Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Ou;;':)3~ <br /> <br />Forum Resoonse <br /> <br />At the two public meetings and through correspondence, the Forum received advice and <br />comment from a number of organizations that are listed as follows: <br /> <br />Imperial Irrigation District (IID) <br />Metropolitan Water District of Southern California <br />U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <br />U.S. Bureau of Land Management <br />U.S. Department of Agriculture <br />U.S. Bureau of Reclamation <br />Utah Division of Water Resources <br />Utah Board of Water Resources <br /> <br />Some of those entities providing written comment also provided oral commentary at the <br />two meetings. In attendance at the Salt Lake meeting, representing the mining industry in <br />southwestern Wyoming was Wes Nash with the Southwest Wyoming Industrial Association. He <br />did not ma.ke formal comment but asked several questions that were answered to his satisfaction <br />at the meeting. The Forum finds that all of the testimony was in support of the salinity control <br />program. The Forum is appreciative of the expression of support and the confirmation given <br />concernin~ the proposed adoption of the 1996 Review. The Forum finds it is not necessary to <br />comment 1!1 this supplemental report on the supportive comments made. They are included as <br />a part of this section of the report for information purposes. <br /> <br />Michael J. Clinton, the General Manager of the IID, appeared at the Phoenix meeting, <br />provided the Forum with written commentary, and provided additional thoughts orally at the <br />meeting. The Forum finds that the IID and Mr. Clinton's comments are supportive of the <br />salinity controll>rogram and the adoption of the 1996 Review. However, in written testimony <br />and in oral testimony, four issues were raised that the Forum wishes to respond to in this <br />supplemental report. The Forum appreciates the support of the IID. The four issues raised are <br />capsulized in the following statements: <br /> <br />1. The IID believes that the report indicates that if there had been average hydrology over <br />the last decade, the salinity 1!1 the river today would exceed the numeric cnteria. Hence, <br />there has not been an implementation of salinity control measures at a pace fast enough <br />to offset man-caused influences since 1972. With this premise, the IID urges the Salinity <br />Control Forum to work for the acceleration of the implementation of salinity control <br />strategies identified in the 1996 Review. <br /> <br />2. The IID commented that water demands have now reached a point where they, at times, <br />equal or exceed supply in the Colorado River drainage, and that further, some water <br />quality strategies are related to water quantity issues. The IID finds that the operation <br />of the Yuma Desalting Plant is of this nature and believes that Reclamation should be in <br />a position to place the Yuma Desalting Plant in full operation in FY 98. The IID <br />requests that the Forum also support the operation of the plant in FY 98. <br /> <br />3. The IID notes that weather modification has been investigated in the past and it has been <br />identified that there can be both water supply and water quality benefits from an <br />increased water sUPl>ly brought about by weather modification. The IID requests the <br />Forum to again conSider including the option of weather modification in an adopted plan <br />of implementation for salinity control. <br /> <br />The IID believes that the reports used concerning the damages caused by salinity in the <br />Colorado River Basin are old and outdated. They believe that damages are greater than <br />stated in the reports. The IID urges the Forum to work with Reclamation 1!1 updating <br />the damage numbers. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />6 <br />