My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08301
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08301
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:47:41 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:53:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8273.100.50
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agency Reports - BOR
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
2/1/1988
Title
Estimating Economic Impacts of Salinity of the Colorado River - Final Report - February 1988
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.
/
97
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 />Salinity in the Colorado River Basin 21 <br /> <br />:1 <br />, <br /> <br />Table 4. - Current or estimated TDS levels 01 M&I water supplies <br />In the Lower Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />f\) <br />O'.l <br />CO <br />CO'. <br /> <br />MetrQPolttan Area IQ.S <br />San Diego County * 1986 estimated blend 579 <br /> (90% from MWD) <br />Riverside Co. * 1986 estimated blend 535 <br />Orange County * 1986 estimated blend 505 <br />San Bernardino * 1986 estimated blend 455 <br />Los Angeles * 1986 estimated blend <br /> City/County average 405 <br />Phoenix CUrrent valley average 400-500 <br />Tucson current valley average 400.500 <br />Las Vegas valley 1986 groundwater 235-250 ** <br /> 1986 Colorado River actual 542 <br /> 1986 blend 517 ** <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />* Does not InclUde those portions 01 the County outside the MWD service areas. <br />More recent numbers are 310 and 499, respectively, but they were not available <br />when the computer program was developed. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />causing rccord low salinity levels. As the river <br />returns to more normal flows, the TDS at Parker <br />should return to around 700 mgiL. <br /> <br />The current TDS averages make it clear why <br />San Diego, Riverside, and Orange Counties in <br />southern California are the three areas most ac- <br />tively concerncd with salinity. There are other <br />areas or subareas that have higher and much <br />higher average TPS levels (such as Buckeye and <br />parts of Chandler, Arizona), but Riverside and <br />Orange Counties are part of a major metropoli- <br />tan area as well as part of the Santa Ana River <br />watershed which exhibits substantial incremental <br />salinity as it reacbes Orange County. Further, <br />the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control <br />Board has established firm policies on salinity <br />which have mandated both structural and <br /> <br />L <br /> <br />management actions on the part of area water <br />suppliers. The responses of Riverside and <br />Orange Counties to increasing salinity can serve <br />as a general model for future activities in other <br />areas of the Lower Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Salinity, as this report discusses, is an <br />economic water quality issue- not a matter of <br />serious concern for human bealth. In this sense <br />salinity becomes a water quality parameter that <br />is subject to policy and cost decisions uolike the <br />decisions mandated by the presence of TCE or <br />nitrate poUution exceeding primary drinking <br />water standards. The fact that salinity is pri- <br />marily a management problem may also explain <br />why so little regulatory concern has yet been <br />cxhibited by cities and slates in regularly <br />measuring or addressing TDS in water supplies. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.