Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I)D2192 <br /> <br />constructed to help control .the effects of development may be taken Out <br />of operation when the development actually takes place. <br /> <br />Controllin~ irril!:ation salt sources. The Bureau's primary method <br />for controlling irrigation salt sources is to improve existing privately <br />o",,"ed and operated irrigation canals in areas of s.alt-laden soils to <br />prevent the canals ;E2~_!~_aking, Th~_ in~~_ .~;".EI1~~~_~~,:~!!!.ts is to____ ______ <br />reduce the amoun-t of water whn;h. seeps from the canars., suosequently <br />picking up salts from the surrounding soils as it flows back to the <br />Colorado River system. Most potential projects to control salinity from <br />irrigation sources are located in the upper portion of the basin. <br />However, since the primary benefit of these projects accrues to <br />do",,"stream users in the lower basin, local canal o",,"ers and operators in <br />the upper basin see little reason to participate in the program. Under <br />these circumstances, the Bureau, to comply with the Act, must find a way <br />to get the o",,"ers to participate in the program and to accept redesign of <br />their irrigation canals, <br /> <br />'tr-\ <br /> <br />The McElmo Creek project. soon to be constructed in southwest Colorado. <br />is an example of the Bureau's efforts to encourage local cooperation. <br />The Bureau plans to improve some privately o",,"ed canals and to combine <br />others into a single multipurpose canal which will serve both priva.tely <br />and Federally irrigated lands. These improvements are designed to <br />decrease the salinity problem caused by the water currently seeping from <br />the canals. However, our review of the McElmo Creek proj ect indicates <br />that the design of the project also provides for increasing the delivery <br />capacity of the related private irrigation system, This increase in and <br />of itself would have no measured effect on reducing river salinity levels <br />resulting from the canal seepage problem. This system expansion appears <br />to have been provided by the Bureau as an inducement to gain local <br />cooperation. The irrigation system's O"'Ilers requested the expansion, <br />which they would otherwise have had to pay for themsel-'es. in order to <br />effectively use water the Bureau will soon make available from the <br />adjacent Dolores Project. Approximately $4.4 million of the $25 million <br />cost of the McElmo Creek project is attributable to the requested <br />expansion work. <br /> <br />Local Bureau officials stated that if the Bureau refuses to expand the <br />system's capacity, the local O"'Ilers will not cooperate in the project. <br />Bureau officials also stated that the expansion might provide additional <br />salt reductions by permitting the use of more efficient irrigation <br />practices. However, no one had performed any studies to support this <br />contention or to quantify the expected salt reduction. In this <br />particular case, the authorizing legislation was definitive and specified <br />the canal work necessary to reduce the addition of salt to. the river, It <br />did not call for increasing the delivery capacity of related private <br />irrigation systems. <br /> <br />w~ile we only identified this problem at McElmo Creek, this situation mav <br />occur in the future because of the lack of Bureau policy or procedurai <br />guidance. For example. much of the Bureau's work to be performed at the <br />Grand Valley irrigation control project also involves irrigation <br />improvements associated with privately o"'Iled and operated systems. These <br /> <br />11 <br />