisticated techniques and resolu-
tion of more complex environmental aspects than are involved with
80
-------
Figure 14
116
UPPER GREEN
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
SCAt I OF LES
RUNOFF PRODUCING AREAS
AVERAGE ANNUAL BASIN
AT L(ES FERRY,
2.3 INCHES
81
-------
117
high elevation winter seeding. Continued improvement of the tech-
niques assumed available by the mid-1970’s and development of coin-
pletely new methods represent speculative possibilities for further
enhancing basin water supplies through weather modification.
In a limited water area, such as the Colorado River Basin, producing
about 2 million acre-feet of usable new water annually could be a
significant contribution toward salinity improvement. The highly
favorable benefit-cost ratios; the flexibility of use, largely with
existing water and power systems; and the opportunity for obtaining
even greater new water yields with advanced techniques point to
weather modification as a very desirable tool for water resources
management. The Upper Colorado River Basin will be one of the first
regions where a reliable, optimized capability to increase precipita-
tion could be developed on a region-wide basis. It is believed that
firm, acceptable answers and workable systems can he successfully
achieved within 10 years.
Geothermal Resources
The potential of geothermal resources for water production is currently
under investigation by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Office of
Saline Water. Successful development could provide an additional
source of water. The geothermal water could be meshed into the overall
82
-------
118
water management system to assist in achieving salinity control, par-
ticularly in the lower reaches of the system.
The Bureau of Reclamation and Office of Saline Water are actively
engaged in a joint geothermal resource investigation program in the
Imperial Valley, California. Following more than 3 years of geo-
physical investigations, coupled with shallow exploratory drilling
(to 1,500 feet), the first deep well capable of producing hot steam
and brine will be drilled late in fiscal year 1972. The well will
be located 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
geothermal brines will start. Also, a test disposal well will be
drilled in July 1972 to determine the feasibility of reinjecting
the byproduct fluids from geothermal development.
Preliminary studies indicate the Imperial Valley geothermal
resources might be capable of producing up to 2,500,000 acre-feet
of fresh water per year on a sustained basis as well as large quan-
tities of electric energy with possible mineral byproduct recovery.
Operation and Maintenance Activities
Various facets of the Bureau of Reclar ation’s operation and main-
tenance activities deal directly with salinity problems in the
83
-------
119
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, and include data regarding historical, pres-
ent modified, and anticipated future chemical quality of water con-
ditions at 17 key stations in the Colorado River Basin. Also
presented are discussions of State water quality 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 Sec-
tion 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.
Water Quality Prediction Investigations
A cooperative study is underway between the Bureau and EPA to
develop a technique for predicting more precisely than now possible
the mineral quality of irrigation return flow. The means for accom-
plishing this will be through the use of mathematical models and
high-speed computers. The mathematical model is primarily a math-
ematical formula or expression attempting to duplicate conditions
84
-------
120
encountered on an irrigation project. The study utilizes data from
existing irrigation projects in order to verify the technique.
The objective of the study is to use a model in predicting changes
in capacity and the associated water quality distribution of the
aquifer and also the quality distribution of the water as surface
effluents from the system. The prediction of the system responses
was compared with the historical data, both quantity and quality
distributions as a measure of the reliability of the model. Data
from the Vernal Unit of the Central Utah Project have been used for
designing and testing the model. Further tests will be made using
data from the Grand Valley area in Colorado and the Cedar Bluff
Unit in Kansas.
Although model testing and development of all the mathematical
submodels is not complete, it appears at this point that a satis-
factory model has been designed to predict the mineral quality of
return flow from irrigation projects. Completion of the submodels
will extend capability to impact analysis, optimization, and best
plan selection. The simulation submodel is depicted in Figure 5.
The implication for water resource projects is that farm operation
could be designed to use the least amount of water, return the
smallest amount of salt to the river and permit the farmer to
85
-------
Figure 5
HYDROLOGIC
SYSTEM
FOR SIMULATION
SUBM CD EL
MODiFIED UUTT QUALITY
MODEL PERCOLATION
THROUGH SOIL COLUMN
H
AS OF 6.33-71 r\)
H
-------
122
obtain the greatest possible return from his farm. IJsing this
model, the salt load reductions expected from irrigation sched-
uling and management will he verified on the Vernal tJnit in the
Uintah Basin.
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 includes:
(1) prediction of the quality of return flows (in cooperation with
EPA), (2) mathematical model for predicting nutrient and salt load-
ings, (3) ecological considerations in project planning, (4) waste—
water 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. The Office of Water Resources Research
is supporting activities in this area, and it is anticipated that
the Environmental Protection Agency will 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.
87
-------
123
Some of the kinds of work needed are field trials of water har-
vesting techniques, developing special uses for water of inferior
quality; reducing costs of achieving high irrigation efficiencies;
identifying field relationships of irrigation efficiency to return
flow quality under specific soil and geologic conditions; 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 phreato-
phytes with the aim of reducing water use and protecting the breed-
ing areas of birds and other wildlife; identification of watershed
management and salinity output relationships; further studies into
the economics of water quality; and ecologic considerations involv-
ing 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 swim-
ming and other activities.
88
-------
3. T. Maletic
MR. MALETIC: Of course I have no intention
of reading the entire report. I will brief a few high-
lights--there might be a few people here who haven’t
been through the report--and show two slides. EPA has
suggested that about a 15-minute presentation would be
desirable and I think I could do that within that time
limit.
I will drop these two slides in and I will ask
to have someone operate this machine for us.
(Off the record.)
MR. MALETIC: The Bureau of Reclamation has
structured a comprehensive 10-year Water Quality Improve-
ment Program integrated with programs involving weather
modifications, geothermal resources, desalting, and the
Western U. S..water plan. These programs, when imple-
mented, could maintain salinity in the lower main stem
at or below present levels.
The Water Quality Improvement Program has an
investigation and an implementation phase. The authori-
ty for the investigation is derived from public laws
relating to the Colorado River storage project and
participating projects, the Navajo Indian Irrigation
Project and San Juan-Chama Project Act, and the Fryingpan
-------
125
3. T. Maletic
Arkansas Project Act, respectively.
Feasibility studies would be initially per-
formed on a total of 16 irrigation, point, and diffuse
salinity sources with related basinwide planning
involving development of a mathematical model of the
Colorado River, economic analysis of water quality,
analysis of legal and institutional matters, and the
investigation of potentials for Improving water quality
at points of diversion.
