WSP07622

• File Number: 8273.100
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - Bureau of Reclamation
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1987
• Author: DOI BOR
• Title: Salinity Update - January 1987 - A Quarterly Report on the Colorado River Water Improvement Program
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

t-
oo
IV
<.:>

Salinity Up

\'01. 7, .'0. I

1986 Joint Evaluation

The 1986 Juinl bllulllion of ~Illinil)
CORnol Proli:ram~ in the Colol'1ldo Rhu
RlI-~in ....as r<<colly completed. A fe...
copi~ are availabk from the Colorado
River Water Quality Office. Thi~ edition
of Salinity Update pro\'id~ a brief sum-
mar)' of thai n:port.
The findings and recommendations
summarized are the result oj a Joint lont("
term program....ide interagency' evaluation
~'ondul.ted by the 001 (Department of
the Inlnjar) and the USDA (Department
of Agricullure). The findings pro\'ide'
program managers tools [0 accompli~h
salini!)' control obj<<II\C'\ at minimum
cost.

BackRround
The Colorado River pro\lde~ municipal
and industrial "'ater supplies for over 18
million ~ople and irrigation .....ater to
over I million acres. The rher, hO\Ooever,
carrie~ about 9 million IOns of salt an-
nually past Hoover Dam.
Projections to the year 2010 indicat('
salinity Iev'e1s incr('asing beyond numeric
criteria if controls ate not implemented.
RC"Cent high flo\Oo~, however, ha\'e comin.
UN to 10\Oo'er the average annual salimt)'
at Imperial Dam 10 h(J7 mg, t lprovision-
al) in 1983.
The 1986 evaluation was made after
the planning data "'as adju~ted to be
more comparable between agencies, All
costs were !oCt at Januar)o 1986 dollars
and the same di\Count rate (8-\ percent)
"'as used.

Projections
In establishing ba~e condllions for the
study, the CRSS ,Colorado Rher
Simulation System) computer modd
cv'aluation assumed that no funds "'ere
e'-pended on salinity control beyond
tho~e already spent on completed
portions of the Grand \"alle~, .\teeler
Dome, Uinta BaslO, and Las \"el!a~ Wash
units. The comrleted portions of lhe~
units arc currently remO\lng appro1lima-
tely 126,800 tons of salt annually from
the river system.

N~7'
~ """

COLoI/AO
CONSEI/YAT 0 WATEI/
ION EJo~ 0:J

~

r\.l~
k,J....:-,....

U.s. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Redamation

arterl)' Report on the
rado River Water Quality
onmenl Program

J.nU~f) 1987

-~

...

-
"
... ..,L. ,
.. ~~',I\
.. ~..:' ""
-"
'-,

1
.I

"

~'
, '

"

.

('on,truclion ~ Proll~lItt It th~ P'..do\ \-,lIe, ..ell--drillinll oJle ..hel'1' Ihe ....tbole diuer .... u..ed
to drill I 3o-inch condu("lor hole 10 I depth oIM'""I.

ProjCl.'tiom of future salinity conditions
uscd the average of l~ sequences of his-
torkal hydrology (IlX)6..198)j as a datil
base and 1986 Bureau of Reclamation de-
plellon projeo.:tion~ which j~ similar to the
Colorado RJ~'er Basin Salinity Control
Forum's moderate depletion le~eJ.
The salimt~ at Imperial Dam is pro-
Jected to reach about %~ mg L b~ the
year 2010. Using the salimty proj<<tions
al Imperial Dam, salt load redu..1lOns
rCl.juired to reduce prOjected TDS lIotal
dlssol\ed solids)le\'eh to the numeric
criteria le\e1 of 879 mg l "'ere C$timated
to be I,09O,f.JO tons pet ~ear by the year
2010 and arc referred to as the program
obj<<ti-e
The numeric crneria le~'el of 879 mg L
and the hiMorical salinity le\els are
sho....n in figure I. ..\Iso portrayed are the
prOjected '>3limty le\els "'tth and without
additional salinity comrols. It is readil~'
apparent that with or without the recom-
mcndcd controls, the .alinity' at Imperial

Dam is (,pected to increase significantly
o\er the nut 2) ycars.

Rf'('ommended Plan
When comparing the salinity Impacts
of the recommended plan to the "no fur.
ther action" scenario, the real program
payoff appears after 1995 when the rec-
ommended plan maintams the TDS at
Imperial Dam below the criteria to the
year 2010. The plan is also structured to
pro\'id(' some cushIon or insurance,
~hould key mdi\ldual prOjects fail 10
reduce salt loading ~ planned,
As e\idenced by past program activi-
lles. long lead llmes are required for
project planning and implementation.
while construcllon costs continue to
Increase. To mlmmJle program costS and
10 a\old Increased inflation e'pensC'S,
program planning, Implementation sched.
ules, and funding le'els should be consis-
tent \Oolth the recommended plan. Con-
~trucllon should not 0;;- delayed t>ecau!oC