Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />N <br />~ <br />~ 1981. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />The contractor completed lining of the 6.8 mile section <br /> <br />of the Government Highline Canal in early 1981, and contracts <br /> <br /> <br />were awarded for replacement of the lateral system in the Stage I <br /> <br /> <br />area with a closed pipe system. Stage I represents only 10 <br /> <br /> <br />percent of the Grand Valley Salinity Control Unit area and it_ <br /> <br />is imperative that salinity control measures be implemented in <br />the remaining portion of the unit as rapidly as possible $0 that <br />the Congressional directives of Public Law 93-320 can be achieved. <br />According to the Gctober 1980 Monitoring Plan for Stage I, <br /> <br />it is expected that a measurable decrease in salt load will be <br />observed about one year after implementation of control measures. <br /> <br />It may take several years before all effects of Stage I are <br />. realized, particularly since lateral const~uction has just <br />started. With the prospect of early and successful monitoring <br />results, initiation of construction on Stage II should be <br />accelerated. In particular, work should be strated on design <br />and specifications for those portions of the Stage II area <br /> <br />that show considerable promise for salinity reduction, Analysis of <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the results of canal lining in the Stage I area should be expedited <br />to demonstrate that additional canal lining in the Stage II area <br />is justified and should be undertaken prior to completion of all <br />planned Stage I construction and monitoring. Canal consolidation <br />may be very desirable from a cost as well as operating and mainte- <br />nance perspective. USBR should include an evaluation of canal <br />consolidation as part of the alternatives for salinity control <br /> <br />in the Stage II planning effort. <br /> <br />~ .~_ li~~ <br />