Early emphasis Is being placed on those acti-
vities most likely to achieve water quality improvement
at least cost. Construction of a mathematical model may
reveal better ways to operate the river system to gene-
rate water quality benefits without Incurring capital
investment costs for structural control measures. Irri—
gation source control, involving close Integration of
on-farm Irrigation water scheduling and management, with
water systems improvement and management, is expected to
significantly reduce salt loadings. Some measuring
devices may be required to implement the Irrigation
scheduling and management program which Is now being
implemented. This can be expected to achieve early
benefits at minimal cost.
-------
________ 126
J. T. Maletic
Following the full operational establishment
of the irrigation scheduling activity, water users would
be expected to operate the program. This could be con-
tractually tied to water systems improvements and the
related cost-sharing arrangements with the irrigation
districts or other entities involved. The irrigation
scheduling and water systems improvement activities need
to move together along with parallel improvements of
on-farm irrigation systems, the latter to be done pri-
marily through private investment with technical
assistance from the Soil Conservation Service and some
financial aid from the Rural Environmental Assistance
Program.
The specific Water Quality Improvement Program
elements and the fiscal years during which the work is
presently scheduled to be accomplished will be shown on
the first slide.
This, then, is the program as we have struc-
tured it at the present time. If you will look at the
bottom, we are currently working on a mathematical simu-
lation model of the Colorado River. This simulation
will be completed at the end of isca1 Year 1973 and the
mathematical model has five blocks in it. The first
-------
127
3. T. Maletic
block is a data analysis block. That portion of the
model is nearing completion. This will be followed by
a simulation block, then an impact and sensitivity block,
an optimization submodel, and finally a dynamic model
which would give us guidance for making decisions on the
river as a whole.
Economic evaluation of water quality is
presently under way. Contracts have been advertised
for and some of these studies will be negotiated with
outside sources and with some Inside studies within the
Bureau before the end of this current fiscal year.
Institutional and legal analyses will be con-
ducted from 1972 through 1973.
And then we are studying ion exchange process
systems as an alternate to the other methods of salinity
control which are shown. In this particular study a
small pilot plant is being set up In the Colorado River
to study the feasibility of the process of product water,
the problems, the salt output, and so forth.
Irrigation scheduling and management work is
now under way on Grand Valley and starting In subsequent
fiscal years work will be under way in the Lower Gunnlsofl
Basin, Uintah Basin, the Colorado Indian Reservation, and
-------
128
J. T. Maletic
the Palo Verde Irrigation District. Contacts have been
made with the Board of Directors of the irrigation dis-
tricts in the area, a computer program for conducting the
scheduling work has been rewritten to fit a CD—31 co in-
puter, and field work is under way and other contacts to
get that program moving.
Water systems improvement and management work
involves rehabilitation of irrigation systems. Some of
these studies will be starting this fiscal year with the
work continuing through 1976. The same areas involved in
the irrigation scheduling and management will be involved
in the water systems improvement and management programs.
Point source control work is under way now at
L 3Verkin Springs. Drill crews are presently at work
drilling out and determining the geology, direction of
flow path and feasibility of capturing the saline flows
from the spring.
Work is under way at Paradox Valley. Contracts
have been let for mapping contours, resistivity. Studies
are under way to locate salt and salt transfer points
within the aquifer and alternate means of collecting the
salts are being studied.
At Crystal Geyser, work will be under way there
-------
_________________ ________ 129
3. T. Maletic
with Brigham Young University and the contract is in the
process of being executed with them.
Studies are under way on Glenwood—Dotsero
Springs to identify the numerous sources where these
particular streams come into the river and to better
analyze the problem before we move towards developing
control plans.
Investigations in 1973 and subsequent years wil]
be under way at Blue Springs, the major natural source of
salinity currently identified in the program, and also
beginning in l 97 L$. work will be done on Littlefield SpringL
Diffuse source control projects. Very little
basic data is available on these diffuse source control
projects. Therefore, current effort is in the direction
of establishing gaging stations. The work has already
been accomplished with the U.S.G.S. Several gaging
stations have been put in on these remote streams. Others
are scheduled to go in before July 1. And you see a dif-
ferent color up on the chart there. That indicates a
data and analysis block, because there is so little
information currently available on these particular
sources that we cannot begin to develop a comprehensive
salinity control plan for these large areas until we have
-------
130
J. T. Maletic
a reasonable set of data from which we can work. So that
work will be under way. And then in subsequent fiscal
years, as you can see, beginning on Price River in 1974
and Big Sandy River in 1974, we will be into the actual
feasibility studies.
That, then, covers the structure of the program
as we now stand.
Associated with this program we have very
important allied programs, including weather modifica-
tion, desalting, geothermal resources, research, and the
Western U. S. Water plan. Weather modification research
now under way is expected to develop, by 1980, a reliable
and workable system for increasing precipitation. The
Upper Colorado River Basin will be one of the first areas
where regionwide applications could be made. It Is
estimated that up to 2 million acre-feet of new water
could be added to the river system and this would serve
to significantly Improve the salinity levels.
Desalting will initially involve the installa-
tion of a research and development prototype facility
using the reverse osmosis process. The prototype plant
would have a capacity of 15 mgd and could be expanded to
150 mgd or more. The facility would be located In the
-------
131
3. T. Maletic
lower reach of the river. If expanded to a capacity of
150 mgd, the salinity levels in the lower reach would be
greatly improved. This would be a cooperative effort
between the Office of Saline Water and the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Geothermal investigations are now being con—
ducted by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Office of
Saline Water. These investigations could ultimately
lead to additional sources of water. This water could bej
fitted into the overall river basin management plan to
achieve further improvements in water quality.
Research Is under way or scheduled which would
provide valuable inputs to the salinity control effort.
Included is such work as developing better predictions
of irrigation return flow quality, deriving systems for
assessing ecologic impacts of water resource projects,
developing procedures for management and use of saline
water, testing advanced irrigation systems, and identify-
ing wastewater reclamation opportunities.
It will be the responsibility of the Westwide
study to present the varied and complex alternatives for
development, regulation, and use of all waters of the
Colorado River Basin, examine tradeoffs between
-------
__________________ 132
J. T. Maletic
alternatives, prepare plans and cost estimates, and
recommend priority of future studies and development.
Close coordination and cooperation will be maintained
between the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program and the Westwide program to assure the prepara-
tion of a sound, well integrated plan of development for
the Colorado River Basin.
Implementation.
