Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,; <br /> <br />Any questions or comments on the project can be directed to Nick Mezei <br />at the Grand Junction Projects Office (Telephone 303, 243-4992, Ext. 323; <br />FTS 323-0323). <br /> <br />Alternatives Under Current Consideration.--The following salt-reduction <br />alternatives are being considered, but more ideas are needed. <br /> <br />1. Lining of canals and laterals-Several types of lining materials were <br />considered, and complete and partial system-lining programs were analyzed. <br />The lining materials examined included concrete, plastic, soil, asphalt, <br />and shotcrete. From a technical and economical viewpoint, the most <br />promising types appear to be concrete and plastic. This alternative <br />appears promising from a cost-effectiveness viewpoint. <br /> <br />2. Piping of smaller-capacity canals and laterals-Piping is expensive, <br />access is limited, and environmental problems might be considerable. <br /> <br />3. Retirement of less-productive land-Retirement of class 6 lands and/or <br />scattered higher-quality tracts has been analyzed. In conjunction with <br />canal lining, cost effectiveness appears favorable. However, political, <br />social, and environmental problems appear to be substantial. <br /> <br />4. Combining sections of canals to shorten delivery length-This alternative <br />was analyzed in conjunction with lining of the canals and laterals. Analysis <br />shows negligible effect and higher cost. <br /> <br />5. Sprinkler irrigation in whole or in part-Analysis showed impressive <br />salt removal; however, technical questions regarding soil suitability and <br />environmental effects have not been satisfactorily answered. Partial <br />sprinkler system (70 percent of valley) appears to have reasonable cost <br />effectiveness but high total cost. <br /> <br />6. Desalting plants on selected drains-Much too expensive; minimal effect <br />on total salt loading. <br /> <br />7. Sealants such as gels, enzymes, chemicals-Unproven nature and chemical <br />properties of local soils appear to be a major drawback to use of sealants. <br /> <br />8. Limitation of diversion water-This alternative was considered in <br />several forms: ideal water demand, land classification, location relative <br />to other irrigated areas, and winter flows. <br /> <br />9. On-farm improvements via irrigation management and Soil Conservation <br />Service programs-No canals or laterals would be affected by this alternative. <br /> <br />10. No-development alternative-This alternative supports the view that no <br />other alternatives are workable or effective enough to warrant consideration, <br />so no action should be pursued. <br /> <br />The following table provides comparative data for various alternatives. <br /> <br />2 <br />