QUALITY OF WATER 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN 

Progress Report No. 23 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Region 2011
Mission Statements 

The U.S. Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources 

and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and 

honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska 

Natives, and affiliated island communities. 

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and 

related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of 

the American public. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

MISSION STATEMENTS .................................................................................................................. i

SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3

AUTHORIZATION FOR REPORT .......................................................................................... 3

LEGAL ASPECTS ................................................................................................................... 4

Water Quantity .................................................................................................................. 4

Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2 – SALINITY CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 9

CAUSES OF SALINITY ........................................................................................................... 9

HISTORIC SALINITY CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 11

FACTORS INFLUENCING SALINITY ................................................................................... 11

Streamflow ...................................................................................................................... 12

Reservoir Storage ........................................................................................................... 13

NATURAL VARIATION IN SALINITY .................................................................................... 15

AGRICULTURAL SOURCES OF SALINITY ......................................................................... 16

WATER USE BY MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL USERS ....................................................... 17

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 18

Coal Bed Methane .......................................................................................................... 19

FUTURE WATER DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 20

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SALINITY STANDARDS ............................................................ 22

SALINITY CONTROL ............................................................................................................ 24

CHAPTER 3 – TITLE I SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM .......................................................... 25

Coachella Canal Lining ................................................................................................... 26

Protective and Regulatory Pumping ............................................................................... 26

Yuma Desalting Plant ..................................................................................................... 26

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) ........................................... 27

CHAPTER 4 - TITLE II SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM .......................................................... 29

U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 30

Program Administration .................................................................................................. 30

Planning .......................................................................................................................... 31

Science ........................................................................................................................... 31

On-the-ground Implementation ....................................................................................... 32
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) ............................................................... 33

NEW SALINITY PROJECTS AND INVESTIGATIONS .................................................. 34

MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................................................................ 36

ACTIVE SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS ................................................................... 36

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ...................................................................................... 40

PROGRAM SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 40

BASINWIDE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM ............................................................ 43

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009, PL 111-5 (ARRA) ....44 

PARALLEL PROGRAM ..................................................................................45 

NEW RECLAMATION SALINITY PROJECTS ............................................................... 45

ONGOING RECLAMATION SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS ................................... 47

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM SUMMARY DATA ...... 55

REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................................. 59

GENERAL REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX A – SALINITY DATA ................................................................................................. 69
iv 

TABLES 

Table 1 - Quantified Sources of Salt Loading ............................................................................... 10 

Table 2 - Upper Basin Depletion Projections ............................................................................... 21

Table 3 - Lower Basin Depletion Projections ............................................................................... 22

Table 4 - Salinity Control Requirements and Needs through 2030 ............................................... 24 

Table 5 - WMIDD Irrigation Efficiency ........................................................................................... 28 

Table 6 - BLM Salt Retention Estimates for FY 2006 - 2010 ........................................................ 33 

Table 7 - Active Salinity Control Projects ...................................................................................... 36 

Table 8 - USDA Salinity Control Unit Summary through 2010 ...................................................... 39 

Table 9 - Paradox Well Injection Evaluation ................................................................... 52 

Table 10 - Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs ........................................................... 55 

Table 11 - Summary of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Funding ........................ 57 

Table 12 - Reclamation Basinwide Salinity Control Program Summary ....................................... 58 

Table 13 – UCRB Agricultural Salinity Control Summary (tons) 2010 ......................................... 58 

FIGURES 

Figure 1 - Sources of Salinity ......................................................................................................... 9 

Figure 2 - Percentage of Salinity Damages ................................................................................... 11

Figure 3 - Colorado River Salinity at Lower Basin Compact Points .............................................. 12 

Figure 4 - Mainstem Flow and Salinity .......................................................................................... 12 

Figure 5 - Effect of Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River Salinity at Lees Ferry ......................... 13 

Figure 6 - Lake Powell Forebay near Dam, Dec 1964 to March 2010 Salinity Conc, mg/L .......... 14 

Figure 7 - Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow Salt Concentration, mg/L ......................................... 15 

Figure 8 - Photo of Coal Bed Methane Well .................................................................................. 19

Figure 9 - Historic and Projected Water Uses ............................................................................... 20

Figure 10 - 2010 Estimated Salinity Control Progress: BOR, NRCS & BLM ............................... 24 

Figure 11 - Map of Title I Salinity Control Projects ....................................................................... 25 

Figure 12 - Map of Title II Salinity Control Projects ....................................................................... 29 

Figure 13 - BLM Salinity Control Funding Distribution .................................................................. 31 

Figure 14 - NRCS onfarm Salt Controlled through 2010 .............................................................. 40 

Figure 15 - Paradox Valley ........................................................................................................... 50 

Figure 16 - Schematic of Paradox Project ..................................................................................... 50 

Figure 17 - Salt from Canal Seepage ............................................................................................ 53 
v 

FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure 18 - Price-San Rafael Irrigation Improvements .................................................................. 53 

Figure 19 - Salinity in Uinta Basin Unit Area ................................................................................. 54 

Figure A-1 - Colorado River Water Quality Monitoring Stations ................................................... 70 

Figure A-2 - Colorado River Flow and Salinity .............................................................................. 71

Figure A-3 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 1-4 ....................................................................... 72 

Figure A-4 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 5-8 ....................................................................... 73 

Figure A-5 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 9-12 .......................................................... 74 

Figure A-6 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 13-16 .........................................................75 

Figure A-7 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 17-20 .........................................................76 
SUMMARY 

The Colorado River and its tributaries provide municipal and industrial water to about 

33 million people and irrigation water to nearly 4 million acres of land in the United 

States. The river also serves about 3 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. The 

effect of salinity is a major concern in 

both the United States and Mexico. 

Salinity damages in the United States 

are presently about $383 million per 

year at 2009 salinity concentrations. 

This biennial report on the quality of 

water in the Colorado River Basin is 

required by Public Laws 84-485, 87-

483, and the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Act (Salinity Control 

Act) (Public Law 93-320, as amended 

by Public Laws 98-569, 104-20, 104-

127, and 106-459). 

The Salinity Control Act authorizes the 

Secretaries of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (Interior) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to enhance and protect 

the quality of water available in the Colorado River for use in the United States and the 

Republic of Mexico. 

Title I of the Salinity Control Act authorized the construction and operation of a desalting 

plant, brine discharge canal, and 

other features to enable the United 

States to deliver water to Mexico 

having an average salinity no greater 

than 115 parts per million (ppm) plus 

or minus 30 ppm over the annual 

average salinity of the Colorado 

River at Imperial Dam. The Title I 

program (administered by the Bureau 

of Reclamation [Reclamation]) 

continues to meet the requirements 

of Minute No. 242 of the 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission, United States and 

Mexico. 

Title II of the Salinity Control Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and 

the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a broad range of specific and general salinity 

control measures in an ongoing effort to prevent further degradation of water quality to 

meet the objectives and standards set by the Clean Water Act. 

Salinity damages to municipal water pipe. 

Salinity damages to crop production. 
2 

In 1995, Public Law 104-20 authorized an entirely new way of implementing salinity 

control. Reclamation’s Basinwide Salinity Control Program opened the program to 

competition through a “Request for Proposal” process, which greatly reduced the cost of 

salinity control by selecting the most cost effective projects. However, the price of 

salinity control will increase in the future as the less cost effective projects are left. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act, prepared the “2008 Review, Water Quality 

Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System” (Review). The Review reported that by 

2030 a target of 1.85 million tons per year of salt will need to be diverted from entering 

the Colorado River in order to meet the water quality standards in the Lower Basin, 

below Lees Ferry, AZ. The combined Reclamation, USDA & BLM salinity reduction 

reported for 2010 shows that the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program 

(Program) has controlled over 1,192,000 tons of salt per year. In order to meet the 1.85 

million tons of salt per year goal, it will be necessary to fund and implement potential 

new measures which ensure the removal of an additional 657,950 tons by 2030. The 

Forum stated that in order to achieve this level of salt reduction, the federal departments 

and agencies would require the following capital funding: Reclamation appropriation - 

$17.5 million per year (bringing the total Reclamation program with $7.5 million costsharing to $25 million per year); and USDA EQIP appropriation - $13.8 million per year 

(bringing the total on-farm program to $19.7 million per year with Basin states parallel 

program). Beginning in 2005, BLM began a comprehensive program to minimize the salt 

loading from BLM lands in the Colorado River basin. BLM salinity funding from 

Congress began in FY 2006. 

With the reported existing salt controlled, and assuming no reduction of the existing 

salinity control projects, then nearly 32,900 tons of new or additional controls will need 

to be implemented each year to maintain the standards with increased future water 

development. This Program goal is the combined target for the participating agencies 

within Interior and USDA. The participating agencies reported to the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council, showing that the agencies efforts have been 

able to exceed the program’s target over the past several years. 

The Upper Colorado River Basin continues to experience a protracted multi-year drought. 

Since 1999, inflow to Lake Powell has been below average in every year except water 

years 2005 and 2008. The overall reservoir storage in the Colorado River Basin, as of 

October 1, 2010, is 33.05 million acre-feet or 55.6 % of capacity. Salinity concentration 

has increased during this time period (while salinity loading has decreased), but has not 

exceeded the numeric salinity criteria on the Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Parker 

Dam and at Imperial Dam; 723, 747 & 879 mg/L respectively. Reclamation’s short term 

future salinity modeling scenarios indicate that the numeric salinity criteria should be 

maintained even with an additional 1-2 years of drought. However, the uncertainty of the 

prediction is within reach of the salinity criteria. The salinity criteria could have been 

exceeded in 2003 or 2004 without the salinity control program and other salt reductions. 

Nevertheless, salinity damages are still very high at the 2009 salinity levels. This is the 

first observation of this level of reservoir draw down. This drought is providing new data, 

which will eventually reduce the uncertainty in salinity forecasting. 
3 

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) of the U.S. Department of the Interior 

prepared this report in cooperation with State water resource agencies and other Federal 

agencies involved in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity 

Control Program). This Progress Report is the latest in a series of biennial reports that 

commenced in 1963. This report, Progress Report 23, should have been published in 

2007, but due to long review times for the past Progress Reports 21 and 22, the time line 

has been delayed enough to include the 2007 and 2009 data in this report. 

AUTHORIZATION FOR REPORT 

The directive for preparing this report is contained in four separate public laws. 

Public Law 84-485 states: 

Section 15 –“The Secretary of the Interior is directed to continue studies and 

make a report to the Congress and to the States of the Colorado River Basin on 

the quality of water of the Colorado River,” 

Section 5c – “All revenues collected in connection with the operation of the 

Colorado storage project and participating projects shall be credited to the Basin 

Fund, and shall be available, without further appropriation, for (1) defraying the 

costs of operation, maintenance, & replacement of, and emergency expenditures 

for, all facilities”. The ongoing water quality monitoring, studies, and report are 

considered part of the normal operation of the project and are funded by the Basin 

Fund.” 

Public Law 87-483 states: 

Section 15 - “The Secretary of the Interior is directed to continue his studies of 

the quality of water of the Colorado River System, to appraise its suitability for 

municipal, domestic, and industrial use and for irrigation in the various areas in 

the United States in which it is used or proposed to be used, to estimate the effect 

of additional developments involving its storage and use (whether heretofore 

authorized or contemplated for authorization) on the remaining water available for 

use in the United States, to study all possible means of improving the quality of 

such water and of alleviating the ill effects of water of poor quality, and to report 

the results of his studies and estimates to the 87th Congress and every 2 years 

thereafter.” 

Public Law 87-590 states that January 3 would be the submission date for the report. 

Public Law 93-320 states: 

“Commencing on January 1, 1975, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary 

shall submit, simultaneously, to the President, the Congress, and the Advisory 

Council created in Section 204(a) of this title, a report on the Colorado River 

salinity control program authorized by this title covering the progress of 

investigations, planning, and construction of salinity control units for the previous 
4 

fiscal year; the effectiveness of such units; anticipated work needed to be 

accomplished in the future to meet the objectives of this title, with emphasis on 

the needs during the 5 years immediately following the date of each report; and 

any special problems that may be impeding progress in attaining an effective 

salinity control program. Said report may be included in the biennial report on the 

quality of water of the Colorado River Basin prepared by the Secretary pursuant 

to section 15 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 Stat. 111; 43 U.S.C. 

602n), section 15 of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project and the initial stage of 

the San Juan-Chama Project Act (76 Stat. 102), and section 6 of the 

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Act (76 Stat. 393).” 

LEGAL ASPECTS 

Water Quantity 

Colorado River water was apportioned by the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the 

Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, the Water Treaty of 1944, the Upper Colorado 

River Basin Compact of 1948, and the United States Supreme Court (Arizona v. 

California et al., 1963). 

The Colorado River Compact divided the Colorado River Basin between the Upper and 

Lower Basins at Lee Ferry (just below the confluence of the Paria River), apportioning to 

each use of 7.5 million acre-feet (maf) annually. In addition to this apportionment, the 

Lower Basin was given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use by 1 maf per 

year. The compact also contains provisions governing exportation of Colorado River 

water. The Water Treaty of 1944 obligates the United States to deliver to Mexico 1.5 maf 

of Colorado River water annually, absent treaty surplus or shortage conditions. 

Upper Colorado Use - The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 divided and 

apportioned the water apportioned to the Upper Colorado River Basin by the Colorado 

River Compact, allocating to Arizona 50,000 acre-feet annually, with the remaining 

water allocated to Upper Colorado River Basin States as follows: 

 Colorado 51.75 percent 

 New Mexico 11.25 percent 

 Utah 23 percent 

 Wyoming 14 percent 

Lower Colorado Use - States of the Lower Colorado River Basin did not agree to a 

compact for the apportionment of waters in the Lower Colorado River Basin; in the 

absence of such a compact Congress, through Secretarial contracts authorized by the 

Boulder Canyon Project Act, allocated water from the mainstem of the Colorado River 

below Lee Ferry among California, Nevada, and Arizona, and the Gila River between 

Arizona and New Mexico. This apportionment was upheld by the Supreme Court, in 

1963, in the case of Arizona v. California.

As confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963, from the mainstem of the Colorado 

River (i.e., The Lower Basin): 
5 

 Nevada was apportioned 300,000 acre-feet annually and 4 percent of surplus 

water available, 

 Arizona was apportioned 2,800,000 acre-feet annually and 46 percent of surplus 

water available, 

 California was apportioned 4,400,000 acre-feet annually and 50 percent of 

surplus water available. 

Water Quality 

Although a number of water-quality-related legislative actions have been taken on the 

State and Federal levels, several Federal acts are of special significance to the Colorado 

River Basin: the Water Quality Act of 1965 and related amendments, the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), commonly referred to 

as the Clean Water Act and related amendments, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Act (Salinity Control Act) of 1974 as amended. Also, central to water quality 

issues are agreements with Mexico on Colorado River System waters entering that 

country. 

The Water Quality Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-234) amended the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act and established a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration 

(now Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]). Among other provisions, it required 

States to adopt water quality criteria for interstate waters inside their boundaries. The 

seven Basin States initially developed water quality standards that did not include 

numeric salinity criteria for the Colorado River primarily because of technical 

constraints. In 1972, the Basin States agreed to a policy that called for the maintenance of 

salinity concentrations in the Lower Colorado River System at or below existing levels, 

while the Upper Colorado River Basin States continued to develop their 

compact-apportioned waters. The Basin States suggested that Reclamation should have 

primary responsibility for investigating, planning, and implementing the proposed 

Salinity Control Program. 

The enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 affected 

salinity control, in that it was interpreted by EPA to require numerical standards for 

salinity in the Colorado River. In response, the Basin States founded the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) to develop water quality standards, including 

numeric salinity criteria and a basinwide plan of implementation for salinity control. The 

Basin States held public meetings on the proposed standards as required by the enacting 

legislation. The Forum recommended that the individual Basin States adopt the report, 

Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Including Numeric Criteria and Plan of 

Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado River System. The proposed water quality 

standards called for maintenance of flow-weighted annual averaged total dissolved solids 

concentrations of 723 milligrams per liter (mg/L) below Hoover Dam, 747 mg/L below 

Parker Dam, and 879 mg/L at Imperial Dam. Included in the plan of implementation 

were four salinity control units and possibly additional units, the application of effluent 

limitations, industrial use of saline water, and future studies. The standards are to be 

reviewed at 3-year intervals. All of the Basin States adopted the 1975 Forumrecommended standards. EPA approved the standards. 
6 

The Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320) provided the means to comply 

with the United States’ obligations to Mexico under Minute No. 242 of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, which included, as a major 

feature, a desalting plant and brine discharge canal for treatment of Wellton-Mohawk 

Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) drainage water. These facilities enable the 

United States to deliver water to Mexico having an average salinity of 115 parts per 

million (ppm) plus or minus 30 ppm (United States’ count) over the annual average 

salinity of the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. The act also authorized construction of 4 

salinity control units and the expedited planning of 12 other salinity control projects 

above Imperial Dam as part of the basinwide salinity control plan. 

In 1978, the Forum reviewed the salinity standards and recommended continuing 

construction of units identified in the 1974 act, placing of effluent limitations on 

industrial and municipal discharges, and reduction of the salt-loading effects of irrigation 

return flows. The review also called for the inclusion of water quality management plans 

to comply with section 208 of the Clean Water Act. It also contemplated the use of saline 

water for industrial purposes and future salinity control. 

Public Law 98-569, signed October 30, 1984, amended Public Law 93-320. The 

amendments to the Salinity Control Act authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Colorado River Salinity Control Program. The amendments also authorized two 

new units for construction under the Reclamation program. 

In 1993, the Dept. of Interior Inspector General concluded that the lengthy congressional 

authorization process for Reclamation projects was impeding the implementation of costeffective measures. Consequently, a public review of the program was conducted in 

1994. In 1995, Public Law 104-20 authorized Reclamation to implement a basinwide 

approach to salinity control and to manage its implementation. Reclamation completed 

solicitations in 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2004 in which Reclamation requested 

proposals, ranking the proposals based on their cost and performance risk factors, and 

awarded funds to the highest ranked projects. The awards from the first three solicitations 

consumed the available appropriation ceiling of $75 million authorized by Congress to 

test the new program. In 2000, Public Law 106-459 amended the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Act to increase the appropriation ceiling for Reclamation’s basinwide 

approach by $100 million ($175 million total). This appropriation authority allowed 

Reclamation to continue to request new proposals under its Basinwide Salinity Control 

Program. 

In 1996, Public Law 104-127 significantly changed the authorities provided to USDA. 

Rather than carry out a separate salinity control program, the Secretary of Agriculture 

was directed to carry out salinity control measures in the Colorado River Basin as part of 

the Environmental Quality Incentives Program established under the Food Security Act 

of 1985. Public Law 104-127 also authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to cost share 

salinity control activities from the basin funds in lieu of repayment. Cost sharing has been 

implemented for both USDA and Reclamation programs. Under this new authority, each 

dollar appropriated by the Congress is matched by $0.43 in cost sharing from the basin 

funds. 
7 

In 2002, Public Law 107-171, Title II, Subtitle D reauthorized the USDA’s 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (under which the Secretary of Agriculture 

carries out salinity control measures). In 2008, Public Law 110-246, again authorized the 

USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program. PL110-246 also amended the 

Salinity Control Act to clarify the authority and implementation of the “Basin States 

Program”. 

Nothing in this report is intended to interpret the provisions of applicable federal law 

including, but not limited to, The Colorado River Compact (42 Stat. 171), The Upper 

Colorado River Basin Compact (63 Stat. 31), The Utilization of Waters of the Colorado 

and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Treaty Between the United States of America 

and Mexico (Treaty Series 994, 59 Stat. 1219), the United States/Mexico agreement in 

Minute No. 242 of August 30, 1973, (Treaty Series 7708; 24 UST 1968), the 1964 

Decree entered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California et al. 