Assuming all projects now under investigation
or scheduled to be investigated are implemented, the
program is expected to involve capital expenditures in
the order of magnitude of $L$.00 to $500 million. These
costs are to be shared with beneficiaries. Therefore,
an essential feature of the feasibility studies and the
related basinwide studies will be to develop equitable
cost sharing and repayment formulas. New institutional
arrangements may be required not only as related to cost
sharing and repayment, but also to the operation and
maintenance of the constructed facilities. The urgency
of the salinity conditions in the lower reach makes It
imperative that movement from the study to the construc-
tion phase be expedited. This could be done for
individual projects within a period of 1 to 2 years
-------
________ 133
J. T. Maletic
following completion of a favorable finding of feasi-
bility. In the interim, as previously stated, some
salinity improvements can be anticipated through altera-
tion of river operations using the mathematical model
and from the irrigation scheduling and management activ-
ities.
Effects of the program.
The average annual salinity concentration of
the Colorado River at Imperial Dam during the period
19)4.1 to 1968 was 751 mg/i. That is the historic conceri-
tration. The annual salinity concentrations during this
same period have ranged from a minimum of 649 mg/i in
1949 to a maximum of 918 mg/i in 1956. The monthly
salinity concentrations of the Colorado River at Imperial
Darn during the period 1941 to 1968 have experienced an
even wider range from a minimum of 551 mg/l in December
1952 to a maximum of 1000 mg/i in January 1957.
Levels of salinity concentrations presently
found in the lower Colorado River vary, depending on the
type of period used to describe that level. And as indi-
cated above, the average for a year is greater than the
level during the period 1941 to 1968 and the peak monthly
concentration is even greater than the level for a
-------
134
J. T. Maletic
particular year.
To depict effects of the water quality improve-
merit and allied programs, a table was prepared showing
the projected reductions in salinity concentrations for
each program and the estimated effects on the synthe-
sized salinity levels at Imperial Dam.
Slide 2, please.
This, then, is the impact anticipated of the
program, without a control program, as we could see, the
estimated salinity level using what we call present
modified flow conditions, which cover the period 1941
to 1948, with all developments currently operating
cranked back into this historical set of data so that
their effects are reflected. Therefore, the difference
between the 865 that you now see and the 751 previously
reported. So using that, present modified flows are data
based, no salinity control program, the projection is a
general Increase In salinity to the year 2000 up to 1,250
ppm without a control program.
Now, because of the variations and vagaries of
flow in the river caused by climatic conditions and other
factors, the mean salinity value given as a figure you
will never get, that is an average, and, therefore, we
-------
135
J. T. Maletic
felt it important to show the range around which that
mean could be expected for the range within which the
mean resides. And that is indicated and shows that in
1970 that range was about 750 to 1,060 mg/i.
With all programs operating, both the Water
Quality Improvement Program and our allied programs,
reductions in the order of 120 mg/i by 1980, 355 by 1990,
and LIOS by the year 2000 are anticipated, and on this
basis, as shown on the bottom line, salinity would be
maintained at or below present levels with in the year
2000 the concentration estimated to be about 8Li 5 with a
range of 675 to 1,125.
Now, we recognize that the program as currently
structured is based on reconnaissance data and, there-
fore, we are setting into motion as part of the exercise
in this program the critical appraisal of progress and
direction, which will be done every 2 years, and the
factors to be included in that appraisal will be the
kinds of physical works needed, the economic viability of
the proposed control works, public acceptance and commit-
ment to the proposals, potential impacts of evolving
technology, and the relationships within the basinwide
management plan.
-------
136
J. T. Maletic
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That Is the summary
of the report.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Maletic.
I would like to congratulate you and your
Department for getting out this report in time — just when
said you would. We are all very appreciative, indeed,
for your accomplishing that.
Are there any comments or questions?
Yes.
NB. O’CONNELL: John, on the table that you
showed there, the values for the various years typical
to the program reductions, would that reflect the time
of 2 or 3 or 4 years, or whatever it is, it takes for
these improvements, for their effects to be felt at
Imperial Dam, or is it strictly a calculated figure?
MR. MALETIC: No, that is a calculated value.
And in making that calculation, when we set up the time
frame, we allowed 4 years for the through-put of water
through our large holdover storage reservoirs, which
would be Glen Canyon and Hoover, and there will be work
done to see how long it takes an ion to move through
these large reservoirs and come out.
-------
137
J. T. Maletic
So those figures reflect about a 4-year period
and certainly more study needs to be done on that, but
as well as we can do it, it is in there and those are
reconnaissance estimates.
MR. O’CONNELL: It does reflect that--
MR. MALETIC: It reflects the time period,
yes.
MR. O’CONNELL: So if you calculated without
taking that into consideration--
MR. MALETIC: There would be another U- year--
you would have to move it back 4 years.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions?
MR. DICKSTEIN: John, in the document you
briefly referred to several projects that could be
accelerated, correct?
MR. MALETIC: Right.
MR. DICKSTEIN: What is the overall effect of
these accelerated projects? Maybe I shouldn’t say
accelerated projects. Projects that you could--
MR.MALETIC: Yes, we have considered this, Mr.
Dickatein. The principal projects that could be accel-
erated would beL ’Verkin Springs, Paradox Valley, and
Grand Valley, and we are at work, as I Indicated in my
-------
______ ___ _________ _______ ___ 138
J. T. Maletic
report, on each of those at the present time. If those
projects are accelerated, our current estimates are that
we could probably remove about 400,000 tons of salt out
of the river system with those projects.
MR. DICKSTEIN: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
MR. (UNIDENTIFIED): Yes, I might ask one.
If those projects were accelerated in that
manner, would that change the figures in the table of
your report to, say, 1980?
MR. MALETIC: For the time? Yes, probably
that would result in some change in our estimates in the
table because that would be accelerated-—that assumes
compressing the entire program, removing the usual
administrative procedures that we need to go through,
plus the congressional action that we would go through
to get projects authorized, funded, and so forth. All
of that would need to be compressed to achieve that kind
of a reduction within a 5-year period. Those effects,
then, projects could be built by 1977 and that would give
us 3 years, the effect of Hoover is in there, 2 years to
go through Powell, which wasntt In the data, and by 1980
you would have those effects. So that our table would
-------
_____ 139
J. T. Maletic
be close. I would have to say that it would be close.
And the other thing that I would like to point
out, on an accelerated basis, Grand Valley would involve
the rehabilitation of some 76,000 acres, mining ditches,
canals, making arrangements with water users. If diffi-
cult problems of consolidating ditches or anything like
that would arise, these are really difficult negotiating
questions and I would like to state and make it clear and
without any equivocation that Grand Valley probably could
not be completed by 1977, but we could go a long way
towards moving in that direction. A lot depends on the
cooperation received from the many irrigation districts
in the area. You have to work with these people as
entities. They must be convinced of the value of the
program to them and that this would be a profitable and
a correct thing for them to do.
