My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03837
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03837
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:52:24 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:00:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.140.20
Description
Colorado River Basin Organizations and Entities - Colorado River Basin States Forum - California
State
CA
Basin
Western Slope
Date
1/1/1980
Author
Myron B Holburt
Title
Appendix to Annual Report of the Colorado River Board of California for the Calendar Year 1979
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />. r'l,~ n <br />H~.Ju <br /> <br />WATER QUALITY <br /> <br />During the 1979 calendar year, the average flow-weighted salinity <br />of the waters delivered to Mexico above Morelos Dam was 739 ppm and the <br />salinity of the Colorado River waters which arrived at Imperial Dam was <br />809 ppm. Thus, the differential between the average salinities at <br />Morelos Dam and Imperial Dam was -70 ppm. This value not only falls <br />within the requirement of Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary <br />and Water Commission that the differential be no greater than 115 ~ 30 <br />ppm, it is also the first year since Minute No. 242 commenced that <br />salinity at Morelos Dam has been lower than at Imperial Dam. This <br />unusual situation occurred because of the large quantities of Gila <br />River flood waters of low salinity that entered the Colorado River <br />below Imperial Dam and above Morelos Dam. <br /> <br />During the same period, all of the drainage return flows from the <br />!lellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, 177,900 acre-feet, were <br />bypassed to the Colorado River below Morelos Dam and Santa Clara Slough <br />via the \'le11ton-Mohawk bypass drain. Of this amount, 16,600 acre-feet <br />were replaced by ground water from the Yuma Mesa well field and the <br />balance, 161,300 acre-feet, would have had to be released from storage. <br />except that the releases from the Lower Basin flood control dams and the <br />anticipatory flood releases from Lake Mead provided more than enough <br />water to replace the bypassed quantities. <br /> <br />Table 11 summarizes operations under Minutes Nos. 218, 241, and <br />242 for the period 1970 through 1979. <br /> <br />REGIONAL \'lATER AND ,POlnm DEVELOPUENT <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br /> <br />The Western States Hater Council (WSVIC) was established by the <br />Western Governor's Conference in 1964 and 1965 to promote effective <br />cooperation among western states in the integrated development of their <br />water resources. Eleven states were included in the Council initially, <br />with Texas joining in 1978. California's Council delegates in 1979 <br />were Ronald B. Robie. Director of the Department of Water Resources, <br />W. Don Maughan, Vice Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board <br />(until November 1979), and Ruben Ayala, State Senator, 32nd District. <br />The Board's Chief Engineer continued to serve as an advisor to the Cali- <br />fornia delegation. <br /> <br />During 1979, the Council adopted the following resolutions or <br />positions of interest to the Board: <br /> <br />1. Req~ested Congress to reinstate a $5 million level of funding <br />for fiscal year 1980 for construction of publicly owned wastewater treat- <br />ment works in accordance with the Clean Water Act of 1977. <br /> <br />2. '~ile not opposing the principle of equitable cost sharing of <br />water development projects, the Council adopted a position seeking removal <br />of objectionable features from the Carter Administration's proposed cost- <br />sharing legislation and opposed that bill. The position also included <br />many specific suggestions to the cost-sharing proposal. A 12-month-long <br />joint federal-state review of cost-sharing was urged. <br /> <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.