Quality of Water 

Colorado River Basin 

Progress Report No. 27 

U.S. Department of the Interior September 2023 
 

 

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; 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. 

Cover Photo – Lake Powell Reservoir on the Colorado River. 
Quality of Water 

Colorado River Basin 

Progress Report No. 27 

Prepared by: 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water Quality Group 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Af acre feet 

ACEC Area of critical environmental concern 

AIS Aquatic Invasive Species 

AMD acid mine drainage 

ARC Application Review Committee 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BSP Basin State Program 

CFS Cubic feet per second 

CRB Colorado River Basin 

CWP Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

FLPMA Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976 

FAR Federal Accomplishment Report 

FOA Funding Opportunity Announcement 

Forum Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service 

GLCA Glen Canyon Recreation Area 

Mg/L Milligram per Liter 

Maf million acre feet 

MWD Metropolitan Water District 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction 

PPM Parts per Million 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

Review 2020 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River 

System 

RFP Request for Proposal 

SCP Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program 

Secretary Secretary of the Interior 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids (salinity) 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

UCRB Upper Colorado River Basin 

UDAF Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 

USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of the Interior 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WMIDD Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District 

Contents 

Page 

Summary .........................................................................................................................................v 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions.......................................................................................................1 

Causes of Salinity ................................................................................................................1 

Economic Effects of Salinity ...............................................................................................3 

Historical Salinity Conditions..............................................................................................4 

Factors Influencing Salinity.................................................................................................6 

Streamflow...............................................................................................................6 

Reservoir Storage.....................................................................................................6 

Future Water Development................................................................................................11 

Compliance with the Salinity Standards............................................................................15 

Salinity Control..................................................................................................................16 

Chapter 2 – Title I Salinity Control Program.................................................................................19 

Updates for the Title I Projects since last Progress Report:...............................................20 

USGS Estimation of Dissolved-Solids Concentrations Using Continuous 

Water-Quality Monitoring and Regression Models.......................................20 

Unmeasured Flow Meters (UMF) Salinity Investigation Project..........................20 

242 Well Field Expansion Project .........................................................................21 

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) .............................21 

Chapter 3 - Title II Salinity Control Program................................................................................23 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ................................................................................23 

Program Administration.....................................................................................................23 

National Operations Center....................................................................................27 

Colorado.................................................................................................................28 

New Mexico...........................................................................................................30 

Utah........................................................................................................................30 

Wyoming................................................................................................................32 

Summary................................................................................................................33 

Program History.....................................................................................................34 

Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................36 

Status of Planning and Implementation .................................................................36 

i 
Bureau of Reclamation - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program....................40 

Economic Impacts Model ......................................................................................40 

Science Team .........................................................................................................41 

Basinwide Salinity Control Program (Basin-wide Program).............................................41 

New Mexico...........................................................................................................44 

Unfinished Projects............................................................................................................45 

Basin States Program (BSP) ..................................................................................46 

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF)..............................................46 

Progress: BSP Projects:......................................................................................................47 

Paradox Valley Unit (PVU), Colorado ..................................................................49 

PVU EIS.................................................................................................................51 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Summary Data ......................................53 

Chapter 4 – Additional Water Quality Issues ................................................................................59 

Dreissenid Mussels in the Upper Colorado River Basin ...................................................59 

Water Quality Issues Related to Drought Conditions........................................................60 

References Cited ............................................................................................................................65 

General References ........................................................................................................................69 

Tables 

Page 

Table 1 – 1971 Quantified Sources of Salt Loading........................................................................2 

Table 2 - Upper Basin Total Projected Depletion Demand Scenarios (1000 af/yr) ..................... 12 

Table 3 - Lower Basin Depletion Projections (1000 af/yr)........................................................... 14 

Table 4 - Salinity Control Requirements and Needs Through 2040............................................. 17 

Table 5 - WMIDD Irrigation Efficiency....................................................................................... 22 

Table 6. Estimates of salt retained on BLM-administered lands within the CRB from projects 

receiving congressionally directed salinity control funding for the period FY15 – FY20 ........... 25 

Table 7. FY21 allocation of CRB Salinity Control Program funding for each state or center..... 26 

Table 8 - Implementation Status (October 1, 2020) ..................................................................... 39 

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

Table 10 – Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs (2020)............................................. 54 

Table 11 – Summary of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Appropriations and 

Cost Share from the Basin Funds 2010 thru 2020 ........................................................................ 55 

Table A1 - Characteristics of the 20 Salinity Streamflow-gaging Stations in the Colorado River 

Basin ........................................................................................................................................... A-2 

ii 
Figures 

Page 

Figure 1 - Colorado River Salinity below Hoover Dam, USGS Gage. .......................................... 1 

Figure 2 - Salinity Sources.............................................................................................................. 2 

Figure 3 - Salinity Damages. .......................................................................................................... 4 

Figure 4 - Colorado River Numeric Criteria Locations and Values. .............................................. 5 

Figure 5 - Colorado River Flow and TDS at Lees Ferry, below Hoover and at Imperial 

USGS gages. ................................................................................................................................... 6 

Figure 6 – Reduction in the Range of Salinity below Glen Canyon Dam, at Lees Ferry 

USGS gage...................................................................................................................................... 7 

Figure 7- Lake Powell Forebay TDS from 1965 – 2021, change in TDS as Reservoir 

volume changes, (UCB BOR Data)............................................................................................... 8 

Figure 8 – Lake Powell Forebay TDS Level increases as Reservoir surface elevation 

decreases (UCB BOR Data)........................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 9 – Four Periods of change in Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow Salt Loading and Flow. . 9 

Figure 10 – Four Periods of change in Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow TDS. .......................... 10 

Figure 11 – Upper Basin Annual Consumptive Use and Projected Demands, includes CRSP 

Reservoir Evaporation. Model data from 2007, last time model was run, and Demands from 

2020 Review. ................................................................................................................................ 12 

Figure 12 - Title I Salinity Control Projects. ................................................................................ 19 

Figure 13 - Title II Salinity Control Projects................................................................................ 24 

Figure 14 - BLM Funding for salinity control.............................................................................. 25 

Figure 15. Maps showing (A) depth to bedrock (m), (B) hydraulic conductivity (m/day), and 

(C) riverbed conductance (m2/day) for the Animas River, Price River, and Middle Bosque 

River watersheds........................................................................................................................... 28 

Figure 16. Vicinity map of ongoing work in Zone L Off-Highway Vehicle area. ....................... 29 

Figure 17- Pine Gulch sediment fence and stream gage locations. .............................................. 30 

Figure 18-Farnsworth Reservoir in the Kanab Creek watershed before (left) and after 

(right) sediment removal............................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 19. Calpet Road Culverts at Birch Creek. ......................................................................... 32 

Figure 20. Littlefield Creek restoration project. Photo taken summer 2021. ............................... 33 

Figure 21. Percentage of FY21 funding allocated towards salinity control, assessment and 

monitoring, and model development and support activities. ........................................................ 35 

Figure 22 - On-farm / near farm Allocations................................................................................ 35 

Figure 23 – Paradox Valley Geology............................................................................................ 50 

Figure 24- Schematic of Paradox Project. .................................................................................... 51 

Figure 25 – Boat Decontamination Dip Tank............................................................................... 59 

iii 
 

 

Figure 26 - Decontamination Dip Tank at Stateline Launch Ramp Lake Powell, UT 

(UCR BOR photo). ....................................................................................................................... 60 

Figure 27 – Annual change in the temperature at Lake Powell Forebay Jan 2000 - Dec 2021 

(UCB BOR Data).......................................................................................................................... 61 

Figure 28- Projected Lake Powell Discharge Temperature change with lowering Reservoir 

elevation (UCB BOR model run). ................................................................................................ 61 

Figure 29- Monsoonal Rain Sediment cut in Cha Canyon, San Juan Arm Lake Powell. 

(UCB BOR photo) ........................................................................................................................ 62 

Figure 30 - Lake Powell Monsoonal Rain caused Reservoir wide Low Dissolved Oxygen 

Plume, Sept 2021(UCB BOR data). ............................................................................................. 63 

Figure A-1 - Colorado River Basin 20 Stream Gage Locations. ................................................ A-1 

Figure A-2 – Salinity Project Locations. .................................................................................... A-3 

Figure A-3 - Colorado River Flow and Salinity (UCB BOR – Jeremiah Drewel)..................... A-4 

Figure B-1 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 1-4.................................................................. B-1 

Figure B-2 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 5-8.................................................................. B-2 

Figure B-3 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 9-12................................................................ B-3 

Figure B-4 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 13-16.............................................................. B-4 

Figure B-5 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 17-20.............................................................. B-5 

Appendices 

Appendix 

A Appendix A – Salinity Control Monitoring Stations 

B Appendix B – 20 Station Flow and Salinity 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary 

The Colorado River and its tributaries provide water to about 35 - 40 million people and 

irrigation water to nearly 4.5 million acres of land in the United States (Moving Forward, 2015). 

The river also serves about 3.3 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico (Cohen, 2011). The 

effect of salinity is a major concern in both the United States and Mexico. Salinity damages in 

the United States are presently estimated to be about $354 million per year at 2020 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. 

Salinity damages to water pipes Salinity damages to crop production 

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. 

v 
 

 

 

Summary 

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 is expected to increase in 

the future as the more cost-effective projects are completed. 

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

of the Clean Water Act, prepared the “2020 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, 

Colorado River System” (Review). The Review reported the Forum would pursue a salinity 

control program designed to remove at least 1.7 million tons of salt annually by the year 2040 to 

minimize downstream economic damages while the Upper Basin States continue to develop their 

Compact apportioned water supplies. The Review shows that the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Program (Program) is currently controlling over 1,218,000 tons of salt annually. In order 

to meet the 1.7 million tons of salt removal under the plan of implementation, it will be 

necessary to fund and build potential new measures that ensure the removal of an additional 

482,000 tons by 2040. 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’s 

Basinwide program maintains an annual target of 9,250 tons/year of additional control at 

increasing cost due to inflation and increased cost per ton of controls. NRCS funding follows the 

agency’s 3-year funding plan for 2020-2022 with 2022 funding levels ($15.7 million) maintained 

through 2040. Beginning in 2005, the 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 24,000 tons of new or additional controls will need to be 

implemented each year to meet the Program goal. This Program goal is the combined target for 

the participating agencies within Interior and USDA. 

Upper Colorado River Basin regularly experiences significant year to year hydrologic variability, 

but overall is still in drought conditions. During the 22-year period beginning in water year 

2000 and ending in water year 2021, the unregulated inflow to Lake Powell, which is a good 

measure of hydrologic conditions in the Colorado River Basin, was above average in only 4 out 

of the 22 years. The period 2000 through 2021 is the lowest 22-year period since the closure of 

Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, with an average unregulated inflow of 8.46 maf, or 88% of the 30-

year average (1991-2020). (For comparison, the 1991-2020 total water year average is 9.60 maf.) 

The unregulated inflow during the 2000-2021 period has ranged from a low of 2.64 maf (24% of 

average) in water year 2002 to a high of 15.97 maf (147% of average) in water year 2011. In 

water year 2021 unregulated inflow volume to Lake Powell was 3.50 maf (36% of average), the 

second driest year on record with 2002 having the lowest inflow since Glen Canyon Dam was 

built. However, one wet year can significantly increase total system reservoir storage, just as 

persistent dry years can draw down the system storage. 

vi 
 

Summary 

Salinity concentration has varied during this time period (with a downward trend) 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 future salinity modeling 

scenarios indicate that the numeric salinity criteria should be maintained over the next three 

years even with additional years of drought. The numeric salinity criteria could have been 

exceeded in 2007 without the salinity control program and other salt reductions. 

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

Federal agencies involved in the Salinity Control Program. This Progress Report 27 is the latest 

in a series of biennial reports that commenced in 1963. 

The authorization for these reports and the legal aspects can be found in Chapter 1 of prior 

Progress Reports http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR24final.pdf. 

vii 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Causes of Salinity 

Within the Colorado River basin there are geologic formations and soils containing elevated salt 

concentrations. This salt may become mobilized into the Colorado River watershed from natural 

erosion or human activities. From 1940 to 1972, an annual average of approximately 9.8 million 

tons of salt was carried down the river measured at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge 

below Hoover Dam. From 1973 to the present, an annual average load of approximately 

7.3 million tons of salt have been measured in the river at this gage. The trend of the salinity, 

both load and concentration, below Hoover is seen in figure 1 below. The flow of the river 

dilutes the salt, and depending upon the quantity of flow, salinity concentration 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 

in 1972. 

Figure 1 - Colorado River Salinity below Hoover Dam, USGS Gage. 

Nearly half of the salinity concentration in the Colorado River System is from natural sources. 

Saline springs, erosion of saline geologic formations, and runoff all contribute to this background 

salinity. The EPA (EPA, 1971) estimated the natural salinity in the Lower Colorado River at 

Imperial Dam to be 334 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Irrigation, reservoir evaporation, and 

municipal and industrial (M&I) sources make up the balance of the salinity in the Colorado 

River Basin. Figure 2 shows the relative amount each source contributes to the salinity of the 

Colorado River, as estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1973. Table 1, 

on the following page, quantifies the salinity from several of the known sources. 

1 
Sources of Salinity 

Reservoir 

Natural 

47% 

Irrigation 

37% 

M&I 12% 4% 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Salinity of the Colorado River has increased due to 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 2000, has also had an 

influence on the present salinity of the Colorado River. 

Figure 2 - Salinity Sources. 

Table 1 – 1971 Quantified Sources of Salt Loading 

Source Type of Source Salt Loading 

(tons per year) 

Paradox Springs Springs / point 205,000 

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 

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 

McElmo Creek Irrigation / non-point 119,000 

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

Uinta Basin mostly irrigation / non- 240,000 

Dirty Devil River Area Irrigation / non-point 150,000 

Price-San Rafael Area Irrigation / non-point 172,000 

Other, non-regulated areas Various 5,200,000 

Total 8,724,000 

Values listed are pre salinity control project loading 

2 
 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Any potential health concerns from the salinity levels in the Colorado River have previously 

been addressed in the health section of Progress Report 21 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR21.pdf 

Economic Effects of Salinity 

Salinity related damages are primarily economical and due to reduced agricultural crop yields, 

corrosion, and plugging of pipes and water fixtures in housing and industry. Figure 3 breaks 

down the percentage of total damages estimated at 2020 with 1.21 million tons of salt controlled. 

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 hydrologic 

conditions, but the goal of the Water Quality Criteria for the Colorado River Basin and the 

Salinity Control Program is to offset (eliminate/reduce) the salinity effects of additional water 

development. 

Reclamation has developed an economic model that calculates damages for a given level of salt. 

The Salinity Economic Impact Model (SEIM) estimates the quantitative damages that are 

incurred in the metropolitan and agricultural areas in the lower Colorado Basin that receive 

Colorado River water. The model estimates the impacts from salinity levels greater than 

500 mg/L TDS on household water using appliances, damages in the commercial sector, 

industrial sector, water utilities, and agricultural crop revenues. It also estimates the additional 

costs related to meeting statewide water quality standards for ground water and recycled water 

use in the Colorado River service area. The SEIM was last run for the 2020 Review and results 

and information on the SIEM can be found at 

http://www.coloradoriversalinity.org/documents.php?ctgy=Reviews. 

3 
 

 

52% 

28% 

6% 

4% 

4% 

6% 

Quantified Economic Damages of $354 million 

at 2020 Salinity Levels 

 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Agriculture $183 m 

Household $100 m 

Commercial $22 m 

Utility $13 m 

Industrial $16 m 

Other $20 m 

existing salinity control measures only 

Figure 3 - Salinity Damages. 

Historical Salinity Conditions 

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

Basin. A map of station location is presented in Appendix A. Salt loads and concentrations are 

calculated from daily conductivity and flow records using methods developed jointly between 

Reclamation and USGS (Liebermann et al., 1986), Appendix B shows the historical annual 

streamflow, and salinity concentrations from 1940 through 2021. Monthly and annual salinity 

and flow 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 numeric criteria locations (Hoover, Parker and Imperial Dams) 

since 1940 is shown in Figure 4. As Figure 4 shows, the last time the TDS exceeded or reached 

the salinity criteria at any of the numeric criteria locations, was in 1972 – the year that the 

salinity standard was established for the Colorado River. 

4 
Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Figure 4 - Colorado River Numeric Criteria Locations and Values. 

5 
 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

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 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. 

Streamflow 

Streamflow directly influences salinity. For the most part, higher flows (or reservoir releases) 

dilute salt concentration. The left graph in Figure 5 shows streamflow at two key points in the 

mainstem over the last 50 years. In 1983, Lake Powell (Glen Canyon Dam) filled for the first 

time and spilled. Flow (maf/yr) 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1970 

Mainstem Flows 

Powell 

Imperial 

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 

TDS (mg/L) 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

1970 

Mainstem Salinity 

Imperial 

Powell Hoover 

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 

Figure 5 - Colorado River Flow and TDS at Lees Ferry, below Hoover and at Imperial USGS gages. 

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 right graph of Figure 5, returning to average 

flows in the system after 1987 returned the salinity in the reservoir system to moderate levels. 

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 effects of the reservoirs are beneficial and have greatly reduced the 

salinity peaks and annual fluctuation (Figure 6). 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 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

salinity has been reduced by nearly 600 mg/L, with a pre dam range of 1,106 mg/L and a post 

dam range of 694 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 effects of this selective retention and routing of salt are shown below 

Glen Canyon Dam in Figure 6. 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

19401945195019551960196519701975198019851990199520002005201020152020 

Monthly Average Salinity (mg/L) 

Salinity below Glen Canyon Dam 

1963 Closure of Dam in 1963 reduced 

the variability of salinity in the 

river at Lees Ferry. 

predam TDS range = 1,106 mg/L 

post dam TDS range = 462 mg/L 

Figure 6 – Reduction in the Range of Salinity below Glen Canyon Dam, at Lees Ferry USGS gage. 

Figure 7 further displays this retention. Figure 7 is a 56-year depth vs. time profile of salinity in 

the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam and is an illustrated history of the salinity. The Y (vertical) axis 

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

salinity with the blues being lower TDS water and the brown color being higher TDS water. 

Increasing the resolution from Figure 7 to a 20-year view, Figure 8, it is easier to see that during 

the drought of the last 20 years as the elevation of the reservoir declines, as in 2005, 2014 & 

2021, higher TDS water concentrations increase and get entrained into the penstock withdrawal 

zone. During wet years with higher inflows, as in 2011, 2017 & 2019 the fresher water mixes 

with the higher TDS water around the penstock elevations and reduces the level of salinity in the 

outflow waters. 

7 
Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Figure 7- Lake Powell Forebay TDS from 1965 – 2021, change in TDS as Reservoir volume changes, 

(UCB BOR Data). 

Figure 8 – Lake Powell Forebay TDS Level increases as Reservoir surface elevation decreases 

(UCB BOR Data). 

8 
 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Figures 6 - 9 illustrate that because of Glen Canyon Dam Lake Powell can selectively retain 

higher salinity water during drier years of drought, and then routes it out with the increased 

mixing and shorter hydraulic retention times of wetter cycles. During these wetter cycles there is 

a significant mixing and dilution of these previously stored salts. Generally, there is an inverse 

relationship between salt load and concentration as can be seen in figures 9 & 10. When flows 

are high salt concentration generally goes down due to dilution, and loads go up with more water 

carrying the salt equating to a higher amount of salt being moved. 

There are 4 periods or trends, with regards to salt loads and concentration, which can be seen in 

the Colorado River salinity for the inflow to and outflow from Lake Powell shown in Figures 9 

& 10 (yellow dash trend lines are the outflow and the green dash trend lines are the inflow). The 

overall inflow (red lines) in Figures 9 & 10 is calculated from the salinity at 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 (blue line) comes from the 

salinity at Lees Ferry. 

The 4 periods begin with the pre dam period, 1950 – 1964. The average salinity concentration in 

the river was increasing with divergence between the average annual inflow and outflow TDS 

concentrations while the salt loading was seen to be on a decreasing trend. This difference 

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

actual annual levels appear to track each other closely. 

Glen Canyon Dam Closure 

Figure 9 – Four Periods of change in Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow Salt Loading and Flow. 

9 
Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Figure 10 – Four Periods of change in Lake Powell Inflow and Outflow TDS. 

Next there was the dam filling period where Lake Powell and the Upper Basin reservoirs were 

completed and filling, 1965-1983. The average annual salinity during this time decreased with a 

convergence occurring between the inflow and outflow concentrations. The salt loading 

converged during this time while the river flow stayed fairly constant, possibly due to the 

reservoir storing the salinity. 

Then there was the period, 1984 to 2021, 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 and load during this time is seen to be constant 

between the inflow and outflow stations. The outflow for both the concentration and loading is 

seen to be a little higher than that of the inflow, possibly due to the release of some of the stored 

salt from the reservoir. 

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 1983 to 

present TDS trend. The salinity loading during this time is shown to be slightly increasing 

possibly due to the higher than average flows in 2011. 

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 

10 
 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

minimum by the mid-1990’s suggesting a long-term salinity leach out which is approaching a 

dynamic equilibrium (Figures 9 & 10, red and blue trend line). Overall, there is seen to be a 

decreasing trend of salt concentration and loading in the Colorado River. 

The natural variation in salinity as well as the agricultural sources, energy development, and the 

municipal and industrial use impacts on salinity have been discussed in a prior Progress Report 

24 http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR24final.pdf 

Future Water Development 

Tables 2 and 3 summarize projected future total depletions by water uses that are input into 

Reclamation’s Colorado River System Simulation (CRSS) model. The schedules presented 

below were used in the CRSS modeling in support of the 2020 Review. 

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. Figure 11 

illustrates the historical 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 from the CRSS model. 

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. More detailed data on 

historical 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: 

https://www.usbr.gov/uc/DocLibrary/reports.html 

11 
 

 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Figure 11 – Upper Basin Annual Consumptive Use and Projected Demands, includes CRSP Reservoir 

Evaporation. Model data from 2007, last time model was run, and Demands from 2020 Review. 

Table 2 - Upper Basin Total Projected Depletion Demand Scenarios (1000 af/yr) 

UPPER BASIN 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Arizona 

Total scheduled depletion 50 50 50 50 50 

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 

maf) 50 50 50 50 50 

Remaining available 0 0 0 0 0 

Percent of State share available 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado 

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

Critical Period CRSP Shared Evap. (% of 0.25 

maf) 129 129 129 129 129 

Total 2,971 3,020 3,048 3,084 3,084 

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 

maf) 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 

Remaining available 113 64 36 0 0 

Percent of State share available 4 2 1 0 0 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

New Mexico 

Total scheduled depletions 608 635 642 642 642 

Critical Period CRSP Shared Evap. (% of 0.25 

maf) 28 28 28 28 28 

Total 636 663 670 670 670 

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 

maf) 670 670 670 670 670 

Remaining available 34 7 0 0 0 

Percent of State share available 5 1 0 0 0 

Utah 

Total scheduled depletions 955 1,032 1,118 1,163 1,163 

Critical Period CRSP Shared Evap. (% of 0.25 

maf) 58 58 58 58 58 

Total 1,013 1,090 1,176 1,221 1,221 

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 

maf) 1,371 1,371 1,371 1,371 1,371 

Remaining available 358 281 195 150 150 

Percent of State share available 26 20 14 11 11 

Wyoming 

Total scheduled depletions 621 719 735 750 763 

Critical Period CRSP Shared Evap. (% of 0.25 

maf) 35 35 35 35 35 

Total 656 754 770 785 798 

State share of 2007 Hydro-Det Amount (6.01 

maf) 834 834 834 834 834 

Remaining available 178 80 64 49 36 

Percent of State share available 21 10 8 6 4 

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 Reclamations 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: "Shared CRSP Evap." refers to the total and individual state portions of evaporation from the major 

Reservoirs constructed under the Colorado River Storage Project Act. These projects include Flaming Gorge, the 

Aspinall Unit Reservoirs and Glen Canyon. 

13 
Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

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

LOWER MAINSTEM 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Nevada 

Southern Nevada Water Authority 287 287 287 287 287 

Laughlin Area 4 4 4 4 4 

Mohave Steam Plant 0 0 0 0 0 

Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 9 9 9 9 9 

Total 300 300 300 300 300 

Arizona 

Lake Mead NRA 1 1 1 1 1 

Marble Canyon Co 0 0 0 0 0 

Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 73 73 73 73 73 

Mohave Valley I&D District 24 24 25 25 25 

Havasu NWR 5 5 5 5 5 

Lake Havasu City & Other Users 32 35 39 44 47 

Central Arizona Project 1372 1362 1351 1346 1343 

Parker & Other Users 10 10 10 10 10 

Cibola & Imperial NWR 4 4 4 4 4 

Cibola Valley I&DD 8 8 8 8 8 

Colorado River Indian Reservation 463 463 463 463 463 

Gila Gravity Main Canal 774 770 776 776 776 

Gila & Yuma Users 15 15 15 15 15 

Fort Yuma Reservation 1 1 1 1 1 

Other Users 20 29 29 29 29 

Total 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 

California 

Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 9 9 9 9 9 

City of Needles 1 1 1 1 1 

Havasu NWR 0 0 0 0 0 

Chemehuevi Indian Reservation 8 8 8 8 8 

Other Users & misc. present rights 2 2 2 2 2 

Metropolitan Water District 847 854 854 854 854 

Colorado River Indian Reservation 39 39 39 39 39 

Palo Verde Irrigation District 366 366 366 366 366 

Imperial Irrigation District 2645 2608 2608 2611 2611 

Coachella Valley Water District 429 459 459 456 456 

All American Canal (Yuma Project) 54 54 54 54 54 

Total 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 

14 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Unassigned 

Phreatophytes & Native Vegetation 632 632 632 632 632 

Yuma Desalting Plant 109 109 109 109 109 

Total 741 741 741 741 741 

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. 

Compliance with the Salinity Standards 

Reclamation and the Basin States analyzed the effects on the salinity of the river for the 

2020 Review. As part of the 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 

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. 

15 
 

 

 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

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 are a result of the highly variable flows 

caused by climatic conditions, precipitation, snowmelt, and other natural factors. 

Salinity Control 

Existing salinity control measures prevent nearly 1.22 million tons of salt per year from reaching 

the river. In 2021 the Salinity Control Program for Reclamation has controlled approximately 

550,000 tons of salt, while the NRCS program has reduced around 610,000 tons of salt, and the 

BLM has controlled an estimated 14,000 tons of salt per year from entering the Colorado River. 