MR. STEIN: Any other questions or comments?
If not, thank you very much.
MR.,MALETIC: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Does anyone else want to add any-
thing? Because we are going to ask the conferees for
conclusions and recommendations if we possibly can get
them.
-------
140
General Discussion
If not, I will call on Mr. O ’Connell. Do the
Federal people have any suggestions on where we are going
to go?
By the way, for this session, in effect, we are
going to operate as in an executive session. Now, any of
the conferees here, Federal or State, wishing to call
upon consultants or colleagues who are sitting in the
audience, just feel free to do so and have them either
come up or make their comments.
Mr. O’Connell, would you go ahead?
MR. O’CONNELL: As you recall, at the first
portion of this session, Mr. Chairman, the States
entered into the record their position on a number of
issues, the unanimous position, and at that time we made
the comment that we were in agreement in principle with
their statements, but that we wanted to expand upon it
and possibly modify it in certain ways so that we could
be in full agreement with it.
We have since done that and have prepared a set
of proposed conference recommendations, which I have here
and will read.
These are, as will be clear, patterned very
closely after what the States’ position has been, and
-------
1LI.i
General Discussion
wherever possible we used identical language so as to
minimize any potential differences. So if it is agree-
able with you, I will read the proposal that we have for
their consideration.
Our proposed conference recommendations are:
I. It is recommended that:
A. A salinity policy be adopted for
the Colorado River system that would have
as its objective the maintenance of salin-
ity concentrations at or below levels
presently found in the lower main stem.
B. In implementing the salinity pol-
icy objective for the Colorado River system,
the salinity problem be treated as a basin-
wide problem that needs to be solved to
maintain Lower Basin water salinity at or
below present levels while the Upper Basin
continues to develop its compact-apportioned
waters.
II. The salinity control program as described
by the Department of the Interior in their report en-
titled, “Colorado River Water quality Improvement Prog-
ram,” dated February 1972, offers the best prospect for
-------
142
General Discussion
implementing the salinity control objective adopted
herein. Therefore, it is recommended that:
A. To guard against any rise in
salinity in the river, a salinity control
program, generally as described in the
Interior Department report, be implemented
on an accelerated basis.
B. The Bureau of Reclamation have
the primary responsibility for investigation,
planning and implementing the basinwide
salinity control program in the Colorado
River system.
C. In order to expedite the salinity
control program, it is recommended that the
Bureau of Reclamation reschedule the imple—
mentation of selected projects as shown in
accordance with the following schedule.
The objective of this recommendation is to
Initiate needed corrective action immediately
on the problem of salinity control and to
achieve a stabilization of salinity levels
-------
143
General Discussion
on the lower Colorado River at the ear-
liest possible date. And this schedule
of projects would be:
1) Grand Valley, which would
be expected to achieve a salinity
reduction of 140,000 tons per year
and have the effect of reducing
the salinity concentration at
Imperial Dam by 11 ppm. It would
be initiated in 1972 and completed
in 1977.
2) The second project would
be La Verkin Springs. A salinity
reduction of 80,000 tons per year
and reduction in the Imperial Dam
salinity of 8 ppm, initiation in
1972, completion in 1977.
3) Paradox Valley to have a
reduction of 180,000 tons per year,
reduced salinity in Imperial Dam
by 14 ppm, be initiated in 1972 and
completed in 1977.
For a total salinity reduction
-------
General Discussion
of 400,000 tons per year and a
reduction of salinity at Imperial
Dam of 33 ppm.
D. The Office of Saline Water con-
tribute to the program by assisting the
Bureau of Reclamation as required to
appraise the practicability of applying
desalting techniques. And
E. The Environmental Protection
Agency continue its support of the program
by consulting with and advising the Bureau
of Reclamation and accelerating its on-
going data collection and research efforts.
III. To achieve the salinity policy adopted
herein, the long-range program objectives of the Bureau
of Reclamation shall achieve the following levels of
salinity control.
The projected salinity levels at Imperial Dam,
full development no control in 1970, would be 865 ppm.
The projected effective control in that year would be
zero and the projected effect with controls would be
unchanged, 865 ppm.
Projected salinity level at Imperial Dam, full
-------
General Discussion
development with no control 1980, would be expected to be
1,000 ppm. The projected effective control would be 120
ppm and the projected effect with controls would be 180
ppm.
In 1990 the three figures would be 1,200, the
effective control would be 355 ppm, and the projected
effect with controls 845 ppm.
In the year 2000 the figures would be 1,250 ppm
with no control, the effective control L .0 5 ppm, the pro-
jected effect with the controls 845 ppm.
IV. It is also recommended that in all future
water resource development projects feasible salinity
control measures integral to the projects shall be pro-
vided.
That concludes the suggestions that we would
like to make as possible conference recommendations.
MR. STEIN: Do the States have any comments?
Mr. Rozich.
MR. ROZICH: Yes. As you surmise, the conferees
present did meet and go over the proposal of conclusions
and recommendations as submitted by the EPA. I think we
are in very close agreement with what EPA proposes. How-
ever, we have suggested some changes and possibly the besi
-------
General Discussion
way would be to read through it and maybe I can outline
the changes as we go through.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Why don’t we start with I,
sub 1.
MR. ROZICH: Essentially, Roman numeral I, we
suggest that sub 1 and sub 2 be combined, making this one
long paragraph.
MR. STEIN: Is there any objection to that? By
putting a period after “stem” including the next in the
next sentence, if that is all right?
All right. Let me get this and I know you are
going to have to consult, so let’s get it exactly right.
MR. MALETIC: Mr. Stein, we are in the process
of making 25 copies of this.
MR. (UNIDENTIFIED): All we have right now are-
MR. STEIN: I know, but let’s do this.
It will read: “A salinity policy,” period,
keep on the paragraph and start the next sentence with
“in” and we are all set. All right?
MR. ROZICH: They have after “lower main stem”-
“and in implementing the salinity policy.”
MR. STEIN: Where is that?
MR. ROZICH: In the first paragraph and after
-------
Usternfl put
147
General Discussion
agreed,
You want Handtt?
That
MR. STEIN: “And”?
MR. ROZICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: All right
MR. ROZICH: The rest of it is the same.
MR. STEIN: All right. Is that agreed?
an awfully long sentence.
All right.
MR. ROZICH: Roman numeral II, we suggest after
“Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program” we put
“dated February 1972.”
MR. STEIN: All right. Wait a minute. Just
“dated”--
MR. DICKSTEIN: We already made that statement.
MR. STEIN: No, rio. If we can get agreement
let’s just do that. Let’s just agree.
