Salinity Update Special Edition, Oct. 1981

M -. . .

..

-~

.

THE PflOBlEH

The Colorado R1ver Basin encompasses POr-t1ons of seven states. The river flows over 1,400 miles from headwaters in the Upper Basin

in Wyoming and Colorado, joins with tribu -taries in Utah and New Me~ico, flows through the Lower B•sin below Glen Canyon Oam and the states of Nevada, Arizona, and California, and terminates tn the Gulf of California in the Republic of Hex1co.

Use of the river's water now and in the future has been allocated through a long history of negot1at1ons that include compacts, l itiga-tion, legislation, and international treaties. About half of the present salinity concentra-tion In the Colorado R1ver at Hoover Oam near las Vegas ts attributed to natural sources. The remaining half is man-induced as indicated

tn the chart. Salinity SOurcas

1

- -~

-

470\ Na1ur11 Sou,ces

_..,.

l

"

.

,,_

-

---i-

37~ lrngai1on / - ' - - - --1--i2~ Reservoir I

l

-'t

,\.:.---~.<---

31\ Cvaooration E.xoons 1"- .\.1&1 I o

Salinity increases result from two processes: salt loading and salt concentration. Salt loading increases the amount of salt for a gtven anount of water, and salt concentration decreases the anount of diluting water for a given amount of salt. Salt loading is the addition to the river system of mineral salts from natural and manmade sources. Salt concentration ts the rise tn salinity through streamflow depletions Which concentrate the ialt burden into a lesser volume of water In the river system. Generally, the application of irrigation water resultS 1n increased salt concentrations because of both loading and consl.11\ptlve use. The salt load fluctuates annually with the overall 8as1n water supply. As the following graph illustrates. since 1949 the general trend in salinity concentrations at Imperial Dam has been upward, and the projected levels through the year 2010 (with· out water quality 1mprovEJnent units) are expected to follow the overall rising trend. The losses associated with municipal and inaustrial use occur primarily from increased ~ater treatment costs, accelerated pipe corros fon and appl lance wear, increosed soap and detergent needs, and decreased water palatability. The Environmental Protection Agency recomMends drinking water contain no more than 500 mg/l of TOS (total dissolved

solids}. / -/ I I I I

___

..

__

...

....

....

---'~···

,;,/

.!I ... ... , ... , ... ..

for 1rr1gators, the higher concentrations

cause decreas!d crop yields, altered crop patterns, Increased leaching and drofnage requlrenents, and Increased monogenent costs. Agricultural losses (either through lower yields or Increased production/management costs) begin when salinity levels of appll!d Irrigation water reach 700 to 850 mg/L, depending ull(ln soil conditions and type of crop grown. A summary of the effects Is presented be low: mg/L Below 500 Above 500 700-850 and above Effect Good drinking water Municipal and Industrial

losses

Agricultural losses

The Colorado River, at Its headwaters In the 1110untalns of north-central Colorado, has a

salinity (dlssolv!d minerals) concentration of only about 50 mg/L. The salinity concentra

-tions progressively increase downstream as a

result of water diverstons and salt contr

ibu-tfons from a variety of sources. In 1979, the sal lnfty concentrat Ion averaged about BIO mg/L ot Imperial Oam. the last major diversion point on the Colorodo River In the United States. Without control measures, the concen-trotlon Is projected to Increase, P()SSlbly reaching a level of 1140 mg/Lat Imperial Oam by around the turn of the century.

THE PROBLEM

O!RECT AGRICULTURAL LOSSES $23 ,600

...

·\'

REGIONAL \

I

AGRICULTURAL \

i

LOSSES •. ; Sll8,000

\I

2,,.

