Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000304 <br /> <br />these costs are the lowest of the alternatives considered, there would be significant <br />problems associated with implementation ofthis proposal. The proposal would artificially <br />increase salinity above Imperial Dam and water users in the United States below Imperial <br />Dam would register significant objections. In addition salinity would increase at NIB, <br />causing issues with Mexico. <br /> <br />Weather Modification <br /> <br />Weather Modification, or cloud seeding, was being considered at the time ofthe Salinity <br />Control Act as a source for bypass replacement. A significant scientific program was <br />conducted by Reclamation. Problems could not be resolved with proving the specific <br />effectiveness of cloud seeding. Regarding increased yield estimates, these are difficult to <br />specify exactly due to the many variables and difficulties in measuring precipitation. <br />Significant time and effort is required to accurately estimate seeding effects on <br />precipitation, and then the net yield to water supplies. Generally speaking the scientific <br />literature has documented estimates of 5 to 20 % for winter orographic seeding projects. <br />Over the Colorado Basin there is approximately 20.7 million acres above 8000 ft msl. <br />Assuming that the seeding systems were in place to properly deliver seeding nuclei to the <br />seedable clouds throughout this area, and an increase in yield of 5% were achievable, the <br />potential for increasing supply is significant. Sophisticated numerical models can provide <br />much more realistic information, and have been used in recent studies along the Mogollon <br />Rim to accurately predict ''where'' the snow would fall. However, a verifiable, predictive <br />understanding of the water supply effectiveness of weather modification remains <br />unestab1ished. <br /> <br />Consultation With Affected And Interested Parties <br /> <br />In the spring of 2001 the Bureau of Reclamation began a dialog among interested parties to <br />determine the level of interest in alternative approaches to meeting the objectives of Title 1 <br />ofthe Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. That dialog included representatives of <br />the ffiWC, Colorado River Basin States, environmental and conservation 'zations,__ <br />water user organiz"tions and the general public. Through that dialog, a <br />~~sing forbearance mechanisms, and other measures in lieu of operating <br />theYDP~ ~~~J~d . <br /> <br /> <br />In late summer of 2002, a preliminary draft report to the Congress was circulated to <br />representatives offfiWC, the Colorado River Basin States and representatives of <br />environmental and conservation organizations; and briefings were held to explain the <br />measures proposed and receive comments and suggestions on the content of the <br />preliminary draft report. In early 2003, a draft final report was broadly circulated fOJ; <br />review and additional briefings were held to explain the proposal and receive cOITlIT,lents <br />and suggestions. <br /> <br />This report of the Secretary of the Interior reflects the comments and suggestions receive~ <br />in that review process I <br /> <br />11;;~ <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />~) <br />~O . <br />~~ <br />