BOARD02336

• Board Meeting Date: 9/27/1999
• Description: Directors' Reports
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

I. ~

.

generated comments favorable to the program, although Lower Basin water users are concerned with the
pace at which the program is being implemented due to federal funding limits. Water users in the Lower
Basin benefit from increased salinity control, but are not asking for a reduction in the numeric criteria that
would force additional salinity control. Instead they are requesting accelerated effort implementation tq
reduce the risk and frequency of temporary exceedances of the existing criteria. Upper Basin Forum
members must weigh the potential risk that LOWer Basin states will seek reductions if the program is not
successful, against budget pressures created for Reclamation's Upper Colorado River Region through the
Salinity Control Program is funded. Salinity control projects designed to meet the basinwide goals of the
program must be located above Hoover Dam, and therefore are treated by USBR as an Upper .Region
expense. It appears that every dollar directed to be spent on salinity control is one Jess dollar available for
other projects. While the Lower Basin states cost share in salinity control from a Basin Fund, they are not
exposing the Lower Colorado River Region to increased budget pressures when they call for an
accelerated salinity control effort.

Another issue raised at the public meetings was a call from California agencies involved with the
Salton Sea for the salinity control program to preferentially attempt to mitigate selenium loading in the
Basin. Research has shown that the Uncompahgre and Grand Valleys are contributing over 60 percent of
the Basinwide selenium load. Selenium is a trace constituent of the overall total dissolved solids (TDS)
which the salinity control program addresses cumulatively. Unlike the major constituents ofTDS,
selenium is toxic to wildlife and aquatic species and is becoming a major concern in the Lower Basin
where repetitive water use concentrates selenium in irrigation return flows.

Colorado might see an increase in local project funding if selenium were to be targeted by this
Program, but it would probably come at the cost of removing less TDS basinwide since combined projects
to control selenium and TDS tend to be more expensive. The Lower Basin has not yet made it clear
whether they prefer accelerated TDS control as asserted during the 1999 Review process, or less TDS
control, but increased attention to particular areas contributing to the basin's selenium problem. We will
continue to work closely with Lower Basin representative's on this issue, particularly since there is a
possibility that selenium concerns could lead to the very state-line standards which The Salinity Control
Program was adopted to prevent.-

Central Arizona Project Contract Restrncturing: The Department of Interior announced via the
Federal Register on July 30,1999 and August 26,1999 its intent to undertake an environmental review to
restructure Central Arizona Project contracts from agriculture to M&I and Indian use. The August 26th
notices scoping meetings during September. The record will remain open for written comments through
September 27, 1999.

Endangered Fish Recovery Program Implementation Committee Meeting: The Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Committee met on August 30 in Grand
Junction to approve the Fiscal Year 2000 work plan. The Implementation Committee also approved our
recommendation to defer any forther consideration of instream filings in Colorado as follows:

. Colorado River - an annual review of the need for water rights, contingent upon
implementation of the programmatic biological opinion;
. Yampa River - pending completion of a programmatic biological opinion for that basin; and
. Gunnison River - pending the outcome of the Aspinall biological opinion and if required a
programmatic biological opinion for the Gunnison.

.

.

12