___...-J

\ . _ . ~ ! C!PAL ANO INDUSTRIAL LOSSES 5330,400

TOTAL LOSS - $472,000 per mg/L (1981 dollars)

The high salt load of 10 million tons annuolly entering Lake Mead In the Lower Colorado River Basin adversely affects more than 10 million people (of 14.5 million total) and I million acres of Irrigated fa,,.Jand In the United States. Oar,ages In the amount of $472,000 occur for each Increase of I mg/Lat Imperial Dam. In 1981, damages were approximately $96 million. Unless controls are lmplement!d, the damages could rise to $237 million by the year 2000.

In the late 1960's ond early 1970's leaders at the regional and national level began to recognize the problem and seek solutions.

THE SOLUTION

In 1972, an .,,end!M!nt to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500, set forth a public policy embracing the restora -tion and maintenance of water quality, pol lu-tion effluent discharge limitation, and

eventual zero pollution discharge by 1985.

The Act was interpreted by the EPA (Environ -mental Protection Agency) to require numerical

salinity criteria and a plan of Implementation

for the Colorado River. Numerical criteria

were subsequently established at three sta·

tlons by the Forum (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control For\111), adopted oy each of

the Basin St•tes, and approved by EPA. The

criteria, set in terms of milligr.sns per liter

of TOS are: Stat Ion Below Hoover D.,, Below Parker Dam At Imper ia 1 Dan Annual flow-weighted average

ros

723 mg/L 747 mg/L 879 mg/L To meet these criteria, about 2.8 million tons per year of salt will need to be removed from

the rfver•s waters by soon after the turn of the century. The overall approach to ireetfng the standards is to prevent salt from entering and mixing with the river's flow. A n\Mflber of agricultural, point, and diffuse sources of

salinity have been Identified throughout the

Basin. Those sources that can be intercepted and prevented from entering the rfver at least

cost will be Implemented to control the

river's salinity.

In June 1974, Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law

93·320, "'1fch, MIOng other things, directed the Secretary of the Interior to expedite the

completion of planning reports on 12 salinity control units and to proceed '#1th construction of the Paradox Valley, Grand Valley, Crystal Geyser, and las V~gas Wash Units.

Interagency approach

An Issue as all-encompassing as salinity

control touches many perspectives. Various governmental entitles have diverse capablll·

ties that can be marshalled to most effec -tively implement control measures. Also, various publics view salinity control differently.

At the state level, all seven Colorado River Basin States have Joined efforts to adopt standards and to lmpl1rnent a plan to meet those standards "'11le development of water supplies continues. To accomplish needed

coord1nat1on, the Governors of each state appointed representatives to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and the

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council, groups "'1fch coordinate State actions and advise the Federal Government of the state views on Issues affecting water quality standards and ways to meet those standards. At the Federal level, salinity control requires coordination efforts of the Oepartment of the

Interior, the EPA, and the Department of

Agriculture. The capabilities of those

Federal agencies have been COIS'lbined to improve

management of Irrigated agriculture through

tesearch and onfarm improvenents and to implement structural and nonsttuctural

mea-sures to intercept and control sources of man-caused and natural salt load.

The seemingly complex institutional systEm has been tailored to effectively use the

Individual capabilities available In ~any quarters. The common goal of salinity control

makes the system function smoothly. THE STATES

The Colorado River Basin States support the salinity control program through water quality management plans, effluent discharge control,

and education In the control of salinity. The Basin States are individually developing

water quality management plans to conform wfth

the requirements of section 208 of the Clean Water Act. These requirenents include: public fnvolvenent. ptoblem assessment, Identification of best management practices.

establishment of control progr.,,s, and desi g-nation of management agencies.

State programs also Include the control of total dissolved solids from point discharges through the NPDES permit progran. Fish hatcheries. l1J11ber products mills, sewage treatment plants, and powetplant wastes are some of the municipal and industrial

effluent sources under control. Reuse of

treated wastewater is encouraged as a general

principle.

Educ at 1 on and pub 11 c 1nvo 1 vBnent are a cha J ..

lenge. The baslnwlde nature of salinity

requires an awareness of salinity - sources, impacts, and alternative methods of control. The Basin States continue to work with

con-cerned agencies to increase public understand -ing of salinity and coordinate this effort

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROl FORUH

The Forl.llll ts composed of water resource and water quality representatives from each of the seven Colorado River Basin States. appointed by his respe(tive governor. A list of current menbers follows.

