Laserfiche WebLink
<br />56 Chapter 7-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program <br /> <br />EP A continues to work with the Basin States to <br />ensure that salinity is addressed in the nonpoint <br />source control assessment reports and <br />management programs currently being <br />implemented under section 319 of the Clean <br />Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Water <br />Quality Act of 1987. The EPA continues to <br />emphasize salinity control through State, local, <br />and Federal land management activities, in <br />addition to the Reclamation and USDA salinity <br />units. <br /> <br />State and local Cooperators <br /> <br />In the Title II of the salinity control program, <br />the Basin States are represented by the Salinity <br />Control Forum and the Advisory Council. The <br />Basin States contribute 25 to 30 percent of the <br />construction cost of the salinity control program <br />from their basin development funds. In <br />addition, local cooperators provide up to <br />30 percent cost sharing for some portions of the <br />program. In the Lower Gunnison Basin Unit, <br />local water users have provided construction <br />management and labor, saving the Government <br />about 40 percent of the estimated cost of that <br />unit. <br /> <br />Since the salinity control program costs are <br />shared by the States and local entities, they <br />have a significant role in deciding how the <br />program will be implemented. Some <br />alternatives appear to conflict with the <br />beneficial use of water under Western water <br />law. In these cases, Reclamation works very <br />closely with the States to evaluate and develop <br />the alternatives. In the case of the Paradox <br />Valley Unit, the State of Colorado and <br />Reclamation were able to develop a plan which <br />ultimately allowed deep well injection to be <br />considered a beneficial use of the water. <br /> <br />In the Dirty Devil River Unit, Utah, the cost <br />effectiveness was not competitive with other <br />alternatives being proposed in the Basin at the <br />time. Reclamation recommended this <br />alternative be deferred until the unit became <br />necessary to meet the salinity control objectives. <br />If and when that is evident, Reclamation and the <br />State of Utah would work together to resolve the <br />institutional barriers. <br /> <br />Other units have been formulated knowing that <br />water rights may be an institutional constraint. <br />The Glenwood-Dotsero Springs Unit was <br />planned with an alternative using evaporation <br />ponds to control the discharge from saline <br />springs. This alternative's cost effectiveness <br />was found to be higher than other projects being <br />implemented. The State of Colorado was <br />concerned that the enormous amount of <br />evaporation required by the alternative would be <br />a depletion of their water resources. Since that <br />time, Reclamation has found an industrial use <br />alternative. Industrial use is considered a <br />beneficial use of water by all of the Basin States. <br />It is also more cost-effective than the <br />evaporation alternative and potentially will save <br />the Federal Government and the states, who <br />cost share the program, a significant <br />investment. Less expensive, cost effective <br />alternatives have replaced most of the units <br />proposing evaporation and deep well injection as <br />alternatives. Western water law has not caused <br />Reclamation to implement expensive <br />alternatives nor expend additional funds to <br />control salinity. <br /> <br />In the past, local cooperation to implement the <br />salinity control program has been mixed. For <br />the most part, water users in the Upper Basin <br />have had little or no need for the salinity control <br />program. They were satisfied that their <br />irrigation systems worked and were relatively <br />free to operate them as they wished. An <br />increasing number of water users are beginning <br />to realize that salinity is a water pollution <br />problem and that agriculture will have to help <br />control its discharge of salt to the river or face <br />regulations that would put them out of business. <br />They cannot ignore the growing number of <br />people that are dependent upon the Colorado <br />River (now in excess of 18 million). With the <br />rapid expansion in the number of alternatives <br />available to the salinity control program, <br />competition is beginning to improve the <br />willingness of water users to participate in the <br />program. Cost sharing alternatives are being <br />formulated and will replace the more expensive <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />TITLE II UNIT SUMMARIES <br /> <br />This section includes a summary of the units <br />and investigations conducted under the salinity <br />