(376 U.S. 340), as amended and supplemented, The Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 

1057), The Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat. 774; 43 U.S.C. 618a), The 

Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 Stat. 105; 43 U.S.C. 620), The Colorado River 

Basin Project Act (82 Stat. 885; 43 U.S.C. 1501), The Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Act (88 Stat. 266; 43 U.S.C. 1571), The Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (98 

Stat. 1333), The Colorado River Floodway Protection Act (100 Stat. 1129; 43 U.S.C. 

1600), or The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (Title XVIII of Public Law 102-575, 

106 Stat. 4669). 
8 
9 

Sources of Salinity

Natural

47%

M&I

4%

Reservoir

12%

Irrigation

37%

CHAPTER 2 – SALINITY CONDITIONS 

CAUSES OF SALINITY 

The Colorado River System is naturally very saline. At the USGS gauge below Hoover 

Dam, between 1940 and 1980 an average of approximately 9.4 million tons of salt were 

carried down the river every year. Since 1981, on average, approximately 8.8 million tons 

of salts have been measured in the river each year, including years of floods and drought, 

with the trend going down. The flow of the river dilutes this salt, and depending upon the 

quantity of flow, salinity can be relatively dilute or concentrated. Since climatic 

conditions directly affect the flow in the river, salinity in any one year may double (or 

halve) due to extremes in runoff. Because this natural variability is virtually 

uncontrollable, the seven 

Basin States adopted a 

non-degradation water 

quality standard. 

Nearly half of the salinity 

in the Colorado River 

System is from natural 

sources. Saline springs, 

erosion of saline geologic 

formations, and runoff all 

contribute to this 

background salinity. 

Irrigation, reservoir 

evaporation, and 

municipal and industrial 

(M&I) sources make up 

the balance of the salinity 

problem in the Colorado 

River Basin. Figure 1 shows the relative amount each source contributes to the salinity 

problem. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1971) estimated that the natural 

salinity in the Lower Colorado River at Imperial Dam was 334 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L). For 2009 the average annual flow weighted salinity at Imperial Dam was 717 

mg/L, a 383 mg/L increase over the estimated natural salinity. Table 1, on the following 

page, quantifies the salinity from several of these known sources. 

Salinity of the Colorado River has increased with the development of water resources in 

two major ways: (1) the addition of salts from water use and (2) the consumption 

(depletion) of water. The combined effects of water use and consumption have had a 

significant impact on salinity in the Colorado River Basin. The basin-wide drought, since 

1999, has also had an influence on the present salinity of the Colorado River. 

Current information indicates that the present salt levels in the Colorado River system 

have few if any negative health effects and the EPA’s primary drinking water standards 

Figure 1 - Sources of Salinity 
10 

Table 1 - Quantified Sources of Salt Loading

are not exceeded (see Progress Report 21, Health section). However, the EPA secondary 

drinking water standards of 500 mg/L for TDS (salinity) and 250 mg/L for sulfate may be 

exceeded. A regression of sulfate versus TDS shows that sulfate exceeds 250 mg/L when 

the TDS exceeds 612 mg/L. During dry cycles the secondary drinking water standards 

for TDS and sulfate are exceeded at many places in the Colorado River in both the Upper 

and Lower Basins, including the three salinity criteria sites. 

The primary negative impact of the Colorado River salinity presently is seen as 

economics. Reclamation has developed a model which calculates damages from a given 

level of salt. Economic damages have been shown to begin at salinity levels above 500 

mg/L and a change of 1 mg/L TDS equates to 10,000 tons of salt per year. Present annual 

economic damage using the 2008 & 2009 average annual salinity level at Imperial Dam 

(717 mg/l, latest data available) has been modeled at over $350 million dollars. This 

impact comes out at a cost of $173 per ton of salt or $1,733,000 per mg/L TDS per year, 

over the 500 mg/L base point. Even though the salinity level has fluctuated slightly over 

the last few years, the salinity impact cost has increased primarily due to increased 

agricultural damage costs (increase in acreage and crop prices). 

Source 

Type of 

Source 

Salt Loading 

(tons per year) 

Paradox Springs Springs / point 205,000 1 

Dotsero Springs Springs / point 182,600 

Glenwood Springs Springs / point 335,000 

Steamboat Springs Springs / point 8,500 

Pagosa Springs Springs / point 7,300 

Sinbad Valley Springs / point 6,500 

Meeker Dome Springs / point 57,000 1 

Other minor springs in the Upper Basin Springs / point 19,600 

Blue Springs Springs / point 550,000

La Verkin Springs Springs / point 109,000 

Grand Valley Irrigation / non-point 580,000 

Big Sandy Irrigation / non-point 164,000 

Uncompahgre Project Irrigation / non-point 360,000 1 

McElmo Creek Irrigation / non-point 119,000 

Price-San Rafael Irrigation / non-point 258,000 1 

Uinta Basin mostly irrigation / non-point 240,000 

Dirty Devil River Area non-point 150,000 

Price-San Rafael Area non-point 172,000 1 

Other, non regulated areas Various 5,200,000 

Total 8,724,000 

1- Values listed are pre salinity control project loading 
11 

Salinity related damages are 

primarily due to reduced 

agricultural crop yields, 

corrosion, and plugging of 

pipes and water fixtures in 

housing and industry. Figure 2 

breaks down the percentage of 

total damages. The seven 

Basin States have agreed to 

limit this impact and adopted 

numeric criteria, which 

require that salinity 

concentrations not increase 

(from the 1972 levels) due to 

future water development. 

Salinity levels measured in the 

river may be low or high due to climatic conditions, but the goal of the Water Quality 

Criteria for the Colorado River Basin and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Program (Salinity Control Program) is to offset (eliminate) the salinity effects of 

additional water development. 

HISTORIC SALINITY CONDITIONS 

Salinity in the Colorado River is monitored at 20 key stations throughout the Colorado 

River Basin. Salt loads and concentrations are calculated from daily conductivity and 

flow records using methods developed jointly between Reclamation and USGS 

(Liebermann et al., 1986). Historical annual streamflow, and salinity concentrations from 

1940 through 2009 are included in graphical form in Appendix A. Monthly and annual 

data may be obtained by request from Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah or by going to 

Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Regional Office Salinity Program web page; 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/index.html. The salinity of the 3 lower basin 

compact points since 1940 is shown in Figure 3. As Figure 3 shows, the last time the 

TDS exceeded or reached the salinity criteria at any of the compact points, was in 1972 – 

the year that the salinity standard was established for the Colorado River. 

FACTORS INFLUENCING SALINITY 

Stream flow, reservoir storage, water resource development, salinity control, climatic 

conditions, and natural runoff directly influence salinity in the Colorado River Basin. 

Before any water development, the salinity of spring runoff was often below 200 mg/L 

throughout the Colorado River Basin. However, salinity in the lower mainstem was often 

well above 1,000 mg/L during the low flow months (most of the year), since no 

reservoirs existed to catch and store the spring runoff. 

 Figure 2 – Percentage of Salinity Damages

49%

27%

7%

4%

5%

8%

Quantified Economic Damages $350+ 

million each year

Agriculture $172 m

Household $94 m

Commercial $26 m

Utility $16 m

Industrial $17 m

Management $27 m
12 

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River TDS @ Compact Points 

Below Hoover Below Parker At Imperial

Hoover Criteria Parker Criteria Imperial Criteria

Figure 3 - Colorado River Salinity at Lower Basin Compact Points

Streamflow 

Streamflow directly influences salinity. 

For the most part, higher flows (or 

reservoir releases) dilute salinity. The 

top graph in Figure 4 shows streamflow 

at two key points in the mainstem. In 

1980, Lake Powell (Glen Canyon Dam) 

filled for the first time and spilled. 

This spill went through Lake Mead 

(Hoover Dam) and on downstream 

through Imperial Dam. In 1983 and on 

through 1987, flows in the system were 

again extremely high and sustained, 

reducing salinity to historic lows. As 

shown in the bottom graph of Figure 4, 

more average flows in the system after 

1987 returned the salinity in the 

reservoir system to more normal levels. 

 Figure 4 - Mainstem Flow and Salinity. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Flow (maf/yr)

Mainstem Flows

Powell

Imperial

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

TDS (mg/L)

Mainstem Salinity

Hoover Powell

Imperial
13 

Reservoir Storage 

The Colorado River Storage Project Reservoirs produce not only major hydrologic 

modifications downstream, but they also significantly alter the salinity variability of the 

downstream river. The overall long term salinity affects of the reservoirs are beneficial 

and have greatly reduced the salinity peaks and annual fluctuation (Figure 5). The high 

concentration low flow waters are mixed with low concentration spring runoff, reducing 

the month-to-month variation in salinity below dams (Mueller et al., 1988). At Glen 

Canyon Dam, the pre and post dam peak monthly salinity has been reduced by nearly 600 

mg/L. Similar effects can be seen below Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Hoover Dams, 

greatly improving the quality of water during the summer, fall and winter. 

Large reservoirs like Lake Powell selectively route less saline water while holding more 

saline waters during low inflow periods. The poorer quality waters are then slowly 

released after the inflows have begun to increase, which helps to prevent exceeding the 

salinity criteria during drought years. The large reservoirs selectively retain higher 

salinity winter inflows in the bottom of the pool and route lower salinity overflow density 

currents from the spring runoff. The seasonal and long term affects of this selective 

retention and routing of salt has been shown below Glen Canyon Dam in Figure 5. 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Monthly Salinity (mg/L)

Salinity Below Glen Canyon Dam 

Dam closure and 

reservoir storage in 

mid-1960's reduced 

variation in salinity

Figure 5 - Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River Salinity at Lees Ferry. 

Figure 6 further displays this retention. A long-term depth vs. time profile of salinity in 

the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam is a pictured history of salinity. The Y (vertical) axis is 
14 

Lake Powell Forebay, Wahweap, TDS Dec 1964 to March 2010

3150

3200

3250

3300

3350

3400

3450

3500

3550

3600

3650

3700

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

elevation, Ft

mg/L

River Outlet

500 mg/L

700 mg/L

Figure 6 - Lake Powell Forebay, near Dam, Dec 1964 to March 2010 Salinity Concentration, mg/L 

depth in the water column and the X axis is time in years. The color scale is the change in 

salinity. 

Two things are demonstrated by this graphic: 1) Glen Canyon Dam selectively retains 

higher TDS water, especially during initial years of drought, and then routes those waters 

later, usually during wetter cycles. 2) Lake Powell has selectively retained higher salinity 

water during drier years, and then routed it with the increased mixing and shorter 

hydraulic retention times of wetter cycles as seen particularly in 1983 and 1999. During 

these wetter cycles these is a significant mixing and dilution of these previously stored 

salts. 

There are 4 periods or trends which can be seen in the Colorado River salinity for the 

inflow to and outflow from Lake Powell which can be seen in Figure 7 (white and yellow 

trend lines). The overall inflow line (blue) in Figure 7 is the sum of TDS for the inflow 

stations to Lake Powell; Colorado River at Cisco, Green River at Green River, UT, San 

Rafael River near Green River and San Juan River near Bluff. The overall outflow line 

(red) is the TDS at the USGS gauge at Lee’s Ferry below Glen Canyon Dam. There was 

the pre dam period, 1940 – 1964, where the average salinity trend was increasing with 

some divergence between the average annual inflow and outflow salinity levels and the 

inflow concentration generally being less than the outflow concentration. This difference 

between outflow and inflow may be impacted by the beginning hydraulic conditions, 

since the actual annual levels appear to track each other fairly closely. Next there was the 

dam filling period where Lake Powell and the upper basin reservoirs were completed and 

filling, 1965-1980. The average annual salinity during this time decreased with a 

convergence occurring between the inflow and outflow concentrations. The outflow 
15 

concentration decreased more than the inflow concentration, which could be due to the 

reservoir storing the higher TDS waters. Then there was the period, 1980 to present, 

when the basin hydrology went through both wet and dry periods and the salinity control 

projects in the upper basin were coming online. The declining trend of the average 

annual salinity concentration over this time is seen to be constant between the inflow and 

outflow stations. Since 1980 there appears to be an equilibrium between the salt entering 

the reservoir and what is being released. The last period, since 2000, covers the 

basinwide drought. The trend shows that the inflow TDS has declined, while the outflow 

TDS from Lake Powell has stayed constant with the 1980 to present TDS trend. 

Lake Powell (and other reservoirs in the basin) went through an initial filling salt leach 

out which actually began with temporary water retention behind the coffer dam during 

construction in the mid 1950’s. Long-term linear regression trend lines on the inflow and 

outflow salinity concentrations at Lake Powell indicate that internal salt leaching seems 

to have declined to a minimum by the mid-1990’s suggesting a long-term salinity leach 

out which is approaching a dynamic equilibrium (Figure 7, red and blue trend line). 

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Average Annual TDS (mg/L)

Lake Powell Inflow vs Outflow Salt Concentration

Inflow TDS 1940 to 2009

Outflow TDS 1940 to 2009

Linear (Inflow TDS 1940 to 2009)

Linear (Outflow TDS 1940 to 2009)

Linear (Inflow TDS 1940-1964)

Linear (Outflow TDS 1940-1964)

Linear (Inflow TDS 1964-1980)

Linear (Outflow TDS 1964-1980)

Linear (Inflow TDS 1980-2009)

Linear (Outflow TDS 1980-2009)

Linear (Inflow TDS 2000-2009)

Linear (Outflow TDS 2000-2009)

 Figure 7 - Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow Salt Concentration, mg/L 

NATURAL VARIATION IN SALINITY 

Although seasonal swings in salinity have been greatly reduced, annual fluctuations in 

salinity are still observed. Natural climatic variations in rainfall and snowmelt runoff 

continue to cause large year-to-year differences in both flow and salinity and in some 

cases nearly doubling the salinity in the river. 

The water quality standards require that the flow-weighted average annual salinity not to 

rise above the 1972 levels using a long-term mean water supply of 15 maf (2008 

Review). This means that depending on the hydrology (drought conditions) salinities may 
16 

actually increase above the numeric criteria and it is not a violation of the standards, but 

is due to natural variations in the hydrologic conditions. Even with full compliance with 

the standards, the actual salinities at Imperial Dam (and elsewhere in the Colorado River 

Basin) will continue to fluctuate with hydrologic conditions in the future. The Salinity 

Control Program is designed to offset the effects of development, even as salinity varies 

from year to year in response to the climatic and hydrologic conditions. Assuming 

continued salinity control and full compliance with the standards, the potential range of 

annual salinities that might be observed in the future at Imperial Dam is quite wide. With 

Colorado River basin reservoir storage tempering the natural variability of the system, the 

range between the high and low salinity values at Imperial Dam has dropped to a monthly 

average of about 479 mg/L and an annual average around 266 mg/L since 1973. 

AGRICULTURAL SOURCES OF SALINITY 

Irrigated agriculture is the largest user of water in the Colorado River Basin and a major 

contributor to the salinity of the system. Iorns (Iorns et al., 1965) found that irrigated 

lands in the Upper Colorado River Basin contributed about 3.4 million tons of salt per 

year (37 percent of the salinity of the river). Irrigation increases the salt concentration of 

the source water by consuming water (evapotranspiration) and by dissolving salts found 

in the underlying saline soil and geologic formations, usually marine (Mancos) shale. 

Irrigation mobilizes the salts found naturally on the soil surface as well as in the soil 

profile, especially if the lands are over irrigated. Many subbasins experienced significant 

changes in irrigation following development of available reservoir storage. For example, 

once late season irrigation supplies were assured, less water was applied to per unit of 

farmland during the snowmelt runoff, and overall irrigation efficiency increased. 

Irrigation development in the Upper Colorado River Basin took place gradually from the 

beginning of settlement in about 1860, but was hastened by the purchase of tribal lands in 

the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. About 800,000 acres were being irrigated by 1905. 

Between 1905 and 1920, the development of irrigated land increased at a rapid rate, and 

by 1920, nearly 1.4 million acres were being irrigated. The “Upper Colorado Region 

Comprehensive Framework Study, June 1971”, reported that more than 1.6 million acres 

were in irrigation in 1965. Since that time, development of new agricultural lands has 

leveled off because of physical, environmental, and economic limitations. Reclamation’s 

latest “Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 2006-2010” 

estimated an average of 1.57 million acres was irrigated in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin in 2006 (latest data available). 

Irrigation development in the Lower Colorado River Basin began at about the same time 

as in the Upper Colorado River Basin, but was slow due to the difficulty of diverting 

water from the Colorado River with its widely fluctuating flows. Development of the Gila 

area began in 1875 and the Palo Verde area in 1879. Construction of the Boulder Canyon 

Project in the 1930’s, and other downstream projects, has provided for a continued 

expansion of the irrigated area. In 1970, an additional 21,800 acres were irrigated by 

private pumping either directly from the Colorado River or from wells in the flood plain. 

In 1980, nearly 400,000 acres were being irrigated along the Colorado River mainstem. 
17 

Total irrigated lands for the entire Lower Colorado River Basin is around 1.4 million 

acres. 

Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) continuously monitor the flow and 

salinity of the river system through a network of 20 gauging stations (See Appendix A, 

Figs. A1 & A2). Reclamation evaluates the data collected to determine if sufficient 

salinity control is in place to offset the impact of water development. In 2009, the actual 

salinity in the Colorado River was below the numeric criteria at the established 

monitoring stations. However, as the impacts of recent and future basin developments 

work their way through the hydrologic system, or as drought conditions persist, salinity 

would increase without salinity control to prevent further degradation of the river system. 

Through salinity control practices, excess salt loading to the river system can be reduced 

significantly, helping maximize the future beneficial uses of the river. 

Most of the irrigation projects that deplete water and increase salt loading to the river 

were in place before 1965. Moreover, like the newly inundated soils in reservoirs, newly 

irrigated lands are subject to a leach-out period. In cases where lands with poor drainage 

stored salt, these areas were taken out of production. In addition, irrigation practices 

changed significantly with the introduction of canal and lateral lining, sprinkling systems, 

gated pipe, trickle systems and tile drains (initial operation of tile drains increase salt 

loading, which decreases after time). These changes have resulted in reduced return flows 

and salt loading. 

WATER USE BY MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL USERS 

Salinity levels are directly influenced by depletion (consumption) of water flowing in the 

river system and salt loading. Agriculture increases salinity by consuming water through 

evapotranspiration and leaching of salts from soils by irrigation. Municipal and industrial 

(M&I) use increases salinity by the consumption of the water, thus reducing the dilution 

of salts in the river or by disposal on land. 

Another source of salinity from municipal & industrial use is from an increase in the 

housing developments within the basin. This brings with it an associated increase in 

water softening needs, due to the hard water found throughout the basin. One result of the 

increase of water softening is an increase in the sodium chloride salt discharged into the 

Colorado River. Another impact of the increased population in the basin is that more 

roads are paved and developed. During the winter this increase in road mileage impacts 

the salt discharged into the basin due to the addition of salt on the roads in order to help 

keep the snow and ice off of the roads. The amount of salt added to the basin from new 

municipal development has not yet been quantified. 

Reclamation continues to monitor water use and adjusts their future salinity control needs 

as water development plans may be postponed, delayed, or canceled. The depletion 

schedules used to project salinity conditions have been updated so that the 

implementation needs for the Salinity Control Program can be planned to offset the 

impacts of additional water development (see Tables 2 & 3). 
18 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 

The large amounts of water use once forecasted for steam power generation, coal 

gasification, oil shale, and mineral development have not yet occurred. The few 

coal-fired power plants that have been constructed recently have obtained their water 

from existing agricultural rights rather than from developing additional water. This 

conversion of use reduces the salt loading to the Colorado River by eliminating the 

pickup of salt from canal seepage and on farm deep percolation. 

