My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02701
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02701
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:46:30 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:18:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.400
Description
McElmo Creek Unit - Colorado River Salinity Control Program
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
7
Date
3/5/1981
Title
Project Summary/ Review and Comment on the Status Report - McElmo Creek Unit Colorado/ March 1981
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Project Overview
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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 />. <br /> <br />Report Deficiencies <br /> <br />After reading the report, I realized that there are several <br />missing facts that would be very helpful in assessing the full <br />impact of this project on the area and the state. <br /> <br />The deficiencies are listed below, but they are not neces- <br />sarily listed in order of importance. <br /> <br />1. In determining the salinity source, it will be <br />necessary to know the amount of water that comes from <br />other basins. Particularly, how much water comes from <br />the Dolores River? The report did mention an average <br />range of 200 to 300 mg/L of salinity from the Dolores <br />River water, but the total volume of water or volume <br />of salt was not mentioned. <br /> <br />2. It is unclear as to which agency will handle the <br />transition from dry land farming to irrigated farming <br />for the full service lands. The SCS and WPRS, according <br />to the report, have been working closely with each other, <br />but they each plan, implement and fund their own programs. <br />Particularly, the ASCS is expected to use ACP funds for <br />onfarm structural improvements, but this program has <br />very limited funds and may not have any for this project. <br />What will be the funding mechanism if this is the case? <br />Will the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund be able to <br />contribute any money to onfarm improvements? <br /> <br />3. Since the project may be transporting water across <br />state lines, it should address the issues of water <br />rights and compact depletions. Particularly, how much <br />water will be transported to New Mexico? <br /> <br />4. The report specifically designates the Highline <br />Canal as being a major source of salinity and as a <br />result will have a portion of its length lined with <br />concrete to prevent exfiltration. It would be very <br />helpful to have a map showing the location of the canal <br />and any other significant water storage or transmission <br />features in the area. Particularly, the location of <br />the saline water diversion and the pipeline would be <br />helpful. <br /> <br />5. In determining the relative magnitude of the salinity <br />problem in the basin, it would be helpful to know the <br />average annual yield of the McElmo Creek drainage basin. <br /> <br />6. The McElmo Canyon area has some irrigated lands <br />which are dependent on return flows and may be adversely <br />affected by this project. It has not been mentioned, <br />and will need to be addressed and resolved prior to any <br />final report. <br /> <br />Project Schedule <br />See following page... <br /> <br />001549 <br /> <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.