Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ou01J3 <br /> <br />- Vegetation management to increase runoff <br />- Evaporation suppression <br />- Weather modification <br /> <br />Importation of water from other river basins to the CRB is not practical <br />for the foreseeable future because of costs, energy requirements, environ- <br />mental impacts, and political real ities. The Colorado River Basin Project <br />Act of 1968 banned the Secretary from studies of water importation into <br />the CRB from any other river basin for a period of 10 years. That ban was <br />extended for an additional 10 years, to September 30, 1988, by Public law <br />95-57B and expanded to cover studies by any Federal official by Public law <br />96-375. <br /> <br />Investigations into the construction of a large-scale seawater desalting <br />plant have shown that high construction costs and the energy-intensive <br />nature of the desalting process make this alternative infeasible. <br />Geothermal studies undertaken by the Bureau have concluded that the <br />use of brines for single purpose water augmentation cannot be justified <br />economically. <br /> <br />The U.S. Forest Service has conducted long-range studies of vegetation <br />management on forest watersheds to increase runoff. The most effective <br />management measures for increasing water yield are clearcutting timber- <br />lands and conversions from vegetation types such as chaparral to meadow- <br />lands. Studies show that the combined effects of weather modification <br />and vegetation modification on the same area increase streamflow more <br />than if the two practices are applied separately. The Bureau of land <br />Management recently has announced a proposal for a vegetation management <br />pilot project to learn the water yield response to removal of aspen <br />timber in western Colorado. <br /> <br />The Bureau of Reclamation has conducted research on ways to reduce <br />evaporation loss from reservoirs. The project involved use of a fatty <br />alcohol monolayer film to cover water surfaces. The principal problems <br />with this effort was the effect of winds on the film. Researchers found <br />that even low-velocity winds break up the film and move it across the <br />reservoir, thus reducing its effectiveness. The program was discontin- <br />ued after evaluation, including a Stanford Research Institute report, <br />determined that evaporation suppression would not be effective for the <br />foreseeable future. <br /> <br />Continued investigation or implementation of one or any combination of <br />these alternatives in the Basin does not preclude consideration of the <br />remaining alternatives. Certain alternatives, or combinations of alter- <br />natives, may be complementary. Thus, further development of precipitation <br />management technology does not foreclose the use or development of other <br />water resource management alternatives. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />_ _-_--e-_c-=--_-___ <br />-------------- <br /> <br />- - - - -- <br />- - - --- - - - - - - - <br />