|
<br />j
<br />
<br />;"{
<br />.,-.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />w
<br />00
<br />00
<br />~,
<br />
<br />:1
<br />,
<br />,1
<br />
<br />MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
<br />
<br />"1
<br />
<br />1
<br />,~
<br />
<br />In a broad overview of Federal and State salinity control efforts, it is
<br />useful from a nianagement perspect ive to i dent ify the key" issues and concerns
<br />relating to implementation. In many of the cases discussed, ongoing manage-
<br />ment strategies, policy initiatives, or legislative relief is proposed.
<br />Still otherisslles cannot be properly resolved within t.he time frame of this
<br />report. In any' case, the important aspect is to identify theSe issues for
<br />decisionmakers.'
<br />
<br />,'j
<br />J
<br />
<br />~ J
<br />I
<br />
<br />-:1
<br />- ~ :1
<br />
<br />Bureau of Reclamation
<br />
<br />,
<br />.,
<br />.
<br />
<br />Most of the planning delays and changes in project concept or scope can
<br />be related to the inherent complexities and unknowns encountered in the-
<br />saline ground-w~ter systems found in all source areas. Unlike other Conven-
<br />tional water pr~grams, 8 learning curve must be applied to salinity control
<br />in applying corrective actions to offset earlier "trial and error" investiga-
<br />tions. Thus, concern has been expressed over program delays, downgrading
<br />salinity impacts, and higher costs per unit ($ per ton) reduction. However,
<br />the net effect qf the delays and changes in concept should be positive as we
<br />see improved techni cal capabi 1 ity and confidence in program accompli shments.
<br />
<br />To minimize risk, the staging of project features is being encouraged for
<br />several units. 'Staging allows additional time to monitor actual results
<br />and to minimize investment if certain features are not effective. However,
<br />by staging portipns of projects, the tradeoffs for minimizing risk may .
<br />involve higher final costs, delays in project completion, and project reduc-
<br />tions due to fun:di ng constrai nts, changes in pl ans, and loss of local water
<br />users I support. i Recent experi ence in monitori ng the effects of seepage
<br />control and collection wells indicates that conclusive evidence is highly
<br />SUbject to maski'ng by normal hydrologic events, and several years of
<br />monitori ng wi 11 be necessary to show defi niti ve results at a specific control
<br />site. It is important to note that the intensive on-site monitoring programs,
<br />reservoir effect~, and ion constituent studies nave served to increase our -
<br />collective knowl!!!dgeof the salinity problem. Long-termmonitoringat the
<br />downstream control points, coupled with continuing validation throu'gh CRSS
<br />and trend analysis, will minimize the uncertainty inherent in the system and
<br />provide a better'measure of program effectiveness.
<br />
<br />!l
<br />j
<br />1
<br />.'
<br />,-I
<br />j
<br />
<br />.i
<br />0,-
<br />
<br />Water Ri ghts
<br />
<br />Some of the Basin States have raised water rights issues over the disposal of
<br />collected salineiwater in evaporation ponds, e.g., under Colorado and Wyoming
<br />water law, such a control system would not meet the requi rements for "beneficial
<br />use" in granting;a water right. Moreover, the disposal of large quantities of
<br />water in ponds requires large land areas and high investment costs in 'land
<br />preparation and in liners to prevent leakage. Similar concerns have been
<br />expressed by oth~r Basin States. The only strategy that. appears to satisfy
<br />these concerns is to deliver collected saline water for beneficial use by
<br />
<br />:-1
<br />-d
<br />'J
<br />d
<br />,
<br />iJ
<br />'1
<br />i'
<br />,'-Ii
<br />-'~!
<br />Ii
<br />j
<br />I
<br />-f
<br />:J
<br />J
<br />--'I
<br />j
<br />
<br /><1
<br />,
<br />:]
<br />.,{
<br />:j
<br />j
<br />,.1
<br />;1
<br />
<br />18
<br />
<br />:i-
<br />,0<
<br />
<br />."-'- .j,--.- ;. ~,- ~~,. .....,- .
<br />
|