Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l"I') <br />00 <br />~ <br />c..) <br />,___ Reference Number <br />~ <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />13. <br /> <br />14. <br /> <br />15. <br /> <br />16. <br /> <br />17. <br /> <br />18, <br /> <br />19, <br /> <br />20. <br /> <br />21. <br /> <br />22. <br /> <br />23, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Item <br /> <br />Pipeline rights-oi-way should be available for public recreation use <br />where applicable. <br /> <br />R) Multiple uses, including recreation, will be considered in <br />all alternatives. <br /> <br />Why are national taxpayers burdened with the cost of salinity control? <br />Why not have affected users, (e.g., L.A., Imperial Valley farmers) <br />made to accept costs? <br /> <br />R) All basin states agreed salinity is a basin-wide problem <br />since upper basin water development contributes to pollu- <br />tion (salt) of the water. Pollution control is viewed as a <br />national objective requiring funding beyond the capabilities <br />of local entities. As an example, consider federal funding <br />for sewage treatment. Also, agricultural benefits and treaty <br />obligations are on a national scale. <br /> <br />Why not pursue the Chemical Plant Alternative? <br /> <br />R) 1. Lack of interest by developers 2. Environmental <br />and health concerns about chlorine plants. <br /> <br />Look for a closer stockpile location - cheaper haul, more expensive land. <br /> <br />R) Currently being pursued. Appreciate any ideas. <br /> <br />Colorado say over Program (Does the State have any perogatives regarding <br />the study?) <br /> <br />R) A plan must be acceptable to the State prior to implementation. <br />Also see response to No. 14. <br /> <br />Colorado could possibly use salinity for bargaining. <br /> <br />R) On the other hand, downstream states could sue for water <br />quality limitations on flows entering their borders, burdening <br />upstream states with control responsibility. <br /> <br />Non~structural and conservation measures could include evaporation <br />control on reservoirs and reservoir destratification (cooler water <br />on surface.) <br /> <br />R) This is currently being researched at our Engineering and <br />Research Center, but the energy involved for the magnitude <br />of full scale operation appears to make it uneconomical. <br /> <br />Weather modification with 2 million acre-feet i.s a tremendous potential- <br />should be pursued. <br /> <br />.R) The USBR has an on-going research program in this pursuit. <br />The current estimated amount would be substantially less <br />water however. Use of augmentation water would have to be <br />negligible to have an appreciable diluting effect. <br /> <br />Non-structural measures should be more vigorously pursued. <br /> <br />R) Most practical non-structural measures (management schemes) <br />are being implemented via irrigation source units. Non- <br />structural solutions to Glen-Dot have not been found - have <br />ideas, call collect~ <br /> <br />Possible condensation of vapor from evaporation ponds (Purpose to <br />capture the pure water before it gets into the atmosphere and use <br />it beneficially). <br /> <br />R) This concept is also being looked at, but the cost of a <br />collection and condensation system for the vapor appears <br />to be greater than the cost of water obtained. <br /> <br />Glen Canyon seepage into bank formations-method to put back into river <br />system or reSforvoir. (Concept YJould be to pump possibly from the <br />saturated sand stones back into the reservoir ror diluation.) <br /> <br />Mark <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />o <br />