Many of the geologic formations of the Colorado River Basin were deposited in marine 

(saline) or brackish water environments. Sulfates and sodium chloride are prevalent salts 

in most of these formations. Many of the formations were deposited in drier periods and 

are capable of transmitting water, but these aquifers are frequently sandwiched between 

hundreds or even thousands of feet of impermeable shale (aquicludes). These aquifers 

are, therefore, static and often saline. Many static and saline aquifers are present in the 

Colorado River Basin. When a path of flow is provided by drilling or mining, these 

aquifers are mobilized, and brackish or saline waters flow back to the surface. 

The development of energy resources, specifically coal, oil, gas, oil shale, and coal bed 

methane, in the Colorado River Basin may contribute significant quantities of salt to the 

Colorado River. Salinity of surface waters can be increased by either mineral dissolution 

or uptake in surface runoff, mobilization of brackish groundwater, or consumption of 

good quality water. The location of fossil fuels is associated with marine-derived 

formations. Any disturbance of these saline materials will increase the contact surfaces, 

allowing for the dissolution of previously unavailable soluble minerals. 

Salinity increases associated with mining coal can be attributed to leaching of coal spoil 

materials, discharge of saline groundwater, and increased erosion resulting from surfacedisturbing activities. Spoil materials have a greater permeability than undisturbed 

overburden, allowing most of the rain falling on the spoils to infiltrate instead of running 

off. The water percolates through the spoils, dissolving soluble minerals. 

Studies conducted on mining spoils in northwestern Colorado indicate that the resulting 

salinity of spoil-derived waters ranges from approximately 3,000 mg/L to 3,900 mg/L 

(Parker, et al., 1983; McWhorter, et al., 1979; and U.S. Department of the Interior, 1985). 

The variability in concentration depends on water residence time and the chemical and 

physical properties of the spoil. 

Saline water is also a byproduct of oil and gas production in the Colorado River Basin. It 

is not uncommon to produce several times the amount of saline waters as oil. In one 

month the oil and gas operators in Colorado produced approximately 25 million barrels 

of saline water. The salinity of production waters varies greatly from location to location 

and depends upon the producing formation. Common disposal techniques include 

evaporation, injection, and discharge to local drainages. 

The future development of the oil shale resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming has 

the potential to increase salt loading to the Colorado River. Salt increases can be 

attributed to the consumptive use of good quality water, mine dewatering, and, if surface 

retorting is used, the leaching of spoil materials similar to those of surface coal mining. 
19 

Reclamation, BLM and state agencies are attempting to identify abandoned exploration 

wells that are leaking and develop plans to control the leaks. The Meeker Dome Salinity 

Control Unit identified and plugged several abandoned wells along the White River to 

prevent a salt dome (a geologic formation) from discharging saline water into the river. 

Coal Bed Methane - The increase of the price of natural gas has led to an increase in the 

interest of developing the methane gas, which is found with coal, in the plentiful coal 

formations of the Upper Colorado River Basin. This coal bed methane (CBM) 

development could result in an increase in the salt loading of the Colorado River if the 

water associated with this type of drilling is discharged on the ground surface and 

allowed to get into waterways. 

In Utah, coal bed methane wells 

are located in Emery, Carbon, 

Duchesne, and Uinta counties. 

The State allows up to 4 wells 

per section. Most (99%) of 

existing product wastewater from 

the CBM wells is reinjected and 

1 % is impounded for 

evaporation. No surface 

discharges have presently been 

permitted. It is projected that 

even with greater development of 

CBM wells, the handling of the 

produced wastewater will not 

change. 

In Colorado, all the product water from CBM development in the San Juan Basin in 

southwest Colorado is presently, and in the foreseeable future will be, reinjected. New 

CBM wells are permitted in the northwest part of the State and in Moffat and Rio Blanco 

Counties, where new CBM developments are being considered. The State averages for 

product wastewater in the western part of the State are 90 % reinjected, 9.5 % 

impounded, and 0.5 % surface discharged. Any surface discharged water has to meet the 

water quality criteria of no more that 1 ton/day salt. 

In Wyoming, new CBM well development is beginning in the Little Snake River 

drainage (Carbon County) with only a handful of wells permitted. This CBM 

development has the potential to spread into the whole southwest corner of the State 

(Sweetwater, Uinta, and Lincoln Counties) if the price of natural gas stays high. This 

part of the State could have over 10,000 new CBM wells if development takes off as it 

has in the Powder River Basin. Presently, the State will allow surface discharge of up to 

1 ton/day per operator (not per well). CBM development in the southwest part of the 

State will most likely involve reinjection of most if not all of the waste water since the 

quality of the groundwater found in these coal beds is highly saline and of poor quality. 

The recent push for increased development of coal bed methane and other energy sources 

in the Rocky Mountain area poses a potential for increased salinity due to the brine or 

saline ground water discharged from the wells into the Colorado River Basin. 

Figure 8 - Photo of Coal Bed Methane Well. 
20 

FUTURE WATER DEVELOPMENT 

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the projected depletions used by Reclamation to evaluate the 

effects of water use and depletions for this progress report. These water use estimates 

were compiled as the first step in the evaluation process. 

Table 2 summarizes the projected future depletions by water uses in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin as adopted for planning purposes by the Upper Colorado River Commission 

in December 2007. Figure 9 illustrates the historic annual consumptive use by water uses 

in the Upper Basin as reported in Reclamation’s Colorado River System Consumptive 

Uses and Losses Reports (CUL), and the projected future total depletions by water uses 

in the Upper Basin that are included as input into Reclamation’s Colorado River System 

Simulation (CRSS) model. The consumptive uses or depletions shown in figure 9 

exclude evaporation losses from Lake Powell, Flaming Gorge Reservoir and the Aspinall 

Unit reservoirs, which along with evaporation losses from Colorado River mainstem 

reservoirs in the Lower Basin are modeled within CRSS. 

The annual depletions for the Lower Colorado River Basin shown in Table 3 include only 

depletions resulting from the use of water from the mainstem of the Lower Colorado 

River. Reclamation’s CRSS model does not model or include as input consumptive uses 

made from tributaries to the Colorado River within the Lower Colorado River Basin. 

Fixed inflow values are used in the CRSS model for the Lower Basin tributaries. More 

detailed data on historic Colorado River Basin consumptive uses and losses (including 

tributary uses in the Lower Basin and reservoir evaporation losses) may be found in 

Reclamation’s Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Reports or on the 

web at: www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/reports/crs/crsul.html

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060

maf/yr

Historic and Projected Upper

Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses

CRSS

CUL

excludes CRSP reservoir evaporation

Figure 9 - Historic and Projected Water Uses. 
21 

Table 2 - Upper Basin Depletion Projections (1000 af/yr) 

UPPER BASIN 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

 

Arizona 

Total scheduled depletion 50 50 50 50 50 50

Share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (5.76 maf) 50 50 50 50 50 50

Remaining available 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

Colorado

Total scheduled depletions 2,796 2,842 2,891 2, 919 2,955 2,955

Share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (5.76 maf) 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955

Remaining available 159 113 64 36 0 0

Percent unused 5 4 2 1 0 0

New Mexico

Total scheduled depletions 539 608 635 642 642 642

Share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (5.76 maf) 642 642 642 642 642 642

Remaining available 103 34 7 0 0 0

Percent unused 16 5 1 0 0 0

Utah

Total scheduled depletions 907 955 1032 1118 1163 1163

Share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (5.76 maf) 1313 1313 1313 1313 1313 1313

Remaining available 406 358 281 195 150 150

Percent unused 31 27 21 15 11 11

Wyoming

Total scheduled depletions 560 621 719 735 750 763

Share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (5.76 maf) 799 799 799 799 799 799

Remaining available 239 178 80 64 49 36

Percent unused 30 22 10 8 6 5

Note 1: This depletion schedule does not attempt to interpret the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River 

Basin Compact, or any other element of the “Law of the River.” This schedule should not be construed as an 

acceptance of any assumption that limits the Upper Colorado River Basin’s depletion. 

Note 2: This depletion schedule is for planning purposes only. This estimate does not constitute an endorsement of the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s 2007 Hydrologic Determination and should not be construed as in any way limiting the Upper 

Division States use of Colorado River water in accordance with the Commission’s resolution of 6/5/06. 

Note 3: The yield determined in the 2007 Hydrologic Determination excluding shared CRSP evaporation. 
22 

Table 3 - Lower Basin Depletion Projections (1000 af/yr) 

LOWER MAINSTEM 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Nevada 

Robert B. Griffith Water Project 264 264 280 280 280 280

Other users above Hoover Dam 7 7 7 7 7 7

Southern California Edison 16 16 0 0 0 0

Ft. Mohave Indian Reservation 9 9 9 9 9 9

Laughlin and users below Hoover Dam 4 4 4 4 4 4

Total 300 300 300 300 300 300

Arizona

Imperial Wildlife Refuge 10 9 10 10 10 10

Lake Havasu Wildlife Refuge 5 5 5 5 5 5

Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 73 73 73 73 73 73

City of Kingman 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mohave Valley I&D District 23 17 17 17 17 17

Bullhead City and other M&I 4 5 6 6 6 6

Cibola Valley I&DD, Parker and others 24 27 30 32 34 34

Lake Havasu I&D District 13 12 12 12 12 12

Central Arizona Project 1425 1419 1406 1398 1395 1395

Colorado River Indian Reservation 414 463 463 463 463 463

Cibola Wildlife Refuge 8 8 16 16 16 16

Gila Project 505 477 476 476 476 476

City of Yuma 27 30 35 41 41 41

Yuma Project - Valley Division 248 234 229 229 230 230

Cocopah Indian Reservation 12 12 12 12 12 12

Other users below Imperial Dam 9 9 10 10 10 10

Total 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800

California

City of Needles 1 1 1 1 1 1

Metropolitan Water District 855 852 852 852 802 802

Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 12 12 12 12 12 12

Chemehuevi Indian Reservation 5 8 8 8 8 8

Colorado River Indian Reservation 19 39 39 39 39 39

Palo Verde Irrigation District 373 366 366 366 366 366

Yuma Project Reservation Division 47 54 54 54 54 54

Imperial Irrigation District 2711 2641 2611 2611 2661 2661

Coachella Valley Water District 376 426 456 456 456 456

Other uses Davis to Parker Dam 1 1 1 1 1 1

Other uses below Imperial Dam 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400

Unassigned

Phreatophyte and native vegetation 515 515 515 515 515 515

Yuma Desalting Plant 120 120 52 52 52 52

Total 635 635 567 567 567 567

Note: In the LC Basin, depletions are from mainstem diversions of the Colorado River only. Does not include depletions from 

diversions of Colorado River tributaries or evaporation from mainstem reservoirs. The Figures represent measured diversions less 

measured and estimated, unmeasured return flow that can be assigned to a specific project. The evapotranspiration from the 

vegetation along the riparian zone is a constant unassigned depletion since the vegetation is permanent. 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SALINITY STANDARDS 

Reclamation and the Basin States conducted salt-routing studies for the 2008 Triennial 

Review of the Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River Basin. As part of the 
23 

triennial review process, Reclamation used the Colorado River Simulation System 

(CRSS) river system model to evaluate whether sufficient salinity control measures are in 

place to offset the effects of development. The information provided in the next two 

sections of the report was used to evaluate compliance with the water quality standards. 

In response to the Clean Water Act, the States have adopted water quality (salinity) 

criteria for the Colorado River Basin and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has approved them at all three locations in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The 

standards call for maintenance of flow-weighted average annual salinity concentrations 

(numeric criteria) in the lower mainstem of the Colorado River and a plan of 

implementation for future controls. 

The water quality standards are based on the Water Quality Standards for Salinity, 

Including Numeric Criteria and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado 

River System, prepared by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, June 1975. 

The document was adopted by each of the Basin States and approved by EPA. A 

summary of the report follows: 

The numeric criteria for the Colorado River System are to be established at levels 

corresponding to the flow-weighted average annual concentrations in the lower 

mainstem during calendar year 1972. The flow-weighted average annual salinity 

for the year 1972 was used. Reclamation determined these values from daily flow 

and salinity data collected by the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation. Based on 

this analysis, the numeric criteria are 723 mg/L below Hoover Dam, 747 mg/L 

below Parker Dam, and 879 mg/L at Imperial Dam. 

It should be recognized that the river system is subject to highly variable annual 

flow. The frequency, duration, and availability of carryover storage greatly affect 

the salinity of the lower mainstem; and, therefore, it is probable that salinity levels 

will exceed the numeric criteria in some years and be well below the criteria in 

others. However, under the above assumptions, the average salinity will be 

maintained at or below 1972 levels. 

Periodic increases above the criteria as a result of reservoir conditions or periods 

of below normal long-time average annual flow also will be in conformance with 

the standards. With satisfactory reservoir conditions and when river flows return 

to the long-time average annual flow or above, concentrations are expected to be 

at or below the criteria level. 

The standards provide for temporary increases above the 1972 levels if control 

measures are included in the plan. Should water development projects be 

completed before control measures, temporary increases above the criteria could 

result and these will be in conformance with the standard. With completion of 

control projects, those now in the plan or those to be added subsequently, salinity 

would return to or below the criteria level. 

The goal of the Salinity Control Program is to maintain the flow-weighted 

average annual salinity at or below the numeric criteria of the salinity standards. 

The program is not, however, intended to counteract the salinity fluctuations that 
24 

 Figure 10 – 2010 Est. Salinity Control Progress; BOR, NRCS & BLM

are a result of the highly variable flows caused by climatic conditions, 

precipitation, snowmelt, and other natural factors. 

SALINITY CONTROL 

Existing salinity control 

measures will prevent 

over a million tons of salt 

per year from reaching 

the river. By 2010 the 

salinity control program 

for Reclamation has 

controlled approximately 

520,600 tons of salt, 

while the USDA NRCS 

(NRCS) program has 

reduced around 571,500 

tons of salt, and the 

BLM has controlled an 

estimated 99,900 tons of 

salt per year from entering the Colorado River (Figure 10). Discussions within the

Colorado River Salinity Control Forum have determined that salinity control units will 

need to prevent nearly 1.85 million tons of salt per year from entering the Colorado River 

by 2030, in order to meet the standard and keep the economic damages minimized. To 

reach this objective, as shown in Table 4, the program needs to implement 657,900 tons 

of new controls beyond the existing 1,192,000 tons of salinity control presently in place 

(2010) as reported by Reclamation, USDA & BLM. About 32,900 tons per year of new 

salinity control measures must be added each year if the program is to meet the 

cumulative target of 1,850,000 tons per year by 2030. 

To achieve this goal, a variety of salinity control methods are being investigated and 

constructed. Saline springs and seeps may be collected for disposal by evaporation, 

industrial use, or deep-well injection. Other methods include both on-farm and off-farm 

delivery system and irrigation improvements, which reduce the loss of water and reduce 

salt pickup by improving irrigation practices and by lining canals, laterals, and ditches. 

See Progress Report #21 for a more detailed description of each salinity control project 

and the salinity controlled by Reclamation, NRCS and BLM. 

Table 4 - Salinity Control Requirements and Needs Through 2030 

Salinity control needs (2030) 1,850,000 tons 

Measures in place (2010) - 1,192,100 tons 

Plan of Implementation Target 657,900 tons 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Tons of Salt Removed

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program

BLM USDA BOR
25 

CHAPTER 3 – TITLE I SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Salinity Control Act), Public Law 

93-320, as amended, authorized the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to proceed with a 

program of works of improvement for the enhancement and protection of the quality of 

water available in the Colorado River for use in the United States and the Republic of 

Mexico. Title I enables the United States to comply with its obligation under the 

agreement with Mexico of August 30, 1973 (Minute No. 242 of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico [Minute No. 242]), which 

was concluded pursuant to the Treaty of February 3, 1944 (TS 994). 

Figure 11 - Map of Title I Projects. 

These facilities enable the United States to deliver water to Mexico with an average 

annual salinity concentration no greater than 115 parts per million (ppm) plus or minus 

30 ppm (United States count) over the average annual salinity concentration of the 

Colorado River water at Imperial Dam. 

The background and history of the Title I projects (Coachella Canal Lining, Protective 

and Regulatory pumping, Yuma Desalting Plant, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage 

District) can be found in Progress Report 22, chapter 4 at; 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR22.pdf
26 

Updates for the Title I projects since Progress Report 22 are as follows: 

Coachella Canal Lining 

No new activity or change since last progress report. 

Protective and Regulatory Pumping 

No new activity or change since last progress report. 

Yuma Desalting Plant 

The Yuma Desalting Plant (YDP) was constructed under the authority of the Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 to recover through desalination, the majority of 

the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District agricultural return flows which 

bypass the Colorado River, thereby allowing the treated water to be delivered to Mexico 

as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water that the U.S. must deliver to 

Mexico under the 1944 Water Treaty. Due to the high cost of operating the plant and 

general agency budget constraints, as well as surplus and normal conditions in the lower 

Colorado River Basin prior to the current drought, the YDP has not been operated; 

however, the facility has been maintained. 

The U.S. has met the Treaty’s salinity requirements by bypassing an average of 107,000 

acre-feet of saline agricultural flows and then releasing additional water from Lake Mead. 

Since the diverted agricultural flows bypass the Colorado River, they are not counted as 

part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of Treaty water delivered annually to Mexico. 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

and Central Arizona Water Conservation District, collectively referred to as the 

Municipal Utilities, have jointly requested that Reclamation conduct a Pilot Run of the 

YDP to consider long term, sustained operation as a means to extend water supplies on 

the lower Colorado River during an unprecedented drought. Such consideration requires: 

1) collecting performance and cost data; 2) identifying any remaining equipment 

improvements that are needed; and 3) testing changes that have already been made to the 

plant. Reclamation has developed a plan for a Pilot Run, in which the plant will operate 

for 365 days within an 18 month period at 1/3 capacity. 

The Pilot Run began in May, 2010 and ran about a year, adding approximately 30,000 

acre-feet of water to Colorado River system storage for a cost of under $23 million, of 

which a little more than 1⁄2 the cost was provided by the Municipal Utilities. Based on the 

Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) provisions of the Colorado River Interim Shortage 

Guidelines of December 2007, the entities received ICS credits in proportion to their 

capital contributions to the Pilot Run. The Pilot Run was conducted in full compliance 

with all United States (U.S.) statutes. Reclamation finalized an Environmental 

Assessment with the Finding of No Significant Impact. Reclamation received a 
27 

discharge permit from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality in accordance 

with the Clean Water Act. 

Plant operation reduces the volume and increases the salinity of the flow to the Ciénega 

de Santa Clara (Ciénega) wetland in Mexico. Reclamation consulted with Mexico 

through the International Boundary and Water Commission which resulted in an 

agreement of joint cooperative actions including providing 30,000 acre-feet of water to 

the Ciénega. This water was provided in equal one-third increments by the U.S., Mexico, 

and a bi-national coalition of non-governmental organizations. In addition, the Municipal 

Utilities are collaborating with the bi-national coalition to develop a monitoring program 

for the Ciénega. 

Through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the 

Municipal Utilities alternative configurations of the YDP began to be tested in 2010 

including alternative methods of pretreatment, low energy reverse osmosis membranes, 

and different feed water for the plant. The results of the Pilot Run and this CRADA 

should provide enough information to evaluate the YDP’s potential as a means to 

augment water supplies on the lower Colorado River. 

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) 

All permanent measures implemented by WMIDD are still in use, although the Federal 

program has been discontinued. The original program was named the Irrigation 

Management System Program (IMS) which was Federaly funded and manned. The 

Federal funding was discontinued in the late 90’s and the Irrigation District had the 

option of dropping the program or continuing. The District (Board of Directors) chose to 

continue with the program. The original program required the use of a neutron probe to 

measure the soil moisture content. WMIDD no longer uses a soil moisture probe, but 

does monitor observation wells, which allows the district to maintain optimum soil 

moisture conditions.   

Total crop acres have remained relatively stable since the early 1970’s because more 

acreage is double-cropped than when the program was initiated. In particular, more 

vegetable crops are being grown in the district than in the past. Irrigation efficiency 

levels and return flow levels for 1990-2010 are shown on the following page, in Table 5. 

Reclamation believes that the impacts of Gila River flows in 1992, 1993, and 1995 make 

irrigation efficiency and return flow data from the district questionable for 1992, 1993, 

1994, 1995, and 1996. In 1993, the Gila River flood destroyed much of the WMIDD 

Main Conveyance Channel; so most of the drainage pumping went into the Gila River 

during 1993 and 1994 until these facilities could be repaired. 

With the use of monthly groundwater table monitoring using observation well 

measurements as well as input from land users, WMIDD is able to maintain a drainagepumping program that sufficiently maintains the agriculture root zone. Land users 

continue to maintain water efficient farming techniques with the use of dead level, high 

heads, and short runs. 
28 

Table 5 - WMIDD Irrigation Efficiency 

Year 

Pumped 

Drainage 

Return Flow 

(acre-feet) 

Irrigation Efficiency, % 

(note: data provided by 

WMIDD) 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

138,200 

144,900 

116,200 

8,970 

49,820 

121,500 

119,600 

91,695 

98,972 

94,869 

110,287 

107,908 

119,410 

116,477 

106,002 

110,770 

103,810 

112,910 

120,190 

105,482 

111,170 

- 

68.8 

70.4 

68.8 

65.4 

64.3 

60.4 

62.2 

61.9 

63.0 

59.7 

60.9 

61.2 

57.8 

63.3 

64.6 

62.3 

62.6 

63.0 

62.7 

66.1 
29 

CHAPTER 4 - TITLE II SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM

Title II of the Salinity Control Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and 

the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a broad range of specific and general salinity 

control measures in an ongoing effort to prevent further degradation of water quality in 

the United States. These efforts are shown on the map below. The USDA, BOR and 

BLM have a combined goal of controlling 1.9M tons of salt/per year, by the year 2025. 

These federal agencies are required to work together under, Public Law 93-320, 

“Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act,” as amended; with the Bureau of 

Reclamation being the lead federal agency. The Act also calls for periodic reports on this 

effort. The report is to include the effectiveness of the units, anticipated work to be 

accomplished to meet the objectives of Title II with emphasis on the needs during the 5 

years immediately following the date of each report, and any special problems that may 

be impeding an effective salinity control program. Title II also provides that this report 

may be included in the biennial Quality of Water Colorado River Basin, Progress Report. 

The history and background of the Title II projects can be found in Progress Report 21 at: 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR21.pdf . Ongoing and active projects are 

listed in this report. 

Figure 12 - Map of Title II Salinity Control Project Areas. 

Big Sandy

Muddy Creek

Meeker Dome

Uinta Basin

Muddy Creek 

Moapa Valley

Las Vegas Wash San Juan River

Dolores/McElmo

Lower Gunnison

Grand Valley

Glenwood-Dotsero

Paradox Valley

NV UT

CO

WY

CA AZ NM

Mexico

Price-San Rafael

Manila 

Mancos 

Silt 
30 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 48 million acres in the Colorado 

River Basin above Imperial Dam, or 40 percent of the Colorado River Basin’s area. Of 

the 48 million, approximately 7.2 million acres, or about 15 percent, contain saline soils 

(slightly, moderate, and strongly saline soils). Soil salinity is usually greatest where 

surface geology reflects saline marine shale and annual precipitation averages less than 

12 inches. In depositional settings, soil salinity may also be high, even where the 

underlying geology is relatively non-saline. 

The BLM is committed to its role in reducing the mobilization of salt on public lands. 

The BLM undertakes this responsibility through the multitude of individual management 

decisions that are made within each BLM jurisdiction. Progress in preventing salt from 

moving off BLM land is achieved through efforts to minimize the impacts of grazing, 

protect riparian areas, reduce off-road vehicle impacts, conduct prescribed burns, and 

generally manage vegetative cover and reduce erosion. As such, in the past, it has been 

difficult to single out salinity-control efforts for many of the projects that did have salt 

savings. In a step to strengthen our reporting effort, a restructuring of the allocation of 

salinity funding was done and new tracking and accounting systems were put in place in 

FY 2006. Thus, FY 2010 is the 5th year of reporting under the re-structured system. 

For FY 2010 $850,000 was allocated for BLM’s salinity-control program. Funding goes 

to 4 major areas: Program administration (ADMIN); Planning (PLAN); Science (SCI); 

and On-the-ground implementation projects (OTG) (see Figure 13 for FY 2006 - 2010). 

Tons of salt retained can not be calculated for program administration, planning, and 

science projects. However, one of the goals for the re-structured program in FY 2006 was 

to develop an accounting system to begin calculating more reliable ‘tons of salt retained’ 

for on-the-ground implementation projects. 

Program Administration 

During FY 2003, BLM created a new full-time, salinity coordinator position. The salinity 

coordinator began work in FY 2004. FY 2006 was the first full year of the newly restructured program. The re-structured plan consists of 3 main parts: 1) Allocation of 

funds to the Upper Basin States (AZ, CO, NM, UT, and WY) based on submittal of 

project proposals; 2) A tracking system for projects that fit into BLM’s Rangeland 

Improvement Project System (on-the-ground implementation projects); 3) Annual 

reporting consisting of narratives for on-going and current year, and a worksheet to 

determine ‘tons of salt retained’ for on-the-ground implementation projects. The 

objective for FY 2007 - 2010 program administration was a continuation of the 

framework put into place during FY 2006; however, there has been an increased 

emphasis on capturing the amount of salt loading for implementation projects (OTG 

spreadsheet). Projects that have been science or planning can become implementation 

projects in future years. 
31 

 

Figure 13 – BLM Salinity Control Program Funding Distribution

Planning 

Planning is an important part of natural resource management. Resource management 

plans become the ‘blueprints’ for BLM’s near future. As such, this is an opportunity to 

plan for salinity control, especially for some of our most important activities on public 

land such as grazing, recreation, and energy development. Planning projects that 

successfully captured salinity funding for FY 2009 include: 

Colorado 

- San Luis Valley wetlands salinity study - $20,000 

Utah 

- Factory Butte OHV impact and soil study (Planning/Science) – ongoing - $35,000 

- Pariette water-quality monitoring - ongoing - $80,000 

Wyoming 

- Progressive soil surveys managed from the State Office - ongoing - $100,000 

- Erosion sediment transport modeling - ongoing - $30,000 

Science 

Salt loading from public lands is often episodic and can be dependent on factors such as: 

precipitation amount and intensity; topography; content and texture of soils; and the 

types, amount, and architecture of vegetative ground cover. The transit mode of salt 

loading can be surface-water runoff, or it can be ground-water recharge to streams and 

rivers. In a watershed, understanding, through study, which factors are most important 

and what is the main transit mode of salt loading aids in determining the proper on-theground implementation project for good salinity control. The following science projects 

that investigated salt loading factors were funded during FY 2010: 
32 

Colorado 

- Piceance salinity-loading dynamics including conductivity monitoring at Piceance 

Cr. With USGS Water Sciences - $60,000 

- Vegetation and soil stability project with USGS Biological Resources Discipline 

(BRD) in Badger Wash (central-western Colorado) to investigate grazing impacts 

on vegetation and sediments - ongoing - $50,000 

- Coal mine impact study with USGS on mine outside of Grand Junction in Big Salt 

Wash watershed - $30,000 

Utah 

- Factory Butte OHV impact and soil study. LiDAR survey (Planning/Science) – 

ongoing $10,000 

- Salinity – Mancos shale wind erosion (with USGS BRD) - $20,000 

Wyoming 

- Salinity baseline Muddy Creek - $65,000 

Upper Colorado River Basin Regional project 

- Forecasting phenological plant stage in the Upper Colorado River Basin - ongoing 

- $40,000 

On-the-ground Implementation 

When mechanisms of how salt loading occurs are understood and once planning is done, 

on-the-ground implementation projects follow. The success of an on-the-ground project 

is very much tied to understanding system mechanics and proper planning. The success is 

also tied to sufficient funding and trained natural resource personnel to go out in the field 

and construct or carry out the plan. 

On-the-ground projects funded by salinity program allocations during FY 2010 include: 

Arizona 

- Rock Crossing dike system in Ft. Pierce Wash that is tributary to the Virgin River 

southeast of St. George, Utah – on-going - $50,000 

Colorado 

- Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area (NCA) Salinity Management - 

$30,000 

New Mexico 

- Crow Mesa sage treatment - $35,000 

- La Manga Canyon watershed restoration - ongoing - $35,000 

- San Juan River salt/sediment retention structures - ongoing - $30,000 

Utah 

- Reducing OHV impacts on saline soils near Moab, Utah - $20,000 

- Grazing exclosures in the Moab Field Office - $20,000 

- Nine Mile Canyon Fencing/Range Improvement Project - $10,000 
33 

Table 6 – BLM Salt Retention Estimates for Fiscal Years 2006 – 2010

Project 

Category 

SALT RETAINED IN TONS/YEAR1

FY 20064 FY 20074 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 

POINT SOURCE2 14,600 14,600 14,600 14,600 14,600 

NONPOINT SOURCE3 71,900 71,900 81,900 71,900 85,300 

ALL PROJECTS 86,500 86,500 96,500 86,500 99,900 

1. Rounded to the nearest 100 tons. 

2. BLM’s Salinity Report to Congress through the year 2002, plus the plugging of 2 wells in Utah 

 during FY 2004 (approximately 5,000 tons/yr). 

3. Amount that could be calculated, i.e., this is a minimum. 

4. When the program was re-structured in FY 2006, we did not have a complete accounting the 1st year or even 

the 2nd year. As a result, the tons-of-salt-retained number on BLM administered land in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin (UCRB) was low. FY 2006 and FY 2007 numbers have been changed to reflect tonnage retained in 

FY 2009, because after 4 years on the new system, FY 2009 tonnage is probably a better estimate. Projects 

can become less effective in retaining salt over the years, but there is enough erosion control going on 

constantly in the UCRB on public land, that the tonnage is probably closer to FY 2009 than it was to the low 

incomplete numbers originally reported for FY 2006 and FY 2007. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) conducts Colorado River Basin Salinity Control activities under the 

authorities of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP was enacted 

with passage of PL104-127, Federal Agricultural Improvement Act of 1996, a.k.a. “1996 

Farm Bill” and reauthorized by PL 107-171, The Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002, the “2002 Farm Bill” and by PL 110-246, The Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008, the “2008 Farm Bill.” The 2008 Farm Bill expires September 30, 

2012. 

Through EQIP, NRCS offers voluntary technical and financial assistance to agricultural 

producers, including Native American tribes, to reduce salt mobilization and transport to 

the Colorado River and its tributaries. Within the eleven approved salinity project areas, 

producers may be offered additional financial incentives to implement salinity control 

measures with the primary goal of reducing offsite and downstream damages and to 

replace wildlife habit impacted as a result of the salinity measures. 

In fiscal year 2010, $18.2 million of appropriated EQIP funding was allocated for 

financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers in eleven project areas in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to share the cost with landowners and operators to install 

conservation systems that provide salinity control and wildlife habitat replacement. 
34 

New Salinity Projects and Investigations 

Expansion of Lower Gunnison, Colorado, Project Area 

In October, 2009, NRCS Colorado undertook to include about 15,000 acres of irrigated 

lands in Ouray County into the Lower Gunnison Project Area. The original Lower 

Gunnison study considered these lands and their salt load contribution, but the selected 

alternative did not include Ouray County. The Ouray County Commissioners and the 

Shavano Conservation District petitioned NRCS to incorporate these lands into the 

Lower Gunnison project. NRCS’s partners recommended that the expansion preceed. 

Plateau Creek, Colorado 

The Plateau Valley Pilot Project was initiated in 2009 by NRCS and the Colorado State 

Conservation Board. The Pilot Project was developed to determine if a combination of 

general EQIP and additional incentives from the Basin States program would accelerate 

the installation of high-efficiency irrigation systems that would provide salinity control. 

By the May, FY 2010, 807 acres had been enrolled. A verbal report on the Plateau Creek 

Project will be given during the Federal Advisory Council meeting in November. 

McKinnon - Lone Pine - Burnt Fork, Wyoming 

Throughout 2010, NRCS-Wyoming conducted inventories, public scoping meetings, and 

analysis of data leading to preparation of a salinity control project plan for the agricultural 

areas served by the Henrys Fork of the Green River. Local producer interest in a salinity 

control project is high. Alternatives will be presented to the local producers and upon 

selection of a preferred plan, the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documents (either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment 

(EA)) will be prepared for public comment. A maximum of about 20,000 irrigated acres 

could ultimately be treated in Wyoming and Utah if the project is adopted. 

West Black’s Fork, Wyoming 

An area of some 28,000 acres of irrigated pasture and hayland near Lyman, Wyoming, 

contribute salt to the Blacks Fork River, tributary to the Green River. While a large 

portion of the geology contributes little salt, about 10,000 acres may contribute 

significant amounts of salt from canal and ditch seepage and deep percolation from water 

applied to fields. 

The Wyoming Water Development Commission has provided a significant grant to the 

Austin-Wall Canal Company to conduct a Level II plan to modernize the irrigated areas 

within their service area. Local interest in upgrading the irrigation delivery infrastructure 

is high. NRCS-Wyoming anticipates that improvement of these large delivery systems 

will enable extensive implementation of on-farm salinity control. 

Plateau Creek, Colorado 

The Plateau Valley Pilot Project was initiated in 2009 by NRCS and the Colorado State 

Conservation Board. The Pilot Project was developed to determine if a combination of 

general EQIP and additional incentives from the Basin States program would accelerate 

the installation of high-efficiency irrigation systems that would provide salinity control. 
35 

By May 2010, 807 acres had been enrolled. A verbal report on the Plateau Creek Project 

was given during the Federal Advisory Council meeting in November. 

White-Yampa Basin, Colorado 

Narrow bands of irrigated pasture and hay land are found along the Yampa River near 

Craig, Colorado, and along the White River, near Meeker, Colorado. Extensive areas of 

dry cropland that is often summer fallowed also drain into these tributaries of the Green 

River. Recent salinity concentrations have trended upward. A hydrosalinity analysis is 

planned to determine if salt loading from agricultural lands is significant and cost 

effective to control. 

San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Arizona 

In the 1990’s, a salinity study indicated that the Fruitland, Hogback and Cudei Irrigation 

Districts contribute an annual load of 157,000 tons of salt to the San Juan River. “Salinity 

Verification – Phase 1 Final Report, San Juan County, New Mexico, July 1993”. 

 

The San Juan River Dineh Water Users, Inc. (SJRDWU) has entered into a cooperative 

agreement with Reclamation to pilot the replacement of an earthen-lateral with pipeline. 

The necessary clearances for construction have been obtained from the Navajo Nation as 

well as support from the local chapters. Work has begun in designing the system, 

including the settling and regulating reservoir. The pipeline route is being cleared in 

anticipation of construction that will begin as soon as the irrigation season ends this 

October. A plan and location for wildlife habitat replacement has also been developed. 

With the assistance of Reclamation’s Office of Native Affairs, the Arizona NRCS has 

hired a native-speaking civil engineer and placed him in Shiprock, New Mexico, to assist 

with the completion of the off-farm portion of the pilot and to assist the local farmers 

with the on-farm application system installation and operation. 

Areas Beyond Current Project Boundaries 

NRCS has undertaken to identify salt loading and salinity control from irrigated crop, 

pasture and haylands scattered widely throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin but 

outside of the existing project areas. 

With the assistance of the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) and the Bureau of 

Reclamation, NRCS has been able to make use of the SPARROW model to assess salt 

loads outside of the existing salinity project areas. While the assessment is ongoing and 

will require considerable refinement, preliminary analysis indicates that as much as 

50,000 tons of salt control has occurred in Utah and Colorado outside the project areas. 

In 2010, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming all developed EQIP contracts providing salt 

control outside of the approved project areas but within the Colorado River Basin. 

 Colorado, new contracts for 100 tons of control. 

 Utah, new contracts for 877 tons of control. 

 Wyoming, new contracts for 29 tons of control. 
36 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Project offices continue to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and quantity of salinity 

control, wildlife habitat, and economic performance replacement in order to improve the 

overall performance and management of the program. Generally, the program continues 

to function effectively and economically, though the overall cost per ton of salt control 

continues to rise in some areas. It is also noted that additional efforts are needed to 

identify and implement valuable, low-maintenance, sustainable wildlife habitat 

replacement. The individual Monitoring and Evaluation reports for each project can be 

found on the world-wide-web at; http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/index.html

Active Salinity Control Projects 

Table 7 – Active Salinity Control Projects

Project Area 

State Project Potential Irrigated Acres USDA Servicing Office

Colorado Grand Valley 50,000 Grand Junction 

Lower Gunnison River 171,000 Delta and Montrose 

McElmo Creek 29,000 Cortez 

Mancos Valley 11,700 Cortez 

Silt 7,400 Glenwood Springs 

Utah Uinta Basin 226,000 Roosevelt, Vernal, Ft. Duchesne 

Price/San Rafael Rivers 66,000 Price, Castle Dale 

Muddy Creek 6,000 Castle Dale 

Manila-Washam 8,000 Vernal 

Green River 2,600 Price 

Wyoming Big Sandy River 18,000 Farson 

 

Total 595,700

Grand Valley, Colorado

Implementation has been underway in this unit since 1979. In 2010, $501,000 was 

obligated into new EQIP contracts to control 457 tons at a cost of $121 per ton. 

The NRCS, in cooperation with the Colorado State Conservation Board and the Mesa 

County Conservation District conducted a field survey in 2010 of current progress in 

implementing off-farm and on-farm irrigation system improvements with attendant salt 

control. Some key findings were: 

 Approximately 12,500 acres of farmland has been converted to residential leaving 

47,000 acres of irrigated farmland. 

 NRCS has treated about 42,500 acres plus an additional 2,500 acres have been 

treated resulting in over 95% of all irrigated farmland acres receiving treatment. 

 The original goal to reduce salt loading by 132,000 tons has been exceeded. 

 Wildlife habitat replacement stands at about 71% of the original goal. 

NRCS intends to publicize the results of the survey and conduct aggressive outreach over 

the next two years to provide every opportunity for the remaining producers to participate 

in the program. NRCS will also seek the remaining needed habitat. Beginning in 2013, 
37 

NRCS intends to offer general EQIP in lieu of salinity EQIP to producers within the 

project area. General EQIP may provide additional incentives and incentives for a wider 

array of conservation practices that does salinity EQIP. 

Lower Gunnison Basin, Colorado 

This project encompasses the irrigated farmland in the Gunnison and Uncompahgre River 

valleys and is located predominantly in Delta and Montrose counties. The Lower 

Gunnison project has more tons of potential remaining on-farm salt control than all the 

other projects combined. In early FY 2010, irrigated areas in Ouray were also included in 

the Lower Gunnison project. 

Implementation was initiated in 1988 in this unit. Nearly 50 percent of the salt control 

goal has been achieved but the rate of application and implementation has slowed. In 

2010, $1.5M was obligated in salinity EQIP contracts that will control 1,322 tons at a 

cost of $126 per ton. New sprinklers were installed on 215 acres while new surface 

systems were installed on 1,579 acres. Drip or micro-spray systems were installed on 9 

acres. 

