Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-49- <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />o <br />~ <br />-J <br />w <br /> <br />implement the most cost-effective salinity control program <br />in an area. <br />At the planning level, the sources of salinity must be <br />identified in conjunction with the detriments associated <br />with salinity contributions. If the damages are more costly <br />than the measures required to alleviate the problem, a <br />salinity control project is needed. <br />The total salinity contributions for the various areas <br />and subbasins in the UCRB have been tabulated in four main <br />reports. The report by Iorns et al. (1965) is the most <br />complete and is generally the most useful. The second set <br />of reports of consequence are the biennial progress reports <br />on the Quality of the Colorado River Basin by the Water and <br />Power Resource Service (USDI, BR, 1979a). These reports <br />describe each of the salinity control projects and tabu- <br />late the existing stream gaging station data. These reports <br />extend the data of Iorns et al. (1965) to the present. The <br />third report was compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protec- <br />tion Agency and others (EPA, 1971) and presents the results <br />of a limited study (June, 1965 - May, 1966). The specific <br />data and conclusions presented in this report often widely <br />disagree with other published results. Finally, the study <br />by Hyatt et al. (1970), which was developed from an elec- <br />trical analog computer model of the upper Colorado River <br />Basin, schematically presents the water and salt flows of <br />the basin. Again, these results agree very well with <br />aggregated results of other studies, but the individual <br />