My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07804
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07804
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:28:58 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:37:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272.100.60
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
10/27/1981
Author
CRBSCF
Title
Supplemental Report on the 1981 Review - Water Quality Standards for Salinity - Colorado River System
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />w <br />w <br />~ <br />w <br /> <br />damage reduced.ll Moreover, without cost estimates (however crude <br /> <br />they may be), there is no opJ;>ortunity to see that some of the more <br /> <br />attractive options--particularly those nonstructural options con- <br /> <br />cerned with decreasing the agricultural salt load--may deserve more <br /> <br />attention than they receive in the report. <br /> <br />Turning to the third point I welcome the Forum's presen- <br /> <br />tation of the concept of a salinity baseline against which to <br /> <br />measure (or track) the effects of basin development, land use <br /> <br />change, and the effectiveness of control efforts. But I can only <br /> <br />wonder at the choice of a simple two variable linear regression <br /> <br />relating flow to total dissolved solids (TDS) as the model for <br /> <br />the baseline. I am further puzzled when the report states that a <br /> <br />two standard deviation band' about the regression line will consti- <br /> <br />tute the baseline range. This broad band is defended as necessary <br /> <br />given the great variability of the relationship and the importance <br /> <br /> <br />of so many other factnrs in influencing the effect of flow on salt <br /> <br />load. But the explanation is entirely unacceptable and, as a <br /> <br />consequence, the simple two variable relationship is unusable. If <br /> <br />other. explanatory variables (~, land use, soil type, average <br />slope, presence of natural sources, etc.) might aid in refining <br /> <br />the relationship they should be included. Without them, or with- <br />out some effort devoted to refining the regression expressio~, the <br />baseline will be of very little value in monitoring the river <br />basin and explaining the effects of change and development on water <br /> <br />31 See, for example, Bureau of Reclamation, "SUlnllIary of <br />Activfties of the Water and Power Resources Service" Presented to <br />Colorado River Salinity Control Advisory Council" Santa Fe, New <br />Mexico, September 19-80, and Howe, C., "Colorado River: -Lower <br />Basin Benefits and Costs from Upper Basin Salinity Reduction Pro- <br />grams (Draft)," for DRI, Denver, Colorado, January 1981. <br /> <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.