My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12533
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12533
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:32 PM
Creation date
7/30/2007 11:21:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.400
Description
Colorado River Operations and Accounting - Deliveries to Mexico
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/2000
Author
Robert Jerome Glennon - Peter W Culp
Title
The Last Green Lagoon - How and Why the Bush Administration Should Save the Colorado River Delta - Excerpted from Ecology Law Quarterly - Volume 28-Number 4 - 01-01-02
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.
/
92
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 />n... 7 <br />0010::" <br /> <br />2002] <br /> <br />THE LAST GREEN LAGOON <br /> <br />973 <br /> <br />The adoption of the new Colorado River Surplus Criteria will <br />exacerbate the. already critical salinity problem on the Lower <br />Colorado. The EIS calculated expected salinity levels under the <br />various alternatives, but. did not calculate the total expected <br />economic effect of these changes, although it does note that each <br />1 ppm increase in. salinity would cause $2.5 million in harm in <br />California, Arizona, and Nevada}l2 While the EIS assumed that <br />any increases would be offset by future salinity control projects, <br />it did not identify these projects.413 It also did not consider that <br />instream flows (to the Oelta) are a cost-effective means of <br />reducing overall salinity. <br />Moreover, the EIS completely ignored salinity effects on <br />Mexican water. users, and failed to provide an estimate of <br />increased river salinity below Imperial Dam, the last dam on the <br />Colorado before the U .S.~Mexico border. This oversight is <br />particularly perplexing because the stretch of river below <br />Imperial Dam is likely to face salinity increases far greater than <br />those experienced at Imperial Dam itself: This is due to the fact <br />that the majority of the remaining water to be diverted according <br />to the Basin States alternative is diverted at the Imperial Dam. <br />As a result, the effect of a net reduction in flows to Mexico will be <br />relatively greater. Moreover, because Minute 242 requires an <br />exact proportion between the levels at Imperial and Morelos <br />dams (a difference of no more than 115 ppm :t 30 ppm),414 the <br />salinity . levels at MoreIos are far more significant than the levels <br />at Imperial Dam. The Basin States alternative would increase the <br />flows that reach Imperial Dam but reduce them below the Dam. <br />Therefore, the salinity levels at Imperial and Morelos will likely <br />diverge, which could easily result in violations of Minute 242.415 <br />If salinity at Morelos is driven unacceptably high, the U.S. <br />could be forced to operate the Yuma desalinization plant to meet <br />its treaty obligations. The plant is costly to operate,416 and will <br /> <br />412. See FINALEIS, supra note 71, at 3.5-7. <br />413. Id at 3,5-9. Indeed. the approach of the EIS on this point ~eems to be to <br />argue that because there are salinity-control restrictions in place (due to Minute 242 <br />and the CRBSCA) that make salinity increases illegal, and .because the states, BOR, <br />and other agencies are bound to follow the law. there will ipso facto never be changes <br />in Lower Colorado salinity. See id. <br />414. See supra note 402. <br />415; Relative salinity and flow levels are generally inversely related due to dilution <br />effects; thus, more water at Imperial Dam equals lower salinity, less water below <br />equals higher salinity. <br />416. The plant will cost in the neighborhood of $25 inillion per year to operate, <br />without considering the cost of periodic replacements of equipment. See PONTIUS, <br />supra note 3, at 68. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.