Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Purgatory Flat (Figure 1) adjacent tu the: Virgin Rlver. They haVe: offered <br />to sell water fro") the reserVuH tu Reclar:iation to replenlsh the water <br />I-LI c\cC 111,,,.., ",o;;Jr"l1011 (5,:JUJ-S,5uU ac-ft/year) by the proposed La <br />'It r 1.11. ~~n,,"~ pru~leCl, Thls would lncrease their repayr.lent capacity fur <br />the ~uail Cre:ek Reservoir, give Reclamation a supply of replacement water, <br />and reduce salinity in the WCWCD area. The cost of replacer.lent watet' fror.l <br />Quail Creek Reservoir and the benefits to the local community (Washington <br />County) haVE all been considered within the cost effectiveness <br />calculations. <br /> <br />The investigation was authorized under the Colorado River Basin Salinity <br />Control Act (CRBSCA) of June 1974, PubllC Law 93-320. This law directs the <br />Secretary of the Intenor to expedite completion of planrling reports on <br />salimty control units in the Colorado River Water Ciudlity Improvement <br />Program (CRWQIP). Public Law 96-375, enacted in October 1980, specifically <br />authorizes feasibility studies on ten units of thE CRWWIP, including the La <br />Verkin Springs Unit, Utah. <br /> <br />The CR5SCA was designed to partially fulfill the requirements of the <br />Federal Water Pullution Control Act (Public Law 92-500), as amended in <br />1972. In dccordance with Public Law 92-500 water quality standards were <br />established for thE Colorado River by the Colorado River Basin Salinity <br />Contrul Forur.-:, adopted by each of the basin states, and dpproved by the <br />En\' i ronr.iE!', ta 1 Protect i on Agency (EPh). <br /> <br />PROBLEMS A~D NEEDS <br /> <br />The salinity concentration of the Colorado River ranges from 50 mg/L at its <br />hEadwaters in the mountains of north-central Colorado to about 860 mg/L at <br />Ir"perial DaL', (average :951 saripl ins). Althoug~ the weter qual it.\' has <br />impro\'ed In recefit years, the qual ity is expected to degrdde iri the future <br />and eventually exceed the established stdnoards (Tatle 2). The estinated <br />future annual darrages to agriculture and municipal a'-,d industrial (1.1&:) <br />10\ler basin Vlater users is approxir.idtely 5540,000 per mg/L increase above a <br />cuncentration of 879 mg/L at Imperial Dam. <br /> <br />Table 2 <br /> <br />Established Water Quality StanGards <br />ThrEe Std.tions <br />L0~er ~;ainstr~dr~ of th~ Ctilor~t: River <br /> <br />Station <br /> <br />Ar,nu" 1 <br />Flu\:-Welgnted <br />Average TQS <br /> <br />Below Hoover Dam <br />Below Parker Dam <br />At I mperi a 1 [;ar" <br /> <br />723 mg/L <br />747 mg/L <br />879 rng/L <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />002601 <br />