Laserfiche WebLink
<br />J,','...... <br /> <br />One major aspect of the Colorado River Basin salinity problem has not <br />heretofor been addressed. An analysis integrating the existing information <br />concerning alternative salinity con,trol meesures into abasin"'widepolic)" for <br />water quality improvement has not been made. It was necassaryto take the ' <br />'final step in developing salinity control technology on,a large seale. The <br />preliminary baeis fo,r this type of analysis hall been developed byliTalker <br />(1978) ~nd partially tested by Walker et a1. (1978). <br /> <br />This project was developed in order to ev~luate the alternative strate- <br />gies forcont"olling salinity in the Upper Basin, and tharefore.id,entify . <br />comp,Ollent,g of individual salinity proS'nms thrQughout the Upperhsin ili' the <br />context of how best to use available funds. At the 10"41 scale, .only the <br />results reported by Evans et 41. (1978a,b). Flug et a1. (1977). Walker (1978) <br />and Walker et al. (1978) have been cencerned with optimal sslinity control <br />strategies. Thase studies have been completed in only one area, the Grand <br />Valley in western COlorado. Erlertkotter' and SchereT (1977) developed an <br />economic optimization model for the entiTe Coll;lrado River Easin, but stopped <br />short of an ultimate framewOrk fOT basin-wide j,alinitymanagement. <br /> <br />, ..... <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />00 <br />, .... <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />, ., <br />This writing delirteates a cost-effectivesal1nity 60ntrolpolicyfor <br />future we,ter resourca development in the Upper. Colorado River llasin taking <br />into, account: . . (a) salinity control; (bJ energy ,davelopment; ,and (c) ,.new "atar <br />demands. The. feasibility. of mairitaining 1972 levels Qfsalinity at Im;>erial <br />Dam set forth by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the seven basin <br />states has also been evaluated. Under this cr;tterion, it clin be .e.xpacted that <br />approximately 2 to 3 million Mgm.of salt muat be eliminated from the. flows <br />passing into the Lower Easin irt:order, to Qffset the. development ofth"rem!iin.. <br />ingUpper 3asin entitlements. This analysis delineates the regions and <br />expenditures in which salinity contrOl projects should be initiated to achieve <br />these salt reductions at minimum cost. Thema:rginal coats and:tnar~inal bene-, <br />'fits of control programs are compared with re"pect to variQuslevela of salin"' . <br />ity control. ' <br /> <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />The results also 'identify the optimal salinity control policy' for various <br />levels of development, and can indicate the best salinity management practices <br />as a function of time or development. Any new projactwhich would be expected <br />tocau.se an increase in downstl.'eam salinity concent-radon could be identified <br />with the most cost"'effective salinity control 'project to offset its impact. <br /> <br />Conceivably., optimal salinity control strategies . could include' indirect <br />methods..for individual water development projects to offsat their salinity <br />, """detT'fnients to the Colorado River. A new project's sanIlity impact.may be,besj;, <br />correc.ted by "water quality improvani.ent program elsewhere in thellasin.. <br />Conse<luently, a number of important ins.titudon.$l,iseuescan be expected to <br />arise':"hen considering salinity control aa a large scale problem;' The optimal <br />plan for offsetting the salinity associated with water development in one <br />state may be the treatment of an existing systEm! in another state. If such a <br />policy Were to be constrained, by not allo'-"ing an interstate or regional view <br />of salinity control, the costs would be higher. Comparison of the optimal <br />strategy with the corresponding constrained strategies indicate the added <br />costs of individual restrictions. Other results evaluate the problems of <br /> <br />i!Ii <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />