Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, ,,-. <br /> <br />~.-~ \ : <br /> <br />,,"'-' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />,," <br /> <br />.~ <br />l'\) <br />1\.) <br />...:I <br /> <br />" . <br /> <br />-~" ' <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />J110. <br /> <br />":' <br /> <br />" ' <br /> <br /> <br />comp..recl with other studies and some ware discussed with local water offieials, <br />anc\ it is believed that ~~ey reesonablYrep~essnt conditions in each of the <br />irriga~ec1 areas. .. . . . . . ... <br /> <br />The individual parameters were tested. llorsensitivity .on 'the indiviclual <br />budgets. All of the budgets reactsd to changes in the groundwater concentra- <br />tions,and this is probably the single most difficult paTametsr to accurately <br />c1etermine. It is believed thllt the values which were used ere within IO <br />percent. <br /> <br />Coste and salt contributions and attainable levels ,of reduction for <br />Paradox Valley, Glenwood-Dotsero Springs ancl Crystal Geyser,wer'e t.aken almost <br />entirely fromreport.s by the Water ancl Po"Wer Resources Service. The proj ects <br />.were adjustecl to Janusry, 1980 prices and conditione anc\ re-evaluated to <br />determine' the most cost-effective treat:ment. <br /> <br />EVALUATION OF SALINITY CONTROL ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />The alternatives of managing salinity on a besin-wide scale fall into two <br />categories :(1) thoee thllt reduce salinity concentretions by dilut:ton or <br />minimizing the loss of pure water from the system by transpirstion ancl evapo- <br />retion; and (2) those that improve water qUlllity by reducing the mass emission <br />of salt. Examples of the first category include "WSather modifi:eetion to <br />enhance stream flo"W, evsporation suppression, and phreatophyte control. In <br />the seoond category, such measuras as salina flow collection anc\ treatment, <br />recluction in agricultural return flo"Ws, and'land use regulation can be applied <br />to reduce the volume of.salinity entering receiving "Waters. Although it is,. '.. <br />not necessarily the case, the two categories are. oftenconeiclerecl antithetical.. <br />when consiclering individual proj ects beceuse of the complicatecl interrelation- <br />ships. At the present time, federally authorizecl salinity control projects <br />involve only saline flow collection and treatment ancl recluctions in irrigation <br />retuTn flows. This study in assuming the analytical structurepresentecl above <br />is lLlso limitecl to these aalin:tty contro.l alternatives. <br /> <br />TheTe is also a breakclown of masS emission control measures bet...een..hat <br />might be called "structural" anc\"nonstructural" measures. Authorizecl salin- <br />ity 'control programs primarily emphasize the structural component.s. fo,r.a <br />number of reasons. First, salinity problems in areas like the Lower Coloraclo <br />River Basin c1smend attention il'i. the near future. Mal'i.Y nonstructur.lll measul'SS <br />. such ssinfluent standarcls, water markets, taxation, land retirement, etc., <br />.. requirebaaic changee in the edsdng le$al eystem.. A second reason .for <br />o"stiUetural emphasieis that nonetructu1:al. stratag<tes mus,tbe preceded in <br />sev"ral cases by structul'al measures. Furthermore, nonstructural'strategies <br />'."'.' w\l~Ch..;Il'ie. actually improved water . management pract:il;,$s. r.S<(uire.lo,ng-term <br />commitments from fecleral technical assistanceancl enforcement agencies. <br />Manpower, funcling, and internal agency restrictions often limit the c1uration <br />of ,federal involvement. <br /> <br />Agricultural Salinity Control Options <br /> <br />For areas which primarily contribute salinity clue to salt pickup, the <br />emphasis of an agricultural selinity control program is to reduce the quantity <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />i., <br /> <br />"':.1 <br />