WSP05176

• File Number: 8276.100
• Description: Grand Valley Unit - Colorado River Basin Salinity Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 4/15/1978
• Title: News Articles/Press Releases -- April 1978 - August 1992
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: News Article/Press Release

en
go
go
C\I
~
C

CONCERNS, rSSUES, AND SUGGESTIONS (coned.)

How will existing lined laterals be treated?
dots)

All the Structural Alternatives

Loss if wildlife habitat and corresponding loss of
wildlife populations along canals, laterals, and
seep areas (no dots)

Mitigation measures to offset loss of wildlife
habitat (12 dots)

Safety factors (drowning) for wildlife and people
(2 dots)

Will there be safety features built iota the lined
canals to prevent drowning to people and animals?
(1 dot)

Wildlife mitigation (no dots)

Need for construction to avoid
unnecessary damage and obstruction

crop loss
(5 dots)

That cost calculations do not include all costs
for example, for right-oE-way or disruptions (5
dots)

How can water users be assured that the system
will work? (3 dots)

Disruption to existing programs/systems (1 dot)

Community and citizens must be prepared for major
impact on their way of life during construction
C3 dots)

Is it cost effective
valley considering the
dots)

to preserve agriculture in
future of agriculture? (3

Costs and who will pay (water users?) (no dots)

Is the salt problem really as
the whole project necessary?

bad as they say?
(4 dots)

Mg/L doesn't mean anything to farmers (1 dot)

Too much planning (no dots)

Impacts of construction on endangered terrestrial
species (no dots)

Placing a fish barrier on the Grand Valley Canal
diversion to prevent loss of fish to the Colorado
River (no dots)

Maintain wasteways for wilJlife (no dots)

SUGGESTIONS AND GENERAL COMMENTS

No consideration for future growth (no dots)

Grand Valley Vnit. Stage Two
Newsletter - January 1983
Attachment 1

(2

Need to better publicize meetings. Use SCS mailing
list (or ASCS) (no dots)

A straight line pipe would be better than fol-
lowing the old alinement (no dots)

Stop diverting so much water to eastern slope (1
dot)

Need better explanation of why concrete is better
than membrane lining in some areas (no dots)

Bury main canal in concrete pipe

Cheaper in long run (less planning)
More land available for farming
Pressurized irrigatlon system
Could generate power (to help pay bill)
No evaporation in plpe

This alternative needs more serious study (1
dot)

and

Plan with flexibility for other users

(1 dot)

Look at both pipe and concrete laterals (no dots)

Piped laterals are good except when they get
plugged up (no dots)

Concerned that drains are addressed in plans (no
dots)

Need for some drains may be reduced In local areas
and would benefit some farmers (no dots)

Subdivisions also add salt and this is addressed in
plans <t dot)

Cost of
compared

implementing
for:

safety

factors

should

be

membrane v. concrete
barrier v. concrete
membrane v. barrier (no dots)

r,

Who will maintain the
turnouts under all three

laterals, headgates,
alternatives? (1 dot)

and

Terminal salt removal/other salinity contributor/
remedial action (3 dots;

will every lateral eventually be lined? (1 dot)

What
One?

is the cost per acre on irrigated land of Stage
(no dots)

Does the usage of salt by the highway departments
add to salinity of the river? (no dots)

Don't concentrate on whole canals, concentrate on
trouble areas (no dots)

Water would be used for irrigat ion and not lost to
seepage (no dots)