NRCS is cooperating with the Colorado Conservation Commission, the county 

conservation districts, the Colorado Water Conservancy District, Reclamation and the 

U.S. Geological Survey to acquire a highly detailed survey of the irrigation delivery 

infrastructure, the status on on-farm application systems, and local salt loading. Such data 

should assist the partners to develop tactics to accelerate salt control measures.

Mancos River, Colorado 

This project, near the town of Mancos, Colorado, was initiated and approved for funding 

and implementation by the NRCS in April 2004. The first EQIP contracts were signed in 

2005 and implementation of improved irrigation systems is proceeding on schedule. 

Currently, about 596 contracts on 2,732 acres have been developed with EQIP and Basin 

States Parallel funds or about 51% of the project acres. One large wildlife habitat 

replacement project has been installed. It is anticipated that approximately 5,400 acres of 

improved irrigation systems with salt control benefits will be installed over the project 

life. To date, 1,649 acres of sprinkler systems and 605 acres of improved surface 

irrigations systems have been installed resulting in salt control of 2,339 tons. An 

additional 1,706 tons have been controlled by replacing off farm laterals with pipeline. 

McElmo Creek, Colorado 

Implementation was initiated in this unit in 1990. Application of salinity reduction and 

wildlife habitat replacement practices continue to be implemented in this area with 

sprinkler systems, underground pipelines, and gated pipe being installed. 

Development and use of automatic shutoff valves for sprinkler systems continue to be 

widely implemented in the project to achieve water management. This project planned to 

install predominantly sprinkler systems with a small number of improved irrigation 

systems. Currently about two thirds of improved systems are sprinklers and one third are 

improved surface systems. In 2010, 378 acres of sprinklers were installed and 237 acres 

of improved surface systems were installed. Of a goal of 46,000 tons of salt control, 
38 

about 26,000 tons or 56% has been implemented. Applications have declined compared 

to previous years likely due to recessionary pressures. This area is also experiencing the 

conversion of agricultural lands to residential properties. 

Silt, Colorado 

The first applications were funded in 2006. The cumulative cost effectiveness for these 

new contracts is $72 per ton which falls midway among the other active project areas. 

Several wildlife projects have been identified. Applications are a mix of improved 

surface and sprinkler irrigation systems. 

Uinta Basin, Utah 

Implementation began in this unit in 1980. More than 91 new irrigation contracts and 

nine new wildlife habitat contracts were developed in 2010. A significant number of 

systems have reached or are nearing the end of their useful life. While these systems are a 

lower priority than first-time improvements, NRCS has begun providing incentives for 

replacement or up-grading. Sprinkler irrigation systems remain, by far, the preferred type 

of system. Producer participation is exceeding the original projections. Recently awarded 

off-farm delivery system grants by the Bureau of Reclamation should enable additional 

on-farm gravity sprinkler systems. While more than 120,000 tons of on-farm salt control 

have occurred in the Uinta Basin (second only to the Grand Valley) and the original goal 

has been exceeded, the potential exists for an additional 46,000 tons to be controlled. 

Price-San Rafael, Utah 

Implementation of salinity control continues at a rapid pace in the Price-San Rafael 

Project area. More than 94 contracts of new irrigation systems and two wildlife habitat 

contracts were authorized in 2010. The Huntington-Cleveland Project is proceeding as 

planned and may ultimately lead to the improvement of 16,000 acres. The first phase of 

the Cottonwood Project is expected to initiate construction in late 2010 and will enable 

additional EQIP in future years. The Price-San Rafael project area has achieved about 

51% of its salt control goal in the 16 years since the project began. 

Muddy Creek, Utah 

NRCS received and funded the first project in the Muddy Creek area for about $106,000. 

The local irrigation district has replaced their old and deteriorated diversion structure and 

has constructed a large sediment-settling structure as the necessary first phase towards 

ultimately providing pressurized water delivery to its water users. 

Green River, Utah 

This project is the most recently authorized by NRCS. Funds for salinity control were 

allocated to the Green River project in FY 2010. The timing of the start of project 

activity is important as newly irrigated lands are being brought into production for the 

first time in this area. 

Two contracts for salinity control were enacted in FY 2010. These two contracts will 

install high-efficiency sprinkler systems on 114 acres to result in 350 tons of annual salt 

control. The annualized cost per ton is $47. 
39 

Manila-Washam, Utah/Wyoming 

Astride the Utah-Wyoming border, and adjacent to the shores of Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir, the Manila-Washam Project is the newest, authorized project area. This area 

of 11,000 acres of irrigated pasture and hayland contributes about 53,000 tons of salt 

annually to the Green River. Nearly 2000 acres have been treated or contracted since the 

first plans were developed in 2007. All new irrigation systems have been some form of 

sprinkler system, such as side roll, pods, or center pivots. 

Big Sandy River, Wyoming 

Implementation has been underway in this unit since 1988. The application of salinity 

reduction and wildlife habitat replacement practices continues to be implemented. In this 

area, farmers are converting from surface flood irrigation to low-pressure center pivot 

irrigation systems for salinity control. Approximately 13,500 acres of the planned 15,700 

acres have been treated (86 percent). Producers also report that the water savings from 

improvements in irrigation systems now allows a full irrigation season of water for the 

entire irrigation district. In 2010, NRCS developed six new contracts on 926 acres for 

about $139,000 of financial assistance. NRCS also continued to provide technical and 

financial assistance to all interested producers to up-grade sprinkler nozzle packages. 

Sprinklers were re-nozzled on 880 acres for a financial expenditure of $28,832. These 

latest nozzles, along with more intensive soil-moisture monitoring, provide additional 

irrigation efficiencies and salt savings. 

Table 8 - USDA Salinity Control Unit Summary Through 2010

 Controls1

 Goal Percent Costs Annualized Projected Cost/ton2

 Unit (tons) (tons) of Goal Costs Total Cost 

Uinta Basin, UT 149,030 140,500 106% $ 99,575,982 $8,254,849 $ 93,876,572 $55 

McElmo Creek, CO 25,862 46,000 56% $ 18,901,097 $1,566,901 $ 33,618,841 $61 

Silt, CO 4,038 3,990 101% $ 3,489,154 $ 289,251 $ 3,447,678 $72

Muddy Creek, UT 0 11,677 0% $ 0 $ 0 $ 11,655,523 $753 

Lower Gunnison, CO 105,502 186,000 57% $ 66,417,187 $ 5,505,985 $117,093,484 $52 

Manila-Washam, UT 7,087 17,430 41% $ 6,202,656 $ 514,200 $ 15,255,015 $73 

Grand Valley, CO 170,028 132,000 129% $ 51,817,220 $ 4,295,648 $ 40,227,922 $25 

Price/San Rafael, UT 75,507 146,900 51% $ 31,174,675 $ 2,584,381 $ 60,650,797 $34 

Mancos, CO 4,045 11,940 34% $ 6,140,175 $ 509,021 $ 18,214,522 $126 

Big Sandy, WY 56,637 83,700 68% $ 13,431,318 $ 1,113,456 $ 19,849,238 $20 

Green River, UT 0 6,540 0% $ 0 $ 0 $ 8,700,000 $473 

TOTALS 597,736 786,677 71% $297,149,464 $24,633,691 $410,844,069 $41 

1

Includes off-farm control funded with EQIP or Basin States Parallel funds. 

2

 Cost per ton based on amortization over 25 years at 6.625% interest 

3

Estimate based on project plan. 

Grand Valley includes 47,500 tons for on-farm ditches, not part of in-field control.
40 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

NRCS Salt Controlthru 2010

Potential Tons

Tons Controlled

Figure 14 – NRCS On-Farm Salt Control Through 2010

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Program Summary 

Background -- The Bureau of Reclamation involvement in the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Program dates back to the early 1960’s when salinity levels in the river 

started to rise. In 1968, Reclamation initiated a cooperative reconnaissance study in the 

Upper Colorado Basin. Study objectives were to identify feasible control measures and 

estimate their costs. This investigation evolved into several salinity control units. In 

1974, Public Law 93-320 authorized the construction of the Grand Valley, Paradox, 

Crystal Geyser, and Las Vegas Wash Units. In 1984, Public Law 98-569 authorized the 

construction of the Lower Gunnison and McElmo Creek Units. 

By 1993, Reclamation had gained 20 years of experience with the program and identified 

new and innovative opportunities to control salinity, including cooperative efforts with 

USDA, BLM, and private interests, which would be very cost effective. However, these 

opportunities could not be implemented because the Congress did not specifically 

authorize them. The Inspector General’s audit report (1993) noted the Salinity Control 

Act directed that “the Secretary shall give preference to implementing practices which 

reduce salinity at the least cost per unit of salinity reduction.” The Inspector General 

concluded that the congressional authorization process for Reclamation projects impedes 
41 

the implementation of cost-effective measures by restricting the program to specific, 

authorized units (specific areas). 

The Inspector General recommended that Reclamation seek changes in the Salinity 

Control Act to simplify the process for obtaining congressional approval of new, costeffective salinity control projects. Specifically, the Inspector General recommended 

Reclamation seek authorities similar to those provided to USDA in the 1984 amendments 

to the act, wherein USDA was empowered with programmatic planning and construction 

authority. At the time, USDA had only to submit a report to Congress and wait 60 days 

before it could proceed if Congress did not object. In contrast, Reclamation was required 

to seek approval of its projects through legislation. This had proved to be a cumbersome 

way to manage the program. With broader authorities, Reclamation would be able to take 

advantage of opportunities as they presented themselves, thus reducing costs. 

Reclamation agreed with the Inspector General and wanted to explore any other 

innovative ideas, which would help improve the effectiveness of its program and take 

advantage of opportunities that were not envisioned 20 years earlier. With most of the 

cost-effective portions of the authorized program nearing completion, this was a pivotal 

moment for the program. It would either be reauthorized or end in 1998 due to 

appropriation ceiling limits. From Reclamation’s point of view, it seemed a very 

appropriate time to reassess the direction of the program. 

In 1994, Reclamation and the Basin States developed legislation to broaden 

Reclamation’s authorities so that it could manage the implementation of the program 

without further congressional approval. This legislation was introduced in Congress late 

in 1994 and was approved and signed into law (Public Law 104-20) in 1995. Congress 

retained its fiscal oversight, but leaves the program’s management to Reclamation. The 

1995 amendments to the Salinity Control Act authorized Reclamation to pursue salinity 

control throughout the Colorado River Basin and required Reclamation to develop 

guidelines on how it would implement this new, basinwide approach to the program. 

Guidelines -- Reclamation has prepared guidelines for its new Basinwide Salinity 

Control Program, which implements the recommendations made in the review of the 

program. As an alternative to adopting new, specific regulations, Reclamation 

administers the program through existing procurement techniques and established Federal 

regulations. Since February 1996, the program has been made available to the general 

public through this competitive process. 

In 1984, Public Law 98-569 directed the Secretary to give preference to those projects 

which reduce salinity at the least cost per ton of salinity control. Since that time, cost 

effectiveness (cost per ton of salt removed) has been used to prioritize the 

implementation of salinity controls. However, cost effectiveness is only an estimate 

(prediction) of the project’s cost and effectiveness at controlling salinity. Depending 

upon the project, there can be a degree of uncertainty in either of these values. Given the 

diversity of proposals that Reclamation may receive, an evaluation of the proposal’s risks 

has been included in the current selection process. 

All proposals (including those studied by Reclamation) are first ranked on their cost per 

ton of salt removed. This ranking is then adjusted for risk factors that might affect the 

project’s performance. The performance risk evaluation considers both financial and 
42 

effectiveness risks. For example, the Government is interested in limiting its risk of cost 

overruns. One way that performance risk could be reduced would be for the proponent to 

accept some risk through contractual limits on the Government’s payments. Another 

method of limiting the costs would be to have the work bonded through a private bonding 

agency. The other major area of performance risk is in the amount of salinity control 

realized versus projected. Some types of salinity control are inherently more predictable 

or consistent than others. For example, industrial processes might have very little salinity 

control performance risk if the payments were based on a measurable product. On the 

other hand, the effectiveness of water management is often highly variable from farmer to 

farmer. Automation would be one way a farmer might propose to reduce this type of 

risk. 

Ultimately, there is a tradeoff between risk and cost. In the end, eliminating risk may 

cost more than accepting some risk. A ranking committee is assembled to evaluate the 

tradeoffs between cost effectiveness and performance risks. The ranking committee is 

made up of representatives from the two cost-sharing partners, the Basin States and 

Reclamation. After the committee ranks the proposals, Reclamation attempts to negotiate 

the final terms of an agreement with the most highly ranked proponents. The first awards 

under this new process began in FY 1997. 

Performance Review -- Past projects (Grand Valley, Paradox, Lower Gunnison, 

Dolores) have averaged slightly over $70 per ton. For a number of reasons, the new 

projects are much more cost effective, ranging between $20 and $35 per ton (see Tables 7 

and 8). 

One of the greatest advantages of the new program comes from the integration of 

Reclamation’s program with USDA’s program. Water conservation within irrigation 

projects on saline soils is the single most effective salinity control measure found in the 

past 30 years of investigations. By integrating USDA’s onfarm irrigation improvements 

with Reclamation’s off-farm improvements, significantly higher efficiencies can be 

obtained. If landscape permits, pressure from piped delivery systems (laterals) may be 

used to drive sprinkler irrigation systems at efficiency rates far better than those normally 

obtained by flood systems. The new authorities allow Reclamation much greater 

flexibility (in both timing and funding) to work with USDA to develop these types of 

projects. 

The new authorities also allow Reclamation to respond to opportunities that are timesensitive. Cost-sharing partners (State and Federal agencies) often have funds available 

at very specific times. 

Another significant advantage of the program is that projects are “owned” by the 

proponent, not Reclamation. The proponent is responsible to perform on its proposal. 

Costs paid by Reclamation are controlled and limited by an agreement. Yet, unforeseen 

cost overruns can occur. The proponent has several options: the project may be 

terminated or the proponent may choose to cover the overruns with their own funds or 

borrow funds from State programs. The proponent may also choose to reformulate the 

project costs and recompete the project through the entire award process. For example, 

pipeline bedding and materials costs for the Ferron Project were underestimated in the 

proposal and subsequent construction cooperative agreement. The proponent was denied 
43 

permission to award materials contracts for the pipeline, since the costs were beyond 

those contained in the agreement. After months of negotiations and analysis, the 

proponents elected to terminate the project, reformulate it, and recompete against other 

proposals the following year. Their project was found to be competitive at the 

reformulated cost and was allowed to proceed. Since this project ran into difficulties, 

none of the other projects have shown any problems. 

Due to several issues that had arisen in the recent years from managing the Salinity 

Program, the Upper Colorado Regional Director, Reclamation, requested that an 

evaluation and review (Review) be completed of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Program (Salinity Program) administered by the Upper Colorado Region. A 

Project Management Plan for the Review was prepared and approved in May 2007, by 

the Regional Director and the Chairman of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum Work Group. Initial and Draft Review Documents were prepared during calendar 

year 2007 by a Project Team, comprised mostly of Reclamation’s Salinity Coordinators 

and provided to the Review Team, comprised of Reclamation staff outside of the Salinity 

Control Program and members of the Work Group, to review and provide comments. 

The Final Review Document was prepared during the spring of 2008 and sent to the 

Review Team and all members of the Work Group, June 27, 2008. 

The Review served the following purposes: 

1. Documented all existing procedures and policies 

2. Sought recommendations to improve the Program, particularly in the areas where 

issues have arisen recently: 

a. Reimbursement requirement for operation and maintenance (O&M) for 

salinity control improvements 

b. Procedures for determining the tons of salt claimed 

c. The Request for Proposals (RFP) and agreement processes 

d. Differing standards and requirements for habitat replacement 

e. Salinity control improvements on Federal facilities versus non-Federal 

facilities 

f. The use of funds from Basin Funds 

3. Identified areas where new procedures and policies need to be developed 

4. Created a Standard Operation Procedure manual that can serve as guide for the 

future management and execution of the Program 

The Review Document is a living document and will be subject to updating and revisions 

as the program progresses. 

Basinwide Salinity Control Program (Basinwide Program) 

In July 1995, Public Law 104-20 was signed into law. It authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to implement a basinwide salinity control program, directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to prepare a planning report on the new program, and authorized $75,000,000 to 

be appropriated. Additional authority was provided in November 2000 which increased 

the appropriation ceiling to $175,000,000. With cost sharing from the Upper and Lower 

Colorado River Basin Funds, the program has authority to expend up to $250 million 
44 

within the Basin. In FY 2007 Reclamation obligated and/or expended approximately $8.9 

million in appropriations and approximately $3.8 million in up-front cost-sharing from 

the Basin Funds for a total Basinwide Program of $12.7 million and $11.4 million in 

2008. Since the authorization of the Basinwide Program in 1996, approximately $105.6 

million in appropriations and approximately $45.3 million in up-front cost sharing from 

the Basin Funds have been expended for a total program of $150.9 million. Through the 

last Request for Proposals (RFP) process in FY 2006, five new project proposals were 

selected for funding totaling about $22 million and the cost effectiveness ranged from 

$27 to $33 per ton of salt. Construction on four of the projects and a project from the 

previous RFP were completed in FY 2008. The fifth proposal selected in 2006 has 

encountered problems with increases in pipe prices and was advised to reformulate their 

proposal and submit it again in the future. 

In 2007, it was determined that instead of soliciting proposals through the RFP process, 

they would be solicited through a process for financial assistance agreements called 

Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA). Instead of evaluating the proposals in the 

Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee (TPEC) process, they would be evaluated in a 

process common to negotiated procurement procedures where an evaluation committee 

would be organized that would be chaired by the Program Manager and have 

representatives from the Work Group and Reclamation area offices. This process would 

not follow the construction contract procedures and should allow more flexibility in the 

evaluation and agreement process. 

In order to have projects ready to utilize the Basinwide Program funding in 2008 and 

beyond, an FOA was released in February 2008 soliciting applications to be submitted by 

May 2008. Twenty-five applications totaling over $167 million in salinity control 

projects were received. An Application Evaluation Committee (ARC) was organized that 

was chaired by the Program Manager and had representatives from the Work Group and 

Reclamation area offices. The applications were reviewed, evaluated, and ranked by the 

ARC under the criteria set forth in the FOA. Applications receiving highest rankings 

within the competitive range of less than $57 per ton of salt were selected and proposers 

were notified of the selection and negotiations were begun to execute an agreement. The 

proposers of the unsuccessful applications were also notified. If agreements are executed 

for all of the successful applications, $27 million worth of salinity control projects could 

be installed over the next 3-4 years. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, (ARRA) 

The purposes of the ARRA are, among others, to quickly and prudently commence 

activities that preserve and create jobs promoting economic recovery and to invest in 

infrastructure providing long-term economic benefits.

Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Region solicited applications for reducing salinity 

contributions to the Colorado River through a Funding Opportunity Announcement 

(FOA) announced in the spring of 2009. Applications were evaluated and ranked by an 

Application Review Committee with representatives from the Colorado River Basin 

States and Reclamation. Reclamation awarded grants in August 2009 totaling more than 

$11.1 million in ARRA funds and $4.8 million in cost share funds from the Basin Funds 
45 

to irrigation companies in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. These projects when 

constructed will help control nearly 12,000 tons of salt loading.

The projects were projected to be completed by September 30, 2010. By the spring of 

2010 four of the projects had the majority of the construction completed by the time 

irrigation water was turned in and the remaining construction was completed by 

September 30, 2010. However, these four projects requested and were granted additional 

time to complete habitat replacement measures and other minor tasks and were completed 

by December 30, 2010. The Cortez, CO area encountered an unusually high snowfall 

and winter conditions during the winter of 2009 and 2010 and construction of the Lone 

Pine Project was hindered. The sponsors of the project requested and were granted 

additional time to complete the construction during the upcoming winter. The project 

was completed by March 31, 2011. 