The For1111 was established by the states to develop water quality standards. Section 303

of the clean Water Act of 1977 requires that

these water quality standards be reviewed from time to t 1me. but at least cnce every

3 years.

The seven~state Forl.ffl with the did of the Work Group prepares a review of the water quality

standards, Including numeric criteria and

plan of Implementation previously developed by

the For1111. The 1981 review Includes the

modifications or revisions to the plan of

Implementation that have become necessary as a

result of changed conditions and the avail

a-bility of better information.

The Forum's Wort Group is the technical or

engineering ann of the Forum. The Work Group

consists of at least one representative from

each of the Basin States, who may or may not

be a member of the Forum. The basic function

Is to provide technical review and analysis

for the Forum, the palicy-making group.

The plan of implementation, as set forth in

both the 1975 and 1978 Forum reparts includes

the Federal salinity control units discussed

in another sect ion of this pamphlet. It also

includes effluent limitations for industrial point source discharges with the objective of

no salt return ..i,erever practicable. In

February 1977, the Forum adopted the "Policy

for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity

Standards Through the NPOES (National Pol

lu-tion Discharge Elimination System) Permit

Program." This po I icy was adopted by a 11 of

THE SOLUTION FORUM AND STATE ROLES

the Basin States and provides detailed

guid-ance in the application of salinity standards

developed pursuant to section 303 of the Clean

Water Act and through the NPDES permitting

authority in the regulation of municipal and industrial point source discharges.

In Septe»ber 1980, the Forun adopted a "Policy for the Use of Brackish and/or Saline Waters

for Industrfal Purposes" where 1t fs environ.

ftlentally sound and economically feasible and

where its use would not significantly Increase

consumptfve use of Colorado River system

water. Further, the use of brackish waters

for industrial purposes is an additional measure in reducing salt contributions to the

river systan.

The Forum, at its meeting on Septornber 12, 1980. hired Jack A. Barnett as Its first

Executive Ofrector. The Executive Director

provides a focal point of contact for the

Fort.n in dealing with salinity problems of interstate significance. Mr. Barnett's

address is 220 South 200 East, Salt La,e City,

Utah 84111.

Forum Hesnbers Arizona

Or. Ronald Miller, Chief, Bureau of Water

Quality Control

W. Oon Maughan, Deputy Director, Department

of Water Resources California

William Attwater, Deputy Executive Director

and Chief Counsel, State Water Resources

Contro I Soard

Myron 8. Kolburt, Chief Engineer, Colorado

Aiver Soard of California

Colorado

0. Monte Pascoe, Executive Director,

Department of Natural Resources Or. Frank Traylor. Executive Director,

Department of Health

Oavid Robbins, Attorney at Law

~

Duane R. Sudweeks, Administrator, Colorado

River Commission of Nevada

L. H. Dodgton, Administrator. Bureau of

Environmental Health

Roland 0. Wostergard, Director, Oepartment

of Natural Resources

Hew >itex1co

Stephen E. Reynolds, State Engineer

~

Calvin Sudweeks, Director. Bureau of Water

Po 1 lut ion

Daniel F. Lawrence, Oirector, Division of

Water Resources

Wyaming

Willia,, l. Garland, Administrator, Water Quality Oivlsion, Oepartment of Environ-mental Quality

Est l,oates or Sa I In I ty Contro I Potent I a 1 as or Septenber 1981

-

---·--

---

----

---Estimated effect of control Average annual discharge Annual salt units; potential salt for ~otential energi use Acre-feet Unit load Ing from removal In 1,000 tons

study areas ool USDA 1,000 tons

(1,000 tons) program progra-n

8 lg Sandy R Iver 110

Meeker Oot•e 57 28

Glenwood-Dotsero Springs 500

Grand Valley 780 180 230

Lower Gunnison Basin

y

1,000

,Y

140 420

Paradox Valley 205 180

HcElmo Creek 115 57 46

Uinta Basin 500 66.5 91

Price-San Rafael Rivers 430

Crystal Geyser 3 ~/ 3

Dirty Oevll River 200

LaVerkln Springs 109

_ii

103

Lower Virgin River 153

Las Vegas Wash 196

Palo Verde lrrig. Dist. 152 18 71

BLM Progran 800 160

402 Dlscharyes

(r•er

·

plant off uent _ill:!

Tota ls 5,497.5 935.5 858

1/ Ranaining flow after implenentatlon of Irrigation systems Improvements. 2/ Includes total Lower Gunnison Basin salt loading.

'JI Includes only UnCOll'pahgre Valley.

1/ IA1ple,nentation of one option precludes lmple,,entatlon of others. '5/ Concluding report prepared because of poor cost-effectiveness.

~I Approximate 111lnlmuni flow of Palo Verde outfall drain.

..

of salt 110 29 250 195 68 115 83 245 159 109 27 196 585 2,174 or saline w~ter 19, 900 1,090 12,500 1/ 43,500

It

11,200 4/ 32,500 T/ 13,600 - 47,100 68,800 8,300 7 ,200 72 ,000 §.I 253,000 596,690 Total ranoval potent hi 110 57 250 605 628 180 115 240.5 245 159 109 27 196 585 160 187 .5 3,854 PNl04 PAER10812,SM GPO Ill• 111

P.ECLAMATION'S ROLE

Bureau of Recl«natton. - Unfts authorized for construction are the Grand Valley. ParadoK

Valley, Crystal Geyser. and Las Vegas Wash

Units. Crystal Geyser Unit, Utah, has been

indefinitely postponed because of poor cost· effectiveness. las Vegas Wash Unit is in a reformulation process because of changing ground-water cond1tions.

The Grand Vallef Unit Stage One construction

1s nearing comp etion. The main canal 11n1ng

in Stage One is complete, as .. 11 as the

construction of the field stat ton. A contract

for the laterals was awarded In September

1981. Construction 1n stages will allow

Investigators to verify effects of 1nlt1al

develor,nent while planning continues on the

rest of the unit.

The Grand Valley contributes about 780,000 tons

of salt annually to the Colorado River. Most

of the salt 1s leached from the soil and

underlying marine shale by water delivery

system losses and deep percolation. The total

unit will reduce the salt load by about

410,000 tons annually with an overall effect

of reducing sa11n1ty concentrations at

Imperial Dam by 43 mg/L.

Rec 1 amat 1on w1 11 I I ne the can a ls, as au tho·

r1zed, and place the laterals In pipe to

reduce seepage. The USDA will pursue onfarm

i~prove,,ents, including upgrading of

irriga-tion systems and Irrigation management.

Plans to provide a w11d11fe area and watering

ponds to compensate for habitat losses r

esult-ing from the program are dependent upon

congressional authorization.

Paradox Vallef In southwestern Colorado Is a

collapsed sal anticline underlain by a salt

d°"'e. The dome adds about 205,000 tons of

)

Cl

---Utl!TS OF THE COLORADO RIVER

salt annually to the Dolores River from saline ground water whfeh originates In the valley.

The unit Is designed to remove 180.000 tons a year by p..,,pfng the saline ground water (brine - 260.000 mg/L TOS) from wells along

the Dolores River, thus preventing it fra:n surfacing in the riverbed.

Deep well injeetlon is under study as a method of disposing of the brine. The first phase studies coneluded that deep well lnjeetlon Is technleally, environmentally. and eeonomfcally attractive. After construetfon of an Injec-tion well, filtration plant, and pfoelfne to

test the injection formation for disposal capacity, a decision will be made on whether to use deep well injection as a permanent disposal method.

