<br />
<br />
<br />pOl~ntlals for SilhlllTy COnlrol a,E' discussed. The EPA
<br />Study descrtbes ~alinity COndl[ions in the basin,
<br />W evaluares rhe nalure ilnd mol9nitude of damages ro
<br />o waler uSers. exam,nes allernallve S..IIIl,ty COntrol
<br />r.. measures, ..nd prOvides recommended measures amf
<br />o programs for COntrol of the Sillinity levels. The
<br />Colorildo River Board of California repon de/'nes the
<br />nature anu magnt!ude of lhe probfpm ant! pres..nls a
<br />plan far COnI rOiling the salllli[y at 01 nPdr Pre\.t'nr
<br />levels. Thl.' Water Resources COuncil reports draw
<br />heavdy on the D',Ol stUdies, dt'velop eSllmares of
<br />future salm'IV Condirions, and idenllfy pOlem,,,1
<br />COntrol measures Utah Stale Unl"ersifY performed a
<br />COmpurer Simulation of Ihe MVdrOlogic'Sallnl!y frow
<br />~vStem In Ihe UPDeI ColorddO R,ve, Basin.
<br />
<br />discMarge Would Ma"e been about 5.2 rather Ihan
<br />ob\.t'rved amOUnts of olUOut 8.7 million Ions annually
<br />Substantiallv all !h"! IOcrease 10 diSSolVed solid~
<br />dlSCMarge Was COnSlrul.'d liv Ihe mvestlgalors to be an
<br />elfeel of irflgatlon On 1.4 m,lllon acres of land. They
<br />eStllThHed the averilgt' increase to be 2.5 Ions per
<br />"r'gated de'e Pt'r year. From one parr of the d'eo! to
<br />anOther, thiS aVeragl.' was silid to range frOm aboul 0.1
<br />10 5.6 tons The report d,d not Ind'cale wnlch pOnion
<br />ot Ihis Increase was due specif'cally to irngallon and
<br />wt]'ch 10 natural SOurces.
<br />
<br />UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
<br />COOPERATIVE SALINITY CONTROL
<br />STUDY fUSeR/
<br />
<br />Differences In flndmys dmOng [he various sludles
<br />OCcurred, parrlCularly olS related to qUantllilt,ve
<br />d,~plavs ot hlSlOllc sallnllY conditions. sail 10dd,ng.
<br />concentrating eH{"ClS. contrluutions from vanous
<br />sources. ,lnd eCOnomic Impacls. Becaulol' there \"was
<br />nOnuniform,ty III aSSUmPtions. Uoita sets, and
<br />procedUres. the qUantllall\'l:! Ilndlllg~ should be
<br />expl:!Cted to differ. On the other hand. rhe concluS,ons
<br />Oellved are generally slmitar. The malOr SOurces of
<br />saflntly \.\t€re Identified as arrs'ny from natural pOint
<br />and diffuse Sources, 1((lgallon. evaporallon,
<br />cul'Ot'uaSm Iransfl'rs. and munlClpaf and mdusrnal
<br />uses. The largest POrtion of the mIneraI burden and
<br />water Supply was found 10 onglnall' in the UPIX',
<br />Colorado RIver 8dsm, The natural SOurces were
<br />thought to be the mdjor COntributors ro rhe salinity
<br />$almlty was prOJl.'-Cted 10 cOntinually InCrease unfess
<br />COntrol programs are Impleml'n1ed. The impacl of Ihe
<br />'nCreds'ng Sdlmlty levels was fOund 10 I.lf:' Drlmanfy
<br />economic. While salinity levels onCrl'ased oVer time, the
<br />compOsitIon ot lhe water IVllh respeCI to indiVidual
<br />ions remained relallVely Slable.
<br />
<br />In cOOperallOn W,th lhe Federal Wolre, PollutIon
<br />COlltrol Admln'stralron (now thl' EnvlfOnmp.ntal
<br />PrOleCtion A~ncYI. tnl' Bureau of Rl'clamalion III July
<br />1969 Completed a report enlltled '.Upper COfOrado
<br />River Bds'n COOperative Salllllfy COntrol Srudy." The
<br />report hdS bl'en given [0 the EPA for reV'l'1V ,ind Study
<br />and has not yel been released. It deals wllh lhe conlrol
<br />of salilll[y from $J.lecif,c Identified SOurces. appraises
<br />DOlentlal salt-IOdd reduction valUes. and evalUates the
<br />stalu~ of the eCOnOlrllc feasibililY of salinity COnlrol.
<br />The need for a COordlllate{J sal,mty COntrol program
<br />for lhe entne Colorado River IS stressed.
<br />
<br />NEED FOR CONTROLLING SALINITY
<br />OF THE COLORADO RIVER (CRBC}
<br />
<br />WATER RESOURCES OF THE UPPER
<br />COLORADO BASIN-BASIC
<br />DA T A (USGS)
<br />
<br />The Colorado R'ver Board of California Published a
<br />repurt "'ntllled "Need for ContrOllong Salinity of Ihe
<br />Colorado River" in Au9USl 1970. USing a.i1rlable dala,
<br />thl.' repOrt traces the a~erolge annual salinity princ,pally
<br />dt HOO\!er, Parker, and Imperial Ddms and makes
<br />projectIons for [he years 1980, 2000. and 2030. The
<br />hlSlOflcal ......erage is based On the Yeirrs 1963-1967 and
<br />shows values belo..... HOOver Dam to be 730 mg/I and at
<br />Imperral Dam 8S0 mg/r. Below Hoove, Dam. values of
<br />830 and 1.090 mg/l are prOje-cted fOr the years 1980
<br />and 2030. reSPeCtIVely. Comparable projections for
<br />Impenal Darn suggeSt 1.070 mg/I III 1980 and 1.390
<br />mg/I In 2030. The Salinl!V is l'Stlrnated 10 cause S8 to
<br />S10 million damage annually fOr each salinilY increase
<br />of 100 my/I for Water users In California_ The repOrt
<br />Ident'f'e~ cl number of pOtenllal sal,nll,!, COnrrol
<br />~roje-cts whiCh. if COnstructed. mlghl ser~e 10 mamlaln
<br />sallnlty near present le~els. The STudies by the Board
<br />!lldlcale that unless acllon is taken to COntrol salin,[y
<br />and ....Ith the Upper Bas", Conlinuing 10 dl'velop, Ihe
<br />rotal l.'-Conomlc impaCI in CalIfornia from Salinlly
<br />
<br />In 1964, lhl' U.S GeOlogical Survey PUblished 'I~
<br />repon entllled "Vater Resources of Ihe UPPl.'r
<br />CoIO'ddo Basln.Baslc Dala'. as PrOfess'onal Pa/Jt:'r No.
<br />442. TnlS repOII IS based on data fOf the 1941-1957
<br />Penod In summarv. the report Slate~ rhat If the
<br />devefoomenls ot 1957 had no! been III ex'Stence then:
<br />III the hYDOlhellCdI average year'v waler Vleld dt Lees
<br />Ferry WOule have been aboul 15.2 mill'on dcre.feet
<br />rather than the 12.7 million measured. 121 the
<br />hYPOthetical average concentration WOuld have been
<br />abOut 250 mg/l 'dlher Ihan observed values of about
<br />500 mgil, and 13/ tne hVPOthetlcal diSSOlved ~ollds
<br />
<br />17
<br />
<br />
<br />
|