Parallel Program 

Section 205 of the Act authorizes Reclamation to expend amounts from the Basin Funds 

to repay the Treasury the reimbursable cost allocation of salinity projects or provide a 

cost share amount. This includes appropriations expended by the NRCS in their salinity 

program. The NRCS has questioned its ability to accept Basin Funds for cost sharing 

directly into its salinity program. Rather than repay the Treasury, the Colorado River 

Basin States (Basin States), NRCS, and Reclamation developed a “Parallel Program” 

(PP). Cost share funds from the Basin Funds have been used to accelerate and 

supplement implementation of the NRCS salinity measures by funding – through state 

agencies in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming – salinity control measures that are separate, 

but parallel to, the salinity control measures implemented by the NRCS. Reclamation, 

with recommendations from the Basin States, had interpreted the Act to allow funds from 

the Basin Funds to be expended in the PP to further the general purposes of the Act.

To clarify authority for the administration of the PP, the Basin States prepared and put 

forth legislation through then-Senator Salazar’s office into the 2008 Farm Bill to amend 

the Act that has now created the Basin States Program (BSP). Public Law 110-246 

amended the Act and established the BSP. The BSP is explained in more detail later in 

the report. 

With the creation of the BSP, the PP is in the process of being phased out and all funds 

not used in the PP will become part of the BSP. As of October 15, 2010, the state 

agencies are no longer authorized to enter into contracts under the PP. Contracts that the 

state agencies have executed must have all practices installed, constructed, or 

implemented by September 30, 2012, in order to receive reimbursement. The state 

agencies may request reimbursement from Reclamation until December 30, 2012.

New Reclamation Salinity Projects 
46 

Gunnison Basin, Colorado 

Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA) Phase 3 Project: In FY 2010, 

the UVWUA continued construction of Phase 3 of their East Side Laterals (ESL) project 

which involves the piping of 10.5 miles of laterals under the South and Selig Canal 

systems and the reduction of about 2,300 tons of salt loading annually. This phase is 

utilizing $1.3 million of salinity-control funding as well as funding from the 

Reclamation’s Departmental Irrigation Drainage (selenium) Program. Construction of 

Phase 3 will be completed in 2011.

UVWUA Phase 4 Project: As a result of the 2008 Basinwide Program FOA, the 

UVWUA was awarded a cooperative agreement for Phase 4 of the ESL in December 

2008. This phase involves an additional 11 miles of laterals under the Selig and East 

Canal systems and the reduction of about 3,700 tons of salt loading annually. 

Approximately $2 million of salinity-control funding will be supplemented with 

approximately $800,000 from a Section 319 grant obtained through the Colorado 

Division of Public Health and Environment. Construction of one short lateral was 

completed in FY 2009. Additional laterals were completed in FY 2010 and the 

remaining portions of Phase 4 will be completed in 2012.

Grandview Canal and Irrigation Company Project: Awarded from the 2008 FOA, this 

project involves piping a portion of the Grandview Canal and several laterals in an area 

tributary to the North Fork of the Gunnison River near Crawford in Delta County. In 

July 2009, Reclamation entered into an agreement to provide $5.3 million to pipe 4.8 

miles of main canal and 5 miles of laterals and convert about 900 acres of currently 

flood-irrigated farmland to sprinkler irrigation. Construction began in September 2010 

with completion expected by late 2011. The project is expected to reduce salt loading by 

6,400 tons/year. 

Grand Valley Unit, Colorado 

Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) Project: As a result of selection under the 

2008 Basinwide Program FOA, the GVIC was awarded a $3 million cooperative 

agreement to line about 2.9 miles of their main canal within the city of Grand Junction. 

A salt loading reduction of approximately 4,500 tons annually is expected. The canal 

lining will consist of a PVC membrane with a shotcrete cover. Construction began in 

November 2008 and approximately 2.0 miles of canal lining have been completed. The 

remaining 0.9 miles of canal lining will be completed in 2011. The habitat replacement 

work was completed this past summer. 

San Juan River Basin, New Mexico 

San Juan River Demonstration Project: The San Juan River Dineh Water Users, Inc. 

operates the Hogback and Fruitland irrigation projects located on both sides of the San 

Juan River near Shiprock, NM. The projects consist of about 50 miles of lined main 

canals and over 250 miles of unlined laterals that provide water to about 13,000 acres of 

irrigated land. The average irrigated parcel size is about 13 acres. This $194,000 

demonstration project would replace about a lateral about 7,900 feet long with an 
47 

approximately 2 acre settling pond and about 5,000 feet of PVC pipe. The estimated salt 

savings for this activity is about 199 tons/year and the project will be completed in 2011. 

The purpose of the demonstration is to determine if the NRCS EQIP can be successfully 

implemented on the Navajo Reservation. This lateral provides water to about 167 acres 

of irrigated land consisting of 12 separate parcels. Successful implementation of land 

leveling and installation of gated pipe would result in an estimated salt savings of 384 

tons/year. Combined cost effectiveness of this project is about $43/ton. The majority of 

the habitat replacement work was completed in 2010 and construction of the salinity 

features will begin this fall with completion scheduled later this winter. 

Ongoing Reclamation Salinity Control Projects 

Big Sandy River Unit 

The Big Sandy River Unit is located near Farson and Eden in Sweetwater County in 

southwestern Wyoming. The purpose of the Big Sandy River Unit investigation was to 

determine the feasibility of lowering the salt inflow to the Big Sandy River. The study 

was specifically directed toward reducing salt pickup from seeps and springs along a 

26-mile reach of the Big Sandy River west of Eden, Wyoming. Feasibility planning was 

authorized by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320) of 

1974 and the Water Resource Development Feasibility Investigations Act (Public Law 

96-375) of October 1980. 

Investigations indicate that seeps, which surface in the Bone Draw and Big Bend areas, 

produce saline water at a rate of about 27 cubic feet per second (ft3

/s). The salinity here 

varies from 1,000 to 6,000 mg/L along the Big Sandy River, with a total annual 

contribution of more than 164,000 tons of salt. Indications are that salt is picked up by 

water contacting the shale of the Green River Formation beneath the surface and 

eventually seeping into the river. Irrigation was identified as a significant contributor to 

the water source recharging the springs. 

Reclamation has studied alternatives to intercept the springs and seeps and then transport, 

treat and use, or dispose of the saline water. In the irrigated area, off-farm solutions such 

as selective lining of canals and laterals were studied. 

Studies conducted in cooperation with USDA indicated that control of onfarm irrigation 

is the most cost-effective alternative for controlling salinity from the Big Sandy River 

Unit. Because of past selective lining programs, the canals and laterals showed relatively 

low seepage rates, offering little room for improvement. 

In 2006 the local water district applied for funding for a new salinity control project. This 

funding was to be supplemented by the state of WY. In 2006 & 2007 new seepage tests 

were conducted by Reclamation to determine if the linings on various canals and laterals 

were still functioning. It appears that at some locations as the canals were cleaned the 

clay lining was removed and deposited along the bank. 

Eden Valley, Farson/Eden Pipeline Project: The Farson/Eden Pipeline Project is 

located in Sweetwater County, in the vicinity of Farson, Wyoming. It was selected from 
48 

the applications received in the 2008 FOA. A Cooperative Agreement was executed in 

February of 2009 for the amount of $6,453,072. This project will replace approximately 

24 miles of earthen laterals with irrigation pipe resulting in the annual reduction of 6,594 

tons of salt in the Colorado River at an anticipated cost of approximately $52.57 per ton 

of salt. This project is about half complete and will be completed by 2012.

Lower Gunnison Basin Unit 

The Lower Gunnison Basin Unit is located in west-central Colorado in Delta and 

Montrose Counties. The unit was authorized for investigation by the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320) of 1974. An amendment to the act, 

Public Law 98-569, authorized construction of the unit to begin in 1984. 

An estimated 360,000 tons of salt is added to the Colorado River annually from the 

Uncompaghre Project, a Reclamation irrigation project built in the early 1900’s. Studies 

indicate that salt loading occurs when irrigation conveyance system seepage and 

irrigation return flows pass through highly saline soils and the underlying Mancos Shale 

Formation. By reducing the amount of groundwater percolating through these saline 

soils, salt loading to the Colorado River is being reduced. 

With Reclamation funding, the water districts have completed the winter water facilities. 

Reclamation has completed plans for local improvements to the irrigation delivery 

systems. USDA is implementing onfarm improvements, including upgrading irrigation 

systems and improving irrigation management. 

The Uncompaghre Project is a Federal development constructed in the early 1900’s for 

irrigation of approximately 86,000 acres. Approximately 34 percent of the total 86,000 

irrigated acres are on Mancos-Shale-derived soils. These soils are naturally high in both 

salt and selenium. Reclamation and USDA have implemented various salinity control 

measures in the area. 

The Salinity Control Act authorizes the construction of winter water replacement 

facilities in the Uncompaghre River Valley and irrigation delivery system improvements 

on the more saline, east side of the valley. The plan of development includes the winter 

water replacement and lateral lining programs. Although authorized for construction, the 

canal lining has not been competitive with other, lower cost alternatives within the 

Salinity Control Program. The canal lining construction program remains in a deferred 

status. 

The objective of the winter water replacement program is to eliminate winter livestock 

watering from the unlined canal and lateral system. Water is made available for livestock 

through an expansion of the existing culinary water system using relatively small, 2- to 6-

inch polyvinyl chloride pipe. This modification reduces canal seepage during the nonirrigation season, reducing salinity from the system by about 50 percent. Work on this 

portion of the unit was completed in 1995. 

The remaining portion of the project, the East Side Lateral portion, will compete for 

funding in Reclamation’s Basinwide Salinity Control Program under the authorities of 

Public Law 104-20. In FY 1998, Reclamation solicited proposals for salinity control 

efforts under its basinwide authorities. The Uncompaghre Valley Water Users 

Association (UVWUA) submitted a proposal for a project which would cost share 
49 

salinity control activities with the Department of the Interior’s National Irrigation Water 

Quality Program (NIWQP). Cost sharing from the NIWQP enabled this project to be 

competitive with other projects. The project was recommended for implementation by 

Reclamation’s salinity control evaluation committee. The project reduces salinity in the 

Colorado River by about 2,300 tons of salt per year. The Salinity Control Program has 

contributed $890,000. The NIWQP has contributed $730,000. Environmental 

compliance for this project was completed in 1995 as part of Reclamation’s Lower 

Gunnison Basin Unit, Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact. The 

UVWUA has replaced approximately 7.5 miles of unlined earthen irrigation laterals with 

buried pipe in the Uncompaghre Project’s South Canal system. Construction of this 

portion of the project was completed in 2000. A report titled Effects of Piping Irrigation 

Laterals on Selenium and Salt Loads, Montrose Arroyo, Western Colorado, WRI Report 

01-4204 by the USGS shows the project reducing both salinity and selenium. It is 

anticipated that in the future more joint projects will be pursued between the two 

programs. 

Lower Gunnison Basin Unit, Colorado 

In FY 2007, the Uncompaghre Valley Water Users Association continued with Phase 2 of 

the East Side Laterals piping project in the Cedar Creek area, southeast of Montrose. The 

current effort, which began in FY 2005, is piping a total of 20.5 miles of laterals under 

the South Canal system using $2.1 million of Basinwide Salinity Program funding 

supplemented by $2.2 million of Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program (DIDP) 

funding for selenium remediation. Phase 2 was completed in 2009. 

Phase 3 involves the piping of another 11 miles of laterals. This phase has salinitycontrol funding as well as funding from DIDP and also from an EPA Section 319 grant. 

Construction of Phase 3 began in November 2007 and is scheduled for completion by the 

end of 2011. 

Mancos Valley Unit 

The Mancos Valley Unit is a 9,200-acre-irrigated area along the Mancos River, a 

tributary to the San Juan River. The area is very saline (Mancos shale) and should 

respond well to joint Reclamation/USDA irrigation efficiency improvements similar to 

those being implemented in Utah. Planning studies of this unit, which began in 2002, 

continue. 
50 

Paradox Valley Unit 

The Paradox Valley Unit was authorized 

for investigation and construction by the 

Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-

320) of 1974. The unit is located in 

southwestern Colorado along the 

Dolores River in the Paradox Valley, 

formed by a collapsed salt dome 

(Figure15). Groundwater in the valley 

comes into contact with the top of the 

salt formation where it becomes nearly 

saturated with sodium chloride. 

Salinities have been measured in excess 

of 250,000 mg/L, by far the most 

concentrated source of salt in the 

Colorado River Basin. Groundwater 

then surfaces in the Dolores River. 

Studies conducted by Reclamation show 

that without salinity controls the river 

would pick up more than 205,000 tons 

of salt annually as it passes through the 

Paradox Valley. This project intercepts 

the high saline water (brine), before it 

reaches the Dolores River, and disposes 

of it by deep well injection (injection 

interval about 14,000 feet below ground 

surface) (Figure 16). 

In its definite plan report (September 

1978), Reclamation recommended that a 

series of wells be drilled on both sides of 

the Dolores River to intercept the brine 

before it reached the river. The brine 

would then be pumped to an evaporation 

pond in Dry Creek Basin. A draft 

environmental statement was prepared 

for this plan and made public on May 

11, 1978; a final statement was filed 

with EPA on March 20, 1979. Due to 

the potential for environmental impacts, EPA recommended that Reclamation investigate 

deep-well injection as an alternative method of disposal. 

A private consulting firm completed a feasibility study of deep-well injection and 

concluded it to be technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. Reclamation 

then contracted with a second consulting firm to do a more detailed study of injection and 

to design the disposal system including injection well and surface facilities. A final 

design for the test injection well was completed in August 1985. 

Figure 15 - Paradox Valley. 

Figure 16 - Schematic of Paradox Project. 

COLLECTION

WELLS

INJECTION

WELL

Dolores

River

SALINE GROUNDWATER

Paradox Valley Unit
51 

Facilities have been installed and mechanical tests performed. Over the years numerous 

mechanical and electrical problems with the facilities have been identified and solved. 

Several new technologies were developed to overcome the extremely high pressures 

created by the injection pumps. In fiscal year 2000, the Paradox Valley Seismic Network 

(PVSN) showed seismic activity at the injection site reached levels and frequencies that 

were unacceptably high. Restricting the maximum injection rate to 230 gpm in July 2000 

has reduced seismic activity, but has also reduced the effectiveness of the injection 

facility to about 76,000 tons per year. 

In January 2002, a test to inject 100 percent brine was implemented after temperature 

logs of the well showed that the area around the well bore and injection zone had cooled 

sufficiently to prevent precipitation problems near the well bore. Since January, facility 

disposal has increased by approximately 35,000 tons per year and there is no indication 

of apparent adverse effects from 100 percent brine injection. Reclamation will continue 

to carefully monitor injection pressures for buildups that might suggest plugging of the 

aquifer near the well bore. Seismic activity remained low during fiscal year 2002 and 

remains at a very low frequency and magnitude. Table 9 lists the number of seismic 

events measured on the Paradox Valley Seismic Network from 1998-2010 and the 

pressure and tons of salt injected. 

The project continues to intercept and dispose of 100,000+ tons of salt annually, but the 

pressure necessary to inject the brine into the disposal formation at 14,000 feet is 

increasing. Modification of the current facility to operate at a higher injection pressure to 

extend the life of the current injection well is under way. Reclamation has also initiated a 

Plan of Study to investigate the feasibility of other salt removal alternatives to augment 

the project, including a second injection well. As part of the Plan of Study, an 

investigation of alternative salinity control methods was completed in June in 2008. The 

results of the investigation indicated a need for a current characterization of the regional 

groundwater flow to determine the appropriate strategy for future salinity control efforts. 

The groundwater study started in 2009 and is ongoing. 

This project intercepts extremely saline brine (260,000 mg/l total dissolved solids) before 

it reaches the Dolores River and disposes of the brine by deep well injection (injection 

interval about 14,000 feet below ground surface). Seismicity associated with the 

injection process has diminished since the injection rate reduction in FY 2000 and 

remains at a low frequency and magnitude.

The project continues to intercept and dispose of 100,000+ tons of salt annually, but the 

pressure necessary to inject the brine into the disposal formation at 14,000 feet is 

increasing. Modification of the facility to operate at a higher injection pressure to extend 

the life of the current injection well was completed in 2009. Reclamation has initiated a 

Plan of Study to investigate the feasibility of other salt reduction alternatives to augment 

the project, including a second injection well. As part of the Plan of Study, an 

investigation of alternative salinity control methods was completed in June, 2008. The 

results of the investigation indicated a need for a current characterization of the regional 

groundwater flow to determine the appropriate strategy for future salinity control efforts. 

An interagency agreement was initiated with the USGS to conduct a hydro geologic 

study, and investigations for Phase I of the study began in the second quarter of FY 2009. 

Phase I was essentially completed in the third quarter of FY 2010, resulting in a 
52 

Table 9 - Paradox Well Injection Evaluation 

Injection Period

Operational 

Days1 Pressure Start

Pressure 

End

Pressure 

Increase

Tons of 

Salt 

Injected2

No. of 

Induced 

Seismic 

Events

Maximum 

Magnitude 

of Induced 

Seismic 

Events

Estimated 

Tons of 

Salt 

Entering 

the River3

Jan-May '024 148 1609 4432 2823 52,860 25 2.9 8,877

June-Dec '025 178 929 4593 3664 58,953 34 2.2 9,801

Jan-May '035 144 1172 4627 3455 53,173 27 2.1 18,077

June-Dec '035 184 1154 4675 3521 59,530 106 2.3 11,055

Jan-May '046 140 1201 4640 3439 51,449 47 2.4 19,484

June-Dec '047 160 1091 4541 3450 51,589 57 3.9 6,515

Jan-May '055 140 1038 4736 3698 55,024 69 2.4 12,571

June-Dec '058 148 1203 4750 3547 46,551 31 2.6 38,163

Jan-June '069 138 375 4680 4305 44,779 1010 2.4 50,148

July-Dec '065 162 1084 4797 3713 56,920 1310 2.1 21,625

Jan-June '075 159 1066 4796 3730 56,068 710 1.1 18,777

July-Dec '075 163 1232 4712 3480 57,395 31 2.6 10,571

Jan-June '0812 160 1152 4813 3661 54,720 47 1.3 14,933

July-Dec '085 162 1263 4822 3559 56,734 61 2.1 15,874

*Jan-Mar ‘095 84 1246 4756 3510 29,163 20 2.6 20,716

Apr-Sept '0913 160 1157 4891 3734 55,083 70 2.7 17,611

Oct ‘09-Mar '105 153 970 4930 3960 51,589 91 2.9 32,260

Apr ‘10-Sep '105 162 1347 4990 3643 55,747 75 2.7 14,364

 

1. Operational days include partial days of operation which accounts for variations in tons of salt injected

2. Tons of salt injected based on 260,000 mg/L. Brine concentration varies slightly due to seasonal and environmental 

fluctuations

3. Tons of salt entering the river based on regression equations (Ken Watts, USGS Administrative Report – “Estimates of 

Dissolved Solids Load of the Dolores River in Paradox Valley, Montrose County, CO, 1988-2009, August 5, 2010”)

4. Begin 100% brine injection

5. No problems

6. Down from 3/1/04 through 3/7/04 for mechanical problems

7. Implemented quarterly 10-day shutdown schedule from 9/22 to 10/22; M3.9 earthquake on 11/7; plant shut down until 

11/18; discontinued 10-day shutdown schedule

8. Down from 11/13/05 through 12/31/05 for mechanical problems

9. Down from 1/1/06 through 1/19/06 and 2/16/06 through 3/2/06 for mechanical problems

10. Seismic data for 2006 and the first half of 2007 is likely incomplete due to seismic network problems

11. Down from 4/16-17/08 for mechanical problems

12. Down from 5/18-19/09 for mechanical problems

* Biannual shutdown schedule changed from winter/summer to spring/fall
53 

preliminary conceptual flow model of groundwater flow in the stream-aquifer system in 

the Paradox Valley. The preliminary conceptual flow model indicates that alternatives to 

reduce the amount of brine being produced, identified in the 2008 investigation, may not 

be feasible. Some additional work is necessary to verify the results of Phase I. If the 

Phase I results are verified, Phase II of the study may not be implemented.

