WSP07317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I" .~ ~-...... ".I. \.10 I , Chief Engineer and representatives from Im- perial and Palo Verde lrrigatio~ Districts. The modification eliminated the principal objections to the original proposed objec- tives. The State Board did not act on the tem- perature objectives but took the matter under advisement. The matter was again heard at the State Board's December 16, 1970, meeting, and the Chief Engineer presented a statement recom- mending that appropriate language be adopt- ed that would clearly indicate that irrigation return flows are excluded from the tempera- ture control policy. The State Water Re- sources Control Board finally developed ob- jectives that met the combined criteria of the Department of Fish and Game, the Colorado River Board, and the agricultural water us- ers. The temperature control policy formally adopted on January 7,1971, for the Colorado, New, and Alamo Rivers meets this problem by the addition of the following statement: "Irrigation return waters are not considered elevat. ed temperature wastes for the purpose of this policy." r ~ Las Vegas Valley Waste Discharge The effluent from sewage treatmant plants and industries in Las Vegas Valley enters Las Vegas Wash and then flows into Lake Mead. The high level of nutrients in these flows has caused serious algae problems in the Las Vegas Bay portion of the lake. In 1969, the engineering consulting firm of Boyle Engineering-Cornell, Howland, Hayes, and Merryfield conducted a study and prepared a report for the Clark County Board of Commissioners on ways to alleviate these problems and provide a system capable of handling the projected urban growth in the valley. One of the alternatives in the re- port provides for increasing the degree of treatment and moving the point of the treat- ed wastes from Lake Mead to a point on the river below Hoover Dam. In order to evaluate this and the other al- ternatives. recommended in the report for waste control, local interests requested that the State of Nevada establish water control standards for the Colorado River. In Febru- ary 1970 the Nevada Bureau of Environmen- tal Health requested comments from the Col- orado River Board and the State Water Re- sources Control Board on Colorado River water quality srandards. In turn, the Cali- fornia agencies requested comments from other California state agencies and water us- ers. All of California's comments were con- solidated into a letter, dated April 14, 1970, from Jerome B. Gilbert, Executive Officer, SWRCB, to Ernest G. Gregory, Chief, Bu- reau of Environmental Health, State of Ne- vada. The letter contained recommendations for strong requirements for waste discharges. For example, the state's recommendations for preventing increases in salinity in the Colorado River suggested that regulations be adopted prohibiting the discharge of signifi- cant quantities of highly mineralized waste water to the sewerage system and, instead, requiring the disposal of it at the source. While additional meetings have been held in Nevada to discuss Colorado River standards, that state has not yet adopted any require- ments. A Nevada legislative committee in August 1970 recommended to the Governor that the Colorado River Commission of Nevada start immediately on a program that will lead to the construction of facilities necessary to solve the water pollution problems of Las Vegas Valley, including the problems of waste discharge to Lake Mead. The Gover- nor accepted the legislative committee's re- port and directed the Commission to carry out the program. Overland Ditch and Reservoir Company The Overland Ditch and Reservoir Com- pany of Hotchkiss, Colorado, submitted a let- ter dated May 22, 1970, to each of the gover- nors of the Colorado River Basin states enclosing a copy of the company's applica- tion for a loan under the Small Reclamation Projects Act. The company requested that the application be reviewe'd and comments transmitted to the Bureau of Reclamation. The funds were to be used to finance con- 25