Laserfiche WebLink
<br />M:Io <br />N <br />o <br />..c. <br /> <br />The Forum offers the following response to the four issues brought to the Forum by the <br />lID. First, the Forum does recoj:nize that for the first time in the history of the triennial <br />reviews, the 1996 Review does indIcate that with the long-term mean water supply in the system <br />rather than the actual experienced inflows, flow-adjusted salinity concentrations in the river <br />system presently exceed the numeric criteria. The Forum believes the plan of implementation <br />set forth in this report is intended to maintain salinity concentrations at the numeric criteria <br />levels through the year 2015, assuming long-term average hydrology. The Forum believes that <br />the plan of Implementation as outlined in this report provides for Implementing salinity control <br />measures as fast as reasonably anticipated funding can be obtained from Federal appropriations. <br />However, the Forum recognizes that in the near term there appears to be a shortfall (Table 2-4, <br />1996 Review) of 418,200 tons per year of existing salinity. control. To assist in eliminating this <br />shortfall, the Forum will recommend that Reclamation utilize cost sharing from the Basin funds <br />to supplement Federal appropriations. The Forum will be constantly monitoring the rate of <br />program implementation, formally reviewing this issue every three years, and will be looking <br />for cost-effective ways to accelerate the program so that observed salinity levels will be in <br />compliance with the adopted water quality standards. The Forum notes that in the past, it has <br />urged a more aggressive program than has been funded by the Federal government for the <br />portion of the program the Federal government has the responsibility to implement under Public <br />Law 93-320 as amended (Salinity Control Act). On Page 1-5, Table 1-1 of the 1996 Review <br />report indicates that for the last three fiscal years, with one exception, Federal appropriations <br />for Reclamation, BLM and Agriculture have not equalled the Forum-identified funding need. <br />Past inadequate Federal funding places the program in the position it is in today. The Forum <br />has consistently urged the Admmistration and the Congress for funding levels adequate to <br />implement the plan of implementation and has pointed out that deferring funding until later years <br />only adds to the ultimate cost of maintaining the water quality standards. <br /> <br />Secondly, the Forum is aware that the non-operational status of the Yuma Desalting Plant <br />results in Reclamation bypassing the Welton Mohawk drain water to the Gulf of CalifornIa with <br />a resulting loss of water supply to the Colorado River Basin users, However, water supply <br />issues are addressed by the states and the Federal government in meetings specifically called ror <br />this purpose by representatives assigned by their governments to represent them on these water <br />supply matters. Forum members, speaking within the capacity of their appointments to the <br />Forum, do not represent the states WIth respect to water supply issues. Further, water quality <br />issues that arise between the United States and the Republic of Mexico are not a part of Title <br />II of the Salinity Control Act, and those issues with respect to the states' concerns are not <br />formally assigned by their states to the appointed Forum members. The Forum has not felt it <br />appropriate to take formal positions concerning what has been termed Title I activities under the <br />Salinity Control Act. The Forum and its membership, however, are most interested in an <br />appropriate resolution of water quality issues at the border. The Forum, from time to time, has <br />provided Reclamation and the International Boundary and Water Commission an opportunity to <br />converse with representatives of the Basin states at Forum meetings. Further, the Forum has <br />gone on record urging Reclamation to invite state-designated participants to comprehensive <br />sessions held by Reclamation to discuss options with respect to the operation of the Yuma <br />Desalting Plant. The Forum and its members continue to urge Reclamation to convene such <br />meetings and ensure appropriate participation by the Basin states and affected water users. <br /> <br />Thirdly, the Forum recognizes that cloud-seeding and other precipitation augmentation <br />programs have the potential to provide additional water supply at times, and studies have <br />mdicated that cloud-seeding may result in reduced salt concentrations in the Colorado River <br />system. The Forum, however, believes that this precipitation management issue is of primary <br />concern to the United States as it might address ways to replace water that has been committed <br />by the Congress, and of concern to tlie Basin states' representatives assigned by their governors <br />to addre.ss water supply issues. If the subject of precipitation management were to be actively <br />discussed by the Federal government and/or state representatives assi~ned to examine water <br />supply issues, the Forum would become actively involved in examimng options that would <br />reduce salinity concentrations in the Colorado River system, <br /> <br />7 <br />