In the 2020 Review it was determined that salinity control units will need to prevent nearly 

1.70 million tons of salt per year from entering the Colorado River by 2040, in order to meet the 

standard and keep the economic damages minimized. To reach this objective, as shown in Table 

4, the Salinity Control Program needs to implement 480,000 tons of new controls beyond the 

existing 1,220,000 tons of salinity control presently in place (2020) as reported by Reclamation, 

NRCS & BLM. On average about 24,000 tons per year of new salinity control measures must be 

added each year if the program is to meet the cumulative target of 1,700,000 tons per year by 

2040, assuming no degradation of existing salinity projects. However, due to expected funding 

limitations in future years, more tons of salt should be controlled sooner than later. 

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 deepwell 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. 

16 
 

Chapter 1 – Salinity Conditions 

Table 4 - Salinity Control Requirements and Needs Through 2040 

Measures in place (2020) 1,220,000 tons 

Plan of Implementation Salt to Control by 2040) 1,700,000 tons 

Annual Plan of Implementation Target a 24,000 tons 

a. This value is the amount of salt required on an annual basis to meet the potential 

available salt to control over the next 20 years. 

17 

 

 

Chapter 2 – Title I Salinity Control Program 

Chapter 2 – Title I Salinity Control Program 

The Salinity Control Act, 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 12 - Title I Salinity Control 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. 

19 
 

 

Chapter 2 – Title I Salinity Control Program 

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 

Updates for the Title I Projects since last Progress Report: 

USGS Estimation of Dissolved-Solids Concentrations Using Continuous 

Water-Quality Monitoring and Regression Models 

The USGS published a final Report for the Estimation of Dissolved-Solids Concentrations Using 

Continuous Water-Quality Monitoring and Regression Models at Four Sites in the Yuma Area, 

Arizona and California, January 2017 through March 2019. Scientific Investigations Report 

2021-5080. Here is the link to the report https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215080. 

The USGS currently has an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to 

demonstrate the ability of the USGS to serve online real-time continuous computed dissolvedsolids concentrations and real-time measured specific conductance. Continuous, real-time, 

specific conductance and water temperature is currently being monitored by the USGS at 4 sites: 

1) The Colorado River above Imperial Dam (09429490), 2) Colorado River below Cooper 

Wasteway (09522005), 3) 242 Lateral above Main Drain at Arizona-Sonora Boundary 

(09534550), and 4) Yuma Main Drain above Arizona-Sonora Boundary (09534000; fig. 1). 

Discrete water samples are being collected during the monitoring period for major constituents at 

each of the 4 sites. The major constituents of bicarbonate, calcium, carbonate, chloride, fluoride, 

magnesium, nitrate, potassium, silicon dioxide, sodium, and sulfate are being summed to 

compute dissolved-solids concentration. 

Reclamation currently has a 5-year Interagency with the USGS. Continuous real-time specific 

conductance will continue to be collected, reviewed, and published by the USGS from October 

2020 through September 2025. Concurrently, monthly major constituent sample will be 

collected, analyzed, reviewed, and published at the 4 sites from October 2020 through September 

2025. Specific conductance-dissolved solids regression models will be maintained for each site 

and available online. 

Unmeasured Flow Meters (UMF) Salinity Investigation Project 

An interagency agreement has been signed with the USGS to cover the portion of work the 

USGS will be doing. YAO is preparing to consult with the Quechan Tribe regarding the well 

sites that will be located on Tribal land. Well drilling is tentatively scheduled to start in 

February 2022. 

20 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 – Title I Salinity Control Program 

242 Well Field Expansion Project 

The 242 Well Field Expansion Project is substantially complete, water has been flowing since 

12-16-2020 to the Colorado River. The Yuma Mesa Conduit Extension Project is substantially 

complete and is in the process of "transfer to plant" signatories as of 11-11-2021. Water has been 

flowing to the 242 Lateral canal since 10-19-2021. 

Coachella Canal 

No new activity. 

Protective and Regulatory Pumping 

No new activity. 

Yuma Desalting Plant 

No new activity. 

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) 

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, with lettuce (iceberg and romaine) now the major 

crop. Irrigation efficiency levels and return flow levels for 1991-2019 (latest data available) are 

shown in Table 5. Efficiency values do not include a leaching fraction. 

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 drainage-pumping program that 

sufficiently maintains the agriculture root zone. Land users continue to maintain water efficient 

farming techniques with the use of sprinkler, drip, dead level, high heads, and short runs. 

21 
 

Chapter 2 – Title I Salinity Control Program 

Table 5 - WMIDD Irrigation Efficiency 

Year Drainage Return Flow 

(acre-feet) Irrigation Efficiency, % 

1991 144,900 68.8 

1992 116,200 70.4 

1993 8,970 68.8 

1994 49,820 65.4 

1995 121,500 64.3 

1996 119,600 60.4 

1997 91,695 62.2 

1998 98,972 61.9 

1999 94,869 63.0 

2000 110,287 59.7 

2001 107,908 60.9 

2002 119,410 61.2 

2003 116,477 57.8 

2004 106,002 63.3 

2005 110,770 64.6 

2006 103,810 62.3 

2007 112,910 62.6 

2008 120,190 63.0 

2009 105,482 62.7 

2010 111,170 66.1 

2011 108,140 64.9 

2012 115,630 64.1 

2013 107,860 67.5 

2014 111,390 64.6 

2015 106,170 63.9 

2016 99,130 67.6 

2017 101,064 66.6 

2018 104,209 69.9 

2019 98,205 62.3 

(note: data provided by WMIDD) 

22 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Chapter 3 - 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 Colorado 

River Basin. In order to accomplish this goal salinity control projects have been in various areas 

of the upper Colorado River watershed shown on the map below (Figure 13). To date the NRCS, 

Reclamation and BLM have controlled 1.2 million tons of salt annually and with current funding 

levels project to keep a total of 1.7 million tons of salt annually out of the Colorado River by 

2040. The current plan of implementation (Review) has a combined NRCS, Reclamation and 

BLM goal of controlling 62,400 tons of salt annually through 2023. These federal agencies are 

required to work together under the Salinity Control Act, as amended; with Reclamation being 

the lead federal agency. The Salinity Control 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. New activities since the last progress 

report as well as ongoing and active projects are listed in this chapter. The following updated 

agency information comes from information provided by the BLM, NRCS and Reclamation 

found in the 2021 Federal Accomplishment Report (FAR). 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

The BLM administers about 53 million acres of public land within the Colorado River Basin 

(CRB) and is required to reduce salt transport from these lands under the CRB Salinity Control 

Act of 1974 (as amended). In Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, the BLM allocated $2 million to salinity 

control projects in four states and the BLM National Operations Center (NOC). 

Program Administration 

The BLM’s Aquatic Habitat Management Program fosters a watershed approach to improve 

water quality on public lands in support of the agency’s multiple use and sustained yield 

mandate. 

The Aquatic Habitat Management Program coordinates activities within the BLM to achieve the 

following objectives of the CRB Salinity Control Program: (1) reduce salt and sediment 

transport; (2) develop additional capabilities to quantify and report the effectiveness of salinity 

and sediment control activities; (3) strengthen partnerships and increase collaboration with 

federal partners, states, and stakeholders; (4) improve availability and access to monitoring data; 

and (5) enhance and maintain technical expertise and project management capabilities. 

23 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Figure 13 - Title II Salinity Control Projects. 

Since 2015, the BLM has allocated an average of $1.7 million per year to the CRB Salinity 

Control Program (Figure 14) and estimates that salinity control measures implemented with these 

funds have prevented over 225,000 tons of salt from reaching the Colorado River and its 

tributaries (Table 6). 

FY21 CRB Salinity Control Program Funding Allocation and Accomplishments 

FY21 projects and funding are summarized in Table 7, and FY21 program activities are 

highlighted below. Estimates of salt retained from FY21 projects will be reported in FY22. 

24 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Table 6. Estimates of salt retained on BLM-administered lands within the CRB from projects receiving 

congressionally directed salinity control funding for the period FY15 – FY20 

Estimated Salt Retained 

State FY15 to FY19 FY20 

(tons) (tons) 

Cumulative Total 

(tons) 

AZ 

CO 

NM 

UT 

WY 

11,537 0 

6,000 308 

84,734 17,680 

38,630 5,441 

57,881 4,713 

11,537 

6,308 

102,414 

44,071 

62,594 

Total 198,782 28,142 226,924 

Figure 14 - BLM Funding for salinity control. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Table 7. FY21 allocation of CRB Salinity Control Program funding for each state or center 

Project Activity Collaborators Funding ($) 

National Operations Center 

Enhancement of APEX model MD TX A&M University, CO State 

University 400,000 

Informational management system MD TX A&M University, CO State 

University 160,000 

Colorado 

SC in the Dry Creek Travel 

Management Area SC - 225,000 

Dolores River restoration project SC Dolores River Restoration 

Partnership 25,000 

Monitoring salt loading from the Pine 

Gulch fire AM USGS 150,000 

Zone L geomorphic salinity analysis AM USGS 95,000 

Effects of base-level lowering on 

salinity and sediment near Rangely AM USGS 90,000 

Erosion rates in Zone L of the Grand 

Junction Travel Management Plan AM - 60,000 

New Mexico 

San Juan River watershed restoration SC NM Youth Conservation Corps 150,000 

San Juan River watershed vegetation 

management 

SC Southwest Conservation Corps, San 

Juan Fishing Guides Association 100,000 

Utah 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument salinity control SC U.S. Forest Service 100,000 

St. George Field Office salinity control SC - 100,000 

Kanab Field Office salinity control SC - 80,000 

Salinity loads in the Upper CRB AM USGS, Upper CRB Salinity Forum 37,750 

San Juan River salinity and sediment 

monitoring AM USGS, UT Dept of Environmental Quality 23,000 

Paria River District water quality 

inventory and monitoring AM UT Division of Water Quality, UT State University 10,000 

26 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Wyoming 

New Fork restoration and river access SC WY Game and Fish Dept., Trout 

Unlimited, BOR, and others 75,000 

LaBarge Watershed restoration project SC - 50,000 

Muddy Creek Watershed habitat 

improvement SC WY Game and Fish Dept., Trout Unlimited, FWS, USGS 50,000 

Savery Creek stabilization project SC WY Game and Fish Dept, Trout 

Unlimited 25,000 

Total 2,005,750 

(SC = Salinity control; MD = Model development and support; and AM = Assessment and monitoring). 

National Operations Center 

The BLM NOC is collaborating with Texas A&M University to develop an Agricultural 

Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) model to quantify sediment and salt transport from 

nonpoint sources on BLM-administered lands to the Colorado River. This is a multi-year project. 

In FY21, work focused on integrating surface-subsurface watershed modeling, wildfire impact 

assessment, salt transport modeling, groundwater refinement, snowmelt-streamflow assessment, 

and wind erosion. 

Work continued to link the APEX model to a MODFLOW groundwater flow model using a 

single modeling code. The current APEX model's snowmelt routine was revised to capture the 

snowmelt contributions to runoff. A manuscript titled “The Impact of Rainfall Distribution 

Methods on Streamflow throughout Multiple Elevations in the Rocky Mountains using the 

APEX model—Price River Watershed, Utah” has been submitted for publication. 

Landscape wind erosion was integrated into the APEX model to simulate wind-driven sediment 

transport and dust emission for rangelands, which is a major contributor to salt transport. A 

manuscript titled, “Modeling landscape wind erosion processes on rangelands using the APEX 

model” is being prepared for publication. 

The integrated APEX-MODFLOW watershed model was tested through applications to three 

watersheds: the Animas River, the Price River, and the Middle Bosque River watersheds 

(Figure 15). Results were compared to monthly streamflow and groundwater level data and 

simulated cell-by-cell recharge rates and groundwater-surface water exchange rates were 

assessed. 

Work continued to compile vegetation, soil, climate, land use, and hydrologic data for the six 

priority watersheds (Upper Green, Price, White, Animas, Dolores, and Gunnison River) 

identified by the Salinity Work Group, Science Team, and Forum. Quantification of sediment 

and salt loading from fire events continued. Over 5,000 events occurring since 1974 were 

evaluated to better understand their impact on sediment and salt transport. 

27 
 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Approximately 100 fire events impacting greater than 10,000 acres within the Upper CRB have 

been selected for further analysis due to the availability of cloud-free LandSat 7 data within the 

1-month pre- and post-fire period. Burn severity indices were evaluated in 30m x 30m pixels 

using leaf area index. The post-fire leaf area index illustrates the extent of biomass loss, which 

has serious implications to surface runoff processes, and salt and sediment loads to streams. 

Figure 15. Maps showing (A) depth to bedrock (m), (B) hydraulic conductivity (m/day), and (C) riverbed 

conductance (m2/day) for the Animas River, Price River, and Middle Bosque River watersheds. 

Colorado 

Zone L Geomorphic Salinity Analysis: The BLM collaborated with the USGS to conduct field 

work and develop models to identify relationships between watershed characteristics and areas of 

high erosion in Grand Valley, located in western Colorado. These data will be used to identify 

areas for erosion control. The USGS completed the project and presented preliminary results in 

May 2021; the final report is expected to be released in fall 2021. 

28 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Erosion rates in Zone L of the Grand Junction Travel Management Plan: Over 500 upland sites 

in western Colorado were sampled for soils, vegetation, and geomorphic inputs into the 

Rangeland Hydrology Erosion Model (RHEM) (Figure 16). 

