Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OG22J4 <br /> <br />APPS\::": ' <br />?a~e , c: c <br /> <br />Rei:ommendation ~o, 5 <br /> <br />~ot to proceed with the unauthorized $4.4 million expansion of privately owned <br />irrigation facilities planned for the McElmo Creek Projei:t. <br /> <br />Response <br /> <br />Do not concur. This recommendation is based on the DIG's conclusion that $4.4 million <br />of costs allocated to salinity will be a windfall gain to the area farmers and should not <br />be charged to the project's salinity purpose under the Colorado River Basin Salinity <br />Control Act. Reclamation takes strong exception to this conclusion and provides the <br />following explanation for the sizing analysis for the Towaoc-Highline Canal to suPPOrt <br />this position. <br /> <br />Section 203(b)(1) of the Salinity Control Act directS the Secretary of the Interior to ". . . <br />cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture in . . . implementing on-the-farm <br />improvements and farm management practices. . .." The Soil Conservation Service <br />(SCS), the entity responsible for the on-farm construction of Dolores Project salinity <br />control features, initially had not been directly involved with the Towaoc-Highline sizing <br />as the Act requires. In a conscious effort to remedy this oversight, the SCS was invited <br />to participate in formulating the canal sizing. <br /> <br />The difficulty in establishing a precise canal sizing is due predominantly to the <br />uncertainty of the number of the Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company (MVlC) <br />farmers that will convert from flood to sprinkle irrigation. This conversion rate is stricth. <br />voluntary. Factors that further exasperated this uncertainty are the poor farm economv . <br />and the little interest expressed in participating in current cost sharing programs offered <br />by the SCS to financially assist farmers with the purchase of sprinkler equipment. <br />Consequently, the canal was sized to include enough capacity to efficiently operate the <br />system for salinity control and allow for an extended conversion period for flood <br />irrigation of up to 20 years. <br /> <br />The concept of including sufficient canal capacity to allow for rapid flood irrigation (a <br />more efficient method than flood irrigation) was also discussed at the canal sizing <br />meetings. Rapid flood irrigation eliminates the traditional practice of saturating the soil <br />during irrigation to make up for deficiencies in delivery capabilities or lags between <br />irrigation turns. It is widely accepted that salinity benefits are realized when this <br />method of irrigation is used. Thus, the decision was made to size the canal consistent <br />with this methodology. <br /> <br />Documentation to substantiate our response to this recommendation is available and Il.'ill <br />be provided to you upon request. <br /> <br />"" <br />