0. K.
MR. ROZICH: Arabic numeral 1 under this, we
recommend deleting the first clause and it would start,
“a salinity control program, generally as described in
the Interior Department report, be implemented on an
accelerated basis.”
MR. O’CONNELL:
We could just take that under
-------
___________ ____ 1LI.8
General Discussion
advisement.
MR. STEIN: All right. Let s put-—
MR. ROZICH: Arabic numeral 2 we left the sd.Lxe.
Number 3, we did change it considerably, but
left, I think, the intent the same way. I will read it
as we have it.
To expedite the salinity control
program, it is recommended that the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency assign a high priority to
the La Verkin Springs, Paradox Valley, and
Grand Valley water quality improvement
projects as demonstration projects, with
the objective of achieving stabilization
of salinity levels on the lower Colorado
River at the earliest possible date. The
contemplated impact of the action is the
early removal of 4OO,OOO tons of salt from
the river system, resulting in an estimated
average annual reduction in the salinity
concentration at Imperial Dam of 30 mg/i.
MB. O’CONNELL: Is that 30?
MB. ROZICH: Thirty-three. Excuse me. It
-------
_______ l 4 9
General Discussion
should read 33.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to read that four
hundred--do you have four hundred--
MR. ROZICH: Four hundred tons of salt-- tt early
removal of 4.OO,OOO tons of salt from the river system
resulting in an”-—
MR. STEIN: You mean 4OO,OOO tons per year,
don’t you?
MR. DICKSTEIN: Per year?
MR. ROZICH: Per year.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. ROZICH: And you have the rest of that.
MR. STEIN: All right. Do you have any comment’
All right, we will think about that one.
MR. ROZICH: Arabic number sub and sub 5 we
left the same.
With regard to Roman numeral IV, we suggest the
following change--
MR. HUME: III.
MR. ROZICH: Or III.
It is recognized that adoption
of numerical criteria should be deferred
until the potential effectiveness of
-------
____________ 150
General Discussion
Colorado River salinity control measures
is better known. However, to achieve the
salinity policy adopted herein, the
salinity control program of the Bureau
of Reclamation shall be directed towards
achieving, as a minimum, the following
reductions in salinity at Imperial Dam.
And for 1980, reduction of 120 mg/l.
For 1990, a reduction of 355 mg/i.
For the year 2000, 405 mg/i.
If this reduction is achieved,
the Bureau of Reclamation has estimated
that the following would be the ranges
of salinity at Imperial Dam.
Estimated salinity level in milligrams per
liter, full development without control and then with
control, for 1980 the range would be 860 to 1,220, and
with the control program it would be 740 to 1,100.
1990, without control 1,040 to 1,470; with
control 685 to 1,115.
The year 2000, without control 1,080 to 1,530;
with control 675 to 1,125.
Essentially it is taken out of the table.
-------
________________ __________ 151
General Discussion
The underlying bases in develop-
ment of the reduct:tons in salinity and
estimated projected ranges of salinity
levels are found in the Department of the
Interior’s report entitled ‘Colorado River
Quality Improvement Program’ dated February
1972.
That is our proposal.
MR. STEIN: O.K.
MR. ROZICH: And with regard to Roman numeral
IV, we felt that this was essentially contained in the
rest of the conciusions and recommendations and it is
really not necessary.
MR. STEIN: Well, all right.
I think probably we may have to wait on you,
but we will recess and have you come back and go over
these. Let me say, other than technical points, I think
again we have that one major point that maybe you are all
going to have to think out, and I hope come to some con-
clusion. That is, the basic suggestion that calls for
putting in or the adoption of numerical criteria be
deferred until potential effectiveness of Colorado River
salinity control measures is better known. And the last
-------
___________ _______ 152
General Discussion
time, if you recall, I think Mr. Armstrong and the Bureau
of Reclamation indicated that the Bureau would be per-
mitted to come up with a recommendation in about 3 years,
did they say, or what, 2, something?
MR. MALETIC: Two to three years.
MR. STEIN: Two to three years, for some time.
The question here is, if we are adopting the
Bureau of Reclamation program, whether the determination
should not be to give full credence to the recommendation
and they come up with it and see where we go from there
rather than make these determinations here. And I think
that is the key point.
I ask the States to think of that, because I
think we have a recommendation and an offer from the
Bureau of Reclamation. If they are going to come up
with that in the period of time that Mr. Armstrong said
they were, from where we sit, we are probably going to
have to be in a position to consider it. I am not sure
that that is any different than what you said, but that
would at least fit in with the Federal-State program.
I ask you to think that over, because
other than that I think there are technical
-------
___ 153
General Discussion
problems.
How soon do you expect to have this duplicated?
MR. MALETIC: Shortly.
MR. ROZICH: We are waiting for it now.
MR. STEIN: All right. I am not sure our people
can respond right now. I do think, what I am going to
have to do, is call a 15-minute recess and hopefully if
that material is done--
MR. ROZICH: California has a statement they
would like to--
MR. STEIN: Just a moment.
MR. MALETIC: Before you recess I would like to
clarify this 2 or 3 years and put this in the precise
context that Mr. Armstrong read.
He said, “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
recommendations...” To make recommendations. Now, since
then--
MR. STEIN: That is what I said.
MR. MALETIC: “. . .to make recommendations to
another session of this conference.”
-------
-______ ___ l5
General Discussion
MR. STEIN: That is correct. I thought I said
that.
What I would suggest we do is to consider the
Bureau of Reclamation offer, set up the task force to
get the recommendations, and consider where we go with
those recommendations rather than this--I think we are
very close, but I think possibly you can accommodate to
that.
MR. HUME: Mr. Stein, the States also con-
sidered another matter this morning. I think that it
is not our thought that it go in the resolution. How-
ever, it would be appreciated if it could be included
as part of the record of these proceedings, and I read:
We want to emphasize that the
Bureau of Reclamation’s program as sub-
mitted in its report t Colorado River Water
Quality Improvement Program, dated Febru-
ary 1972, and on which the conference
recommendation No. III is based, should
be considered as an open-ended and flexible
program. If alternatives not yet identified
prove to be more feasible, they should be
included as part of the program, and if
-------
155
General Discussion
elements now included prove to be
infeasible, they should be dropped.
In addition, it should be recognized
that there may be other programs which
could reduce the riverts salinity.
Since present levels are greater than
desirable, we are hopeful that addi-
tional programs will eventually be
developed in order to obtain lower
salinity levels
The February 1972, report
states that the USER Mathematical Simu-
lation Model for the Colorado River system
will be used to evaluate the Water Quality
Improvement Program. This will be an
important tool to evaluate the program’s
progress. The results of this evaluation
along with the general program progress
should be reported annually to the con-
ferees and other interested State agencies.
