My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10325
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10325
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:58:21 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:16:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272.100.60
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
10/1/1999
Author
CRBSCF
Title
Supplemental Report on the 1999 Review - Water Quality Standards for Salinity - Colorado River System
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.
/
49
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 />o <br />I- <br />(Xl <br />N <br /> <br />EDEN V ALLEY IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE DISTRICT <br />POBOX 174 <br />FARSON, WYOMING 82932 <br />(307) 273-9566 <br /> <br />August 24,1999 <br />Colorado River Basin Control Forum <br /> <br />Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage District wishes to comment on the 1999 Review of <br />the Colorado River Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System. We <br />would recommend that there be more cooperation between federal 88encies and also with <br />the local governments when salinity control plans are being developed The plans should <br />use a holistic approach. PlI8e 4-3 slates that Reclamation projects and the USDA <br />progrll!n have been designed 1,0 be highly integrated. We have not found this to be the <br />case. <br /> <br />The focus of the Big Sandy project has been entirely on-farm improvements. When the <br />project was being considered the Bureau of Reclamation decided that the cost of <br />improving the irrigation delivery system would be too high. The irrigation delivery <br />system was not designed for sprinklers and it is not possible to only deliver the water that <br />the sprinklers need. Ditch loss, which may be a higher percentage now than when the <br />project was all flood irrigated, also contributes to the seepage into the shallow aquifers. <br /> <br />We are particularly concerned about this because the Monitoring and Evaluation Report <br />for the Big Sandy Unit has shown an increase in the Tons of salt per year from 1989 until <br />1997. NRCS does not seem to be concerned becanse they are using their computer <br />models, which predict the tons of salt saved per year. However, in the Draft <br />Environmental Assessment for the Big Sandy RockSills Project issued by the Bureau of <br />Reclamation, March 1999, pg. m-5 states: "The U.S. Geologic Survey gauging station <br />monitoring at Gasson Bridge has shown that pre-Eden Project salinity rates were in <br />excess ofJOO tons per day IDS for 13 out ofJ6 months. After the Project monitoring <br />has shown increases in IDS in excess 0000 tons per day for 27 out 006 months. <br /> <br />We are being told that the Big Sandy River Unit project is viable and cost effective. <br />Information in the Monitoring and Evaluation RepOlt, which the public reads, should <br />reflect this or the project should be reevaluated with new recommendations for salinity <br />control. <br /> <br />There is also a lack of coordination with local government. It has been the Eden Valley <br />Irrigation and Drainage District's experience that when sprinklers have been designed, <br />many times how the sprinklers will effect the delivery of water and what happens to the <br />overflow from the ponds needed to supply water to the sprinklers hIlS not been <br />considered, This has caused Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage District considerable <br />expense and headaches. <br /> <br />TIlank YG~r;;lsidZ;;;oCZ:~~ <br />~og <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.