Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />00 <br />-..J <br />l'\j <br /> <br />constructed to help control the effects of development may be taken out <br />of operation when the development actually takes place. <br /> <br /> <br />Controllin. irri.ation salt sources. The Bureau's primary method <br />for concrolling irrigation salt sources is to improve existing privately <br />owned and operaced irrigation canals in areas of salc-laden soils to <br />prevenc che canals from leaking. The incent of chese improvemencs is to <br />reduce the amounc of waCer which seeps from the canals, subsequencly <br />picking up salcs from the surrounding soils as it flows back to che <br />Colorado River syscem. Most potential projects to control salinity from <br />irrigation sources are located in the upper portion of the basin. <br />However, since the primary benefic of these projects accrues to <br />downstream users in the lower basin, local canal owners and operators in <br />the upper basin see little reason to participate in the program. Under <br />these circumstances, the Bureau, to comply with the Act, must find a way <br />to get the owners to participate in the program and to accept redesign of <br />their irrigation canals. <br /> <br />The McElmo Creek project, soon to be conscrucced in southwesc Colorado. <br />is an example of the Bureau's efforcs to encourage local cooperacion. <br />The Bureau plans to improve some privately owned canals and to combine <br />others into a single multipurpose canal which will serve both privately <br />and Federally irrigated lands. These improvements are designed to <br />decrease the salinity problem caused by the water currencly seeping from <br />the canals. However, our review of the McElmo Creek proj ect indicates <br />thac the design of the project also provides for increasing the delivery <br />capacity of the relaced private irrigation system. This increase in and <br />of itself would have no measured effect on reducing river salinity levels <br />resulting from the canal seepage problem. This syscem expansion appears <br />to have been provided by the Bureau as an inducement to gain local <br />cooperation. The irrigation system's owners requested the expansion. <br />which they would otherwise have had to pay for themselves, in order to <br />effectively use water the Bureau will soon make available from the <br />adjacent Dolores Project. Approximately $4.4 million of the $25 million <br />cosc of che McElmo Creek project is attributable co the requested <br />expansion work. <br /> <br />Local Bureau officials stated that if the Bureau refuses to expand che <br />system's capacity, the local owners will not cooperace in che project. <br />Bureau officials also stated that the expansion might provide additional <br />salc reductions by permitting the use of more efficient irrigation <br />pract:.ic.es. However. no one had performed any studies to support chis <br />concencion or t.o quancify the expecced salt: reduction. In :.his <br />par~icular case, the aut.horizing legislacion was definit.ive and specified <br />the canal work necessary to reduce the addition of salt to the river. It <br />did not call for increasing the delivery capacity of related private <br />irrigation systems. <br /> <br />~ile we only identified this problem at McElmo Creek, this situation may <br />occur in the future because of the lack of Bureau policy or procedural <br />guidance. For example, much of the Bureau's work to be performed at the <br />Grand Valley irrigation control project also involves irrigation <br />improvements associated with privately owned and operated systems. These <br /> <br />11 <br />