Price-San Rafael Rivers Unit 

 Huntington Cleveland 

Irrigation Company 

(HCIC) Project: The 

Project is located in 

northern Emery County, 

in and around the towns of 

Huntington, Lawrence, 

Cleveland, and Elmo. The 

Project was selected in the 

2004 Request for 

Proposals (RFP) and 

awarded a cooperative 

agreement in September 

2004. A new cooperative 

agreement was executed in 

November 2006 and was 

modified again in September 2009. Approximately 350 miles of open earthen canals and 

laterals are being replaced with a pressurized pipeline distribution system (Distribution 

System) to accommodate sprinkler irrigation on about 16,000 acres. Funding for this 

project is being shared between Reclamation’s Basinwide Program, HCIC, NRCS’s 

EQIP, the Parallel Program, and Rocky Mountain Power, formally known as Utah Power 

and Light. The last of Reclamation’s share of $17.1 million for the Off-farm Distribution 

System was obligated in 2008. Reclamation can provide up to an additional $6.0 million 

in funding equally 50/50 with HCIC funds for completion of the Distribution System. 

Since 2009 Reclamation 

has provided about $2.0 

million in additional 

funding. The Project, 

scheduled to be completed 

in 2012, will result in the 

annual reduction of 59,000 

reportable tons of salt in 

the Colorado River at an 

anticipated cost of 

approximately less than 

$100/ton. Of the 59,000 

tons of salt, 13,000 are 

attributed to the Off-Farm 

Figure 17 - Salinity from Canal Seepage. 

Figure 18 - Price-San Rafael Irrigation Improvements. 
54 

Distribution System and 46,000 tons are attributed to the On-Farm Distribution System 

and the on-farm salinity control measures (sprinklers).

Cottonwood Creek Irrigation Improvement Project: The $6.5 million Cottonwood Creek 

Irrigation Improvement Project is located in Emery County, west of Castledale, Utah. It 

was selected from the applications received in the 2008 FOA. A Cooperative Agreement 

was executed in February 2010. Construction is expected to begin late in 2010. This 

project will replace approximately 31 miles of earthen canals and laterals with a 

pressurized pipeline system resulting in a reduction of 2,094 tons of salt in the Colorado 

River. It is expected that the pressurized pipeline will induce on-farm improvements 

resulting in the annual reduction of an additional 9,100 tons of salt. It is anticipated that 

the project will result in the total annual measurable reduction of 11,194 tons of salt in 

the Colorado River at an anticipated cost of approximately $59 per ton of salt. 

 

Uinta Basin Unit 

The Uinta Basin Unit is 

located in northeastern 

Utah. The area includes 

portions of Duchesne and 

Uinta Counties and is 

situated between the 

Uinta Mountains on the 

north and the Tavaputs 

Plateau on the south. The 

principal communities 

within the area are 

Duchesne, Roosevelt, and 

Vernal. 

Reclamation has 

conducted extensive 

studies in the area. Most of the salt pickup from the unit area is from the dissolution of 

salts from the soil and subsurface materials, principally from soils of marine origin that 

underlie most of the Uinta Basin. Seepage from conveyance systems and deep 

percolation resulting from irrigation are the primary processes that dissolve salts from the 

soils and shale and convey the salts through the groundwater system to natural drainages 

and ultimately to the Colorado River. The Uinta Basin contributes an estimated 

450,000 tons of salt per year to the Colorado River. 

Reclamation has a total of 14 projects in the Uinta Basin Unit area. The projects are 

funded jointly by Reclamation’s Basinwide Program and cost sharing from the Basin 

States. The water conservation based projects include the Burns Bench, BIA-Ute Tribe, 

Duchesne County, Farnsworth, Lower Brush Creek, Western Uintah, South Lateral, 

River Canal, Union Canal, Hicken, Dry Gulch Class E, Dry Gulch Class C, Ouray Park, 

and Duchesne Water Conservancy District projects. These projects will reduce salinity 

by improving the efficiency of existing irrigation projects. Several will pipe selected 

canals and laterals to gain pressure to run high-efficiency sprinkler irrigation systems. 

Figure 19 - Salinity in Uinta Basin Unit Area. 
55 

Verification Studies - In their “National Water Summary 1990-91, Water Supply Paper 

2400”, the USGS reported a downward trend in dissolved solids concentration (salinity) 

in the Duchesne River, immediately downstream of the project area. They pointed out 

that much of the base flow of the river was from irrigation return flows. Salinity 

discharge has dropped from 206,000 tons in 1981 when USDA first started irrigation 

improvements to 169,000 tons in 1993 - a 37,000-ton reduction. Based on the amount of 

irrigation improvements installed, USDA estimates that irrigation improvements through 

1992 have reduced the salinity discharge by about 55,500 tons per year (1993 Joint 

Evaluation Report). Recent studies have also shown a downward shift in the salt/flow 

relationship (for a given flow, salinity is lower). These data support the theory that 

onfarm irrigation practices can be effective at reducing salt loading. Monitoring and 

analysis will continue. 

Uinta Basin Unit, Utah 

The Duchesne County II Salinity Reduction Project is located in Duchesne County, in 

and around Roosevelt, Utah. A total of 51.9 canal miles serving 13,350 acres is being 

replaced to accommodate pressurized pipeline systems, in order to facilitate sprinkler 

irrigation. The K2 and Pleasant Valley phases of the project are completed, but land 

easements from the Business Committee of the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Agency need to be obtained in order to complete the last and final phase (TN Dodd) of 

the project. It is anticipated that the off-farm portion of this project will result in the 

annual reduction of 42,800 tons of salt in the Colorado River at $25 per ton of salt. 

The Moffat-Ouray Pipeline Salinity Project near Gusher, Utah was completed in 2008. 

This project replaces approximately 30.2 miles of canals with pipelines and 15,900 tons 

of salt will be reduced annually to the Colorado River at a cost of $28 per ton. The 

abandoned canals have been replaced by pipelines which provide a pressurized irrigation 

system. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Summary Data 

 

 Table 10 – Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs (2010)

Salinity Unit Tons / Year 

Removed 

MEASURES IN PLACE BY RECLAMATION 

Basinwide Program 176,000 

Basin States Program 1/ 7,000 

Meeker Dome 48,000 

Las Vegas Wash Pitman 4,000 

Grand Valley 122,000 

Paradox Valley 2/ 113,000 

Lower Gunnison Winter Water (USBR) 41,000 

Dolores 23,000 

Reclamation Subtotal 534,000 
56 

MEASURES IN PLACE BY USDA/BSP 3/ 

Grand Valley 144,000 

Price-San Rafael 76,000 

Uinta Basin 149,000 

Big Sandy River 57,000 

Lower Gunnison 106,000 

McElmo Creek 26,000 

Mancos 4,000 

Muddy Creek 0 

Manila 7,000 

Silt 4,000 

Green River 0 

 USDA/BSP Subtotal 573,000 

MEASURES IN PLACE BY BLM 

Nonpoint Sources 4/ 85,000 

Well-Plugging 15,000 

 BLM Subtotal 100,000 

Measures in Place Total 1,207,000 

GOALS TO REACH TARGET 

Reclamation Basinwide Program 368,000 

Price-San Rafael (USDA/BSP) 71,000 

Grand Valley (USDA/BSP) 5/ 0 

Uinta Basin (USDA/BSP) 6/ 11,000 

Big Sandy River (USDA/BSP) 27,000 

Lower Gunnison (USDA/BSP) 80,000 

McElmo Creek (USDA/BSP) 20,000 

Mancos River (USDA/BSP) 8,000 

Muddy Creek (USDA/BSP) 12,000 

Manila (USDA/BSP) 10,000 

Silt (USDA/BSP) 5/ 0 

Green River (USDA/BSP) 7,000 

Tier 2 (USDA) 7/ 20,000 

New Well Plugging and Nonpoint Source (BLM) 10,000 

Goals Subtotal 644,000 

Target Total 1,851,000 

 

1/ Off-farm projects funded by Basin States Program 

2/ Paradox injection well capacity estimated to decline beginning in 2020; 

 assumed continuation of well or alternative control methods after 2020 

3/ MayInclude off-farm controls that were not goaled. 

4/ BLM Non-point source are estimates. 

5/ Original goal attained 

6/ EstimatedOriginal goal attained. 

7/ Potential new measures in areas outside approved projects 
Table 11 – Summary of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program

 Funding for Federal Agencies (In 1,000 Dollars)

Federal 

Fiscal 

Year 

Bureau of 

Reclamation 

USDA -

NRCS 

Upfront Cost 

Sharing from 

Basin Funds1 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management2 Total 

 

1988 20,783 3,804 500 25,087 

1989 16,798 5,452 500 22,750 

1990 14,185 10,341 700 25,226 

1991 24,984 14,783 873 40,640 

1992 34,566 14,783 873 50,222 

1993 33,817 13,783 866 48,466 

1994 32,962 13,783 800 47,545 

1995 13,622 4,500 800 18,922 

1996 17,420 9,561 0 800 27,781 

1997 3,464 3,100 4,197 800 11,561 

1998 12,306 2,894 5,749 800 21,749 

1999 15,651 4,016 7,432 800 30,948 

2000 16,637 3,805 16,372 800 37,614 

2001 14,136 5,785 1,100 800 21,821 

2002 14,944 10,451 8,196 800 34,391 

2003 11,315 12,714 11,845 800 36,674 

2004 12,409 19,488 13,064 800 45,761 

2005 11,301 19,798 8,523 800 40,422 

2006 11,953 19,661 14,465 751 46,830 

2007 12,223 19,667 14,685 800 47,375 

2008 11,630 17,611 12,184 800 42,225 

2009 21,363 18,551 16,601 800 57,315 

2010 12,015 14,697 7,405 800 34,917 

1. Prior to 1996 Basin Funds were used to repay the reimbursable portion of Reclamation’s Salinity Control Projects 

within a fifty-year period or within a period equal to the estimated life of the project, whichever is less. 

2. Funds expended by BLM for salinity control cannot accurately be determined. This amount reflects what has been 

reported as having been designated within the BLM budget.
58 

Table 12 – Reclamation Salinity Control Unit Summary (P.L. 93-320 and 98-569) 

1. Cost per ton based on amortization over 50 years at the project authorized interest rate. 

Table 13 - UCRB Agriculture Salinity Control Summary (tons) - 2010 

Project Area Total Salt Load Total Ag. Load Total Controls Remaining Ag. Load 

Big Sandy 157,500 124,900 68,357 56,543

Grand Valley 580,000 559,100 270,641 288,459

Green River 15,700 15,700 0 15,700

Lower Gunnison 1,440,000 840,000 166,701 673,299

Mancos 43,000 26,000 4,045 21,955

Manila 49,000 40,000 12,640 27,360

McElmo 164,075 99,960 49,815 50,145

Muddy Creek 90,000 14,980 0 14,980

Price-San Rafael 430,000 244,000 126,354 117,646

Rifle - Silt NA 24,700 4,038 20,662

San Juan1 NA 62,530 48,329 14,201

Uinta 500,000 328,120 178,938 149,182

Paria (Tropic)1,2 NA 1,829 1,829 0

Total 3,469,275 2,381,819 931,687 1,450,132

1. Off-farm load shown only. On-farm loads have not been estimated for the San Juan and Paria areas 

2. Agricultural load for Paria only represents the conveyance systems which were piped as part of the Tropic 

Project 

Unit/Study Implementation 

Controls 

(tons/y) 

Reclamation 

Capital Cost 

Annual 

O&M Costs 

Cost 

per Ton1 

Meeker Dome 1980-1983 48,000 $3,100,000 $0 $5 

Las Vegas Wash 1978-1985 3,800 $1,757,000 $0 $28 

Grand Valley 1980-1998 127,500 $160,900,000 $1,417,000 $83 

Paradox Valley 1988-1996 110,000 $66,199,000 $2,497,000 $60 

Dolores Project 1990-1996 23,000 $44,700,000 $613,000 $185 

Lower Gunnison 1991-1995 41,380 $24,000,000 $0 $35 

Total 353,680 $300,656,000 $4,016,000 $66 
59 

REFERENCES CITED 

American Heart Association (AHA). 2000. Sodium. AHA Recommendation. 

http://www.americanheart.org/Heart_and _Stroke_A_Z_Guide/sodium.html. 

Amrhein, C. and M.A. Anderson. 2005. Geochemistry of the Salton Sea and Agricultural 

Evaporation Basins. International Salinity Forum Conference, April 25-28, 2005. 

Riverside, CA. 

Anderson, J.C., and A.P. Kleinman. 1978. Salinity Management Options for the 

Colorado River. Water Resources Series Planning Report No. P-78-003, Utah Water 

Resources Laboratory, Logan, Utah. 

Bolke, E.L. and K.M. Waddell. 1975. Chemical Quality and Temperature of Water in 

Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Wyoming and Utah, and the Effect of the Reservoir on the 

Green River. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2039-A. US Government Printing 

Office, Washington DC. 

Bolke, E.L. 1979. Dissolved-Oxygen Depletion and Other Effects of Storing Water in 

Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Wyoming and Utah. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2058. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1999. Salinity management study final report: Long term 

strategy & recommended action plan. Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses 

Report 1996-2000. Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Bull, R.J. and F.C. Kopfler. 1991. Health Effects of Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 

Butler, D.L., 2001. Effects of Piping Irrigation Laterals on Selenium and Salt Loads, 

Montros Arroyo Basin, Western Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigations Report 01-4204, 14p. 

Butler, D.L. 1996. Trend Analysis of Selected Water-Quality Data Associated With 

Salinity-Control Projects in the Grand Valley. In the Lower Gunnison River basin, and at 

Meeker Dome, Western Colorado. Water Resources Investigation Rep. No. 95–4274, 

United States Geological Survey, Denver. 

Holdren, G.C. and A. Montano. 2002. Chemical and Physical Limnology of the Salton 

Sea, California – 1999. Technical Memorandum No. 8220-03-02, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. 

Iorns, W.V., C.H. Hembree, and G.L. Oakland. 1965. Water Resources of the Upper 

Colorado River Basin - Technical Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 

441. 

Kleinman, A.P., and B.F. Brown. December 1980. Colorado River Salinity, Economic 

Impacts on Agricultural, Municipal, and Industrial Users. Bureau of Reclamation, 
60 

Engineering and Research Center, Colorado River Water Quality Office, Denver, 

Colorado. 

Kurtzweil P. 1995. Scouting for sodium and other nutrients important to blood pressure. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Consumer. 

Laronne, J.B. 1977. Dissolution Potential of Surficial Mancos Shale and Alluvium. 

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Earth Resources, Colorado State 

University. 

Liebermann, T.D., and B.D. Nordlund. 1986. Estimates of Dissolved Solid and Major 

Constituents for 70 Streamflow-Gaging Stations in the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

U.S. Geological Survey draft report. 

Lohman, L.C., et al. 1988. Economic Impacts of Salinity of the Colorado River. Bureau 

of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 

McWhorter, D.B., J.W. Rowe, et al. 1979. Surface and Subsurface Water Quality 

Hydrology in Surface Mined Watersheds, Part I. Text Interagency Energy/Environment 

R&D Program Report, EPA-600/7-79-193. 

Midgley JP, Matthew AG, Greenwood CMT, Logan AG. 1996. Effect of reduced 

dietary sodium on blood pressure. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. 

JAMA 275:1590-1597. 

Mueller, D.K., and L.L. Osen. 1988. Estimation of Natural Dissolved-Solids Discharge in 

the Upper Colorado River Basin, Western United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Water 

Resources Investigation Report 87-4069. 

Mueller, D.K., and T.D. Liebermann. 1988. Extension of Streamflow and Dissolved 

Solids Records at Selected Sites in the Colorado River Basin: Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, 1940-83. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4203. 

Parker, R.S., and J.M. Norris. 1983. Simulated Effects of Anticipated Coal Mining on 

Dissolved Solids in Selected Tributaries of the Yampa River, Northwestern Colorado. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 83-4084, Lakewood, 

Colorado. 

Ponce, S.L. 1975. Examination of a Non-Point Source Loading Function for the Mancos 

Shale Wildlands of the Price River Basin, Utah. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University, 

Logan, Utah. 

Prairie, J., Rajagopalan, B., Fulp, T., and Zagona, E., (2005). "Statistical Nonparametric 

Model for Natural Salt Estimation." Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131(1), 130-

138. 

Riley, J.P., et al. 1982. Potential of Water and Salt Yields from Surface Runoff on Public 

Lands in the Price River Basin. Water Resources Planning Series UWRL/P-82/01, Utah 

Water Research Laboratory, Logan, Utah, 94 pp. 

Reclamation. 1982. Grand Valley Salt Pickup Calculations. Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Project, Colorado. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Grand Junction, 

Colorado. June, 1982. 
61 

Riley, J.P., et al. 1982. Salt Uptake in Natural Channels Traversing Mancos Shales in 

the Price River Basin, Utah. Water Resources Planning Series UWRL/P-82/02, Utah 

Water Research Laboratory, Logan, Utah, 194 pp. 

Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, Appel LJ, Bray GA, Harsha D, Obarzanek E, 

Conlin PR, Miller ER III, Simons-Morton DG, Karanja N, Lin PH. 2001. Effects on 

blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the dietary approaches to stop hypertension 

(DASH) diet. New England Journal of Medicine 344(1):53-55. 

Schumm, S.A., and D.I. Gregory. 1986. Diffuse-Source Salinity: Mancos Shale Terrain. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note No. 373, 

Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

Sowers, JR, Lester M. 2000. Hypertension, hormones and aging. Lab Clin Med 

135:379-386. 

Stephens, D.W., B. Waddell, L. Peltz, J. Miller. 1992. Detailed Study of Selenium and 

Selected Elements in Water, Bottom Sediment, and Biota Associated with Irrigation 

Drainage, in the Middle Green River Basin, Utah, 1988 – 1990. U.S.Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4084. 

Svetkey LP, Sacks FM, Obarzanek E, Vollmer WM, Appel LJ, Karanja N, Harsha D, 

Bray GA, Aickin M, Proschan M, Windhauser MM, Swain JF, McCarron PB, Rhodes 

DG, Laws RL. 1999. The DASH diet, sodium intake and blood pressure trial (DASHSodium): rationale and design. J Am Diet Assoc 99:S96-S104. 

Taubes, G. 1998. The (political) science of salt. Science 281:898-907. 

Treuman, D. 1995. Land Retirement – Alternative for salinity control. Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

Uintex Corp. 1982. A Study of Runoff and Water Quality Associated with the Wildlands 

of the Price River Basin, Utah. Bureau of Land Management Contract No. 

