Salinity Control Act P.L

Mr.

I have today introduced a bill consisting of amendments to authorize certain additional measures to effectuate the objectives of Title I I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act,

P.L. 93-320. Due to a number of omissions in the original Act and the encountering of unforeseen problelllS relating to the envi-ronment, construction work on the Grand Valley salinity control unit has had to be stopped by the Water and Power Resources

Service. This work should be renewed at once if salinity control criteria established by the seven basin States and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency are not to be violated with

extreme adverse effects on present and future water users.

The Grand Valley and Paradox Valley salinity control units of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project are located in my State of Colorado. They were authorized to be constructed by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, P.L. 93-320, on

-June 24, 1974.

Section 208(a) of that Act specifies that:

"The Secretary is authorized to provide for

modifications of the projects authorized by this title as determined to be appropriate for purposes of meeting the objective of this title. No funds for any such modification shall be expended until the expiration of sixty days after the proposed modification has been submitted to appropriate committees of the Congress and not then if disapproved by said committees, except that funds may be expended prior to the expiration of such sixty days in any case in which the Congress approves an earlier date by concurrent resolution. The Governors of the Colorado River Basin States shall be notified of these changes."

Also, in Section 202, it is stated that:

"The Secretary is authorized to cons::ruct, operate, and maintain the following salini ty control units as the initial stage of the Colorado River Basin salinity control prograc.

(2) The Grand Valley unit, Colorado, consisting of measures and all necessary appurtenant and associated works

'

to reduce the seepage of irrigation water from the irrigated lands of Grand Valley into the ground water

and thence into the Colorado River. Measures shall include lining of canals and laterals, and the combining of existing canals and laterals into fewer and more efficient facilities." In accordance with the law, on or about May 7, 1979, the

Department of the Interior advised the Congress of certain proposed changes pertaining to replacement of irrigation laterals with pipes and mitigation of losses of wildlife habitat on the Grand Valley and Paradox Valley salinity control units.

The Congress was informed that the installation of pipe in lieu of laterals or canals was not specifically identified in

P.L. 93-320 as a salinity control measure to be used by the Secretary of the Interior. Investigations on the Grand Valley unit have

revealed that increased efficiency results from the use of closed ' conduits in lateral systems, as a result of which there is a

sig-nificant increase in the reduction of salinity in the waters of the Colorado River. Placing all laterals in pipes on the Grand Va~ley

additional 40,000 tons of salt into the Colorado River system each year. Economic studies indicate that the cost effectiveness of the closed pipe laterals for salinity reduction is favorable when compared with costs of other planned salinity control units. This is the reason for the Water and Power Resources Service's proposal to install pipe in most laterals, excluding only those that are used to intercept surface waste water for reuse on the project. It also appears that it may be beneficial to place portions of some canals in pipe.

Public Law 93-320 is also silent relative to the inclusion of mitigation of fish and wildlife habitat losses caused by con-struction of the salinity cont~ol units authorized by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, and no specific funding was pro-vided by the Congress for this purpose. Studies on the Grand Valley

-2-unit indicate that purchase of land for wildlife habitat,

revegetation of lands disturbed by construction activities, con-struction of watering ponds for wildlife along major lined canals, and monitoring of envirorunental impacts will be parts of the

mitigation plan. Management, operation, and maintenance of all of the acquired lands and watering ponds will be the responsibility of the Division of Wildlife of the State of Colorado.

Investigations of the Paradox Valley unit indicate that it will be necessary to purchase, develop, and fence private lands in

the vicinity of the Radium Evaporation Pond in order to mitigate losses of wildlife habitat caused by construction of that unit. Here, again, continued management, operation, and maintenance will

In November of 1974, the Bureau of Reclamation (now Water ano Power Resources Service) field solicitor s~ated an opinion that mitigatien of wildlife habitat losses must be provided as a result

of lining of the Coachella Canal under Title I of

tne

same Color~do----= River Basin Salinity Control Act, P.L. 93·320. As mentioned earlier, Congress, at the time it was considering ~.L. 93·320 paid no atten

-tion to mitiga-tion of losses of fish and wildlife habitats as the result of construction of salinity control projects. Because of an agreement with the Republic of Mexico, Congress approved the inclusion of such mitigation under Title I. Under my bill, similar mitigation programs will be approved for salinity control programs under Title II of the Act.

