My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02841
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
15000-15999
>
WSPC02841
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:32:47 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:35:42 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
9/1/1989
Author
DOI-BOR
Title
Office of the Inspector General Audit Report - Survey Report on the Review of the CRBSCP
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.
/
44
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 />OC2210 <br /> <br />."\??~\: :.\ : <br />?dg12 _ .::" -1 <br /> <br />Replacement Water <br /> <br />Pa~e 14, Parail'aph No.1 <br /> <br />It is in the best interests of the Basin States to work with the united States in resolving <br />. this issue, and recent discussions with the States indicate a willingness to do so. We <br />believe this issue will be resolved in the near future. <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />The following language appears in the Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93-320: "To <br />authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance of cenain works in the Colorado <br />River Basin to control the salinity of water delivered to users in the United States and <br />Mexico." <br /> <br />Pal!e 14. Para~raph No.3 <br /> <br />1st sentence: The "dual goal" of "without depriving the basin states of any of their <br />allocated water" in not part of Title I program. <br /> <br />2nd and 3rd sentences: The statement that "the projected costs to operate the desalting <br />plant have risen to the point where the desalting program may no longer be <br />economically desirable" is irrelevant. The decision to build the plant was not justified <br />based on benefits versus costs. <br /> <br />Pal!e 15. Para~raph No.2 <br /> <br />We agree that Congressional reassessment of this project is necessary, and in fact, each <br />year Congress has assessed and authorized funds for this project based on the data <br />presented. <br /> <br />Appendix No.1 <br />Explanation of the $14,000,000 figure is needed. <br /> <br />Appendix No.3. Lower Vir~n River <br /> <br />The note in the second column which reads "Deferred; no viable control method <br />identified" should be changed to "Deferred until work on the Harry Allen Powerplant <br />resumes." <br /> <br />There does appear to be a viable project plan, but the plan involves development of the <br />Harry Allen Power Plan to make use of the Lower Virgin River water for powerplant <br />cooling. Construction of the powerplant has been deferred by the Nevada Power <br />Company. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.