MR. STEIN : Do all the States agree with that,
as far as you know? I know you can’t-- All that are
here?
S
-------
_____ 156
General Discussion
MB. ROZICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Do all of them who are here agree
with it?
MR. WILLIAMSON: That is not a conferees t - -
MR. STEIN: No.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean this is a State posi—
tion and any conferee can make his own statement, just
a statement.
MR. STEIN: I know, but why don’t you want to
accept it?
MR. WILLIAMSON: We have no objection. I say
rather than being a part of this resolution or anything,
it is a position statement and any State can make their
own position statement.
MR. STEIN: 0. K.
MR. (UNIDENTIFIED): Just as well agree to it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, agree to it.
MR. STEIN: No, no, here is what I was suggest-
ing--and I don’t know if the conferees want to do it and
I don’t know that I see a Federal objection to that from
the conferees I have here--that might be a useful thing
to put as a footnote to III. In other words, it is an
explanation. Because I think essentially what we are
-------
General Discussion
doing here, and it is a very good thing, you can only
set out a program like Grand Valley, LaVerkin Springs,
Paradox Valley; they may or may not pan out. We think
they are going to pan out. If it doesn t t work, we should
indicate we are flexible and we are going to pick up
another project. I think that might be a useful thought.
You might want to consider taking that statement and we
can footnote that to III, just add it to the conclusions
and recommendations.
Is that agreeable?
MR. (UNIDENTIFIED): That is agreeable.
MR. STEIN: 0. K.
Are there other comments?
Well, if not, let us recess and look this thing
over to determine if we have any other thoughts and try
to get those other figures down and see if we can have
them. Hopefully we should be able to reconvene in 15
minutes.
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let’s reconvene.
Let me give you this the way I see it so we can
all put our minds to this as we go along.
I am not sure, but from eavesdropping in on the
-------
___ ___ 158
General Discussion
Federal caucus (laughter), that; we can--John Chancellor
got that great job that he T s got and look what happens
:o me (laughter)--I have the conviction that at least
the draft recommendations may be such that they will not
be readily resolved this afternoon. I think the con-
ferees, the States and the Federal people, are very close
together, and I also think--and I am only expressing a
personal opinion here--that very probably the major
difference is one of drafting and that with good will we
can put this together.
I would like the Federal people to state their
position on what they think they can go with and what
they think they can’t go with. Then if the agreement is
that we are not likely to finish this today, I would sug-
gest that the States get together with the people who
aren’t here--and hopefully they may be here tomorrow--and
of those States who can be here, we will at least get
your position, so that we will go into an executive sessicn
just between the States and the Federal people. A closed
executive session tomorrow in Room--
MR. DICKSTEIN: Room 33k.
MR. STEIN: Room 33 l-. And the suggestion is,
-------
159
General Discussion
so you get this all cleared and to get as many people as
we can, that we start the executive session at 10 o’clock
tomorrow. At that time I think we will indicate that we
will have a public announcement and come down here, say,
perhaps at 2 o’clock. We can proceed with that.
But I think by raising the issues on these
items and if more State representatives can get here
or give their clearance by phone, we will be closer to
taking a position tomorrow and getting done. That would
be great.
I would very much urge, if at all possible,
that you may want to consider having people like Thatcher
and Reynolds, or whoever it is, at this executive draft-
ing session, too, so that if there is any give we can
all sign off on it and get this thing drafted up, if
we possibly can.
With that I would like to call on Mr. O’Connell
MR. O’CONNELL: The minor editorial changes in
Roman numeral I and in the first sentence of Roman numera
II present no problems.
Roman numeral 11(1), a suggestion was made to
drop the Introductory phrase, and there we would like to
suggest an alternate Introductory phrase which would read
-------
i6o
General Discussion
To minimize salinity increases
in the river, a salinity control program
generally as described in the Interior
Department report be implemented.
As far as Roman numeral III or Roman numeral
11(3) and Roman numeral III, the language suggested there
presents certain difficulties for us which we think would
warrant a meeting with the States in executive session,
as the Chairman suggested, so that we might explain our
relative positions to one another and perhaps find some
possible areas of agreement. But as it stands, I think
that that would probably be necessary to do that.
MR. STEIN: Unless the States want to indicate
what their objections are to 3, both 3’s, 3 under II and
Roman numeral III, [ think part of the operation was the
question of what was achieved by making those changes.
MR. ROZICH: We felt that it was just clearer
the way we had proposed the changes and come up with the
same end in removing the four hundred.
MR. STEIN: I know what you are saying on that,
Frank. Let me say this for the Federal position.
MR. ROZICH: All right.
MR. STEIN: I think that they think the draftin€
-------
i6 1
General Discussion
that was done has made some rather substantive changes.
Now, if the objective of the States is just to make
things clearer, I would suggest you look at this again
and see if you can work with this as closely as you can
to make it clearer, because the Federal judgment here
when they ].ooked at this was that this changed the sense
of it, it wasn’t just editorial or cleaning it up.
MR. ROZICH: Well, the other question we had
was with regard to the construction starting date and
completion date. I think all of us realize this is
subject to congressional appropriation.
MR. STEIN: No. Now, I am not clear, and
that is why I commend the use of footnotes aimed at
this business of flexibility. I know we discussed
this in the executive session last time. If we have
adopted this approach that you have in (3), I think
this is what came out. We adopted a project approach
wherein you are going ahead with the project, and we
are all going to presumably get behind certain projects
and support them.
At least this was the theory, and this might be
most expeditious. I think we were all in agreement with
that, and this does it. Just like the story about everyol e
-------
162
General Discussion
has a good idea for a Broadway show, but if you don’t
have the book and the music you can’t get started.
Now, I just give you this. It would seem at
least a recommendation. You have come out with some-
thing--they were talking about a date and when you
are going to go. Now, if you have the notion, as
Mr. Hume had, that this isn’t an inflexible thing,
obviously if you go ahead with the program you are
going to make some, possibly, and not others, and
you are going to adjust. But the question Is, If
you go to anyone that you are going to sell the project
to, the first question he is going to ask is:
When do you want to do it? And
How much is it going to cost?
And if you don’t come up with the dates, I think, again,
these are the things that you may want to think out your-
selves before we go. I am not arguing with these points.
MR. BALCOMB: Mr. Stein, may I say something?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BALCOM My name is Kenneth Balcomb. I
speak for the Colorado River Water Conservation District.
