Laserfiche WebLink
<br />in 1990 the probability of a violation at at least one control <br />(.',) <br />C.u E~.nJ~ is D.7? (or 72 percent) ancJ i.n 1995 it 1.nCr(Oa8""s to O.R:l (01. <br />l-' <br />..... 83 percent). 'l'he probabilities oc' a vio1.i1tlon at 1l'()E.:? thil.!1_~~. <br /> <br />poin.!:. are 0.50 (:,0 percent for 19(10) i'll1d 0.67 (li7 fw.rcent) for <br /> <br />1995. <br /> <br />The figures in these tables form a remarkable admission <br /> <br />on the part of the Forum--an admission that the salinity control <br /> <br />program is so ineffective that violations of the standard are <br /> <br />likely to be so commonplace as to occur over 70 percent of the <br /> <br />time. Such a frank statement about the program's status and likely <br /> <br />progress over the next several years is t.O be appli'luded. On the <br />I <br /> <br />other hand, the dismal prospects for controlling salinity in the <br /> <br />Colorado River concern those of us with an interest in the river's <br /> <br />water quality. <br /> <br />Speci fie Concerns \~i th the Report <br />~'-'"-_._--,-q..~---,~,.,,----~'_._---------_.- <br /> <br />MOre specific concerns with the report relate to: (1) <br /> <br />the provision for ignoring violations of t.he standards; (2) the <br /> <br />absence of costs and damage estimates for salinity; (3) the peculi- <br /> <br />ar specification of a baseline; and (4) the failure t:o layout in <br /> <br />1/ Continued <br /> <br />indep",ndent events with equally likely prohabilities of occurring. <br />In fact, it's obvious that the events are neither independent nor <br />equally likely. For example, any event in 1990 with 14 salinity <br />control projects is negligibly small. Ignoring this would under- <br />estimate the probability of a violation. Conversely the condition- <br />al probability of any combination with only three projects in 1995 <br />given 14 projects in 1990 is zero. But disregarding these factors <br />in order to keep the calculations'very simple, estimating the <br />probability of a violation involves counting violations and sum- <br />ming .the probabi li ties of their occurrence.' ModiJying the assump- <br />tions of independence and equal likelihood would change the <br />probabiliti~s some but not so much that the point on program in- <br />effectiveness would be invalid. <br /> <br />22 <br />