My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC00147
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSPC00147
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:48:17 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 1:58:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272
Description
Colorado River - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - CRBSCP
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/1991
Author
Anne DeMarsay
Title
Brownell Task Force and the Mexican Salinity Problem - A Narrative Chronology of Events
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.
/
37
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 />r\c~5~5 <br />l;t.. _ ..I.. <br /> <br />Floyd A. Bishop <br />Wyoming <br /> <br />One thing the report does not perhaps reflect is that there were significant <br />differences among the Basin States. Many of us felt that the Wellton-Mohawk <br />project should be cut back [bought out] because the drainage was ridiculously high <br />in salt. It was a good solution, but it never did fly. We_ had very extensive _ <br />deliberations though we did come to agreement in the end. <br /> <br />During the Task Force deliberations, we felt that the matter was somewhat out of <br />our hands. I thought the Committee of Fourteen had some influence early on, but <br />very little after the State Department became involved. I did not tour Yuma with <br />Brownell-I don't remember that Committee of Fourteen members were invited <br />to-and I had no private conversations with him or any member of the Task Force <br />during that period. <br /> <br />The final solution did not affect Wyoming adversely, though it was inordinately <br />expensive. We were more concerned about being able to develop our water, and <br />that numerical water quality standards for upstream states should not be part of <br />the agreement. We opposed the long-term use of upstream storage as a <br />solution-that would have had serious implications for Upper Basin development <br />and particularly for Wyoming, which had the most unused water. <br /> <br />Among the other measures proposed, I thought the canal lining was a sensible <br />step. I felt that improvements in irrigation efficiency were inevitable, but would <br />be of more limited benefit in solving the salinity problem that their supporters <br />believed. <br /> <br />:. <br /> <br />The desalting plant was the easiest way out, though it was a substantial burden on <br />the Federal government-how substantial we didn't then realize. We had faith in <br />the desalting technology, and believed that improvements would reduce costs. Our <br />hopes, obviously, didn't materialize. <br /> <br />brownell,rpt <br /> <br />B-2 <br /> <br />September 1991 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.