I am sitting back there in the back of the room, you
understand, and, frankly, I don’t know what you are talkin
-------
__________ _____ ___________ ___________ 163
General Discussion
about. If you are going to do something about the
salinity of the Colorado River, if you are going to make
some decision here, I think you ought to at least let
people know what the hell you are talking about. I am
serious.
MR. STEIN: By the way, I think you have a
point about the difficulty--
MR. BALCOMB: I really don’t know what you are
arguing with your co-member about, you understand? That
is what I am trying to say to you.
MR. STEIN: I understand it. Sir, I don’t think
I am arguing. I am trying to present two positions. I
would hope that we would get this paper resolved and
going. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that I argued
any position with Mr. Rozich.
MR. BALCOMB: Mr. Chairman, may I say this?
MR. STEIN: What?
MR. BALCOMB: You are discussing something with
him about what you people are going to do. That is the
thing I am talking about.
MR. STEIN: No, that is not so.
MR. BALCOMB: You are not discussing it with
me, you are discussing it with him.
-------
161i.
General Discussion
MR. STEIN: Perhaps I didn’t explain this to
you, sir. Maybe I should have done this, that is true.
What we are doing here--and there are many
arguments against it, and I think you are proving the
argument--what we are doing here is in effect, as I said
befor ishaving an executive session with the audience
sitting out there; make believe there is a wall. We
asked for public participation. That part of the con-
ference to this session has been terminated, but we let
you come up.
Now, what these people have in executive ses-
sion is a draft, and there are two language drafts on a
particular paragraph. What I am trying to do is point
out certain elements in these things which will enable
the parties to get together and sign off on an agreed-
upon draft so we can go home.
MR. BALCOMB: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: All right?
MR. BALCOMB: My question, I think, really
resolves itself around this. Do you think that seven of
you can sit up here, or seven or eight of you sit up here
and resolve the salinity problem without talking to the
people who are involved and contribute to that salinity?
-------
General Discussion
MR. STEIN: Of course not.
MR. BALCOMB: I have had people tell me seri-
ously, and I am from Glenwood Springs, you understand,
that you people are attempting to dry up the Glenwood
Springs Yampa pool. Well, I say, you know, this is a
Joke; this is a joke; you know, it really is a joke,
because you can’t do it. Factually you can’t do it.
Now, what I am saying to you is that if you
want really to know what people think about what you are
doing, why don’t you ask the people? You can’t sit up
here, you know, seven or eight or nine of you--and you
are great people, don’t misunderstand me. I am not
criticizing you in that regard. You are trying to do
the best job you can, but you can’t do it this way. Why
don’t you go out and ask what the fellow who is sitting
there on the piece of ground really thinks about this
problem? Why don’t you ask him one time and not be a
totally, completely federally isolated person, a bureau,
you know.
You have got great powers, misunderstand
me. I am not criticizing your powers; I am not criti-
cizing what you are trying to do. I am just suggesting
to you, why you ask the fellow on the ground before
-------
_______ 166
General Discussion
you do something?
MR. STEIN: Well, I agree with you, and I hope
that is--
MR. BALCOMB: Well, I have talked to your staff
you know, and I think you have got great staff people,
but I am concerned about what you are doing; I really am
concerned. You can’t go down and tell my Grand Valley
people, ‘You have got to curtail your diversion of water
by 38,000 feet in order to solve a salinity problem,”
without telling them what they get out of it. This is
what I am trying to tell you--that you have got to go
back and talk to the people that are there on the ground.
We can’t sit here in Denver; we can’t sit in Las Vegas,
we can’t sit in all these other places, you know, and be
great big wheels.
MR. STEIN: I certainly agree with you, sir,
and I--
MR. BALCOMB: We can’t do that, you know,
because when you--
MR. STEIN: I think your comments are well
taken
MR. BALCOMB: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
-------
167
General Discussion
MR. BALCOMB: Thank you.
(off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Frank?
MR. ROZICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to go on with this?
MR. ROZICH: I think we can discuss it in the
executive session.
MR. STEIN: Then we will meet in executive
session at 10 o c1ock in Room 33)4 . Hopefully we will be
able to make an announcement about 2 o’clock. And I
suggest we all get the positions so we know where we
stand.
With that we stand recessed until 10 o’clock
tomorrow.
(RECESS)
-------
i68
The Conference reconvened at 10 o’clock on
April 27, 1972, with the following parties present:
PRESIDING:
Murray Stein
Chief Enforcement Officer - Water
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES:
Irwin L. Dickstejn
Director, Enforcement Division
Region VIII, U. S. EPA
Denver, Colorado
Norman B. Hume
Member, State Water Resources Control Board
Sacramento, California
Richard L. O’Connell
Director, Enforcement Division
Region IX, U. S. EPA
San Francisco, California
Frank Rozich
Director, Water Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado
Art E. Williamson
Director of Sanitary Engineering Services
Department of Health & Social Service
Cheyenne, Wyoming
S. E. Reynolds
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Carl Slingerland
Staff Engineer
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
Santa Fe, New Mexico
-------
CONFEREES (continued):
C. C. Tabor
Chairman, Arizona Water quality Control Council
Weilton, Arizona
Lynn M. Thatcher
Director, Bureau of Environmental Health
Division of Health
Salt Lake City, Utah
168-A
-------
____ _________ _____ _____ 169
Conclusions and Recor’mendatjons
THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1972
MR. STEIN: The Federal-State enforcement con-
ference in the matter of pollution of the Colorado River
has reached the following conclusions and recommendations
I am pleased to say that these conclusions and recommenda
tions were reached unanimously by conferees representing
7 States and the Federal Government. They involve one of
the largest river systems in the country and one of the
most complicated problems we have —the control of salinity
in the Colorado River. These conclusions and recommenda-
tions are as follows:
I. It is recommended that:
A salinity policy be adopted
for the Colorado River system that would
have as its objective the maintenance of
salinity concentrations at or below levcls
presently found in the lower main stem. In
implementing the salinity policy objective
for the Colorado River system, the salinity
problem must be treated as a basinwide prob-
lem that needs to be solved to maintain Lower
Basin water salinity at or below present
levels while the Upper Basin continues to
-------
170
Conclusions and Recommendations
develop its compact-apportioned waters.