YA553-CT1-1064. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1976. Grand Valley Salinity Study, 

Investigation of Sediment and Salt Yields in Diffuse Areas. Soil Conservation Service, 

Memorandum, March 5, 1976. Mesa County, Colorado. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Nutrition and your health: Dietary 

guidelines for Americans, 5th ed. Home and Garden bulletin No. 232. U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1984. Status Report, Bureau of Land Management, 

Technical Note No. 364, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1985. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, James 

Creek Coal, Preference Right Lease Application. Bureau of Land Management, Craig 

District, Colorado. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990. Colorado River Damage Estimate Program. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Chief, Analysis, Contracts, and Lands Division, Denver Office, 

Memorandum, October 25, 1990, Denver, Colorado. 
62 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1971. The Mineral Quality Problem in 

the Colorado River Basin, Summary Report, EPA Regions VIII and IX. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Health effects from exposure to 

sulfate in drinking water workshop. Office of Water. Washington, DC. EPA 815-R-99-

002. 

Vaill, J.E., and Butler, D.L. (1999). “Streamflow and Dissolved-Solids Trends, Through 

1996, in the Colorado River basin Upstream from Lake Powell- Colorado, Utah, 

Wyoming.” Water Resources Investigation Rep. No. 99-4097, United States Geological 

Survey, Denver. 

World Health Organization (WHO). 1993. Guidelines for drinking water quality, 2nd ed. 

Vol. 1. Recommendations. Geneva, Switzerland. 
63 

GENERAL REFERENCES 

Agricultural Research Service. 1982. Minimizing Salt in Return Flow Through 

Irrigation Management. Report No. PUB-744; EPA-600/2-82-073, 181 pp. 

Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs. 1982. Western Oil-Shale Development: A 

Technological Assessment. Vol. 6: Oil-Shale Development in the Piceance Creek Basin 

and Potential Water- Quality Changes. Department of Energy, Report No. 

PNL-3830-VO2.6, 22 pp. 

Bentley, R.G., K.O. Eggleston, and E.B. Janes. 1980. Salinity Status Report, 1978-79, 

Control of Salinity from Point Sources Yielding Groundwater Discharge and from 

Diffuse Surface Runoff in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Report No. BLM-YA-TR80-01, Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado, 37 pp. 

Bowles, D.S., et al. 1982. Salt Loading From Efflorescence and Suspended Sediments in 

the Price River Basin. Water Resources Planning Series UWRL/P-82/05, Utah Water 

Research Laboratory, Logan, Utah, 142 pp. 

Brenniman, G.R. 1981. Relationship Between High Sodium Levels in Municipally 

Softened Drinking Water and Elevated Blood Pressures. Water Resources Center, 

Illinois University, Research Report 158, NTIS PB81-212615, 27 pp. 

Bulke, E.L., and K.M. Waddell. 1975. Chemical Quality and Temperature of Water in 

Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Wyoming and Utah, and the Effect of the Reservoir on the 

Green River. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2039-A. 

Burdge, Irelan. 1971. Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River, Salton Sea 

Area. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 486-E. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1978. The Effects of Surface Disturbance on the Salinity 

of Public Lands in the Upper Colorado River Basin, 1977 Status Report. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado, 208 pp. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Saline Water Use and Disposal Opportunities: Colorado 

River Water Quality Improvement Program. Special Report, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Denver, Colorado, 167 pp. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Water Assessment for the Lower Colorado River Region, 

Emerging Energy Technology Development. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, 

Nevada, 170 pp. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses 

Report 1996- 2000. Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1984. Development, Verification, and Use of Methods to Model 

Chemical and Thermal Processes for Lakes Powell and Mead. Engineering and 

Research Center, Colorado River Water Quality Office, Denver, Colorado. 

Bureau of Reclamation. May 1985. Colorado River Simulation System Documentation 

System Overview. USBR Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado. 
64 

Bureau of Reclamation. 1986. Etiwanda Ion-Exchange Pilot-Plant Testing. Denver, 

Colorado. CH2M Hill. 1982. Salinity Investigation of the Price-San Rafael River Unit, 

Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program. Bureau of Reclamation, Contract 

No. 1-07-40-51637, Utah Projects Office, Provo, Utah. 

Cissell, Jeffery A., V. Dean Adams, Joel E. Fletcher, Daniel S. Filip, and Dennis B. 

George. 1982. Water Requirements and Pollutant Potential in the Gasification of 

Carbonaceous Shales. Report Nos. UWRL/Q-82/04; W83-02211; OWRT-A-043-UT(1), 

Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, Utah, 68 pp. 

Colorado Water Resources Research Institute. 1981. A Five Year Plan for Water 

Research in Colorado. Office of Water Research and Technology, Report No. 

W82-05531, 133 pp. 

Cowan, Michael S., R. Wayne Cheney, and Jeffrey C. Addiego. 1981. Colorado River 

Simulation System: An Executive Summary. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and 

Research Center, Denver, Colorado, 19 pp. 

Dean, A.V. and Lamarra, V.A. (editors). 1981. Aquatic Resources Management of the 

Colorado River Ecosystem (Proceedings of the Symposium). Ann Arbor Science 

Publication, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 697 pp. 

DeLon, L.L. 1982. Water Quality of Streams and Springs, Green River Basin, Wyoming. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 82-4008. 

Eisenhauer, R.J. 1983. Characterization of Glenwood Springs and Dotsero Springs 

Water. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Report No. 83-10, 

Denver, Colorado, 58 pp. 

Eisenhauer, R.J. 1986. Characterization of Glenwood Springs and Dotsero Springs 

Source Aquifers. Bureau of Reclamation, REC-ERC-86-1, Denver, Colorado. 

Eisenhauer, R.J. 1987. Characteristics of Big Sandy River Drainage Basin Water and of 

Salty Aquifer Water. Bureau of Reclamation, REC-ERC-87-2, Denver, Colorado. 

Evans, R.G., W.R. Walker, and G.V. Skogerboe. 1982. Defining Cost-Effective Salinity 

Control Programs. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the 

American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 265-272. 

French, Richard H. (Ed.). 1984. Salinity in Watercourses and Reservoirs. Proceedings 

of the 1983 International Symposium on State-of-the-Art Control of Salinity, July 13-15, 

1983, Salt Lake City, Utah, Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, Massachusetts. 

Gloss, S., and D.E. Kidd. Application of the Nutrient Loading Concept and Effects of 

Nutrient Perturbations on Phytoplankton Productivity. Lake Powell Research Project, 

Bulletin No. 59. 

Green, S.L. 1981. Water Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey in 

Wyoming, Fiscal Year 1980. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 81-201, 118 pp. 

Haselhoff, Donald A. 1983. Water for Las Vegas Metropolitan Area, Journal 

of Environmental Engineering, vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 700-715. 
65 

Holburt, M.B. 1982. Colorado River Water Allocation. Water Supply and Management, 

vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 63-73. 

Howells, L., et al. 1987. Base of Moderately Saline Groundwater in the Uinta Basin, 

Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 87-397. 

Hyatt, M.L., J.P. Riley, M.L. McKee, and E.K. Israelson. 1970. Computer Simulation of 

the Hydrologic-Salinity Flow System Within the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

PRWG54-1. Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 255 

pp. 

Israelsen, C. E., et al. 1980. Use of Saline Water in Energy Development. Water 

Resources Planning Series UWRL/P-80/04, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, 

Utah, 128 pp. 

Jackson, W.L., R.G. Bentley, and S. Fisher. 1984. Results of BLM Studies on Public 

Lands in the Upper Colorado River Basin. BLM Technical Note YA-PT-84-008-4340, 

Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

Johnson, D.H., C.M. Leboeuf, and D. Waddington. 1981. Solar Pond-Driven 

Distillation and Power Production System. Solar Energy Research Institute, Report No. 

SERI/TR-631-1248, Department of Energy, Golden, Colorado, 24 pp. 

Johnson, R.K., and S.A. Schumm. 1982. Geomorphic and Lithologic Controls of 

Diffuse-Source Salinity, Grand Valley, Western Colorado. National Technical 

Information Service, PB82-256587, 99 pp. 

Kidd, D.E., E. Hansmann, and S. Gloss. Trophic Status Investigations at Lake Powell 

Reservoir. Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin No. 60. 

Koch, R.W., T.G. Sanders, and H.S. Morel-Seytoux. 1982. Regional Detection of 

Change in Water Quality Variables. Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 18, No. 5, 

pp. 815-821. 

Laronne, J.B., and S.A. Schumm. l977. Evaluation of the Storage of Diffuse Sources of 

Salinity in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Environmental Resources Center, Colorado 

State University, Completion Report Series No. 79, 111 pp. 

Laughlin, J.K. 1984. Appraisal Study of Saline Water Use Equipment for Power Plant 

Cooling. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 

Laughlin, J.K. 1985. Final Report - Study of Saline Water Use at Jim Bridger Power 

Plant. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 

Laughlin, J.K. 1986. Final Report - Study of Saline Water Use at Harry Allen 

Generating Station. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 

Laughlin, J.K. 1987. Final Report - Study of Saline Water Use at the Etiwanda 

Generating Station. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 

Law, J.P., Jr., and A.G. Hornsby. 1982. The Colorado River Salinity Problem. Water 

Supply and Management, vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 87-104. 
66 

Liebermann, T.D., et al. 1987. User’s Manual for Estimation of Dissolved-Solids 

Concentrations and Loads in Surface Water. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 86-4124. 

Liebermann, T.D., D.K. Mueller, J.E. Kircher, A.F. Choquette, and R.A. Bell. 1986. 

Characteristics and Trends of Dissolved Solids in the Upper Colorado River Basin, 

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Open-File Report 87-568. 

Lindskov, K.L., and B.A. Kimball. Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in Southeastern 

Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2224. 

Martin, R.G., and R.H. Stroud. 1973. Influence of Reservoir Discharge Location on 

Water Quality, Biology, and Sport Fisheries of Reservoirs and Tailwaters, 1968-71. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Waterway Experiment Station, Contract 

No. DACW31-67-C-0083. 

Mayer, L.M. 1977. The Effect of Lake Powell on Dissolved Silica Cycling in the 

Colorado River. Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin No. 42. 

Maynard, D.P., and Caputo, R. 1982. Assessment of Saline Water Use in Coal Transport 

and Multipurpose Systems. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Report No. JPL-D-425, Pasadena, 

California, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado, 

156 pp. 

Merritt, D. and Johnson, N. 1977. Advective Circulation in Lake Powell, Utah-Arizona. 

Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin No. 61, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary 

Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, California, 72 pp. 

Miffin, M.D. 1983. Reuse Versus Return Flows: Considerations for Selecting a Water 

Supply Strategy. University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. 

Miller, J.B., D.L. Wegner, and D.R. Bruemmer. 1980. Salinity and Phosphorus Routing 

Through the Colorado River/Reservoir System. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. 

Moody, C.D., and D.K. Mueller. 1984. Water Quality of the Colorado System: 

Historical Trends in Concentration, Load, and Mass Fraction of Inorganic Solutes. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Report No. EC-ERC-84-9. 

Mueller, D.K., and L.L. Osen. 1988. Estimation of Natural Dissolved Solids Discharge 

in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Western United States. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4069. 

Mundorff, J.C. 1972. Reconnaissance of Chemical Quality of Surface Water and Fluvial 

Sediment in the Price River Basin, Utah. Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Technical Publication 39. 

Mundorff, J.C., and K.R. Thompson. 1980. Reconnaissance of the Quality of Surface 

Water in the San Rafael River Basin, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 

80-574. 
67 

Narayanan, R., and D.R. Franklin. 1982. An Evaluation of Water Conservancy 

Techniques in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Water Resources Planning Series 

UWRL/P-82/07, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, Utah. 

Paulson, L.J. 1981. Nutrient Management with Hydroelectric Dams on the Colorado 

River System. Technical Report No. 8, Lake Mead Limnological Research Center, 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, 39 pp. 

Paulson, L.J., and J.R. Baker. 1981. The Effects of Impoundments on Salinity in the 

Colorado River: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Aquatic Resources Management 

of the Colorado River Ecosystem, November 16-19, 1981, Las Vegas, Nevada. Ann 

Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Paulson, L.J., and J.R. Baker. 1983. The Limnology in Reservoirs on the Colorado 

River. Technical Report No. 11, Lake Mead Limnological Research Center, University 

of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Paulson, L.J., J.R. Baker, and J.E. Deacon. 1980. The Limnological Status of Lake Mead 

and Lake Mohave Under Present and Future Powerplant Operation of Hoover Dam. 

Technical Report No. 1, Lake Mead Limnological Research Center, University of 

Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Prentki, R.T., L.J. Paulson, and J.R. Baker. 1981. Chemical and Biological Structure of 

Lake Mead Sediments. Technical Report No. 6, Lake Mead Limnological Research 

Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89 pp. 

Rittmaster, R.L., and D.K. Mueller. 1985. Solute Loading Sources in the Dirty Devil 

River Basin, Utah. Bureau of Reclamation, REC-ERC-85-5, Denver, Colorado. 

Robson, S.G., and G.J. Saulnier, Jr. 1981. Hydrogeochemistry and Simulated Solute 

Transport, Piceance Basin, Northwestern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Professional Paper 1196, 65 pp. 

Sandberg, G.W., and L.G. Sutlz. 1985. Reconnaissance of the Quality of Surface Water 

in the Upper Virgin River Basin, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada, 1981-82. Utah Department 

of Natural Resources, Technical Publication No. 83. 

Schumm, S.A., and D.I. Gregory. 1986. Diffuse-Source Salinity: Mancos Shale Terrain. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note 373, 

Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

Seiler, R.L., and R.L. Baskin. 1987. Hydrology of Alkali Creek and Castle Valley Ridge 

Coal-Lease Tracts, Central Utah, and Potential Effects of Coal Mining. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4186. 

Shacklette, H.T., and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other 

Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Professional Paper 1270. 

Shen, H.W., et al. 1981. Role of Sediment in Non-Point Source Salt Loading Within the 

Upper Colorado River Basin. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Completion 

Report No. 107, 213 pp. 
68 

Skogerboe, G.V., and G.E. Radosevich. 1982. Future Water Development Policies. 

Water Supply and Management, vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 221-232. 

Skogerboe, G.V., W.R. Walker, and R.G. Evans. 1982. Salinity Control Measures for 

Grand Valley. Water Supply and Management, vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 129-167. 

Trueman, D.P. 1998. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, 1998 Review. 

Proceedings of the Shared Rivers Conference, U.S. Committee on Irrigation and 

Drainage, Park City, Utah. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1984. Aquatrain Corridor Study Report. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l971. The Mineral Quality Problem in the 

Colorado River Basin. Summary Report. Regions VIII and IX, 65 pp. 

Warner, J.W., and F.J. Heimes. 1979. A Preliminary Evaluation of Groundwater 

Contributions to Salinity of Streams in the Upper Colorado Basin in Colorado and 

Adjacent Parts of Wyoming and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, 

contract to Bureau of Land Management. 

Water Resources Council. 1981. Synthetic Fuels Development in the Upper Colorado 

Region: Section 13(a) Water Assessment Report. Technical Report, 138 pp. 

Whittig, L.D., et al. 1983. Salinity Investigations in West Salt Creek, Colorado. 

California Water Resources Center Completion Report, University of California, Davis, 

California, 161 pp. 

Yahnke, J. 1982. Fryingpan River and Rued Reservoir Water Quality Studies. Part I, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Working Paper, Engineering and Research Center, Denver, 

Colorado. 
69 

APPENDIX A – SALINITY DATA 

The historical flow and quality of water data have been calculated using the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) database and computer techniques developed jointly by 

the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and USGS. The purpose of the analysis was to 

develop a consistent, documented methodology for the calculation of monthly salt loads 

in the Colorado River Basin. 

The salinity computation method was originally developed for the trend studies 

conducted by Reclamation and USGS (Liebermann, et al., 1986). Several procedures 

were evaluated. A 3 year moving regression was determined to be the best overall 

method in terms of providing the most complete record, preserving short-term 

fluctuations, and being insensitive to minor errors in the data. Using this method, daily 

salt load (L) was computed from discharge (Q) and when available, conductivity (S): L = 

aQb

Sc. For days without specific conductivity data, a slight variation of the equation for 

load as a function of discharge was used: L = a’Qb’. 

The coefficients a, b, and c for each year of record were typically estimated by regression 

analysis using data from a 3 year period surrounding the year of interest. For example, 

coefficients for 1990 were derived with data from l989 through 1991. The last year of 

salinity data computed for this report uses two years of data for obvious reasons. It is 

subject to change and will be updated in the next report as data become available to 

complete the analysis for that year. 

Daily loads were added to yield the monthly values given. Monthly values were then 

added to yield annual values. All values shown are rounded but were computed using unrounded values. 

For this analysis, salt-load data were based on total dissolved solids (TDS) as the sum of 

constituents, whenever possible. Sum of constituents was defined to include calcium, 

magnesium, sodium, chloride, sulfate, a measure of the carbonate equivalent of alkalinity 

and, if measured, silica and potassium. If a sum-of-constituents value could not be 

computed, TDS as residue on evaporation (at 180 degrees Celsius) was substituted. 

Extensive error analyses were performed on the data. Suspect values were corrected 

according to published records or deleted. The resultant data set is considered by 

Reclamation and USGS to be the best available for stations in the Colorado River Basin. 

Annual values based on the new method were compared to values in previous Quality of 

Water Colorado River Basin Progress Reports for selected stations. The observed 

differences were between plus or minus five percent, with mean differences 

approximately zero. Changes in the progress report database can, therefore, be 

considered generally insignificant and unbiased. 
70 

Figure A1 - Colorado River Water Quality Monitoring Stations.
71 

Figure A2 – Colorado River Flow and Salinity
72 

0

3,0006,0009,000

12,000

150250350450550

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Green River near Green River, Wyoming

mg/L1000-af

200300400500600

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 199

TDS (mg/L)

Green River near Greendale, 

m10

0

3,0006,0009,000

12,000

100150200250300

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Yampa River near Maybell, Colorado

mg/L1000-af

300600900

12001500

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 19

TDS (mg/L)

Duchesne River near Randlett, 

mg/L1000-af

Figure A3 – Flow and TDS over time for sites 1-4. Site locations shown in Figure A1.
73 

0

1000200030004000

250350450550650

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

White River near Watson, Utah

mg/L1000-af

0

100200300400500600700

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

TDS (mg/L)

Green River at Green River, Ut

mg/L1000-af

0

300600900

120015001800

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

San Rafael River near Green River, Utah

mg/L1000-af

150250350450

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 19

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River near Glenwood Spring

mg/L1000-af

Figure A4 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 5-8. Site locations shown in Figure A1.
74 

05,000

10,00015,00020,000

250350450550650

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado

mg/L1000-af

250450650850

1050

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 199

TDS (mg/L)

Gunnison River near Grand Junction, 

mg/L1000-a

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,000

0

500

1000150020002500

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Dolores River near Cisco, Utah

mg/L1000-af

300600900

1200

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 199

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River near Cisco, U

mg/L1000-af

Figure A5 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 9-12. Site locations shown in Figure A1. 
75 

0

2,0004,0006,000

75

125175225

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

San Juan River near Archuleta, NM

mg/L1000-af

200400600800

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

TDS (mg/L)

San Juan River near Bluff, Uta

mg/L1000-af

0

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000

300400500600700800900

1000

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona

mg/L1000-af

300600900

1200

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 199

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River near Grand Canyon, 

mg/L1000-af

Figure A6 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 13-16. Site locations shown in Figure A1. 
76 

0

500

1,0001,5002,000

500

1,0001,5002,0002,500

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Virgin River at Littlefield, Arizona

mg/L1000-af

400500600700800900

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 199

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River below Hoover Dam

mg/L1000-af

0

10,00020,00030,00040,000

500600700800900

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Flow 1,000 (ac-ft)

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River below Parker Dam, Ariz-Calif

mg/L1000-af

550650750850950

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

TDS (mg/L)

Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Ariz

mg/1000

Figure A7 - Flow and TDS over time for sites 17-20. Site locations shown in Figure A1.