Figure 16. Vicinity map of ongoing work in Zone L Off-Highway Vehicle area. 

All transportation routes were surveyed, and the data were used to run the Water Erosion 

Prediction Project Road (WEPP Road) model to calculate erosion from the current set of routes. 

Monitoring Salt Loading from the Pine Gulch Fire: The Pine Gulch Fire burned 138,680 acres 

northwest of Grand Junction in the fall of 2020. There are 15,799 acres of saline soils directly in 

the burn area and 148,533 acres downstream of the fire. Post fire modeling by the DOI Burned 

Area Emergency Response (BAER) team indicated that there will be a 2-to-3-fold increase in 

erosion and flow in the 1 to 7 years after the fire. Data collection will occur at existing and new 

USGS streamgages to characterize changes in water-quality downstream from the Pine Gulch 

Fire. Discrete water-quality sampling will occur in the Colorado River, Roan Creek, Big Salt 

Wash, and Salt Creek. In FY21, two monitoring locations were installed on Roan Creek and on 

Big Salt Wash. Crest gages were installed at 10 locations and two sediment fences have been 

installed (Figure 17). These data will be used to validate the models used by DOI BAER teams. 

Deer Creek Retention Dam Repair: Work began in FY19 to repair and stabilize the Deer Creek 

Retention dam, located about 6 miles upstream of the Colorado River in Horseshoe Canyon. The 

dam was built by the BLM to control sediment and to provide water for grazing. The soils 

around the dam and 22-acre pond have a moderate salinity content and are highly erodible. In 

29 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

FY20, earth work to repair erosional features and stabilize overflow channels was completed and 

temporary steel-jack fence was placed in late FY21. The BLM estimates that the dam and 

sediment filled pond had the potential to deliver 314,627 and 2,347,704 pounds of salt, 

respectively to the Colorado River prior to the repair. 

Figure 17- Pine Gulch sediment fence and stream gage locations. 

New Mexico 

San Juan River watershed vegetation management and restoration: In FY21, work continued to 

reduce salt and sediment transport to the San Juan River. In late FY21, the BLM began work 

with a partner through Restore New Mexico to implement aerial treatments that will reduce 

sagebrush and increase native grass cover on approximately 6,590 acres. A series of sediment 

fences will be constructed in an adjacent wash that is eroding and widening, along with planting 

and bank stabilization. The BLM is also collaborating with the San Juan Soil and Water 

Conservation District to expand previous work to control salt cedar and Russian olive in riparian 

areas to reduce salt and sediment transport in ephemeral and perennial stream systems in the San 

Juan River watershed. 

Utah 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument / Kanab Field Office salinity control: The BLM 

continued to repair and maintain salinity control structures in the sub-watersheds of the Paria 

River, Kanab Creek, Buckskin Gulch, and Upper Johnson Wash, which drain into the Colorado 

30 
 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

River. In FY21, nineteen salinity control structures ranging in size from 0.03 to 0.4 acres were 

cleaned out across the Monument (Figure 18), and two sediment dikes were repaired. 

Figure 18-Farnsworth Reservoir in the Kanab Creek watershed before (left) and after (right) sediment 

removal. 

The Telegraph Head Cut Repair project is a multi-year project to stabilize head cutting in 

Telegraph Flat on the southern border of the Monument. FY21 monitoring of the main head cut 

repair indicated that the repair was able to withstand monsoonal storms that occurred in July and 

August 2021 in southern Utah. 

Paria River District water quality inventory and monitoring: The BLM has contracted with 

RedFish Environmental to conduct inventory and monitoring in the Paria and Escalante Rivers to 

better understand salinity loads. Baseline water quality sampling was performed by field crews in 

FY21. Final data and results will be provided to the BLM in October 2021. 

St. George Field Office salinity control: The BLM repaired approximately 11 salt and sediment 

control structures in the Hurricane Fault Work Area within the Gould Wash and Fort Pearce 

watersheds, which drain directly into the Virgin River, a tributary to the Colorado River. 

San Juan River salinity and sediment monitoring: The BLM partnered with the USGS to collect 

sediment and streamflow data at the San Juan River stream gage near Bluff, UT. The San Juan 

River is a major source of sediment in the Upper CRB. All data were input into the National 

Water Information System for real-time conditions to benefit multiple interests, including the 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the BLM’s salinity control and modeling 

programs, as well as to increase understanding of the effects of the Gold King Mine release on 

the San Juan River and Lake Powell. 

Salinity loads in the Upper CRB: The BLM is collaborating with the USGS on a multi-year 

project to better understand how high-flow events affect salinity in the Upper CRB. Automated 

water sampling equipment were installed at USGS streamgages located on the San Rafael River 

31 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

near Green River and Dirty Devil above Poison Springs Wash. Successful sampling of high flow 

events occurred in the summer of 2021 and are being analyzed by the USGS. Data collection will 

continue through November 2022. These data will be used to validate models to quantify the 

effectiveness of salinity control activities. 

Wyoming 

New Fork restoration and river access: The lower New Fork River flows through an area of highdensity natural gas fields downstream from the confluence with the East Fork River. In FY21, 

approximately 3,500 ft of streambank were stabilized near a boating access ramp and well site. 

Erosion control work will continue along 1.3 miles of the river in FY23. 

LaBarge Watershed restoration project: The BLM is addressing accelerated erosion in the Big 

Piney-LaBarge project area, which is located within a 100-year-old oil and gas field containing 

more than 1,500 wells, a livestock grazing area, and a popular recreation area. The project area 

includes the Dry Piney Creek, Dry Basin Draw, and Birch Creek watersheds, tributaries to the 

Upper Green River. In FY21, funding was added to an existing contract with Jackola for 

engineering services to support the Tank Battery and Calpet Road Culvert Projects in the Birch 

Creek watershed, the restoration plan for erosion and incised channels in the Bird Draw subwatershed, and the development of a monitoring and maintenance schedule and database to track 

restoration activities. The Tank Battery Culvert Project addresses three misaligned culverts that 

cross an ephemeral channel in the Birch Creek watershed; the Calpet Road Culverts Project 

addresses a misaligned culvert on Birch Creek and a plugged upstream culvert, to prevent 

catastrophic collapse of sediment and salt into the Birch Creek channel (Figure 19). 

Figure 19. Calpet Road Culverts at Birch Creek. 

32 
 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Figure 20. Littlefield Creek restoration project. Photo taken summer 2021. 

Muddy Creek Watershed habitat improvement: Preparations began for the Littlefield Creek 

restoration project, a cooperative effort by the BLM, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Trout Unlimited, FWS, and the USGS (Figure 20). Littlefield Creek is a tributary to Muddy 

Creek, a major tributary to the Little Snake River and has experienced increased sediment 

loading over time. A USGS study will determine sources of sediment to Littlefield Creek and the 

removal of a fish barrier will reconnect the incised channel to its historic floodplain. This work 

will decrease streambank erosion, elevate the water table, expand the riparian area, and increase 

stream connectivity for native fishes. This project is expected to be completed in FY22. 

Savery Creek stabilization project: The BLM continued a multi-year cooperative effort with 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Trout Unlimited to reduce in-channel erosion and 

sediment and salt loading along approximately four miles of Savery Creek below High Savery 

Reservoir. Savery Creek is a major tributary to the Little Snake. This project implements natural 

channel design techniques on target reaches that exhibit unstable channel characteristics. Phase 2 

of this four-phase project was completed in fall 2020 and Phase 3 will begin in September 2021. 

Summary 

In FY21, the BLM continued to construct, maintain, and repair salinity and sediment and control 

structures, identify saline soils, and support projects that will improve the effectiveness of 

salinity control activities in the Colorado River Basin. Figure 21 summarizes the percentage of 

FY21 funding allocated toward these activities. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

The NRCS of the USDA conducts CRBSC activities primarily under the authorities of the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP was authorized by the 1985 Food 

Security Act (1985 Farm Bill) but received its first appropriation with passage of PL104-127, 

Federal Agricultural Improvement Act of 1996, a.k.a. “1996 Farm Bill.” 

EQIP has been reauthorized four times; (1) PL 107-171, The Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002, (2) PL 110-246, The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

most recently (3) PL 113-79, The Agricultural Act of 2014, and most recently (4) PL 115-334, 

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (4) PL 115-334 enacted on December 20, 2018. 

Through EQIP, NRCS offers voluntary technical and financial assistance to agricultural 

producers, including Native American tribes, to assist decision-makers to install conservation 

practices that correct environmental problems and that meet their environmental goals. Within 

the twelve salinity project areas, producers may be offered additional financial incentives and 

technical assistance to implement salinity control measures with the primary goal of reducing 

offsite and downstream damages to the Colorado River and its tributaries and to replace wildlife 

habit impacted as a result of the salinity measures. 

Following fund allocations to the NRCS Salinity Control Program for FY2021. At present NRCS 

leadership teams in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming anticipate obligating the majority of the funds 

allocated to Salinity EQIP in FY2021 as follows: 

Allocation 

Colorado - $6,500,000 

Utah - $4,000,000 

Wyoming - $250,000 

Totals $10,754,000 

Program History 

Progress in implementing the various projects is controlled primarily by annual federal 

appropriations. The Salinity Control Act provides funds for additional implementation from the 

Basin States Salinity Program. From the 1970s through 1986, the Agricultural Conservation 

Program (ACP) administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) 

provided financial assistance (cost share) to land users through long term agreements (LTAs) and 

the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) provided the technical assistance to plan, design, and certify 

practice implementation. From 1987 through 1996, the Colorado River Salinity Control Program 

(CRSCP) received dedicated annual funding, again with the ASCS administering the financial 

assistance and SCS providing the technical assistance. In 1995, Public Law 103-354 authorized 

the reorganization of several agencies of USDA. The ASCS was reorganized as the Farm Service 

Agency. The SCS was reorganized as the NRCS. Financial administration of the CRSCP was 

transferred to the NRCS where it has remained to the present. 

The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act (FAIRA) of 1996 (Public Law 104127) 

combined four existing programs including the CRBSCP into the newly authorized EQIP. Since 

the 1996, EQIP has been reauthorized through five consecutive farm bills and is currently 

authorized through FY 2023. 

In FY 1997, Reclamation began on-farm cost sharing from the Basin States funds that would 

parallel and supplement the EQIP. 

34 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Figure 21. Percentage of FY21 funding allocated towards 

salinity control, assessment and monitoring, and model 

development and support activities. 

 

$ (millions) 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

19801990200020102020

Tech. Assistance 

Basin States 

EQIP

CRBSCP 

ACP 

1978 1982 1984 1986 1988 1992 1994 1996 1998 2002 2004 2006 2008 2012 2014 2016 2018 2022 

Figure 22 - On-farm / near farm Allocations. 

35 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

NRCS personnel from project and area offices monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and 

quantity of salinity control, wildlife habitat, and economic trends in order to improve overall 

performance and management of the program. The program continues to function effectively and 

economically, though the nominal cost per ton of salt control is escalating in some areas. 

Monitoring and Evaluation Reports for FY 2019 can be found at: 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/co/programs/landscape/?cid=nrcs144p2_062765 

Status of Planning and Implementation 

USDA-NRCS continues to provide technical and financial assistance to landowners and 

operators to implement on-farm salinity control measures in twelve approved project areas in 

three Upper Basin states. Contract obligation figures reported are tentative as contracting is not 

complete for FY2021. Data are not yet available to update this section of the report to show 

FY2021 achievements. The locations of the following activities can be found in Figure 13. 

Grand Valley, Colorado 

Implementation has been underway in this unit since 1979 and NRCS considers that the salt 

control measures of the project have been successfully completed as planned. In 2010, a status 

report was compiled from field visits and observations. The report indicated that at least 

12,000 irrigated acres are no longer in agricultural production. Of the remaining 44,700 acres 

still in production, 42,435 acres or 95 percent had received varying levels of treatment. This unit 

has been designated as complete, but additional implementation continues at a reduced rated. 

No new contracts were obligated in FY2021. 

Lower Gunnison Basin, Colorado 

This project, which began in 1988, encompasses the irrigated farmland in the Gunnison and 

Uncompahgre River valleys. With the expansion into the upper headwaters of the Uncompahgre 

River in 2010, implementation continues in Delta, Montrose, and Ouray Counties. Nearly 

70 percent of the salt control goal has been achieved. 

Interest remains high in the project area particularly in those service areas that were awarded 

Reclamation grants for irrigation infra-structure improvements. In 2021 about $3.6M of EQIP 

was obligated into 46 new contracts to control an additional 2,898 tons of salt on 2,252 acres. 

There were three new wildlife habitat contracts obligated on 167 acres in 2021. 

Mancos Valley, Colorado 

This project, near the town of Mancos, Colorado, was initiated and approved for funding and 

implementation by USDA-NRCS in April 2004. In 2021 three new EQIP contract were 

developed for $78,040 to control 49 tons of salt on 62 acres. There was one new wildlife habitat 

contract obligated on 3 acres in 2021. 

McElmo Creek, Colorado 

Implementation was initiated in this unit in 1990. In 2021 14 new contracts were developed for 

$429,917 to control 162 tons of salt on 220 acres. 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Silt, Colorado 

The Silt Project, authorized in 2006, is Colorado’s newest project. In 2021, two new contracts 

were developed for $39,343 to control 9 tons of salt on 90 acres. 

Green River, Utah 

There were no new contracts in the project area in 2020. 

