Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />il <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />il <br />II <br /> <br />- Soil cation exchange capacity <br />- precipitation <br />- Evaporation <br />- Municipal and industrial flow and quality <br />- Crop and phreatophyte consumptive use <br /> <br />Salt and water budgets were prepared, the results of which are compared with <br /> <br /> <br />historical data in Tables II-l and II-2. Figure II-1 shows the general flow <br /> <br /> <br />patterns for the salt budget in the San Rafael River Basin. <br /> <br />From the verification activities, it was concluded that during the study <br /> <br /> <br />period (May 1982 - March 1983) the largest contribution of salt does come from <br /> <br /> <br />the irrigated sector (54 percent in the Price River Basin and 58 percent in <br /> <br /> <br />the San Rafael River Basin). Of this amount 88 percent was attributable to <br /> <br /> <br />the ground water system. Since contributions from the natural ground water <br /> <br /> <br />systems were found to be negligible, most of the ground water salinity can be <br /> <br />attributed to irrigation practices. The mechanisms of irrigation deep <br /> <br /> <br />percolation and canal seepage were found to be the major contributors. <br /> <br />In sUlllllary, it was found that any alternative which will prevent water from <br />entering the ground water system will reduce salt loading to the Colorado <br />River. On a basin-wide average, for each acre-foot of water that can be <br />prevented from entering the ground water in the agricultural area, 2.4 tons of <br />salt per year will be prevented from entering the Colorado River. <br /> <br />lr!n'6 .", <br />, v \., .~-> <br /> <br />II-2 <br />