WSPC04017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . - 5 - . Colorado has established a cabinet level task force and a technical work group to focus on salinity. This is a cowmen- dable first step. Rather than reject the basin states' 1978 implementation plan, the COITmission, task force, and work group should reexamine: (1) The control strategies in the 1978 plan to see which can be applied effectively in Colorado; (2) The lengthy list of state and local salinity strate- gies developed by the respected Denver Research Institute and published in J. Gordon Milliken, et al., State and Local Manage- ment Actions to Reduce Colorado RIVer-Salinity (EPA-908/3-77/002, Sept. 1977); (3) The most cost~effective salinity control strategies-- the "on-farm" approaches--analyzed in detail in Jay C. Anderson, etal., Salinity Management Options for the Colorado River (Utah Water Research Laboratory Report P-78-003, June 1978). In conclusion, the methods, strategies, and programs exist for controlling salinity. The Commission should not fol- low the opposite approach--as in this proposal--of relegating implementation into the vague, unenforceable "policy" area ,,,here it will languish undescribed, unanalyzed, and unpublished--bear- ing final evidence of Colorado's lack of commitment. Instead, the Commission has before it in this three-year revision an opportunity to do precisely the reverse--to take a leadership role and go beyond the approaches tried to date. Colorado's salinity may not yet trouble Colorado, al- though it is a serious problem downstream. But it is in Colorado's very strong self-interest to control salinity, to protect its own rights to develop and to continue a viable West Slope economy by working cooperatively with its downstream neighbors. The pres- ent approach thumbs its nose at those neighbors, and if adopted, while outrage may not be immediate, it will unfortunatly be long- remembered. Respe~funsubr;!..~tted , /~~l~ George Iv. Pr ing Regional Conn,", . - pa~~hil~i: ~ Regional Counsel 1450