Determinations of the details of mitigation measures will be arrived at through consultation and coordination among the Water and Power Resources Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and appropriate Colorado River Basin state agencies. The

agreed-upon measures will satisfy the requirements of the Fish and

-3-:

Wildlife Coordination Act.

It should be pointed out that the bill I have introduced

limits the fish and wildlife mitigation to five percent of the

construction cost of each unit. The present estimated cost of

mitigation is less than five percent in the Grand Valley unit and

the Paradox Valley unit, so this limit should be acceptable,

My bill amends Section 202(2) of P.L. 93-320 to allow the use

of closed pipe while still retaining the option for lining of

canals and laterals.

In a letter of June 1, 1979, to Assistant Secretary of the

Interior, Guy Martin, Senators Henry M. Jackson and Mark O. Hatfield,

chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, disapproved the

•

•

life habitats. They stated that their Committee questioned whether

•

the measures to mitigate fish and wildlife losses that had been i-dentified are properly within the scope of Section 208 of the Act. They further stated that although the use of pipe for laterals in

the Grand Valley unit appears consistent with the objectives of

Title II of the Act, closed pipe laterals are not among the measures specifically identified in Section 202(2) of the Act, and the

Committee is concerned over the estimated cost of this proposal. The action of the Senate Committee stopped all construction •

Mr. ~~~~~~~~ , enactment of my bill would rectify this

objection by approving mitigation of losses of fish and wildlife habitats on the two salinity control projects and permitting the

Secretary of the Interior to subsitute pipes for laterals and

canals in the Grand Valley salinity control unit. The last portion of Section 202(2) states:

"The Secretary is also authorized to provide, as an

-4-element of the Grand Valley unit, for a technical staff

to provide information and assistance to water users on

means and measures for limiting excess water applications to irrigated lands: Provided, That such assistance shall not exceed a period of five years after funds first become available under this title."

This has been amended to give the Secretary continuing authority to provide irrigation scheduling assistance to the water users.

This service is very important in enabling the water users to

imple-ment the water manageimple-ment plan included as part of each on-farm

improvement package. This service would continue to be available

to those users participating in the Department of Agriculture

pro-gram at the end of the construction period.

I hope that you,

Mr.

~~~~~~~-' and my colleagues will

also note that under my bill Section 202(b) is added to provide a

vehicle through which the Secretary may advise the Congress of

technical and institutional problems encountered in implementing

the salinity control project and make recommendations for overcoming

•

these special problems. Experience has shown a need for more

specific comnunication than-i~ provided in the normal reporting

-procedures required under Section 206 and the modification proce~dures

provided for in Section 208(a).

Public Law 93-320 authorized appropriacions of $125,100,000

(April, 1973 prices) for the construction of four salinity control

units in Title 11 including the Grand Valley and Paradox Valley

units in Colorado, the Crystal Geyser unit in Utah, and the Las

Vegas Wash unit in Nevada. !Vo of the four units, Crystal Geyser

and Las Vegas Wash, are not being recommended by the Department of

the Interior for construction at this time. The Crystal Geyser

unit is being deferred because i t has only minimal effect on the

'•

_..

,itil-G-J t1J1ill'I

of

W

r/t-7u-

,.;;f/... lfJf;f ,.;_ dr'drJr

t.,

/Je-/r«r

understand the hydrology and the salinity contribution of the

stream and prepare a feasible and practicable course of action.

Under these circumstances. if the authorized appropriation

ceiling is considered to be an overall limit, there is no need to

request a new appropriation ceiling at this time. Therefore,

Section 280(b) is amended to clarify the intent that the authorized

appropriation ceiling be considered as an overall limit rather than

being divided among and applied separately to the Units, parts of

. Units• and other purposes authorized in Section 202.

A proviso is also included which limits the fish and wildlife

mitigation to five percent of the total construction cost on each

unit.

Mr. _~~~~~~~~~-• I urge prompt consideration of this

bill in order to implement the intent of the Congress to control

the salinity of the Colorado River System for the benefit of both the United States _• and Mexico, as well as the water users of the