Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />....:I <br />00 <br /> <br />-54- <br /> <br />Twelve other projects above Imperial Dam were identified <br />for further study. <br /> <br />The Lower Gunnison, Uintah Basin, Colorado Indian <br />Reservation, and the Palo Verde Irrigation District were <br />specifically identified as "irrigation source control pro- <br />grams." Point sources were identified as La Verkin Springs, <br />Littlefield Springs, and Glenwood-Dotsero Springs. Other <br />diffuse sources mentioned in the legislation which should <br />also be investigated were Price River, San Rafael River, <br />McElmo Creek, and the Big Sandy River. Measures by which <br />the individual program goals should be obtained were speci- <br />fied only for the authorized construction projects. All of <br />the authorized and potential projects are located in <br />Figure 13. <br />According to a U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) <br />Report in 1979, it is doubtful that the Salinity Control <br />Program as defined in PL 93-320 will reduce the salt in the <br />Colorado River as much as predicted. Furthermore, at least <br />six of the seventeen projects are questionable economically. <br />For example, Crystal Geyser and Las Vegas Wash, as formu- <br />lated, have very high costs and will have a "minor impact in <br />reducing the river's salinity. "However, the GAO <br />analysis only examined the projects in aggregate as formu- <br />lated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and did not <br />address the fact that individual components of a salinity <br />control project may indeed be very cost-effective while a <br />total program may not be economically viable. Therefore, <br /> <br />;1 ," <br />