Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />0) <br />o <br />CJ::) <br /> <br />ments. Opposi tion has been expressed to the proposed bypass <br /> <br />channel by several local ent i ties. <br /> <br />Al though there are <br /> <br />several issues of contention, there are two primary concerns: <br /> <br />(1) the possible impacts the bypass channel would have on the <br /> <br />existing and proposed wetlands environment in the Las Vegas <br /> <br />Wash, and (2) the possible reduction of the nutrient strip- <br />ping capability of the wetlands if the wastewater effluent is <br /> <br />bypassed around the Las Vegas Wash, thereby increasing waste <br /> <br />water treatment costs. Other concerns which have been ex- <br /> <br />presed relate to the cost and benefits of the salinity <br /> <br />control project. <br /> <br />In response to local concerns and recent changes in the <br /> <br />location of salt pickup by the surface stream flow, another <br /> <br />salinity control strategy has been identified which would <br /> <br />reduce salt pickup by reducing ground water flow. Develop- <br /> <br />ment of the grouna water flow reduction strategy began in <br /> <br />November 1983, with discussions of the concept with state <br /> <br />and local government agencies and advisory groups. Local <br /> <br />response has been encouraging, primarily because sewage <br /> <br />effluent would not be diverted from the Wash flood plain. <br /> <br />Instead, relatively impermeable underground slurry walls <br /> <br />would be placed along the Wash to block tributary ground <br /> <br /> <br />water inflow to the Wash. If the ground water flow reduction <br /> <br />action proves successful, a Bypass Channel would no longer be <br /> <br />needed. <br /> <br />The Council urges Reclamation to continue actively <br /> <br />working with the State of Nevada, the Environmental <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br />J_.'.i,i,~ <br />