Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Forum Response <br /> <br />At the two public meetings and through correspondence, the Forum received advice and <br />comment from a number of organizations that are listed as follows: <br /> <br />Imperial Irrigation District (lID) <br />~ Metropolitan Water District of Southern California <br />N U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <br />o U.S. Bureau of Land Management <br />w U.S. Department of Agriculture <br />U.S. Bureau of Reclamation <br />Utah Division of Water Resources <br />Utah Board of Water Resources <br /> <br />Some of those entities providing written comment also provided oral commentary at the <br />two meetings. In attendance at the Salt Lake meeting, representing the mining industry in <br />southwestern Wyoming was Wes Nash with the Southwest Wyoming Industrial Association. He <br />did not make formal comment but asked several questions that were answered to his satisfaction <br />at the meeting. The Forum finds that all of the testimony was in support of the salinity control <br />program. The Forum is appreciative of the expression of support and the confirmation given <br />concernin~ the proposed adoption of the 1996 Review. The Forum finds it is not necessary to <br />comment In this supplemental report on the supportive comments made. They are included as <br />a part of this section of the report for information purposes. <br /> <br />Michael 1. Clinton, the General Manager of the lID, appeared at the Phoenix meeting, <br />provided the Forum with written commentary, and provided additional thoughts orally at the <br />meeting. The Forum finds that the lID and Mr. Clinton's comments are supportive of the <br />salinity controll?rogram and the adoption of the 1996 Review. However, in written testimony <br />and in oral testimony, four issues were raised that the Forum wishes to respond to in this <br />supplemental report. The Forum appreciates the support of the lID. The four issues raised are <br />capsulized in the following statements: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />The lID believes that the report indicates that if there had been average hydrology over <br />the last decade, the salinity In the river today would exceed the numeric cnteria. Hence, <br />there has not been an implementation of salinity control measures at a pace fast enough <br />to offset man-caused influences since 1972. With this premise, the lID urges the Salinity <br />Control Forum to work for the acceleration of the implementation of salinity control <br />strategies identified in the 1996 Review, <br /> <br />The lID commented that water demands have now reached a point where they, at times, <br />equal or exceed supply in the Colorado River drainage, and that further, some water <br />quality strategies are related to water quantity issues. The lID finds that the operation <br />of the Yuma Desalting Plant is of this nature and believes that Reclamation should be in <br />a position to place the Yuma Desalting Plant in full operation in FY 98. The lID <br />requests that the Forum also support the operation of the plant in FY 98. <br /> <br />The lID notes that weather modification has been investigated in the past and it has been <br />identified that there can be both water supply and water quality benefits from an <br />increased water sUP.l?Iy brought about by weather modification. The lID requests the <br />Forum to again conSIder including the option of weather modification in an adopted plan <br />of implementation for salinity control. <br /> <br />The lID believes that the reports used concerning the damages caused by salinity in the <br />Colorado River Basin are old and outdated. They believe that damages are IIreater than <br />stated in the reports. The lID urges the Forum to work with Reclamation In updating <br />the damage numbers. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />6 <br />