|
<br />" ,- J <;)
<br />,L-J...v
<br />
<br />It will be noted that operation under
<br />Minute No. 218 required a makeup from
<br />storage release in 1971 of approximately 31,-
<br />300 acre-feet. During the last six years of op-
<br />eration, this makeup water has cost the
<br />United States a total of 232,400 acre-feet, or
<br />an average of 38,700 acre-feet of water per
<br />year.
<br />Mexico also requested the bypass of addi-
<br />tional Wellton-Mohawk drainage waters
<br />when diversions at Morelos Dam were great-
<br />er than 900 cfs. This voluntary bypass of 48,-
<br />100 acre-feet was requested by Mexico to fur-
<br />ther improve the quality of water diverted at
<br />Morelos Dam, Without this voluntary
<br />bypass, the United States operations under
<br />Minute No. 218 would have resulted in an '
<br />annual average salinity during the sixth year
<br />of 1,245 ppm, a reduction of 33 ppm over the
<br />fifth year average. Because of Mexico's
<br />voluntary bypass of additional drainage wa-
<br />ter, the annual average salinity of actual di-
<br />versions by Mexico during the sixth year
<br />equalled 1,161 ppm.
<br />About 66 percent of the water reaching
<br />Mexico during 1971 came from River storage
<br />above Imperial Dam and the remaining 34
<br />percent from return flows to the River below
<br />Imperial Dam. The largest source of return
<br />flows is from the drainage waters of the Well-
<br />ton-Mohawk Project, the average salinity of
<br />which was about 3,680 ppm in 1971. This
<br />represented a reduction of about 110 ppm
<br />from the 1970 figure. Plate 9 shows the salin-
<br />ity and flow of the Wellton-Mohawk Outfall
<br />Drain and the Colorado River at Imperial
<br />Dam and at the Northerly International
<br />Boundary with Mexico,
<br />The International Boundary and Water
<br />Commission report summarizes river opera-
<br />tion under Minute No, 218 for the last six
<br />years as follows:
<br />1. 14There has been a reduction in the average annual
<br />salinity of waters made available to Mexico at the
<br />northerly boundary under United States opera-
<br />tions of Minute No, 218, from 1,375 ppm in 1965 to
<br />1,245 ppm in 1971, an average decrease of about 22
<br />ppm per year,"
<br />2, "There has been a reduction in the average annual
<br />salinity of the total annual quantity of Well ton-
<br />
<br />Mohawk drainage water discharged in the convey-
<br />ance channel, from 4,680 ppm in 1965 to 3,680 ppm
<br />in 1971."
<br />3, "There has been a reduction in the average annual
<br />salinity of the total annual quantity of South Gila
<br />drainage waters discharged to the river channel,
<br />from 2,510 ppm in 1965 to 2,320 ppm in 1971."
<br />
<br />Mexico has also been working on facilities
<br />to reduce the impact of Colorado River salin-
<br />ity on its lands. The rehabilitation of the
<br />Mexicali Valley irrigation and drainage sys-
<br />tem, initiated in June 1969, continues to
<br />progress. At the close of 1971, about 107 miles
<br />of canals were lined and about 167 miles of
<br />drains were constructed or rehabilitated, 63
<br />wells were installed and 119 wells were
<br />reconstructed.
<br />The United States State Department rep-
<br />resentatives were present at the previously
<br />described meeting with Department of the
<br />Interior officials on July 30, 1971, to indicate
<br />the international aspects of the Colorado Riv-
<br />er Salinity Control Program. Because of the
<br />State Department's interest in providing a .
<br />solution to the quality of Mexico's water
<br />deliveries, that department expressed strong
<br />support for the Colorado River Salinity Con-
<br />trol Program.
<br />
<br />State of Colorado Water Quality Standards
<br />
<br />During 1971, the Board staff reviewed the
<br />newly adopted water quality standards for
<br />the State of Colorado, which became effec-
<br />tive on September I, 1971. Changes in the
<br />standards from those adopted by Colorado on
<br />May 15, 1968, are minimal. The new stand-
<br />ards include an "Anti-degradation" state-
<br />ment which reads as follows:
<br />Waters of the state, the quality of which exceeds
<br />the limits set in these standards, will be maintained
<br />at existing quality unless and until it can be demon-
<br />strated to the state that a change in quality is justi-
<br />fied to provide necessary economic or social
<br />development. In that case, the best practicahle de-
<br />gree of waste treatment to protect the current clas-
<br />sification of such waters will be required. The
<br />appropriate federal authority will be provided with
<br />information, from time to time, required to dis-
<br />charge his responsibilities under the Federal Water
<br />Pollution Control Act, as amended.
<br />
<br />31
<br />
|