My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03719
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03719
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:51:46 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:55:23 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 2 of 2 -- Page 147 through end
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.
/
117
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 />~.(~:~:0 <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />{it~Z, <br /> <br />'zt~i{J <br /> <br />.... <br />l\:l <br />00 <br />00 <br /> <br />However, this consideration was made in the pond location which is <br />above the influence of the Corps' projected 100-year flood. The <br />statement has been revised in applicable sections:to clarify any mis- <br />understanding concerning flood hazards and the unit's facilities. <br /> <br />9. Comment; Also, to protect the brine ponds from occasional flash <br />floods caused by heavy thunderstorm rainfall, a system of intercep- <br />tion channels should be required to collect and transport the flood- <br />flow around the ponds. <br /> <br />~; All evaporation ponds were designed with consideration of the <br />~ potential. Since each pond is different with different poten- <br />tial for floods, flood control features of the ponds are unique to <br />fit individual conditions. <br /> <br />10. Comment; Provisions should be made to negate the erosion which <br />will be caused when the RO treated water reenters Las Vegas Wash. Dur- <br />ing construction of the Las Vegas Wash barrier, some effort to minimize <br />turbidity downstream should be taken. <br /> <br />Reply: The text has been revised to reflect the existence of a still- <br />ing basin in the project design to dissipate the energy of product <br />water return flows. Application for Environmental Protection Agency <br />NPDES permits will be made prior to construction. .These permits, as <br />well as other local and Federal regulations as applied to construction <br />practices, will ensure a minimum of downstream turbidity in the Wash. <br /> <br />11. Comment: All 16 desalinization projects are upstream of Lake <br />Mead, Lake Mohave, and Lake Havasu. Taking into consideration evapo- <br />ration rates,. percolation rates, and detention time in these lakes, <br />how long will it take to decrease the salt concentration 154 p/m at <br />Imperial Dam? <br /> <br />Reply: Two of the referenced units are below the lakes noted. For <br />anyone salinity control unit located in the Upper Basin, it is <br />estimated that the total travel time required to show an effect at <br />Imperial Dam is about 2 to 3 years. However, the detention time <br />inherent within the Colorado River system is of extremely minor sig- <br />nificance when compared to the time required to implement each of <br />the control units. Implementation of individual units will depend <br />on program funding, construction schedules, and a host of other fac- <br />tors not amenable to prediction analysis. When view from this per- <br />spective, the control units will probably not decrease the salinity <br /> <br /> <br />171 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.