My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09396
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09396
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:53:21 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:36:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.500
Description
Glenwood-Dotsero Springs Unit - Salinity Control Projects
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/1/1986
Title
Salt Tolerant Emergent Plant Process Status Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />0) <br />00 <br />'.') <br /> <br />.--... <br />'-. <br /> <br />3. Additional time and funding need to be included in <br />Phase I. The time estimate of 4 months for this <br />phase appears to be too short, as stated by Mr. <br />Walter Orr Roberts of the University Corporation for <br />Atmospheric Research at Boulder, Colorado, in a <br />March 8, 1986, letter to IBR. Also, time and money <br />need to be included in phase I to address the issues <br />of concern to Reclamation which would not be resolv- <br />ed by the near-term development plan described in <br />IBR's March 4, 1986, letter to the University of Ar- <br />izona Environmental Research Laboratory (harvesta- <br />bility and nutrient value of products, other poten- <br />tial uses for salt tolerant plants besides forage, <br />evaluation of potential hazardous and toxic materi- <br />als, including bioaccumulation, and the handling and <br />disposal of saline discharges). <br /> <br />C) <br /> <br />4. Reclamation questions the wisdom of the Federal gov- <br />ernment underwriting the potential failure of Phases <br />I and II. Such an action could encourage careless- <br />ness, irresponsibility, and a lack of prudence by <br />non-government participants in the project. <br /> <br />5. In the event that phase I is initiated, it should be <br />clearly understood by all concerned parties that <br />subsequent phases would not be initiated until posi- <br />tive results are indicated from previous phases. <br />These results would include an indication that cost <br />effectiveness for salt removal would be competitive <br />with other salinity control units and within Recla- <br />mation guidelines. <br /> <br />Reclamation makes the following recommendations: <br /> <br />1. Phases I and II should not be funded until some fi rm <br />indication of a water right is received from the <br />state of Colorado. <br /> <br />2. phase I should be expanded to address Reclamation's <br />concerns not addressed by the near-term development <br />pIan outlined in IBR's March 4 letter (see item 3 <br />above) . <br /> <br />3. The investment connmmity should underwrite a portion <br />of phase I costs and, thereby, assume a portion of <br />the risks. <br /> <br />4. If a water right is likely, then Reclamation and the <br />Forum will need to decide whether or not to seek <br />funding for phase I, considering the total funding <br />package for the Colorado River Water Quality Impro- <br />vement Program. <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.