WSP01522 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

lGGS. . Technology Transfer Workshop. In his talk, the Chief Engineer described examples of water research that the Board supported and which were helpful in making decisions regarding Colorado River water problems. He also gave examples of proposals which the board opposed because they were redundant, or would not provide information on current problems in the Colorado River Basin. Regional Developments The Board's staff continued to review plans for water and energy development projects in the Colorado River Basin to determine their effect on California's Colorado River water rights and interests, and, if necesary, to attempt to obtain changes in the projects. A trend that appeared during 1975 and continued through 1978 was a slowdown in -earlier plans for the development of the Colorado River Basin's coal and oil shale resources, which has the effect of reducing projections of future water use. The President's new water policy, which was sent to Congress in June 1978, should also affect Basin development. GAG Report on Colorado River Basin Water Problems During 1978, the United States General Accounting Office (GAOl prepared a draft report to Congress entitled "Colorado River Basin Water Problems: Proposals to Reduce Their Impact". The proposed report analyzed several of the major current and future Colorado River problems and issues, but revealed a lack of understanding of some of these problems. The GAO's study principally consisted of a superficial analysis of complex issues which led to erroneous conclusions and recommendations. In December, the Chief Engineer sent a letter of comment which covered the report's overly pessimistic view of the timing of water shortages in the Basin, which resulted in erroneous conclusions about the need for immediate federal actions on the Colorado River operating criteria and other matters. The letter also identified the misconceptions that underlay the recommendation for a halt in the funding of the salinity control projects, and recommended significant changes in the report's conclusions and recommendations. The other area of major significance was in regard to the report's conclusion that an overall management and decision-making agency is needed in the Basin in order to mandate solutions to the many problems of Colorado River Compact interpretations, water supply, salinity, and conservation. The letter opposed the creation of such an agency and pointed out that the problems are being worked on by existing state and federal agencies. Upper Basin Developments Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Assessments on several Upper Basin projects were drafted by federal agencies during 1978, and the Board's staff reviewed and commented on these statements. The projects and some highlights of the Board's comments are presented in the following paragraphs: 1. An Environmental Assessment on the Grand Valley Unit of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project was reviewed. The Board recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation prepare a negative determination for the Unit and proceed with construction because the mitigation measures proposed should provide more than adequate compensation for any negative environmental aspects of the Unit. 2. The Draft EIS for the Paradox Valley Unit of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project was reviewed and the Board supported the Bureau of Reclamation's recommendation for the location of an evaporation pond site. 3. The Draft EIS for the Uintah Unit, Central Utah Project, was reviewed and the Board recommended that the project include 12 an educational program to inform farmers of crop needs and optimum irrigation scheduling in order to improve irrigation efficiency and to reduce the present tendencies to overirrigate when there is more than sufficient water available. 4. The Draft EIS concerning the proposed Development of Coal Resources in Southern Utah was reviewed and the Board recommended the adoption of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum's ob~ective for industrial discharges of a no-salt return policy, wherever practicable, because this policy has been followed at other recently completed projects in the Colorado River Basin. 5. The Forum's policy, mentioned above, was also stressed in the Board's comments on the Draft EIS for the proposed Development of Coal Resources in Central Utah. In a ruling concerning the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in Colorado, the Department of the Interior Solicitor ruled that the Bureau of Reclamation must seek Congressional authority before it could increase the diversion from Hunter Creek tributaries in the Upper Colorado River Basin from 3,000 to 10,300 acre-feet annually and use the water for a different purpose than Congress intended when it authorized the Project. Construction of works for the larger diversion was estimated to be 90 percent complete at the time of the ruling. The Bureau of Reclamation awarded a $4.5 million contract for construction of Strawberry and Currant Creek Reservoir recreation roads and facilities as a part of the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. Lower Basin Developments The Bureau of Reclamation awarded a $34 million contract for construction of the Central Arizona Project's Havasu Pumping Plant located on the Bill Williams arm of lake Havasu. Also awarded was a $15.3 million contract for the construction of a 13 Ii-mile reach of the Granite Reef Aqueduct.