WSP04565 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ry'J~!~~S . the Colorado River by reducing the deep percolation which causes highly saline return flows in areas like the Grand Valley. The program is also active in the Uncompahgre Valley of the Gunnison Basin, and the McElmo Creek area near Cortez, Colorado. USBR salinity improvements are federally funded in recognition that the MeJPcan delivery is a nationwide, rather than a basin specific, obligation and because of the vastiand holdings of the U.S. in the basin. A 25% repayment on USBR salinity project construCtion costs is made to the federal treasury from the Lower Colorado and the Upper Colorado River Basin Funds. Local project participants pay no share of USBR project costs. While they are required to sign contracts obligating themselves to maintain and operate the newly improved systems, USBR fully reimburses participants for any additional maintenance expenses caused by those new systems. The SCS program requires both cost sharing by individual project participants and repayment from the same Basin Funds used to repay the USBR. Ultimately, the SCS on-farm measures are paid for in the following. proportion: 30% by individual participants, 21% from the Basin Funds, and 49% by the U.S. There is no requirement tying participation in the USBR program with participation in the.SCS program. Therefore, a farmer could benefit from an improved ditch without committing to expend any funds or making anyon-farm changes. , . . Construction of salinity control features in the Grand Valley has been underway since 1980 when a 6.8 mile segment of the Government Highline Canal near Mack, Colorado was concrete lined as a demonstration project, Grand Valley Unit Stage 1. Using salinity data and design information gained in Stage I a comprehensive program to remove 139,500.tons per year of salt from the Colorado River was proposed as Grand Valley Unit Stage II. Portions of Stage II are currently being constructed, other portions are being designed, and some have been deferred or eliminated as new cost estimates indicate they are no 10.l1ger cost effective. As currently configured Stage II will remove approximately 108,000 tons per year of salt load from the Colorado River when fully implemented. As of early 1990 Stage I had already reduced salt load by 21,900 tons per year and the completed portion of Stage II reduced :he load by another 26,000 tons per year. Segments of the. GVIC system involving approximately 217 miles of earthen laterals to be replaced with gravity pressure pipe were included in the Stage II plan. The improved GVIC segments were estimated to reduce saline seepage return flows to the Colorado River by 6,500 AF per year. This volume of seepage reduction was at the core of efforts to enact HB 91-1110, with several GVIC water users strenuously promoting their right to retain and sell any of this water not needed for diversion as "saved" water. As of July, 1991 this seepage reduction will not occur, since GVIC shareholders voted not to participate in the Salinity Program, and this particular increment of "saved water" will not materialize. ~1 The federal Salinity Act creates no claim to any saved or salvaged water produced through the program. The fate of this water, if any, is specifically left for allocation under state law. The Salinity Control Act states that "in implementing the units ... the Secretary . shall comply with procedural and substantive state water laws," 43 USC Section 1592(b)(4), 3 -i'i ",~ .:J, . ::h<._....,:"..",.ki' L1 :.~ ~...,:Li-