Manila-Washam, Utah 

In 2021, 3 new contracts were obligated for $280,118. When implemented, these measures will 

control about 188 tons on 147 acres. 

Muddy Creek, Utah 

In 2021, 4 new contracts were obligated for $204,093. When implemented these projects will 

control 163 tons on 118 acres. The canals and appurtenant delivery systems to Muddy Creek are 

currently being piped through various State, Local, and Federal funding sources. Interest for onfarm improvements in Muddy Creek is strong and completion of improvements to the delivery 

system is expected to facilitate a rapid conversion of the entire unit from flood to sprinkler 

irrigation. NRCS anticipates completion of the majority of the work in the Muddy Creek Unit 

within the next five years. 

Price-San Rafael, Utah 

In 2021, 7 new contracts were obligated for a sum of about $440,121. When implemented, these 

measures will control about 202 tons on 73 acres. There were three new wildlife habitat contracts 

obligated on 32 acres in 2021. 

Uintah Basin, Utah 

Implementation began in this unit in 1980. The original salt control goal was reached several 

years ago but about 60,000 acres might still be improved. Producer participation has exceeded 

the original projections. In 2021, 38 new contracts were obligated for a sum of about $2.5M. 

When implemented, these measures will control about 624 tons on 809 acres. There were five 

new wildlife habitat contracts obligated on 294 acres in 2021. 

Big Sandy River, Wyoming 

Implementation has been underway in this unit since 1988. Approximately 13,800 acres of the 

planned 15,700 acres have been treated (88 percent) and about 71 percent of the salt control goal 

has been reached. No new contracts were obligated in the Big Sandy Unit. Remaining untreated 

acres are largely controlled by producers not interested in implementing salinity controls, so 

salinity funds were not allocated to the Big Sandy Unit in 2021. 

Henrys Fork (of the Green River), Wyoming 

The Henrys Fork Project was officially adopted with the issuance of the Record of Decision, 

June, 2013. In 2021, one new contract was obligated in the Henrys Fork Project Area for a cost 

of $171,556 that will control 187 tons of salt on 400 acres. 

37 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Arizona 

The San Juan River Dineh Water Users, Inc. (SJRDWU, Inc.) provides irrigation water to 

Navajo Nation farmers along the San Juan River from Farmington past Ship Rock, New Mexico. 

The SJRDWU, Inc. has been aggressive in seeking funding to upgrade its delivery system. While 

NRCS has never designated this area a salinity control project there is hope that the improvement 

of delivery infrastructure will spur on-farm irrigation improvements. 

Areas Beyond Current Project Boundaries 

Even though some relatively high salt loading basins exist in both Colorado and New Mexico, 

local sponsors have not yet been inclined to pursue a salinity project designation. 

NRCS continues to have success in funding salinity control practices outside of its five 

designated project areas but within the Colorado River Basin (known as Tier II projects). In 

2021 Colorado NRCS obligated two Tier II contracts on 99 acres to control 182 tons of salt at a 

cost of $129,363. In 2021 Utah NRCS obligated two Tier II contracts on 141 acres at a cost of 

$280,602. Wyoming NRCS obligated no Tier II contracts in FY2021. 

The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (PL 115-334) authorizes NRCS to undertake 

irrigation conveyance improvements in partnership with Water Management Entities (WME). 

The first WME contracts were obligated in FY2021. Colorado NRCS obligated 5 WME 

contracts in Fy2021 for a cost of $1 million to control 385 tons. Utah NRCS obligated no WME 

contracts in FY2021. Wyoming NRCS obligated no WME contracts in FY2021. 

TDS Forecast Modeling 

The Water Operations Group of Reclamation publishes a 24-month forecast for Lake Powell. 

This forecast includes a minimum, most likely, and maximum hydrology scenarios for the 

upcoming 24-months. The three scenarios (min, most, and max) are published in January, April, 

August, and October. The remaining months consist of a most likely hydrology scenario. 

However, in response to DROA (Drought Response Operations Agreement), the modeling 

efforts have increased, and the three scenarios mentioned above (min, most, max) are published 

monthly. 

The Water Quality Group takes the forecasts and uses them to run the 2-dimensional model, CEQUAL-W2. This model is used to forecast temperature, TDS, and occasionally DO (Dissolved 

Oxygen). In FY 2021 (WY 2021), the model has been run each month with version 4.1 and the 

standardized Meteorological data file has been updated with each run. The various regressions 

(EC to TDS) used for the inflows to Lake Powell have also been updated from the most recent 

water samples sent to the lab. The resulting modeled TDS of the Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) 

discharge water is provided to the Lower Colorado region to be used as input for their water 

quality modeling of Lake Mead. 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Table 8 - Implementation Status (October 1, 2020) 

Irrigated 

Acres 

Treated 

Acres 

EIS 

Goal 

(tons) 

On-Farm 

Controls 

(tons) 

Off-Farm 

Controls 

(tons) 

1Total Tons 

Controlled 

Indexed 

Initial Cost 

($/ton) 

Nominal 

2020 

Cost ($/ton) 

Colorado Grand Valley 1977 44,600 43,449 132,000 137,597 7,134 144,731 55 90 

Lower 

Gunnison 1982 171,000 73,991 186,000 105,018 23,006 128,024 92 205 

McElmo 

Creek 1989 29,000 18,970 46,000 29,226 2,895 32,121 105 184 

Mancos 

Valley 2004 11,700 3,093 11,940 2,574 2,113 4,687 71 608 

Silt 2005 7,400 1,862 3,990 1,497 914 2,411 98 473 

Utah Uintah Basin 1982 226,000 162,451 140,500 142,990 9,957 152,947 187 282 

Price-San 

Rafael 1997 66,000 38,468 146,900 92,455 1,553 94,008 38 57 

ManilaWasham 2005 8,000 4,076 17,430 8,693 0 8,693 56 0 

Muddy 

Creek 2004 6,000 1,343 11,677 1,779 6 1,785 101 116 

Green River 2009 2,600 929 6,540 2,860 0 2,860 110 0 

Wyoming Big Sandy 

River 1988 18,000 13,933 83,700 58,654 114 58,768 42 0 

Henrys Fork 2013 20,700 345 6,540 277 0 277 249 115 

Tier II (all) 0 1,029 0 7,667 1,075 7,568 0 0 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Bureau of Reclamation - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Program 

Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) 

In FY 2021 Reclamation supported the salinity workgroup at meetings in February, June, and 

September in preparation for the 2023 Triennial Review. Reclamation preformed additional work 

to advance the salinity modeling capabilities of the CRSS model which is used to investigate 

control scenarios for the salinity workgroup. The model’s layout of upper basin water users was 

revised in February 2021. Additional improvements are required to enable and verify modeling 

of salinity in the new layout. Reclamation initiated this process and expects to have a working 

model by end of calendar year 2021. 

Reclamation reviewed and approved a USGS SLOAD update to the historical record for salinity 

load and concentration that extends the record through calendar year 2020. This flow and salinity 

concentration record comprises the USGS 20-gauge monitoring network including the 3 numeric 

criteria locations, below Hoover and Parker Dams, and above Imperial Dam USGS gages. 

Reclamation used SLOAD and other data sources to develop a natural flow and salt record at the 

monitoring locations that extends through calendar year 2019. This record will be used as input 

to in the CRSS model for the 2023 Triennial Review. 

Economic Impacts Model 

Reclamation maintains a Salinity Economic Impact Model (SEIM) that is used to estimate 

monetary damages due to salinity in Colorado River water. Damages are estimated in the 

metropolitan and agricultural areas that receive Colorado River water and presents costs in seven 

economic sectors including residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, water and 

wastewater utilities, groundwater and recycled water use. Economic damages are based on total 

dissolved solids (TDS) levels greater than 500 mg/L, the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

secondary safe water drinking standard for TDS. 

Previously the SEIM was run out of the Reclamation Denver Technical Service Center, now it is 

run out of the UCB Water Quality Group remote office located at the University of Colorado 

CADSWES in Boulder, Colorado. The input data includes water supply, water use, demographic 

data, and other data pertaining to each region in the lower Colorado Basin. In FY 2021, 

Reclamation initiated a plan to update input data in cooperation with the SEIM committee, a 

group of state and agency representatives. Monthly meetings of the committee were held to 

monitor progress of members obtaining relevant data updates. The model is also being extended 

through 2045. A release of the revamped model is expected to take place in 2021. This SEIM 

version will be used for the 2023 Triennial Review to estimate quantified damages in the Lower 

Colorado River Basin. 

40 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Science Team 

To further improve and expand our knowledge of salinity control methods, data, and modeling 

within the Colorado River basin, the Salinity Science Team was created. This team incorporates 

technical experts and coordinators from each Federal agency (Reclamation, USDA, NRCS, 

BLM, and the USGS) that provides salinity data and/or modeling and the Forum’s Executive 

Director. 

The following are some of the topics that were addressed by the Science Team during meeting 

held on May 2021: 

1. Funding/contract update of approved Research, Studies, and Investigations (SIRs) 

2. Review of SIR proposals for funding and recommending to the Advisory Council’s 

Technical Advisory Group (TAG) which proposals should receive funding. 

a. SIR 2021-01 Colorado River Indian Tribe Lands, AZ, USGS Salinity Sampling 

b. SIR 2021-02 Squaw Gulch, CO, USGS Salinity Sampling 

3. Update on Pah Tempe Study. This is an ongoing study regarding a potential salinity 

control project at the saline Pah Temp Springs. These springs flow into the Virgin River 

which is in southwest UT near St George, and is a tributary to the Colorado River 

flowing into Lake Mead. The springs discharge up to 100,000 tons of salt into the Virgin 

River annually. 

Basin-wide Salinity Control Program (Basin-wide Program) 

Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) 2022 

New applications to reduce salinity contributions to the Colorado River will be solicited through 

a FOA for both the Basinwide Program and Basin States Program (BSP). The NOFO is projected 

to be released sometime in 2022. 

Uintah Basin, Utah 

Ashley Upper and Highline Canals Rehabilitation Project: This project is located in Uintah 

County in the vicinity of Vernal, Utah. It was selected from the applications received in the 

2015 Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) and was submitted by the Ashley Upper 

Irrigation Company in conjunction with the Ashley Highline Irrigation Company. A cooperative 

agreement was executed in September of 2016 for $3,514,847 as a 25 percent Federal cost share. 

This project will replace approximately 21.9 miles of earthen canal and laterals with irrigation 

pipe resulting in the annual reduction of 2,713 reportable tons of salt in the Colorado River at an 

anticipated cost of approximately $54.00 per ton of salt. The project began construction in the 

fall of 2020 and is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2023. 

41 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Gunnison Basin, Colorado 

Clipper Center Lateral Pipeline Project: Selected under the 2015 FOA, the Crawford Clipper 

Ditch Company was awarded a $3.15 million cooperative grant to pipe approximately 4.3 miles 

of existing, unlined earthen irrigation canals located near Crawford, Colorado and along 

Cottonwood Creek, a tributary to the Gunnison River. This will result in an annual salt load 

reduction of approximately 2,606 tons to the Colorado River, at a cost effectiveness of 

$50.43 per ton. The piping project will consist of buried PVC and HDPE pipe. The cooperative 

agreement was executed in March 2016, and construction began in 2018. The pipeline was 

completed in the spring of 2020, and the habitat mitigation was completed in the summer of 

2020. The Crawford Clipper Ditch Company requested and was granted a modification to use the 

remaining funds to pipe 2400 ft of the Clipper West lateral, to be completed by Spring 2022. 

UVWUA Phase 9 – ESL: As a result of the 2015 FOA, the UVWUA was selected to be 

awarded a $5.4 million cooperative agreement for Phase 9 of the ESL. This phase involves 

piping or abandoning an additional 21.6 miles of laterals off the Selig and East Canals, resulting 

in an expected annual salt reduction of 6,030 tons, at a cost effectiveness of $37.07 per ton. A 

portion of the project is funded by the USDA, NRCS, through the RCPP. The cooperative 

agreement was executed in September 2017. Construction began in 2018 and the first and second 

phases of the project was completed. The last phase of the project was completed in the summer 

of 2021. 

Gould Canal Improvement Project A: Selected under the 2017 FOA, Gould Canal A was 

awarded a $4,294,027 cooperative grant for four stages of work. “Section 1” will be piping 

approximately 1.17 miles of existing open earth irrigation canal with buried HP Storm or similar 

pipe. “Upper Tunnel” consists of slip liner construction for the upper tunnel. “Section 3” 

includes lining approximately 1.41 miles of unlined canal with 30 mil PVC membrane with 

shotcrete cover. “Section 4” consists of lining approximately 0.76 miles of unlined canal 

downstream of Section 3 using the same method. All four section will be responsible for 

controlling approximately 3,137 tons of salt annually. Fruitland Irrigation Company requested 

and received a modification to change a portion of sections 3 and 4 from a lined canal to a 

pipeline. Construction of the pipeline is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2020. The project is 

expected to be completed by the spring of 2023. 

Gould Canal Improvement Project B: Selected under the 2017 FOA, Gould Canal B was 

awarded a $3,545,246 cooperative grant for three stages of work. “Lower Tunnel” consists of 

slip liner construction for the lower tunnel. Section 2 includes lining approximately 2.10 miles of 

unlined irrigation canal with 30 mil PVC membrane with shotcrete cover. Section 5 consists of 

lining roughly 2.30 miles of unlined canal using the same methods as Section 2. These 

improvements will control 2,564 tons of salt annually. Fruitland Irrigation Company requested 

and received a modification to change a portion of section 2 from a lined canal to a pipeline. 