Well field testing and verification will continue, although studies on evaporation pond disposal, an alternative brine disposal method, will be suspended until more Inf

orma-tion is available on deep well lnJeetfon. Other units in the CRWQIP (Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program) are under study at various stages or completion. They are eategortzed by the type or eontrol antlel-pated In each unit.

Irrigation source eontrol would reduce salt loading by Improving Irrigation practlees that currently leach salt from marine shales and other saline deposits. The Grand Valley, Lower Gunnison Basin, and HcElmo Creek Units

In Colorado; the Uinta Basin In Utah: and the Palo Verde Irrigation Otstrlct Unit In Callftornla are Irrigation sourees under ev a luat ton. Improvement or Irr tg at ton

praetlees In all of these areas appears viable and eould reduee the river's salt load by about 1.0 million tons per year. The Colorado River Indian Reservation Unit Investigations

have been concluded because of limited salin -ity control opportunity.

Point source control would remove salt fr~

localized areas such as Mineral springs,

RECLAMATION'S ROLE

abandoned oil wells, and geysers. The Paradox Valley, Glenwood-Dotsero Springs, and Meeker Dome Units In Colorado; LaVerkln Springs and Crystal Geyser In Utah; Lower Virgin River Unit in Arizona and Nevada; and the Las Vegas Wash Unit 1n Nevada are point sources. Currently, a viable control plan is available only for the Paradox Valley Unit, having the potential to prevent 180,000 tons per year from entering the river system. Because of

poor cost-effectiveness, Investigations at LaVerkin Springs and Crystal Geyser have been coneluded.

Diffuse source control would involve watershed management. land treatment, and the collection and disposal of irrigation return flows. Utah's Dirty Devil and Price-San Rafael Rivers Units and Wyoming's Big Sandy River Unit are

Identified diffuse sources. Investigations of diffuse souree units are examining a co~blna-tlon of Irrigation Improvements, vegetation and watershed management, and selective withdrawal and disposal of poor quality strea'T!flows.

Assuming that all agriculture source units and the Paradox Valley Unit are suecessfully Implemented, diffuse and point souree control units would need to reduee the river's salt load by an additional 1.8 million tons per year.

Saline water for energy use

In a Special Report issued In September 1981, the Bureau of Reelanatlon proposed a Federal program for flnanelal and te<:hnlcal

assistance to encourage use of Colorado Rtver

saline waters for energy development. Joint vent~res with private fndustry to prevent saline waters from polluting the Colorado eould save the Nation billions of dollars in the next few decades while reducing the COll'fflitment of scarce Federal capital in a way that has multiple benefits.

The report, •saline Water Use and Disposal Opportunttfes,11

suggests joint ventures be~wllen 90vernnent and industry to use

Colorado River Basin saline water for Indus-tr la I purposes.

Many sources of saline water can be tapped before they reach the Colorado. This water can be used for cooling pawerplants, trans~

porting coal in eoal slurry pipe I Ines, oil shale development, and possibly even power generation and desalting using the new teeh-nology of solar salt gradient ponds.

The Innovative eoncepts desertbed In the report are considered alternatives to conven -tional and very eostly salinity control

methods, such as desaltfng and evaporation pond disposal. Agricultural and paint source controls presently being pursued will renove only about 1.2 million tons of salt per year. To meet established water quality standards, another 1.6 million tons

or

salt must be removed by using, treating, or disposing of a part

or

the 600,000 acre-feet of saline waters per year Identified In the study.

Total investments for desalting or evaoora-tion of the saline waters could cost from

54 billion to SS billion, whtle assistance to industry to accomplish the same amount of salinity control through beneficial use

of that water would required only about one-fourth of that total Investment.

This study was conducted with the assistance of a broad range of Interests including the fOrlln, environmental groups, utilities. rail -roads, coal producers, university researchers. and other Federal ageneles. In general, the response from study participants has been strongly supportive of the study eoneepts with some groups expressing Interest In partlelpat-lng financially In feasibility studies of specific alternatives.

