Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />WATER QUALITY <br /> <br />Colorado River Basin Salinity Control <br /> <br />Forum Work Group Meeting <br /> <br />With the passage of the Farm Bill in ] 996, Congress rolled the salinity control program into <br />a newly created program called the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). Prior to <br />EQIP, the salinity control program had its own budget and funding line item totaling about $12 <br />million. After EQIP, funding has been about $4-5 million per year, with the EQIP coordinator then <br />allocating the funds among the Upper Basin states. This has resulted in an disproportionate amount <br />of dollars being allocated to areas with higher costs for salt removal. Currently, the lowest cost for <br />salt removal is approximately $10 per ton whereas the highest is $53 per ton, with mid-ranges in the <br />order of $17 to $23 per ton of salt removed. <br /> <br />The Forum, at its May meeting in Price, Utah, asked the Work Group to develop a <br />methodology for recommending to the EQIP coordinator how EQIP dollars should be better <br />allocated among the original six salinity control areas. At its meeting on August 14'h, the Forum <br />Work Group developed a seven-category ranking criteria to be applied to reported performance by <br />USDA, for allocating next fiscal year dollars. The criteria gave considerable weighting to cost- <br />effective. Based on the criteria, the Price San Rafael was the most cost-effective, followed by Big <br />Sandy, the Uinta Basin, McElmo Creek, Lower Gunnison, and the Grand Valley. <br /> <br />After considering all the issues, the Work Group recommended that if the full funding of$12 <br />million is not attained, that the current allocation of 55% to Colorado, 35% to Utah, and 10% to <br />Wyoming be modified to 50% to Colorado, 40% to Utah, and 10% to Wyoming. <br /> <br />~~_.--- <br />. mmerman <br />Executive Director <br /> <br />---- <br /> <br />6 <br />