Construction of the pipeline is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2020. The project is expected to 

be completed by the spring of 2023. 

Upper Stewart Ditch: Selected in the 2017 FOA, the Upper Stewart project near Paonia, CO, 

was selected to be awarded a $2,507,561 cooperative agreement for piping approximately 

2.6 miles of existing earthen irrigation canal. The pipe will consist of buried PVC pipe. This 

42 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

project will control 1,622 tons of salt annually with 20 acres of potential on farm improvements. 

Construction is scheduled to begin in November 2020 and was completed in the spring of 2021. 

Habitat mitigation expected to be completed by the end of April 2023. 

UVWUA Phase 10: As a result of the 2019 FOA, the UVWUA was selected to be awarded a 

$5.1 million cooperative agreement for Phase 10. This phase involves piping or abandoning an 

additional 19.2 miles of laterals off the Ironstone, M&D, Selig and East Canal systems, resulting 

in an expected annual salt reduction of 3,501 tons, at a cost effectiveness of $55.12 per ton. The 

cooperative agreement was executed in August 2020. Construction will begin in the winter of 

2021 and will be completed in the winter of 2024. 

Needle Rock Ditch: Selected in the 2019 FOA, the Needle Rock Ditch Piping Project near 

Crawford, CO, was selected to be awarded a $4,238,228 cooperative agreement for piping 

approximately 6.7 miles of existing earthen irrigation canals and laterals. The pipeline will 

consist of buried PVC pipe. This project will control 2,952 tons of salt annually. Construction is 

scheduled to begin in November 2022 and expected to be completed by the end of April 2023. 

Tuner/Lone Cabin Ditch: Selected in the 2019 FOA, the Turner and Lone Cabin Ditch project 

near Paonia, CO, was selected to be awarded a $6,195,859 cooperative agreement for piping 

approximately 25 miles of existing earthen irrigation canals and laterals. The pipe will consist of 

buried pipe. This project will control 3,398 tons of salt annually. Construction is scheduled to 

begin in November 2022 and expected to be completed by December 2024. 

Grandview Canal: Selected in the 2019 FOA, the GCIC Upper, Middle, and Lower pipeline 

project near Crawford, CO, was selected to be awarded a $6,360,984 cooperative agreement for 

piping approximately 4.1 miles of existing earthen irrigation canal. The pipe will consist of 

buried pipe. This project will control 3,553 tons of salt annually. Construction is scheduled to 

begin in fall of 2022 and expected to be completed by March 2024. 

Grand Valley, Colorado 

Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) 550 Salinity Control Program: Selected under 

the 2019 FOA, the GVIC was awarded a $1.2 million cooperative grant to line approximately 1.0 

mile of their main irrigation canal within the Grand Valley. This will result in a salt load 

reduction of approximately 743 tons annually at a cost effectiveness of $62.70 per ton. The canal 

lining will consist of a 30-mil PVC membrane with 3-4 inches of shotcrete cover. The 

cooperative agreement was executed in July 2020. Construction is scheduled to begin November 

2021 and completed in March 2024. 

Grand Valley Water Users Association (GVWUA) Government Highline Canal – Reach 1A 

Lower: Selected under the 2019 FOA, the GVWUA was awarded a $476 million cooperative 

grant to line approximately 1.2 miles of their main irrigation canal within the Grand Valley. This 

will result in a salt load reduction of approximately 3,083 tons annually at a cost effectiveness of 

$57.75 per ton. The canal lining will consist of a 30-mil PVC membrane with 3-4 inches of 

shotcrete cover. The cooperative agreement was executed in June 2020, and construction began 

in November of 2020. And is scheduled to be completed by March 2024. 

43 
 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Mancos, Colorado 

Webber Ditch Piping Project: Selected under the 2019 FOA, the Webber Ditch Company was 

awarded a $3.3 million cooperative grant for piping approximately 4.24 miles of existing earthen 

irrigation canal. The pipeline will consist of buried PVC pipe. This will result in a salt load 

reduction of approximately 2,066 tons annually at a cost effectiveness of $59.99 per ton. The 

cooperative agreement was executed in July 2020. Construction is scheduled to begin in 

November 2021 and to be completed in April 2024. 

New Mexico 

San Juan Dineh Water Users: Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Region’s Salinity Control 

Program entered into a cooperative agreement with the San Juan River Dineh Water Users 

(SWDWU) for financial assistance. The SJRDWU’s proposal, replacing earthen ditches and 

canals with enclosed piping and habitat replacement, will reduce the salt load of the Colorado 

River above Imperial Dam. The water user’s proposal plans on converting fifteen secondary 

laterals into underground pressurized pipelines. 

The project will be divided into two areas. The first area located in Shiprock Chapter is served by 

Hogback Canal and located west of the Hogback monocline. The 26-mile-long Hogback Canal 

diverts from the San Juan River at the Hogback Diversion and serves 8,830 acres. The project 

will convert 14 ditches into underground pressurized pipeline serving approximately 240 farmers 

on 2,077 acres. The total length of the new pipeline is 156,246 ft. 

The second area located in Nenahnezad Chapter is served by Fruitland Canal and located east of 

Hogback monocline. The 22-mile-long Fruitland Canal diverts water from the San Juan River at 

Fruitland Diversion and serves 2,224 acres. The project will convert Yellowman Lateral from an 

earthen ditch into an underground pipeline. Yellowman Lateral serves about 35 farmers on 

386 acres. The total length of the new pipeline is approximately 26,671 ft. 

Overall, the two sub-projects in Shiprock and Nenahnezad Chapters will total 2,463 acres and 

convert 182,917 feet of open ditches into underground pressurized pipelines. 

San Juan Dineh Waters Users completed the follow as of August 31, 2020: 

Completed Projects: 

• Habitat Mitigation project. The SJRDWU completed the habitat mitigation project which 

restored flow from the San Juan River to a historic secondary channel. The project also 

installed electromagnetic fish antennas for Reclamation used to monitor endangered fish. 

Construction was completed in November 2018. SJRDWU was able to remove the illegal 

diversion installed in the habitat mitigation channel in 2020. Water is now flowing the 

full length of the channel. 

44 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

• Little Mesa laterals was completed and commissioned in April 2019. The SJRDWU 

completed installation of the Little Mesa turnout. Pipelines which replace existing earthen 

ditches. The SJRDWU installed 8,285 ft of PVC pipe, completed four road crossing, 

installed 20 turnouts, and demolished all ditches. The pipeline was commissioned in early 

April. 

• H-58/59 laterals was completed and commissioned in June 2019. On June 26, 2019, 

SJRDWU hosted local vendors to demonstrate irrigation sprinklers and gated pipe to 

approximately 50 farmers. The demonstration included strategies on how to irrigate with 

pressurized water, sprinkler demonstration, and how gated pipes work. The 

demonstration was given on a farm served by the recently completed H58/59 pipeline. 

The pressure at the farm was 50 psi. 

• H-54 lateral was completed and commissioned in April 2020. SJRDWU installed 

20,305 ft of pipeline. 

• H-41 and H-44 lateral was completed in June 2020. The SJRDWU installed 

approximately 28,217 ft of pipelines and several turnouts. The pipeline was connected to 

an existing pipeline and will be commissioned in July 2020. 

• H-46 lateral was completed and commissioned in April 2020. SJRDWU installed 

approximately 20,480 ft of pipeline. 

• H-52 Lateral was completed and commissioned in April 2021. SJRDWU installed 

approximately 16,111 ft of pipeline. 

Unfinished Projects 

Yellowman Later construction began. The SJRDWU unloaded PVC purchased by the Navajo 

Nation for Yellowman Lateral and stored it securely in a yard located at Nenahnezad Chapter. As 

of this date, SJRDWU installed approximated 21,069 ft of pipeline. Construction on Yellowman 

Lateral is scheduled to resume in November 2021 and completed by April 2022. Four utility 

crossings remain to be completed. 

H-53 Lateral. A design has been completed for H-53 lateral. The total length of lateral designed 

is 22,445 ft. As of August 31st, 2021, SJRDWU has installed approximately 1,249 ft of pipeline. 

The H-53 lateral is scheduled to be completed by April 2022. H-53 lateral includes 70 field 

turnouts and 9 road crossings. 

H-50 Lateral. A design has been completed for H-50 lateral. The total length of lateral designed 

is 5,262 ft. As of August 31st, 2021, SJRDWU has installed approximately 100 ft of pipeline. 

The H-50 lateral is scheduled to be completed by April 2022. H-50 lateral includes 16 field 

turnouts. 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

#9 Ditch Lateral. A design has been completed for #9 Ditch lateral. The total length of lateral 

designed is 18,3912 ft. As of August 31st, 2021, SJRDWU has not started construction on the 

#9 Ditch Lateral, with construction to begin in November 2021 that will include 42 field turnouts 

and ten road crossings. The #9 Ditch lateral is scheduled to be completed by April 2022. 

San Juan Dineh Water Users – Shiprock Later Conversion Phase II: Selected in the 

2019 FOA, a cooperative agreement with the San Juan Dineh Water Users in the amount of 

$1.2M has been awarded that will control 751 tons of salt annually with a cost effectiveness of 

$60.64 per ton. The proposed project is to convert 15 laterals from earthen ditches into 

underground pressurized pipelines and to convert two sections of the Hogback Canal into a 

pipeline resulting in the elimination of a sluiceway that discharges flow back to the San Juan 

River via an artificial earthen channel. Overall, the proposed project will convert 6,393 ft of main 

canal into a pipeline, 47,110 ft of earthen laterals into underground pressurized pipeline, and 

eliminate a 2,770 ft of earthen sluiceway channel. Total areas served by the proposed project is 

1,405 acres. 

Basin States Program (BSP) 

Public Law 110-246 amended the Act creating the BSP to be implemented by the Secretary of 

the Interior through Reclamation. Section 205(f) of the Act was amended to provide that cost 

share obligations be met through an up-front cost share from the Basin Funds. The amendment 

also authorizes Reclamation to expend the required cost share funds through the BSP for salinity 

control activities established under Section 202(a)(7) of the Act. 

Reclamation has determined that agencies within the upper Basin states to be appropriate 

partners and has executed cooperative agreements to utilize the services of these state agencies to 

assist in seeking and funding cost-effective activities to reduce salinity in the Colorado River 

system. Activities will also benefit the upper Basin states by improving water management and 

increasing irrigation efficiencies. 

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) 

UDAF closed the Rock Point Irrigation Company contract on November 2, 2020. The company 

was in litigation with the contractor for minor cleanup and system leaks but certified that the 

system was functioning and would hold the state of Utah and Bureau of Reclamation harmless. 

This was the last implementation project given to UDAF from Reclamation. 

UDAF, at the direction of the Advisory Council and Reclamation, continues to employ the 

Uintah basin salinity coordinator using BSP funds. The work of the coordinator has benefited the 

salinity control program by creating interest and participation in the program. Because of the 

competitive nature of the FOA process and minimal salt loading in some of the salinity project 

areas, other funding has been necessary to reduce the cost per ton. The Coordinator has been 

effective in finding local funding from diverse sources to help fund projects. This has been a 

challenge to bring diverse funding sources together and make them fit into the salinity control 

46 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

program. Through his efforts several PL-566 watershed projects are moving forward that have 

significant salinity control. UDAF feels that using BSP funds for this position has greatly 

benefited the salinity control program in the Uintah Basin area and other salinity control areas. 

During the past year UDAF has been working with Reclamation and the basin states to 

determine how the states can move the salinity control program forward without administering 

construction projects. After several months of work, tasks were developed that would help the 

program and can be conducted by the states. These tasks were documented in new agreements 

with the states and Reclamation. The new agreement with UDAF has been signed and becomes 

effective October 1, 2021. 

Colorado Department of Agriculture - Colorado State Conservation Board (CSCB) 

The Colorado Department of Agriculture continues to employ a full-time salinity program field 

coordinator. The position is funded by the Basin States Program and makes it possible for the 

State to give input on salinity projects in the State’s portion of the Colorado River Watershed. 

The coordinator has now begun working with potential applicants for the next FOA. The 

coordinator has also been responding to a wide variety of other inquiries concerning irrigation 

improvements. Some of the proposed projects may become candidates for the next Reclamation 

salinity FOA. Others may be a better fit for NRCS funding or other sources of funding. The 

coordinator tries to engage at least briefly with all who seek his assistance, knowing that doing 

so creates a good reputation for his position. This reputation may yield more FOA applications in 

the long run. 

The coordinator was extensively involved in helping Lateral Ditch ML47 successfully complete 

its piping project. This was the last remaining BSP pass off project. The ML47 project was 

completed and operational in April of 2021 

The Coronavirus has restricted the coordinator’s travel for the past several months. This has 

decreased his ability to promote interest in the next Reclamation salinity FOA. However, his 

travel restrictions have eased, and he has been able to resume making site visits. 

Progress: BSP Projects: 

The following BSP projects are currently being administered by the Colorado Department of 

Agriculture and conservation districts. 

Ward B. Studt Headgate 275 Grand Valley Salinity Project Area ($85,875). The NEPA and 

design work are completed. The project is available to go to construction in the fall of 2020, but 

it is unclear if the owners will do so. 

Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) 

The WWDC provides state funding through grants and loans for water studies, master plans, and 

construction projects across Wyoming. WWDC project funding is provided to a public entity for 

projects including, but limited to, transmission pipelines, storage, reservoirs, irrigation 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

improvements, canal to pipe conversions, and system improvements. Day-to-day operations are 

managed by the Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) staff. The WWDO construction 

division administered the construction and study components of the Wyoming BSP program. 

At this time no Basin State programs in Wyoming have been delayed or canceled over the 

past year. 

Reclamation Notice of Financial Opportunity (NOFO) 2022 

Applications to reduce salinity contributions to the Colorado River will be solicited through a 

NOFO for both the Basin-wide Program and Basin States Program (BSP). The NOFO is 

estimated to be released later in 2022. 

Ongoing projects from past Funding Opportunity Announcement’s (FOA now NOFO’s). 

In the 2017 FOA, 4 projects were selected and are being administered by Reclamation. 

Muddy Creek Irrigation Company Piping Project Phase III: This project was selected from 

the 2017 FOA. A cooperative agreement was executed in September 2018 for the amount of 

$4,583,000. This project, located in Emery County, will replace approximately 37.5 miles of 

earthen canals with a pressurized pipeline system resulting in the annual reduction of 

3,010 reportable tons of salt in the Colorado River, and enabling 3,310 acres of potential on-farm 

work. This project is in the pre-construction phase with construction expected to begin in the fall 

of 2021. 

Root and Ratliff Salinity Pipeline Project: Selected in the 2017 FOA, the Root & Ratliff ditch 

Company was awarded a $3.6 million cooperative agreement to pipe approximately 5.5 miles of 

their main irrigation canal, located near Mancos, Colorado. This will result in a salt load 

reduction of approximately 2,347 tons annually at a cost effectiveness of $58.21 per ton. 

Construction began in the summer of 2021 and the project is expected to be completed by the 

spring of 2022. 

Shinn Park/Waterdog Lateral Salinity Reduction Project: Selected in the 2017 FOA, the 

Bostwick Park Water Conservancy District was awarded a $4.1 million cooperative agreement to 

pipe approximately 7.8 miles of unlined irrigation canals, located near Montrose, Colorado. This 

will result in a salt load reduction of approximately 3,304 tons annually at a cost effectiveness of 

$47.51 per ton. Construction is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2021 and the project is expected 

to be completed by the September of 2023. 

Jerdan, West, Hamilton Laterals Pipeline Project: Selected in the 2017 FOA, the Crawford 

Clipper Ditch Company near Crawford, CO, was selected to be awarded a $3,997,208.60 

cooperative agreement for piping approximately 6.7 miles of existing earthen irrigation canal. 

The pipe will consist of buried PVC pipe. This project will control 2,584 tons of salt annually 

with 20 acres of potential on farm improvements. Construction is scheduled to begin in 

November 2022 and expected to be completed by the end of December 2022. 

48 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

In the 2019 FOA, 3 projects were selected and are being administered by Reclamation. 

Interstate Canal Salinity Reduction project: This project was selected from the 2019 FOA. A 

cooperative agreement was executed in September 2020 for the amount of $5,284,119. This 

project, located in Southwestern WY, adjacent to the WY-UT border near McKinnon, WY, will 

replace approximately 13.1 miles of an unlined earthen canal with a pressurized HDPE pipeline 

system resulting in the annual reduction of 2,295 reportable tons of salt in the Colorado River. 

This project is in the pre-construction phase. 

Pilot Rock Ditch Piping Project: This project was selected from the 2019 FOA. A cooperative 

agreement was executed in June 2020 for $940,401. This project, located near Crawford CO. The 

Pilot Rock Ditch company will replace approximately 1.5 miles of an unlined earthen canal with 

a pressurized pipeline system resulting in the annual reduction of 665 reportable tons of salt in 

the Colorado River. This project is in the pre-construction phase with construction expected to 

begin in the summer of 2022. 

Short Ditch Extension Piping: This project was selected from the 2019 FOA. A cooperative 

agreement was executed in July 2020 for $548,687. This project, located near Hotchkiss CO. The 

Short Ditch Extension Company will replace approximately 1.1 miles of an unlined earthen canal 

with a pressurized pipeline system resulting in the annual reduction of 419 reportable tons of salt 

in the Colorado River. This project is in the pre-construction phase with construction expected to 

begin in the summer of 2022. 

Paradox Valley Unit (PVU), Colorado 

The Paradox Valley Unit was authorized for investigation and construction by the Salinity 

Control Act. The unit is located in southwestern Colorado along the Dolores River in the 

Paradox Valley, formed by a collapsed salt dome (Figure 23). Groundwater in the valley comes 

into contact with the top of the salt formation where it becomes nearly saturated with sodium 

chloride. 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. The project 

historically intercepted and disposed of 95,000+ tons of salt annually (Figure 24). 

49 
 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Figure 23 – Paradox Valley Geology. 

Induced seismicity and the pressure necessary to inject the brine into the disposal formation at 

14,000’ have been the limiting factors of the project. The injection pressure has been 

substantially reduced following injection rate reductions in 2013 and 2017, and seismicity is now 

the main concern. 

PVU operations were suspended on March 4, 2019, after a M4.5 earthquake occurred 

approximately 1.5 km SW of the injection well. The well remained shut in until April 21, 2020, 

resulting in the longest shut down since full time operation of the unit began in 1996. 

A thirty-nine-day injection test at a reduced injection rate was conducted form April 21, 2020 to 

May 29, 2020 to determine injection well performance after the extended shut-in since March 

2019. The test results showed little change to the well performance since the well was shut in on 

March 4, 2019. 

Following the thirty-nine-day injection test, Reclamation made the decision to remain shut down 

and allow the injection formation pressure to further dissipate to potentially extend the service 

life of the well. After further consideration, Reclamation elected to evaluate the potential risk 

associated with future induced seismicity through a formal seismic risk analysis. The risk 

analysis is currently underway and is expected to be completed by mid-2023. 

50 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Figure 24- Schematic of Paradox Project. 

PVU EIS 

Reclamation released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on December 11, 2020. 

The FEIS evaluated brine disposal alternatives to replace the existing brine injection well of the 

Paradox Valley Unit. Reclamation identified "no action" as the preferred alternative. The no 

action alternative includes continued operation of the PVU until it becomes no longer feasible to 

operate. 

51 
Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Table 9 - Paradox Well Injection History 

Injection Period Days of 

Operation 

Pressure 

Start 

High 

Pressure 

During 

Period 

Injection 

Period 

Net 

Pressure 

Change 

Tons of 

Salt1 

Injected 

Estimated 

Tons of 

Salt2 

Entering 

the River 

No. of 

Induced 

Seismic 

Events ≥

0.5 

Maximum 

Magnitude 

of Induced 

Seismic 

Events 

Jan-May '02 148 1609 4432 52,860 8,945 19 2.7 

June-Dec '02 178 929 4593 161 58,953 11,021 38 3.3 

Jan-May '03 144 1172 4627 34 53,173 19,545 31 2.4 

June-Dec '03 184 1154 4675 48 59,530 12,592 120 2.6 

Jan-May '04 140 1201 4640 -35 51,449 21,828 45 2.9 

June-Dec '04 160 1091 4541 -99 51,589 8,129 57 3.9 

Jan-May '05 140 1038 4736 195 55,024 18,194 52 2.8 

June-Dec '05 148 1203 4750 14 46,551 40,762 57 2.9 

Jan-June '06 138 375 4680 -70 44,779 53,893 103 2.4 

July-Dec '06 162 1084 4797 117 56,920 22,840 163 1.9 

Jan-June '07 159 1066 4796 -1 56,068 22,792 63 2.2 

July-Dec '07 163 1232 4712 -84 57,395 12,752 26 2.9 

Jan-June '08 160 1152 4813 101 54,720 20,936 21 1.3 

July-Dec '08 162 1263 4822 9 56,734 17,105 30 2.1 

Jan-Mar ‘09 84 1246 4756 -66 29,163 22,353 13 2.6 

Apr-Sept '09 160 1157 4891 135 55,083 17,892 42 2.7 

Oct ‘09-Mar '10 153 970 4930 39 51,589 32,739 40 2.9 

Apr ‘10-Sep '10 162 1347 4990 60 55,747 20,522 25 2.7 

Oct ‘10-Mar '11 161 1378 5000 10 55,501 23,410 246 2.9 

Apr ‘11-Sep '11 158 1276 5102 102 54,422 15,388 77 2.7 

Oct ’11-Mar ‘12 162 1282 5115 6 56,531 21,808 33 2.5 

Apr ’12-Sep ‘12 161 1417 5108 -7 55,605 6,392 32 2.1 

Oct ‘12-Mar '13 97 3149 5120 12 34,409 6,331 32 4.4 

Apr ‘13-Sep '13 162 498 4770 -350 45,769 13,099 11 1.8 

Oct'13-Mar '14 181 4059 4788 18 52,194 5,873 11 1.7 

Apr ‘14-Sep '14 182 4658 4758 -30 50,539 2,460 5 2.3 

Oct ‘14-Mar '15 181 4550 4758 0 50,305 22,856 9 1.1 

Apr ‘15-Sep '15 182 4483 4791 33 50,396 7,935 11 1.6 

Oct ‘15-Mar '16 180 4581 4758 -33 50,100 24,041 26 2.1 

52 
 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Apr ‘16-Sep '16 182 4633 4789 31 50,748 9,941 17 1.4 

Oct ‘16-Mar '17 161 4749 4803 14 44,955 27,652 32 2.9 

Apr ‘17-Sep '17 175 1511 4669 -134 46,215 11,548 50 2.6 

Oct ‘17-Mar '18 181 4674 4749 80 47,750 35,791 34 2.9 

Apr ‘18-Sep '18 179 4710 4814 65 46,764 12,985 29 1.8 

Oct ‘18-Mar '19 154 4704 4788 -26 40,567 20,917 196 4.5 

Apr ‘19-Sep '19 0 1336 1336 -3452 0 29,435 154 3.0 

Oct ‘19-Mar '20 0 49 49 -1287 0 37,212 46 2.5 

Apr ‘20-Sep '20 39 0 3573 3524 6,650 23,089 37 3.1 

Oct ’20-Mar ‘21 0 0 0 -3573 0 30,074 101 3.9 

1 Tons of salt injected based on 260,000 mg/L. Brine concentration varies slightly due to seasonal and environmental 

fluctuations. 

2 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”). The 

2010 FAR contained erroneous estimated tons of salt entering the river. 

3 Seismic data for 2006 and the first half of 2007 is incomplete due to seismic network problems. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Summary Data 

The following tables summarize the salinity control program and funding using the latest 

available data from the 2020 Review. 

53 
 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Table 10 – Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs (2020) 

Salinity Unit Tons / Year Removed 

MEASURES IN PLACE 

Ashley Valley WWTP 1/ 9,100 

Meeker Dome 48,000 

Las Vegas Wash Pitman 3,800 

Grand Valley (stage 1 & 2) 122,300 

Paradox Valley 2/ 0 

Lower Gunnison Winter Water (USBR) 41,400 

San Juan 52,700 

Blacks Fork 1,100 

Paria 1,800 

Grand Valley 160,300 

Price-San Rafael 161,500 

Uinta Basin 212,700 

Big Sandy River 71,400 

Lower Gunnison 214,600 

Dolores (McElmo Ck) 56,500 

Henry”s Fork, WY 500 

Mancos 6,100 

Muddy Creek 2,700 

Manila 23,300 

Silt 2,600 

Green River 2,700 

Tier 2 3/ 8,300 

BOR/NRCS/BSP Subtotal 1,203,400 

MEASURES IN PLACE BY BLM 

Nonpoint Sources 4/ 0 

BLM Well-Plugging 14,600 

Measures in Place Total 1,218,000 

GOALS TO REACH TARGET 

Reclamation (Basinwide Program) 27,800 

NRCS Program (EQIP) 30,100 

BSP 4,500 

2021 & 2022 Annual Goal 62,400 

Target Total (Measures in Place + Goals) 1,342,800 

Target by 2023 5/ 1,330,400 

1/ Off-farm projects funded by the BSP 

2/ Paradox injection well shut down in 2020; assumed continuation of well or alternative control beginning in 2021 

3/ Measures in areas outside approved projects. 