Action by the Congress to authorize and fund saline water use studies and implementation along with expressions of interest by POten-tfal users are the next steps in 1mpletnent1ng these concepts.

FEDERAL AGENCIES' ROLES

/JAW~

...----

(

'<"'

}..,, "'"

L

n

I

,,,.,_,., ..

,

.. l __

.::....,~

-'lv1rt ' NEWlA

\

, ... r Y1NJ(n !ltv r· ~g~g~

..

tt

SOIL CCIISE~VATIO.~ SERVIC£ ••• 6UREAU OF LA~D ,'IAIIAGE~E1fT

STUDY ARE.S

NEW

WHERE TO HOW?

• Pursue agricultural source units

~uch has been 1earned fn the 10 years s1nce

the CRIIQIP began. Onfarm controls, canal and

lateral lining, and related water management

measures are effective in areas where 1rr1ga-t ion system seepage and return flows are the major contributors of salt loads.

The planning process ts nearly completed on

four agr1cu1turtl source units currently under

Investigation· lower Gunnison Basin Unit

(Stage I), Uinta Basin Unit (Stage I), Hc:Elmo

Creek Unit, and Palo Verde Irrigation Otstrict

Unit. Reports presenting the status and the

estimated construction costs of the tentative plans are complete. Completion of feasibility reports. congressional authorization, and funding are required before advance planning studies for construction can begin.

The Lower Gunnison Basin Unit status report address.a the Oncompahgre '/alley portion of

the Lower Gunnison Basin. The balance of the

Basin would be studied later. The recommended

plan calls for lining about 254 miles of

canals and laterals >«1ich would reduce the salinity at Imperial Da11 about 15.2 mg/l.

Based on January 1981 prices, total construc-tion costs are estimated at Sl37.8 million. This results In a cost-effectiveness of about

S685,000 tor each mg/l of salinity reduction

at Imperial Dam.

The tentative plan described in the Uinta

Basin Unit status report involves selec='""" £1vely lining those portions of the canal and

lateral distribution system which are making

the largest contributions to the salinity

levels in the area. Reclamation ts working

closely with SCS In developing a coordinated

program in the area. The plan (four

possi-bilities) currently calls for lining from 8 to 19 evaluation units (canals and laterals), which would reduce the salinity concentr4

-tions at Imperial Dam from 4 to 10 mg/L. The

most cost-effective improvements will be

Identified as the studies progress. Total

construction costs are estimated between $28

to SS9 million, based on January 1981 prices,

exclusive of the wildlife plan. This results 1n a cost-effectiveness range of S570.000 to

S962,000 for •ocn mq/L of salinity reduction

at Jmperhl Dam. Salinity control efforts_ are

being closely coordinated with ongoing Central

Utan Project activities under the Bonneville,

Upalco. and Uintah Units.

The McElmo Creek Unit status report outlines three conceptual plans involving canal 4nd

lateral lining in combination with onfarm

Improvements. The total construction costs of

the canal lining (Stage I) portion for the

preferred plan is expected to be approximately

SJS million with a salinity concentration

reduct Ion of about 6.1 mg/Lat Imperial Dam.

The cost-effectiveness of this plan ts

approximately S450,0DD per mg/l. If an accept

-able canal and lateral improvement progran cannot be fmp18'11ented, an alternative of

collecting the saline water for use In cooling

POwerplants In the Four Corners area appears

to have merit.

The Palo Verde lrrt,ation District Unit

spec1al report cone udes that about

10

percent

of the District's canals and laterals could be lined under the salinity reduction progran for a total construction cost of about Sl7 million. About 20 miles of canals would

be lined in conjunction with onfarm practices

($4 million) and together would decrease the

salinity at Imperial Dam by about 8 mg/L.

Cost-effectiveness would be S242.00D per mg/l.

The District has also expressed an interest in

rehabilitating the remaining 275 miles of

canals and laterals with those costs being

repaid by the District.