II. The salinity control
program as described by the Department
of the Interior in their report entitled
“Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program, dated February 1972, offers the
best prospect for implementing the
salinity control objective adopted
herein. Therefore, it is recommended
that:
1) to minimize salinity increases In
the river, a salinity control program,
generally as described in the Interior
Department report, be implemented on an
accelerated basis;
2) the Bureau of Reclamation have
the primary responsibility for investiga-
tion, planning and implementing the basin-
wide salinity control program in the
Colorado River system;
3) to accelerate the salinity control
program, the Bureau of Reelamatiefl assign a
high priority to.tIa,Verkifl Springs, Paradox
-------
_______________ 171
Conclusions and Recommendations
Valley, and Grand Valley water quality
improvement projects with the objective
of achieving stabilization of salinity
levels on the Lower Colorado River at the
earliest possible date. The contemplated
impact would be to initiate immediate
action so as to achieve, by 1977, the
removal of 8o,o o tons of salt per year
from LaVerkin springs, 180,000 tons per
year from Paradox Valley, and 1LI.0,000 tons
per year from Grand Valley. This would
provide a total reduction of 400,0OO tons
per year and would result in an estimated
subsequent reduction of 33 mg/l at Imperial
Dam.
14.) 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
5) the Environmental Protection Agency
continue its support of the program by con-
suiting with and advising the Bureau of
-------
172
Conclusions and Recommendations
Reclamation and accelerating its ongoing
data collection and research efforts.
III. To achieve the salinity
policy described herein, the long range
program of the Bureau of Reclamation
shall be directed toward achieving reduc-
tion of salinity concentrations that would
otherwise exist at Imperial Darn to the
extent of at least 120 mg/l in 1980, 355
mg/i in 1990 and 405 mg/i in the year 2000.
The conferees agree that the Bureau
of Reclamation’s program as submitted in its
report “Colorado River Water Quality Improve-
ment Program,” dated February 1972, should
be considered as an open-ended and flexible
program. If alternatives not yet identified
prove to be more feasible, they should be
included as part of the program, and if ele-
ments now included prove not to be feasible,
they should be dropped. In addition, it
should be recognized that there may be other
programs which could reduce the river’s
salinity. Since present levels are greater
-------
173
Conclusion5 and Recommendations
than desirable, an effort should be made to
develop additional programs that will obtain
lower salinity levels.
The February 1972 report states
that the Bureau of Reclamation Mathematical
Simulation Model for the Colorado River system
will be used to evaluate the Water Quality
Improvement Program. This will be an
important tool to evaluate the programts
progress. The results of this evaluation
along with the general program progress should
be reported annually to the conferees and
other interested State agencies.
This concludes the conclusions and recommenda—
tions of the conferees. I wonder if the conferees would
feel they would want to add anything or modify anything
at this time?
If not, I would like to--
MB. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make a point if I may.
New Mexico supports the conclusions and recom-
mendations that you have read with the understanding that
these conclusions and recommendations are in no way
-------
174
Conclusions and Recommendations
amendatory to or in substitution for the resolution
adopted unanimously by the States at the February 15
session of the conference. I understand that these con-
clusions and recommendations are supplemental to that
resolution. I think it is important for several reasons
to point these out, not the least of which is the fact
that the resolution that I mentioned contained the
resolve of the States to very actively and aggressively
support Federal financing for the program.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. That
point is well made, and the conclusions and recommenda-
tions and that resolution I think are entirely compatible
The resolution, which is part of the record and will be
made available to anyone who wishes it, as well as these
conclusions and recommendations, was adopted unanimously
by the States at the previous session of this conference.
There were several portions of this resolution which,
while appropriate for the States to comment, such as
Federal financing, were not appropriate, because of the
position under Federal law, for Federal people to endorse
Therefore, there was a refraining of these in the conclu-
sions and recommendations we have here.
But both these documents set forth the
-------
- ____ 175
Conclusions and Recommendations
conclusions and the determinations of the State and
Federal conferees and I think both of these will work
completely together toward the same program.
Again I would like to thank all the States
very much for their efforts here, because I do think with
this unanimous agreement we have achieved the first step
in what promises to be one of the major breakthroughs in
achieving high quality water in the United States, and
that is the control and reduction of the salinity in the
Colorado River system. This is a very difficult and
vexing problem, often not associated with discrete point
sources such as industries and municipalities which cause
degradation of water quality in other river systems, and
it is only with the full cooperation of Federal and Stat
agencies and groups and governments that we can hope to
achieve the result. I think with the good will shown
here by all the States concerned that we have made the
first step up on the problem and that this has been a
very, very successful conference. I will be happy to
take these recommendations and conclusions back to Wash-
ington.
Before we throw this open for questions from
the press, are there any other comments you have?
-------
176
Conclusions and Recommendations
MR. HUME: Mr. Chairman.
NB. STEIN: Yes.
MR. HUME: California is especially pleased at
the very fine recommendations and report contained in the
February 1972 Bureau of Reclamation report which formed
the basis of much of the deliberations In connection with
the formation of this resolution which we have before us.
I think that one of the things of great import
with respect to this are the last two paragraphs which
you read, which says, in essence, that we are not bound
by either the technology or the mentality now brought to
bear upon this problem, but we are looking to the future
also to bring up considerations which might prove even
more fruitful than the items which we have deliberated
upon at length in this document, and we are very pleased
that we could be forward-looking about a program of such
tremendous consequence to a great portion of the United
States.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
MR. REYNOLDS: If I may, Mr. Chairman, perhaps
two points.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, Mr. John Wright of
-------
___ ____ ____ 177
Conclusions and Recommendations
the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency served
for several years as New Mexico’s representative on this
conference. Mr. Wright and I mutually proposed to the
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission that the New
Mexico State Engineer be named to serve as New Mexico’s
conferee on the conference and that John Wright serve as
his adviser, and the Water Quality Control Commission did
approve that proposal.
One further point, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of
the State of New Mexico I want to express great appre-
ciation of the attitude of cooperation exhibited by the
Environmental Protection Agency of the United States in
this very difficult problem, and I want to say that I
share your enthusiasm for this approach to the solution
of the Colorado River salinity problem.
MR. STEIN: Before we close, I really extend a
special thanks to the Bureau of Reclamation. While we
know that the Department of Agriculture has been working
with us, I think it should be recognized that the basic
blueprint for the action program we have agreed on today
has been developed by the Bureau of Reclamation under its
statutory authority and the major responsibility for carr
ing this out will be with the Bureau of Reclamation. I
-------
___________ ______ 178
Conclusions and Recommendations
know for a while I was in the Department of the Interior
as our agency was passing through, I always loved working
with the Department of the Interior people there, and I
really am looking forward to working with you again on
this project.
Are there any other comments?
If not, with that we will conclude the con-
ference. But the conferees will remain here for any
questions that may be asked and you can ask the questions
to whomever you choose.
With that, the conference is concluded and
thank you very much.
(Whereupon the conference adjourned.)
- 1. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1972 722-974/463
------- |