Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />