My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02881
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02881
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:47:28 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:24:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8270.100
Description
Colorado River Basin Water Quality/Salinity -- Misc Water Quality
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
5/19/1977
Title
Final Environmental Statement - Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program - Volume II - Public Comment -- Part 1 of 2 -- Title Page through Page 145
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
137
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 />c.n <br />o <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />.,.... <br />~?~~~i;~ <br /> <br />3. Comment: We suggest that more economic data 1,)e included to sup- <br />port the estimate of $230.000 per unit (mg/l) of salt reduction bene- <br />fit for improvement of the water quality at Imperial Dam. <br /> <br />Reply: The basis for the estimate is detailed in the referenced pub- <br />lication Volume I [6] "Economic Impacts of Changes in Salinity Levels <br />of the Colorado River." U; S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of <br />Reclamation, Denver. Colorado. February 1974. <br /> <br />4. Comment: Probability prediction of a 1980 operational date <br />for weather modification to increase snowfall in the basin would <br />strengthen the EIS. <br /> <br />Reply: A probability prediction of a 1980 operational date is not <br />available. <br /> <br />5. Comment; Page 1-4. line 8. - It should be noted that the Uinta <br />Basin also includes land in Wasatch and Utah counties. <br /> <br />Reply: The table referenced refers to the Uinta Basin ~ area not <br />the physiographic location known as the Uintah Basin. <br /> <br />6. Comment: Pages 1-6. 1-20. 1-21. and 1-29. - Soil Conservation <br />Service (SCS) programs and activities are omitted from the discussion. <br />Section 203(b) of P.L. 93-320 on page E-7 recognizes USDA's responsi- <br />bilities and activities. We suggest that recognition be given to USDA <br />activities and programs which provide technical assistance to farmers <br />for accomplishing on-farm irrigation systems and management improve- <br />ments and improving watershed conditions to reduce erosion. We believe <br />theSCS on-farm program is a prerequisite. particularly in the Colo- <br />rado River Basin, to a successful Irrigation Management Service's (IMS) <br />program and complements the Bureau's off-farm conveyance improvement <br />program. <br /> <br />Reply: Reference to USDA activities is provided in chapter I as sug- <br />gested. See added discussion in chapter I, section B.3.c. ]rrigation <br />Source Control. <br /> <br />7. Comment: The present on-farm irrigation efficiency in the Uinta <br />Basin is about 30 percent and the conveyance efficiency is about <br />80 percent. A comparison of these two shows that changes in irriga- <br />tion efficiencies should have over twice the impact on deep percola- <br />tion losses as changes in conveyance efficiency will have. Unless <br /> <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.