WSPC06339 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . impair water rights, be inconsistent with the overall Colorado water policy of conservation and maximum utilization for beneficial use, or result in an economic burden on developing industries including energy development. A no-salt return program may seriously affect water conservation efforts and may in fact lead to greater con- centration of salinity while eliminating some element of salinity load. No analysis has accompanied this plan of implementation which reviews the effect of the higher con- sumptive use required to achieve the no-salt return, either as to the effect on Colorado River water rights or as to the impact of the concentrating effect on salinity that the no-salt return program may have. Furthermore, the plan of implementation, and in par- ticular the NPDES permit program, should reflect the nature of the salinity contributions to the river and the maximum result in controlling salinity sources. As has been shown very clearly in the 1975 studies by the Forum, in the EPA mineral report of 1971, in the updating work by the Forum in 1978 and in the 1977 Denver Research Institute Study for the EPA, (the pertinent pages of which are attached hereto with the cover page as Exhibit 5), the prime con- tribution to salinity levels in the Colorado River is from natural diffuse and point sources, to the extent of 50% or more of the total salinity, with agriculture accounting for 34 to 37%, evaporation accounting for 11 to 12%, trans- basin diversions accounting for only 3% and industrial and municipal use accounting for only 1% of the salinity con- tributions. This being the case it seems illogical to be directing a significant amount of the economic burden for salinity control to the smallest contributors to the overall salinity picture. We believe this is recognized in the basin-wide approach, which is geared towards controlling salinity on an accumulative basis rather than by offsetting the effects of specificsprojects or uses. We believe this is also the reasoning followed by Congress in adopting Title II of the 1974 Act. We would caution the Commission that any policy governing the implementation of the NPDES no- salt return should be very carefully considered and carefully worded so as to insure that no Colorado water rights are violated and that no particular water user bears a dispro- portionate burden in controlling salinity. To insure that the plan of implementation adopted by the Commission reflects the paramount concern of Colorado water users, that the allocation to Colorado under the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Compact be protected for beneficial use pursuant to the Constitution -6-