Laserfiche WebLink
<br />that Reclamation did study opportunities for a Reclamation salinity control project at Big Sandy and <br />concluded (in a 1985 report) that there was not a cost-effective project for Reclamation to pursue ,at <br />that area. <br /> <br />o <br />I-" <br />-.J <br />w <br /> <br />The final comment made in Mr. Zakotnik's letter concerned the effects that the installation <br />of sprinklers has had on the delivery of water and asserted that consideration has not been given, <br />many times, to what happens to the overflow from ponds used to supply water to the sprinklers. The <br />USDA advises that proposals have been made in the past to improve the delivery of water to the <br />individual sprinklers and that such activities could have been cost-share funded under the now- <br />defunct USDA Colorado River Salinity Control Program (CRSCP - now combined into EQIP). The <br />local irrigation district board has been unwilling to allow pump diversion points for the numerous <br />sprinkler systems that have been installed to be located in canal laterals, nor has the board been <br />willing to consent to the design and installation of automated wasteways and regulating reservoirs <br />within the canal system. Funding was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission <br />in the early 1990's for a study on the feasibility of constructing additional canal wasteway and <br />storage regulation features within the Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage District. The District <br />declined to proceed with project improvements identified in the study that would have improved the <br />system's water delivery and regulation capabilities to accommodate the sprinklers. It is true, as Mr. <br />Zakotnik states, that the irrigation delivery system was not designed for sprinklers and that without <br />modification, the present system will continue to be unable to only deliver the water the sprinklers <br />need. <br /> <br />Selenium Control <br /> <br />The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region <br />(Regional Board), with headquarters in Palm Desert, California, provided both oral and written <br />comment. While the Regional Board applauded the efforts of the Colorado River Basin Salinity <br />Control Forum and encouraged the acceleration of the Salinity Control Program, the Regional Board <br />commented that the control of selenium in the Colorado River Basin would be most important. The <br />Regional Board cited the impacts of selenium in the area of Southern California under its <br />administration. The Regional Board wrote "we recommend that the Colorado River Basin Salinity <br />Control Forum take efforts to address selenium as a part of its overall salinity reduction efforts. <br />Specifically, we recommend that member agencies of the Salinity Control Forum take efforts to <br />identitY the sources of selenium in the Colorado River Basin, determine which sources of selenium <br />are controllable, and take actions to address these controllable sources." As a point of clarification, <br />it should be noted that there are no formal member agencies of the Salinity Control Forum. The <br />Forum is composed of Forum members appointed by the Governors of the seven Colorado River <br />Basin States to represent their respective state at the Forum. However, a number of the Forum <br />members are employed by state water quality agencies, and there are many federal and state agencies <br />involved in investigating salinity issues and implementing salinity control measures. <br /> <br />The Forum has previously discussed the issue of potential damages that may be experienced <br />by Colorado River water users from specific ions such as selenium. The Forum has concluded in <br />the past and reaffirms its conclusions now that the Salinity Control Program, and the associated <br /> <br />9 <br />