WSP04506

• File Number: 8272.100.60
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 5/1/1987
• Author: CRBSCF
• Title: Proposed Report on the 1987 Review - Water Quality Standards for Salinity - Colorado River System
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

w
CJl
U),
00

. ',;'.

within the district. The irrigation return flows are
oolleoted in a 153-mile drainage system and returned to the
~olorado River. The return flows are located downstream of
mane of the diversions impacted by salinity and reduction
in salt loading would not have the same level of benefits
as an upstream measure.
An analysis based on 1974 operational data indicated
that 152,000 tons of salt was the net salt load discharge
to the river. The more recently developed southern portion
of the distriot, representing less than 10 percent of the
irrigated area, contributes 144,000 of the 152,000 tons
annually.
In 1985, SCS and Reclamation formulated a joint staged
plan of study. In Phase 1, Reclamation undertook a
hydrosalinity analysis for the valley to determine the
movement of ground water and the location and sources of
salt loading. In addition,the study was to identif~'
alternative concepts for salt control in consultation with
PYID. SCS, ~n Stage' II, will provide Reclamation ",ith
onfarm, onsite evaluations and analyses relative to
irrigation efficiencies, reduction in deep percolation from
onfarm activities, and the potential for salt reduction
t,hro}Jgh onfa rm management.
The current investigation by Reclamation focused on
the ~ossible sources of the incremental inorease of salt
loadi apparently coming primarily from the southern end of
the vallee. ~his study provided no evidence of saline
ground waters rising from deeper aquifers or from sources
outside the valley. Ground water table elevations indicate
that in the irrigated portion of the valley, the added salt
load appears to be resulting primarily from the
displacement of saline ground water by the recent
application of Colorado River water.
Re~lamation ",ill complete Phase I work during 1987 to'
determine the merit of proceeding with Phase II.
Other Activities
Salin" Water .use and Disposal Opportunities
(Reclamation). Po",erplant CoolLnll. An earl~' contract stud,'
of retrofitting the Jim Bridger Power Plant for the use of
saline water found that by using side-stream softeners and
disposal ponds, about 8,000 acre-feet per year of Big Sandy
River water could be used. Such use translates into a
total additional inplant cost of about $70 per ton of salt
removed from the Colorado River System. However, when the
cost of constructing the col~ection well system and
delivery pipeline were included, the total cost of salt
removal more than doubled. Salt reduction costs through
the use of saline water on a retrofitted plant are not
competitive with other salinity control measures at the
present time.

-40-