4/ BLM non-point source are estimates of implementation 

5/ Based on the 2020 Triennial Review Plan 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Table 11 – Summary of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Appropriations and Cost Share from the Basin Funds 2010 thru 2020 

Total Program ($1,000) 

Unit 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Subtotal 

Grand Valley O&M 766 1,030 967 1,133 1,414 1,685 1,734 1116 1,812 1197 1,849 14,702 

Paradox Valley O&M 2,823 2,745 2,427 2,344 2,632 2,681 3,733 3,329 3,059 4,241 2,854 32,868 

Lower Gunnison O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McElmo Creek 

(Dolores) O&M 

473 344 336 394 335 402 321 434 524 687 566 4,816 

USBR Basinwide 

Program 

6,704 8,493 8,298 8,679 7,015 7,293 9,391 8,547 10,374 8,381 10,305 93,480 

Subtotal (USBR 

Program) 

10,766 12,612 12,028 12,550 11,396 12,062 15,178 13,427 15,769 14,506 15,573 145,867 

USDA Program 14,583 16,382 15,485 13,354 14,488 15,226 11,791 15,319 17,618 16,320 16,377 166,944 

BLM (no Basin Funds) 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1,000 1,700 1,700 1,700 11,700 

Total 26,149 29,794 28,313 26,704 26,684 28,088 27,769 29,746 35,087 32,526 33,650 324,511 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Appropriations Expended ($1,000) 

Unit 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Subtotal 

Grand Valley O&M 766 1,030 967 1,133 1,414 1,685 1,734 1,116 1,278 1,197 2,348 14,668 

Paradox Valley O&M 2,823 2,745 2,427 2,343 2,626 2,681 3,733 3,329 2,875 4,241 3,992 33,815 

Lower Gunnison O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McElmo Creek 

(Dolores) O&M 

473 344 336 394 335 403 321 434 337 686 502 4,565 

USBR Basin-wide 

Program 

6,704 8,473 8,298 8,679 7,015 7,293 9,391 8,547 10,883 8,381 10,000 93,664 

Subtotal (USBR 

Program) 

10,766 12,592 12,028 12,549 11,390 12,062 15,179 13,426 15,373 14,505 16,842 146,712 

USDA Program 14,583 16,382 15,485 13,354 14,488 15,226 11,791 15,319 17,082 15,767 16,377 165,854 

Total 25,349 28,974 27,513 25,903 25,878 27,288 26,970 28,745 32,455 30,272 33,219 312,566 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Upper Basin Fund Cost Share Payments ($1,000) 2010-2020 

Unit 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Subtotal 

Grand Valley O&M 38 52 48 57 71 94 119 74 91 60 92 796 

Paradox Valley O&M 141 137 121 117 132 213 189 166 153 212 143 1,724 

Lower Gunnison O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McElmo Creek 

(Dolores) O&M 

30 22 22 25 21 44 31 28 30 44 36 333 

USBR Basinwide 

Program 

431 546 533 558 451 640 583 650 700 539 662 6,293 

Subtotal (USBR 

Program) 

640 757 724 757 675 991 922 918 974 855 933 9,146 

USDA Projects 1,289 802 862 931 1,603 1,009 1,005 778 897 1,049 1,053 11,278 

Total Payment 1,929 1,559 1,586 1,688 2,278 2,000 1,927 1,696 1,871 1,904 1,986 20,424 

57 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 – Title II Salinity Control Program 

Lower Basin Fund Cost Share Payments ($1,000) 

Unit 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Subtotal 

Grand Valley O&M 217 292 274 321 401 477 641 418 513 339 524 4,417 

Paradox Valley O&M 800 778 688 664 746 760 1,072 943 867 1,202 809 9,329 

Lower Gunnison O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McElmo Creek 

(Dolores) O&M 

172 126 122 144 122 147 176 158 191 250 206 1,814 

USBR Basinwide 

Program 

2,442 3,094 3,023 3,161 2,555 2,657 3,305 3,684 3,779 3,053 3,754 34,507 

Subtotal (USBR 

Program) 

3,631 4,290 4,107 4,290 3,824 4,041 5,194 5,203 5,350 4,844 5,293 50,067 

USDA BSP 1,844 9,949 8,909 8,171 4,315 4,291 5,859 4,694 5,269 6,181 1,258 60,740 

Total 5,475 14,239 13,016 12,461 8,139 8,332 11,053 9,897 10,619 11,025 6,551 110,807 

58 
 

 

Chapter 4 – Additional Water Quality Issues 

Chapter 4 – Additional Water Quality Issues 

Dreissenid Mussels in the Upper Colorado River Basin 

Continued monitoring for quagga and zebra mussels continue in the Colorado River Basin 

(CRB). No new waters have been found to contain these aquatic invasive species above Lake 

Powell in the basin. Other waters in the Upper Colorado River Basin, outside of the CRB, have 

not been found to contain any new populations of these mussels. New methods of 

decontamination are being implemented such as dip tanks for boats on trailers for boats leaving 

Lake Powell. One is located near the Wahweap marina near the dam. Another is being 

constructed, with the help of Reclamation funding, up-lake for the Bullfrog marina area. 

Figure 23 shows the Lake Powell Wahweap State line dip tank. This decontamination method is 

more efficient than the portable trailer based hot water sprays in general use for boat 

decontamination. 

Figure 25 – Boat Decontamination Dip Tank. 

59 
Chapter 4 – Additional Water Quality Issues 

Figure 26 - Decontamination Dip Tank at Stateline Launch Ramp Lake Powell, UT (UCR BOR photo). 

Water Quality Issues Related to Drought Conditions 

With the CRB in continued drought conditions, water quality issues related to the lower water 

levels of reservoirs, specifically related to dissolved oxygen and the temperature, becomes more 

pronounced. 

Using Lake Powell as an example, temperature of the penstock water generally stays within a 

8 degree range through the year. Historically, the reservoir mixing in early winter is generally 

only to the penstock and doesn’t mix into the deeper water below the penstock. As the reservoir 

elevation lowers the mixing in the winter goes into the deeper and cooler water which begins to 

warm this water. Figure 24 shows the temperature in Lake Powell forebay from Jan 2000 – Dec 

2021. It can be seen that when the elevation of the reservoir decreases the warmer water above 

the penstock elevation goes deeper into the reservoir, which then increases the temperature of the 

water discharged. Figure 25 shows how the temperature might increase in the penstock discharge 

water using CEQUAL W2 modeling. This warmer water discharged from the dam may have a 

negative effect on the fishery below the dam. Not only may this negatively impact the sport 

fishery, it may allow for other non-native fish to inhabit and thrive below the dam. These fish 

may then have a negative impact on the endangered fish in the Colorado River as they consume 

younger and smaller fish. 

60 
Chapter 4 – Additional Water Quality Issues 

Figure 27 – Annual change in the temperature at Lake Powell Forebay Jan 2000 - Dec 2021 

(UCB BOR Data). 

Figure 28- Projected Lake Powell Discharge Temperature change with lowering Reservoir elevation 

(UCB BOR model run). 

61 
 

 

Chapter 4 – Additional Water Quality Issues 

In Fig 28, the CEQUAL W2 model shows the temperature is projected to increase about 2 deg C, 

using the projected two-year hydrology from Nov 2021, as the water level of the reservoir drops 

to record low elevations. This is for both projected most probable and minimum probable 

hydrology, green and red line. The maximum projected hydrology, the blue line, shows a lower 

high temperature as the elevation of the reservoir would increase and there would be an increase 

in the spring cold water inflow volume. 

Levels of dissolved oxygen are mostly impacted by temperature and the biological and chemical 

activities in the reservoir. Warmer water will hold less oxygen than colder water, everything else 

being equal. Biological activities such as organic matter decomposition, removes oxygen from 

water as well as chemical reactions in the water. As the water elevation decreases sediment 

which was eroded from the surrounding landscape is exposed throughout the reservoir which 

was previously inundated. This sediment becomes available for resuspension from heavy rains, 

such as the monsoonal rains Lake Powell tends to get latter in the summer. Figure 26 shows a cut 

in the shoreline in Cha bay on the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell. This beach was fully covered 

with sand until heavy monsoonal rains cut this channel (10-15’ deep) through the middle of the 

beach. Considering the large surface area of Lake Powell and the many embayments, the amount 

of resuspended sediment entering the reservoir could be excessive under the right conditions. 

This suspended sediment increases biological and chemical activity which increases the oxygen 

demand in the water system reducing the dissolved oxygen level. From the late summer heavy 

monsoonal rains in 2021 which cut through and resuspended sediment reservoir wide, a low 

dissolved oxygen plume of water became established throughout the reservoir, seen in Figure 27, 

just above the penstock elevation. This hypoxic plume of water was not very thick and ended up 

mixing enough that the discharge water from Lake Powell didn’t get to levels which could have 

had an impact on the fishery below the dam. 

Figure 29- Monsoonal Rain Sediment cut in Cha Canyon, San Juan Arm Lake Powell. (UCB BOR photo) 

62 
Chapter 4 – Additional Water Quality Issues 

Figure 30 - Lake Powell Monsoonal Rain caused Reservoir wide Low Dissolved Oxygen Plume, Sept 

2021(UCB BOR data). 

63 

 

 

References 

References Cited 

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. 2012. Upper Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses 

Report 2006-2010. Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. 

Technical Report C – Water Demand Assessment. Lower Colorado Regional Office, 

Boulder City, NV. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey. 

2012. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Federal Accomplishments Report for 

Fiscal Year 2012. Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Bull, R.J. and F.C. Kopfler. 1991. Health Effects of Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products. 

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. 

65 
 

References 

Butler, D.L. 1996. Trend Analysis of Selected Water-Quality Data Associated with SalinityControl Projects in the Grand Valley. In the Lower Gunnison River basin, and at Meeker Dome, 

Western Colorado. Water Resources Investigation Rep. No. 95–4274, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Denver, Colorado. 

Colorado River Salinity Control Forum. 2020 Review. Water Quality Standards for Salinity, 

Colorado River System. Oct 2020. 

Cohen, M.I. June 2011. Municipal Deliveries of Colorado River Basin Water. Pacific Institute, 

Oakland, CA. 

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, Colorado. 

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, 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., Middelburg, R.F., Irvine, S.A. 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., 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. 

66 
 

References 

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. 

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. 

67 
References 

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 (DASH-Sodium): 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. 

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. 

68 
References 

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-TR-80-01, 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. 2012. Upper Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses 

Report 2006- 2010. Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

69 
 

References 

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. 

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 River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 2011. 2011 Review. Water Quality Standards for 

Salinity Colorado River System. 

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. 

70 
 

 

References 

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. 

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. 

71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

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. 

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. 

72 
 

 

References 

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. 

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. 

73 
 

 

References 

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. 

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. 

74 
 

 

References 

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. 

75 

Appendix A 

Salinity Control Monitoring Stations 

77 

Appendix A - Salinity Control Monitoring Stations 

Colorado River Basin Monitoring Stations 

Figure A-1 - Colorado River Basin 20 Stream Gage Locations. 

A-1 
 

Appendix A - Salinity Control Monitoring Stations 

Table A1 - Characteristics of the 20 Salinity Streamflow-gaging Stations in the Colorado River Basin 

U.S. Geological Survey 

streamflow-gaging 

station number 

U.S. Geological Survey streamflowgaging station name Site short 

name 

Latitude, in 

decimal 

degrees 

Longitude, in 

decimal 

degrees 

Elevation, in 

feet above 

sea level 

Drainage area, in 

square miles 

09217000 Green River near Green River WY GRWY 39.5589 -107.2909 5,760 4,556 

09234500 Green River near Greendale, UT GDALE 39.2391 -108.2662 4,814 7,986 

09251000 Yampa River near Maybell, CO YAMPA 38.9833 -108.4506 4,628 7,923 

09302000 Duchesne River near Randlett, UT DUCH 38.7972 -109.1951 4,165 4,580 

09306500 White River near Watson, UT WHITE 38.8105 -109.2934 4,090 24,100 

09315000 Green River at Green River, UT GRUT 41.5164 -109.4490 6,060 14,000 

09328500 San Rafael River near Green River, UT SANRAF 40.9083 -109.4229 5,594 19,350 

09071750 Colorado River above Glenwood Springs, CO GLEN 40.5027 -108.0334 5,900 3,383 

09095500 Colorado River near Cameo, CO CAMEO 40.2103 -109.7814 4,756 3,790 

09152500 Gunnison River near Grand Junction, CO GUNN 39.9789 -109.1787 4,947 4,020 

09180000 Dolores River near Cisco, UT DOLOR 38.9861 -110.1512 4,040 44,850 

09180500 Colorado River near Cisco, UT CISCO 38.8583 -110.3701 4,190 1,628 

09355500 San Juan River near Archuleta, NM ARCH 36.8019 -107.6986 5,653 3,260 

09379500 San Juan River near Bluff, UT BLUFF 37.1469 -109.8648 4,048 23,000 

09380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ LEES 36.8647 -111.5882 3,106 111,800 

09402500 Colorado River near Grand Canyon, AZ GRCAN 36.1014 -112.0863 2,419 141,600 

09415000 Virgin River at Littlefield, AZ VIRGIN 36.8916 -113.9244 1,764 5,090 

09421500 Colorado River below Hoover Dam, AZ-NV HOOVER 36.0153 -114.7386 675 171,700 

09427520 Colorado River below Parker Dam, AZ-CA PARKER 34.2956 -114.1402 301 182,700 

09429490 Colorado River above Imperial Dam, AZ-CA IMPER 32.8837 -114.4674 183 188,500 

[Latitude and Longitude datum: NAD83; Elevation datum: NGVD29.] 

A-2 
Appendix A - Salinity Control Monitoring Stations 

Figure A-2 – Salinity Project Locations. 

A-3 
Appendix A - Salinity Control Monitoring Stations 

Figure A-3 - Colorado River Flow and Salinity (UCB BOR – Jeremiah Drewel). 

A-4 
APPENDIX B 

20 Station Flow and Salinity 

Appendix B - 20 Station Flow and Salinity 

Figure B-1 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 1-4. 

B-1 
Appendix B - 20 Station Flow and Salinity 

Figure B-2 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 5-8. 

B-2 
Appendix B - 20 Station Flow and Salinity 

Figure B-3 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 9-12. 

B-3 
Appendix B - 20 Station Flow and Salinity 

Figure B-4 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 13-16. 

B-4 
Appendix B - 20 Station Flow and Salinity 

Figure B-5 - Flow and TDS over Time for Sites 17-20. 

B-5