WSP01739 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m " ~ C. \1 ~ c' c.- A;Y'~~~"~~~ '~e., oj Q , ell- ,/ '. ~C* r'~ ~c. Dc/: /9 /Pg'Q.. THE DENvER POST ~ " ~. f' :~. Lee J. GuitUlr, Publisher L' William H. Hornby Will Jarrett Editor Ext'('utive Editor f , Bill Howkawa Editor. Editorial Page Tim Kelly :M:anaging Editor Those giant coal ~Baggies' ~' , TRER)':AltE at leaSt ad,O'ft:n ways to redUce, salt,- ;pollution in the , '., C~l<)ra~o River. Allilf.tliem;'are expen- , Sive, A double-purpoSe,plan'devised to transport coal and clean up the river at ,the same time may do the job, The U $,Bureau of Reclamation and W.R. Grace Co., a large energy firm with colli production in ,northwest Colorado, have agreed to present such a plan to Congress next year, Called Aquatfain, it will cost about $2 billion, The Colorado is naturally salty be- , cause its various branches flow through numerous saline geologic formations. Man-made diversions, which increase the salt content through the leaching impact of irrigation and the simple concentrating effect of clean water withdrawals, make the problem worse, If such diversions are to continue - and according to the water plans of all ,seven states of the Colorado Basin, they will - some means of reducing salt content is needed, Near the river's mouth, water already is too polluted for salt-sensitive crops, The Aquatrain project involves building a pipeline, 30 to' 36 inches in diameter, from the Glenwood Springs area to Blythe, Calif, It would carry some 12,000 acre-feet of saline water annually from the Glenwood Springs- Dotsero salt bed. This large water- logged salt deposit feeds into the Colo- rado River over a distance of some 20 miles. Cutting the flow by 12,000 acre- feet yearly isn't a great impact com- pared with total river yield, but the de- posit is a heavy polluter and would be a good place to test the Aquatrain, What makes the project attractive economically is the Grace firm's plan , ~ , I i I I , r to use the line to carry coal. In the pro- cess of being diverted, the water would transport a steady stream of sealed, 10- foot-long plastic bags (giant Baggies, if you will) of powdered Colorado coal, The coal would be consumed in Cali- fo111ia power plants or exported, The water might ,cool power plants or sim- ply be dumped in ,}Iry lake beds and evaporated. , Assuming, the technology WOrks, many legal problems remain to be solved, but W.R, Grke foresees eco- nomic advantages. FOl"example, Grace officials believe pipeliI!e competition would force the cost of freighting coal by rail to the West Coast from $29 a ton down io $19, One knotty problem involves owner- ship of the water used in the pipeline. Would all of the pipeline water be sub- tracted from the upper basin's 50 pei-- cent share of the Colorado River's flow? This concerns Colorado water of- ficials ,because they know the current Aquatrain pipeline might be the first of several sucb lines, Also, over a period of years the 12,000 acre-feet diverted' annually would' mean a substantial wa- ter loss to the upper basin, whose rights are protected by the Colorado River Compact of 1922, The direct value of ' the water might be more than $1 mil- lion a year. Colorado officials are meeting in San Diego this week to seek ways of getting downstream states to agree to share the loss resulting if the Aquatrain bypass takes place. The economic benefits 9f the pipeline would seem to be fairly , even between the basins, They should share the burden equally, But nothing about water law is simple, ,. - 1 da sU Pr Of m. ar, lb. en lb. ph. JiI1 fer deb de. B\ his . cong