WSP03260

• File Number: 8276.120.10
• Description: Grand Valley Unit-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 9/10/1991
• Title: Final Environmental Assessment: Alternative Lining Methods for the Government Highline Canal - Grand Valley Unit
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

~
C'J
....
o

'..:)

deletion of fencing, and/or making the corridor surface available
to other beneficial uses such as development of a recreational
corridor would not offset such excessive costs.

,~
, ,

while gabion lining would be safer (with respect to drownings) than
concrete lining and would still avoid the need to acquire fee land,
it was more expensive than concrete lining. The benefits of gabion
over concrete were not considered sufficient to justify the
increased expenses, especially since the membrane lining
alternatives provide greater safety related benefits.

The possibility of covering the canal was not considered due to the
cost and challenges of spanning a 50-foot concrete ditch or an 80-
foot membrane-lined ditch. The cost to cover the ditch would
increase the total cost beyond reasonable limits, costing even more
than the pipeline alternative.

Reclamation agrees that implementing "on-farm" measures can be one
of the most effective means of accomplishing the salinity control
goals. As mentioned in the section "Relationship with Other
Projects," implementing on-farm measures is a cooperating aspect of
the program which is administered by the SCS. However, abandoning
the lining of the Government Highline Canal in favor of
concentrating on the on-farm salinity control would result in the
U.S. only partially meeting commitments of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act. One of the reasons that the increments for
the Grand Valley Unit, which includes the Government Highline Canal
and laterals, have been scheduled is that they are Federally owned
facilities, and with the GVWUA responsible for administering the
increments, accomplishment of the reduction goals are certain.

For the shelterbelt program to be successful, all seepage would
have to be intercepted and used by the vegetation planted along the
canal. If this were possible, it would cause a complete depletion
of the waters that presently return to the Colorado River. This
depletion would be unacceptable because of the needs for
maintaining river flows for endangered species.

Comment 3: No action should be taken until alternatives which
provide for multiple use of the canal corridor are considered.
perhaps recreation related expenses could be paid by other sources
such as Colorado lottery funds.

Response 3: Reclamation has revised the EA to reflect its belief
that implementation of the viable lining alternatives, and
especially of the membrane lining alternatives, would not preclude
the future formation of partnerships to carefully plan for, fund,
and operate the canal corridor as a recreational resource.
Reclamation agrees that it would be appropriate for local and State
sources to be used to cooperatively fund and operate such projects
since recreational enjoyment of the corridor is of local
significance. However, the use of Federal funds associated with

40