WSP10739 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~ O"J 00 In 19%. an additional amendment 10 the Salinity Control Act allowed the Basin states to cost-share up,front in the amount of 30% of the total construction or contract amounts. This means that for every $100 spent by the federal government, an additional $43 is spent by the Basin states. This cost sh;lring opportunity greatly increases the cost effectiveness of the federal dollars and the opportunily has been welcomed by the states. It also means that the states aggressively seek the most cost effective s;llinity control opportunities. The Colorado River provides water for more than 23 million people and irrigation for more than four million acres of land in the United States. The river also serves about 2.3 million people and 500,O()() in'ig"ted acres in Mexico. Recent salinities in the lower portion of the Colorado River are typic.lily "hout 700 mg/L, but in the future may range between 600 and 1,200 mglL. Salinity damages il1thc Uniled States portion of the Colorado River Basin range between $500 million and $750 million per year and could exceed $].5 billion per year if future increases in salinity are not controlled, All hough salinity impacts cannot be eliminated, the Basin states and federal government agreed to limit t'uture damages through the adoption of salinity standards and the implementation of the agreed to 1'1,111. In June of ]974, Congress enacted the original Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Acl. 1t provides authority to honor the Mexican Treaty with respect to water quality (Title n and it provides authorily for the salinity control program in the United States (Title m. In 1993, the Basin slat,'s. thc Department of the Interior and the Inspector General concluded that Ihe lengthy Congressional dLllhorization process for Reclamation projects was impeding the implementation of cost-effective mcasures. In 1994, Reclamation conducted a public review of the program and in 1995, Congres' authorized Reclamation to implement a competitive, basinwide approach for salinity control whieh has since become known as the Basinwide Program. The Basin Slales, represented by the Forum, SUppori this legislation because of the needed salinity c0l1tl'01 measures to protect water users in the Uniied States from potential damages inflected from high salinity in their water supply. It should be noted, however, that all 5alinity control measures illlpkmcnted under Title II provided for better water quality in the waler delivered to Mexico undel' Treaty. Although the United States has never violated the water quality provision5 of the Treaty. ClIlT(,lltly Mexican water users and Mexican officials are urging the United States to take addilipld steps to improve the quality of water delivered across the border. Title II water qualily efflJ['\s reduce the pressure for adclitional and often much more costly measures at the border. Reclamation has now completed four rounds of solicitations (requests for proposals), ranked the proposals based on their cost effectivenc.ss and has performed risk analysis on eacti proposal. Funds have been awarded to the highest ranked projects. The cost of salinity control has been cut in half by Ihis new tlexible and competitive process. Pasl projects authorized in 1974 and later (Grand Valley, Paradox, Lower Gunnison and Dolores) by Cungress have averaged $76 per ton of salt controlled. For a number of reasons, the new projects in the l:Jasinwide Program are much more cost effective. One can note the cost per ton shown Oll tile table Ihat is attached. The top six projects were authorized originally and sail was controlled. exccpt for one project, al costs ranging from $48/ton to $150/ton. The sixteen projects at the bottom or the table range from $12/lOn (0 $36/ton of sail controlled. 2