My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02185
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02185
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:35:02 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:57:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272.100.70
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/1991
Title
The Brownell Task Force and the Mexican Salinity Problem - A Narrative Chronology of Events
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />" <br /> <br />o <br />w'~ <br />u) <br />0) <br /> <br />Floyd A. Bishop <br />Wyoming <br /> <br />One thing the rc!port does not perhaps reflect is that there were significant differenCes among the <br />Basin States. Many of us felt that the Wellton-Mohawk project should be cut back [bought out] <br />because the drainage was ridiculously high in salt. It was a good solution, but it never did fly. <br />We had very extensive deliberations though we did come to agreement in the end. <br /> <br />During the Task Force deliberations, we felt that the matter was somewhat out of our hands. <br />I thought the Committee of Fourteen had some influence early on, but very little after the State' <br />Department became involved. I did not tour Yuma with Brownell-'Idon't remember that <br />Committee of Fourteen members were invited to participate-and I had no private conversations <br />with him or any member of the Task Force during that period. <br /> <br />, The final solution did not affect Wyoming adversely, though it was inordinately expensive. We <br />were more concerned about being able to develop our water, and that numerical water quality <br />standards for upstream states should not be part of the agreement. We opposed the long-term <br />use of upstream storage as a solution-that would have had serious implications for Upper Basin' <br />development and particularly for Wyoming, which had the most unused water. <br /> <br />Among the other measures proposed, I thought the canal lining was a sensible step." I felt that <br />improvements in irrigation efficiency were inevitable, but would be of more limited benefit in <br />solving the salinity problem that their supporters believed. <br /> <br />The desalting plant was the easiest way out, though it was a substantial burden on the Federal <br />government-how substantial we didn't then realize. We had faith in the desalting technology, <br />and believed that improvements would reduce costs. Our hopes, obviously, didn't materialize. <br /> <br />B-2 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />;li~ '"c,c>,.i <br /> <br />~ <br />,~ <br />" <br />~: <br /> <br />. <br />~ <br />< <br />-~ <br /> <br />.~ <br />!f <br />,," <br /> <br />,", <br />9 <br />,:~ <br /> <br />M <br />1; <br /> <br />~. <br />." <br />.:i. <br />.'1' <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />~. <br />~' <br /> <br />~'i! <br />;z, <br />'''{ <br />',,~; <br /> <br />~;f,i <br />~$ <br />=,; <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />!~ <br />;";,j <br />, ~c <br /> <br />'" <br />;, f,;t:; <br /> <br />,-,~.( <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.