- Protect "'1ld11fe values

Wildlife habitat which has developed•••

result of irrigation systmt lo1ses is an important resource. This habitat, 1n a area otherwise void of significant vegetation,

provides cover and food for many small mam1als and birds. As the hllTlan population increases, pressures to maintain wildlife habitat

increases from people desiring areas for hunting, fishing, and the opportunity for observing birds and mmmals.

Any reduction in wlldife habitat associated

with improving irrigation systems for salinity

control raises concerns from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .ind the State fish and

garoe departments. Conservation and enhance

-ment of wildlife values is an important

consideration in the local acceptability of

various units In the salinity control program.

In recent years, the Dep•rtment has supported

leg 1S lat ion to provide such authority. It

ts

expected that legislation will be introduced

before the current Congress to address this issue.

• Stre..,.llne USDA onfarm progran Review of prograns of the SCS, ASCS, and S&E-ARS relating to the onfarm salinity

control programs revealed two areas needing revision.

Attempts to use existing USDA prograns to

accomplish the salinity control objectives are

not resulting In the progress that could be expected from a tailor-made octlvlty. Such an activity should not be limited by annual

cost-share ce111ngs, should make provisions

for the special conditions that arise in the

different geographic areas, and should •llow this portion of the salinity control progran to proceed without burdensome

adminis-trative constraints. A new progran uniquely adapted to the onfarm salinity control oppor·

tunltles In the Colorado River Basin would be

mure effect Ive.

Historically, USDA funding has been provided

as a part of the ACP and other existing programs. Alternative, more direct funding

approaches are being explored.

These revisions would allow related USDA and

Interior prograns to more expeditiously m•et the CRWOIP objectives and goals.

• Pursue beneficial use of saline waters

Most of the current structural methods of

salinity control, such as desalting and lined

evaporation ponds for POint and diffuse salt

sources. are proving expensive compared to

Irrigation Improvements. Therefore, develop-ment of alternative beneficial uses of saline water and innovative measures to reduce S411n1ty concentrattons are necessary.

By resolution dated September 12, 1980. the

Fort.m adopted a policy re<:ommendlng that costs

of using sal1ne ~aters in lieu of freshwaters

be unoerwritten as a part of the salinity control activities lflflerever cost-effective.

The Basin States suggest that the Secretary of

WHERE TO NOW?

the Interior bt provided authority under the Salinity Control Act to enter into

cost-shar1ng contracts with industrial water

users in the Colorado River Basin to offset

any incremental additional costs of using

saline water in lieu of freshwater where

such undertakings are cost-effec1tve from a salinity control perspective.

• Financial arrangements

This is a baslnwide problem, with regional

as well as national Impacts. The program requires cooperation of the Basin States and

Federal Government. The current

Actninistra-tion's econO'll1c philosophy is for the bene-ficiaries to take the lead both financially and authoritatively to solve resource

manage-ment prob I ems. In order to Implement the pro· gram, equitable financial support will con·

tlnue to be a necessary component of the

Implementation plan. In recognition of this joint effort for controlling salinity In the

Colorado River, the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act allocated the costs

of salinity control for the four authorized units to be 75 percent paid by Federal

nonreimbursable funds and 25 percent repaid

from the basin funds derived from the sale of hyllropower. Of the states' share, 85 percent wl 11 be repa Id from the Lower Bas In fund and

15 percent from the Upper Basin fund.

• Program Implementation In FY 1982

Planning investfgattons will continue to refine plans on irrigation source control

units; planning will continue on other units

to define the most cost·effective measures as

funding permits. Construction on Grand Valley Stage One will continue; preconstructton activities (deep well Injection testing) will

continue on Paradox Valley Unit; and

reformu-lation plans will continue on the Las Vegas

Wash Un It.

The FortJ11 has indicated ft will continue to seek ways to expedite progra'!I implementation

to maintain quality of Colorado River water at

the 1972 historical levels as the Basin States continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters.