SUMMARY REPORT 

for 

 PARADOX VALLEY 

SALINITY CONTROL UNIT 

 by 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

June 2008 i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1

Project Purpose ..............................................................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................2

Alternatives Investigated ...............................................................................................................3

Table 1: Summary of Preliminary Candidate Alternatives .......................................................4

Findings ...........................................................................................................................................5

Result of Investigations..................................................................................................................6

Table 2: Summary of Alternatives Technical, Economic and Environmental Merits ...........6

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................7

APPENDIX A

Phase 1 Technical Memorandum – Identification of Potential Methods 

APPENDIX B

Phase 2 Technical Memorandum – Evaluation of Salinity Control Alternatives Technical Merit 

APPENDIX C

Phases 3 and 4 Technical Memorandum – Evaluate Environmental and Economic Feasibility 

APPENDIX D

Trip Report 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

July 2008 1 of 7 

Executive Summary 

The Bureau of Reclamation Staff understands the need to plan for the future operation of the 

Paradox Valley Unit Salinity Control Program. A Request for Proposals was issued in October 

2007 to identify and investigate potential methods and combinations of methods for controlling 

the salt load to the Dolores River at the Paradox Valley. 

The Franson Civil Engineers (FCE) Team was awarded the contract and a kick off meeting was 

held on December 20, 2007. Reclamation Staff provided an extensive project history and the 

FCE Team prepared a schedule for the deliverables which were: 

• Phase 1 Technical Memorandum, Identification of Potential Methods, 

• Phase 2 Technical Memorandum, Evaluate Technical Merit of Alternatives, and 

• Phases 3 & 4 Technical Memorandum, Evaluate Environmental and Economic. 

These documents, which identify and investigate proven alternatives as well as unique 

alternatives, are included as Appendices to this Summary Report. Reclamation Staff and the 

FCE Team worked together during the development of these reports. 

The alternatives investigated during this study can be divided into three categories. The first 

category consists of alternatives that would reduce the volume of brine flowing towards the 

Dolores River, thus reducing the volume of brine to be treated/injected. The second category 

consists of alternatives that treat/inject the brine removed by the extraction system. The third 

category is composed of combinations of the various alternatives. The most effective way to 

limit salt loading to the Dolores River is a combination of alternatives. These are described in 

further detail in this Summary Report. 

The FCE Team Concludes that the existing system should continue operating in its current 

manner and that some of the identified alternatives possess sufficient merit for further 

consideration. Studies to verify concepts and gain a greater understanding of the hydrogeology 

of the area may also be justified. 

Project Purpose 

The purpose of this project was to identify supplemental and alternative approaches to managing 

the brine extracted by the wells adjacent to the Dolores River. Since deep well injection was 

identified as the preferred alternative in 1982 the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) was interested in 

knowing whether any technological advances, had become feasible options of brine 

disposal/treatment. FCE was contracted to identify brine disposal alternatives. In investigating 

options for brine disposal/treatment, it became apparent that there were also alternatives 

available that may reduce the amount of brine to be disposed of or treated. Although outside of 

the initially identified project purpose, these alternatives have been included in the study because 

they offer the potential to improve the salt removal and cost effectiveness of the existing and 

future system. These brine volume reduction alternatives are presented as a supplement to a 

brine disposal/treatment system, not a replacement. 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

July 2008 2 of 7 

The FCE Team has evaluated the alternatives based on technical, environmental and financial 

feasibility but not political or social feasibility. Thus, an alternative that is identified as 

technically, environmentally, and financially feasible may not be politically or socially feasible. 

For example, Alternative 11, Agricultural Land Management, is likely politically infeasible but 

has been included in the alternatives carried forward through the various phases because it has 

met the evaluation criteria identified in the Approach to Work. BOR will choose what 

alternatives to study further, based on the information presented here and other factors, such as 

political feasibility, that were not evaluated as part of this project. 

Introduction 

Over 30 years ago, the Paradox Valley was identified to be a major contributor of salt loading to 

the Colorado River Basin. Operational since 1996, the Paradox Valley Salinity Control Unit 

(Unit) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project (CRBSCP) was designed to control 

natural brine inflow to the Dolores River by intercepting it, thereby preventing substantial salt 

loads from entering the river and degrading the water quality of the Colorado River’s main stem. 

The brine is intercepted by pumping a series of nine shallow brine extraction wells adjacent to 

the river and disposing of it by injection into a 16,000 foot deep well to a brine reservoir. When 

the system is operating, 230 gpm of brine is injected. 

Well testing began in 1991 and over the history of the project more than one million tons of salt 

have been intercepted and disposed of. Since the Unit’s inception, many and various changes 

have occurred to the deep well brine injection process with the process continuing to evolve. 

Over the years, studies and tests have been conducted to determine the life of the injection well. 

Current projections are that the injection well can be used for 10 to 20 more years. The Bureau 

of Reclamation (Reclamation) determined that alternatives needed to be evaluated in order to 

select the best options to continue brine removal into the future. It is hoped that new 

technologies for salt removal will be more cost effective than deep well injection. 

Three Technical Memoranda (TM) were prepared to identify potential methods, evaluate 

alternatives based on technical merit, and based on environmental and economic feasibility. 

Phase 1 Technical Memorandum identified 16 potential methods. Phase 2 Technical 

Memorandum evaluated the 14 alternatives based on technical merit with emphasis on volume of 

brine to be removed and identified major structural components, their operational characteristics 

and relative cost and cost effectiveness. The Phase 3 and 4 Technical Memorandum discussed 

the environmental and economic feasibility of the remaining alternatives. 

This Summary Report is a compilation of the memoranda’s to provide the Bureau with one 

reference report. The three technical memoranda are included as the Appendices. 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

July 2008 3 of 7 

Alternatives Investigated 

Key team members made a site visit on January 9 and 10, 2008, which is documented in a Trip 

Report to Reclamation. The Trip Report can be seen in Attachment D. As a result of this visit, 

team members collaborated to identify sixteen plausible alternatives, including an initial 

technical screening of the technical adaptability and effectiveness of each potential method, as 

described in the Phase 1 TM. Additionally, potential methods can be combined to create other 

alternatives, these are identified in the Combined Alternatives Section, which identifies what 

alternatives can replace the current system and can be used to improve the efficiency of the 

current or proposed system. Table 1 summarizes the alternatives with their respective 

advantages and constraints, originally identified in the Phase 1 TM. The type of alternative is 

also indicated in the description column of Table 1. Type 1 corresponds to an alternative that 

reduces the volume of brine flowing towards the river. Type 2 corresponds to an alternative that 

treats or injects extracted brine. Type 3 is a combination of Types 2 and 3. 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

July 2008 4 of 7 

Table 1: Summary of Preliminary Candidate Alternatives 

Alternative

Advantages Constraints 

No. Description 

1 Enhance existing injection 

system (type 2) 

Optimize existing facilities Limited opportunities 

2 Additional injection well 

(type 2) 

Recent technological improvements 

Increased system flexibility 

Maintain reduced seismic activity 

Siting challenge – drill through salt 

dome 

Relatively expensive 

Technical constraints 

3 Divert West Paradox Creek 

(West Valley, last 5 miles) 

(type 1) 

Reduces infiltration to West Valley; 

potentially reduces brine volume to 

extraction wells, Relatively economical 

Environmental 

Political (water rights) 

4 Zero-liquid-discharge (ZLD) 

(type 2) 

Crystallizer technology demonstrated 

Suitable for application 

Optimize extraction schedule 

Expensive, High power required 

Solar power not suitable in peak 

periods 

5 Dewvaporation (DV) 

(type 2) 

Favorable innovative technology 

Recent technological improvements 

Not demonstrated at project salinity 

levels 

6 Other innovative treatment 

(SAL-PROC, Vibratory Shear 

Enhanced Process, Product 

Recovery from Brine, burning 

salt water) (type 2 and ) 

Promising technologies (research level) 

Potential end product benefits (magnesium) 

Not demonstrated extensively 

Single-vendor patent costs 

7 Enhanced Leakage Pit (type 2) Eliminates surface storage Application limited to Australia 

8 Salt bricks (type 2) New opportunity 

Potential end product benefits 

Technical rationale questionable 

Technique not demonstrated 

Single vendor 

9 Conventional evaporation 

basins (1,400 acres) 

(type 2) 

Positive elimination of brine 

Relatively economical construction 

Environmental waterfowl injury 

Land costs 

May require bird netting 

10 Diversion Tunnel 

(Dolores River Siphon 

Crossing of Paradox Valley) 

Eliminates brine inflow to river 

Technique demonstrated in Combined 

Sewer Overflow applications 

Technical challenges 

Residual seepage at other areas 

Expensive, Environmental Issues 

11 Agricultural Land Management 

(convert irrigated farmland to 

wildlife habitat) (type 1) 

Eliminate / reduce return flow 

5-year demonstration 

Options (near river – Paradox Basin) 

Institutional issues 

Environmental issues 

Adverse social impacts 

12 Add liner to West Paradox 

Creek Wetlands (100 ± acres) 

(type 1) 

Reduce brine outflow 

Maintain environmental benefits 

Bentonite available locally 

Relatively economical 

Requires cooperation of private 

owners,Wildlife damage to liner 

Approval of Division of Wildlife 

Critical construction scheduling 

13 Increase consumptive use by 

phreatophyte growing (type 1) 

Salt uptake 

Wildlife attractions (SW Flycatcher) 

Loss of agricultural lands 

14 Integrated evaporation pond 

and treatment (type 3) 

Optimize existing facility 

Process heat source for ZLD 

Limited existing installations 

15 Line bed and banks of Dolores 

to prevent upwelling of brine 

(type 1) 

Stop upwelling of brine 

Technically demonstrated 

 (amphibious barge) 

Residual seepage at other areas 

Construction impacts 

High cost 

16 Fresh Water Cutoff Wells 

(type 1) 

Reduce or eliminate the circulation of 

groundwater through the salt dome thus 

eliminating the brine. 

Understanding groundwater system 

well enough to locate wells 

Adversely impacting current wells 

and water rights, drying up wetlands 

Alternative type: (1) Brine volume reduction, (2) Treat/inject extracted brine, (3) combination of types 1 and 2
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

July 2008 5 of 7 

Findings 

The Phase 1 Technical Memorandum, Identification of Potential Methods, identified 16 

alternatives, with 4 options as part of Alternative 6, for reducing salt loading to the Dolores 

River. Of the 16 identified alternatives, 10 were evaluated for technical merit in the Phase 2 

Technical Memorandum, Evaluation of Salinity Control Alternatives Technical Merit. The 

Phase 2 TM justified the elimination of Alternatives 7, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 16 and options 6C and 

6D of Alternative 6. During the evaluation of technical merit, Alternative 6A, SAL-PROC and 

Alternative 12, line West Paradox Creek Wetlands were eliminated from further evaluation. 

The Phase 3 and 4 Technical Memorandum, Evaluate Environmental and Economic Feasibility 

justified the elimination of Alternative 12 and option 6A of Alternative 6 based on the 

environmental and economic feasibility. Utilizing the numbering system used in the Phase 1 

Technical Memorandum, the following alternatives have been eliminated from further 

consideration: 

• Alternative 6A, SAL-PROC; 

• Alternative 6C, Product recovery from brine; 

• Alternative 6D, Burning salt water; 

• Alternative 7, Enhanced leakage pits; 

• Alternative 8, Salt bricks; 

• Alternative 10, Diversion tunnel; 

• Alternative 12, Line West Paradox Creek wetlands; 

• Alternative 13, Increase consumptive use by phreatophytes; 

• Alternative 15, Line bed and banks of Dolores River; and 

• Alternative 16, Fresh water cutoff wells. 

The alternatives further evaluated in Phases 3 and 4 Technical Memorandum included: 

• Alternative 1, Enhance existing injection system; 

• Alternative 2, Additional injection well; 

• Alternative 3, Divert West Paradox Creek; 

• Alternative 4, Zero Liquid Discharge; 

• Alternative 5, Dewvaporation; 

• Alternative 6B, Vibratory Shear Enhanced Process; 

• Alternative 9, Conventional evaporation basins; 

• Alternative 11, Agricultural land management; and 

• Alternative 14, Integrated evaporation pond and treatment approaches. 

A summary of the results for the alternatives further evaluated in the Phases 3 and 4 Technical 

Memorandum is in the following sections. 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

July 2008 6 of 7 

Result of Investigations 

Table 2 summarizes the relative technical, economic and environmental merits of the alternatives 

evaluated in the Phase 3 and 4 Technical Memorandum. 

Table 2: Summary of Alternatives Technical, Economic and Environmental Merits 

Alternative 

No. 

Alternative Name 

Relative 

Technical 

Merit 

Environmental 

Feasibility 

Capital 

Cost 

($ Millions) 

Annual 

O&M Cost 

($ Millions) 

Tons of 

Salt 

Removed 

per Year 

Expected 

Relative Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/Ton) 

1 Existing Collection and 

Injection System Good Excellent 66.3 2.9 109,000 66 

2A Replacement Injection Well 

Only Good Excellent 84.4 2.9 109,000 76 

2B Additional Injection Well 

operated with Current Well Good Excellent 84.4 3.0 109,000 68 

3(A) Divert Lower West Paradox 

Creek Good Poor 1.3 <0.005 4,000 19 

3(B) West Paradox Pressurized 

Irrigation Good Excellent 6.0 0 48,700 7 

3(C) Divert West Paradox Creek Excellent Poor 14.0 0 8,000 94 

3(D) Divert West Paradox Creek 

with Pressurized Irrigation Excellent Poor 18.0 0 56,700 17 

4A ZLD – 8 months only during 

daylight Good Excellent 40.2 0.55 35,000 110 

4B ZLD – 8 months, 24 hrs per 

day Good Excellent 72.7 2.33 70,000 120 

4C ZLD – 8 mo. Daylight only, 4 

mo. 24 hrs/day Good Excellent 40.2 0.85 41,000 104 

4D ZLD 12 mo, 24 hrs/day Good Excellent 72.7 2.63 76,000 116 

5 Dewvaporation Unproven Excellent 12.0 3.5 109,000 46 

6(B) Vibratory Shear Enhanced 

Process (VSEP) Questionable Good unknown unknown 109,000 unknown 

9(A) Conventional Evaporation 

Basin – Radium Site Good Fair 103.0 3.6 109,000 79 

9(B1) 

Conventional Evaporation 

Basin – 

East Paradox Valley Without 

Nets 

Good Fair 129.0 0.075 109,000 66 

9(B2) 

Conventional Evaporation 

Basin – 

East Paradox Valley With Nets 

Good Good 220.0 0.075 109,000 148 

11 Agricultural Land 

Management Good Good $71,500/yr. <0.05 26,800 3 

14 Integrated Evaporation Pond 

and Treatment Approaches Fair Good 12.9 1.1 159,000 86 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

July 2008 7 of 7 

Conclusion 

The FCE Team has had the opportunity to study in detail the current operations of the Paradox 

Valley Salinity Control Unit. Over a period of three decades, Reclamation has fine-tuned and 

adjusted the management of the Unit facilities to meet evolving challenges. Those actions have 

resulted in a stable and reliable operation to effectively prevent about 109,000 tons of salt from 

entering the Dolores River and causing damages in downstream water use areas. The FCE Team 

concludes that the current management of the Paradox Unit is being accomplished in a 

professional and effective manner and the involved Reclamation staff deserves to be recognized 

for their good work. 

Given the fact that the current injection well will not operate indefinitely options for its successor 

have been identified. The FCE Team has identified alternatives that have the potential to replace 

or supplement the existing injection well, that may be more cost-effective than the current 

operations. This project has identified viable alternatives for consideration. BOR may want to 

further explore the viability of these alternatives by utilizing a “concept verification" approach 

similar to that used on the Meeker Dome Salinity Control Unit in the early 1980s. Concept 

verification would involve conducting pilot scale tests of alternatives such as ZLD and 

Dewvaporation. 

Given that the alternatives to reduce the volume of brine are based on a limited hydrogeologic 

understanding of the Paradox Valley, BOR may choose to conduct further studies to better 

understand the fresh water/brine interaction. In recent years, remote sensing technology has 

radically improved the ability of scientists to understand how underground fresh water and saline 

water systems interact. In a recent investigation of sources of saline water entering the Rio 

Grande in southern New Mexico, scientists with the US Geological Survey (USGS) have used 

helicopter electromagnetic data (HEM) to physically identify how sources of saline and fresh 

water interact as they approach the Rio Grande. The FCE Team believes that this technology 

could possibly assist with developing a better understanding of how deep percolation from 

irrigated agriculture interacts with other ground water sources and the saturated brine that 

reaches the Dolores River area. If BOR is interested in pursuing HEM the person to contact at 

the USGS is: 

Wade H. Kress 

Supervisory Hydrologist 

Texas Water Science Center 

West Texas Program Office 

U.S. Geological Survey, WRD 

944 Arroyo Drive 

San Angelo, Tx 76903-9345 

325-944-4600 Office 

325-280-1351 Cell 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

 

APPENDIX A 

Phase 1 Technical Memorandum – Identification of Potential Methods 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

 

APPENDIX B 

Phase 2 Technical Memorandum – Evaluation of Salinity Control Alternatives 

Technical Merit 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

 

APPENDIX C 

Phases 3 and 4 Technical Memorandum – Evaluate Environmental and 

Economic Feasibility 
SUMMARY REPORT

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

 

APPENDIX D 

TRIP REPORT 
T RIP R EPORT - J ANUARY 9-10, 2008 S ITE V ISIT 

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

 1 

On January 9, 2008, members of the FCE Engineers Team (the Team) visited the Paradox Valley 

Salinity Control Unit (Unit) in the area of Bedrock, Colorado. Team members included Layne 

Jensen, Bill Everest, Walt Fite and Michael Clinton. The purposes of the site visit were to (1) 

familiarize the Team with the current physical layout and condition of Unit facilities, (2) obtain 

copies of available operational data and documentation, and (3) observe areas adjacent to the 

Unit collection system to identify possible alternative methods of achieving the Unit’s salinity 

control objective. 

The Team stayed in Moab, Utah, on the evening of January 9 and traveled through La Sal to 

Bedrock on the morning of January 9th. A heavy snow storm began as the Team traveled to 

Bedrock. The Team arrived in Bedrock about 10:00 AM and met with Reclamation’s Facility 

Operations Specialist, Andy Nicholas. Mr. Nicholas introduced the Team to members of his 

staff, as well as on-site employees of the contractor operating the Unit’s facilities. 

The Team spent the morning with Mr. Nicholas, who provided a number of file reports 

describing the planning and construction of the Unit. The Team also discussed the current 

operational strategies, including the current injection strategy, which includes twice yearly 

shutdowns to rest the well. Mr. Nicholas indicated his feeling that the current injection strategy 

has minimized both seismic and injection well back-pressure concerns, although the long-term 

operational viability of the injection well is still a concern. 

Significant time has been spent discussing how the saline aquifer is being recharged. Mr. 

Nicholas indicated that he has seen little evidence of Dolores River water entering the collection 

well system. In reviewing a graph showing daily Dolores River flow and daily salt loading, the 

Team observed that there have been short-term occurrences when changes in river flow (stage) 

result in inverse changes in daily salt loading – this suggests that there may be a “bank storage” 

process operating within the banks of the Dolores River. Mr. Nicholas also told the Team that he 

has observed saline rivulets along the West Bank of the Dolores River when an adjacent wildlife 

pond (Pond No. 3) is filled. There may be a possibility that when the pond was excavated, the 

excavation cut into the gravel formation that connects the halite beds and the Dolores River. The 

option to line Pond 3 was discussed. 

In addition, the Team discussed the Unit’s operational results. The Unit has been injecting about 

110,000 tons of salt per year, while salt loading to the Dolores River has been reduced by about 

150,000 tons per year. We discussed possible reasons for this anomaly, including the influence 

of recent drought conditions on West Paradox Creek, as well as improved irrigation methods 

(side roll and center pivot sprinklers) on irrigated farmland in West Paradox Valley. The 

irrigated farmland supports a population of about 200 people living in the West Paradox Creek 

Basin. 

The Team discussed the availability of groundwater monitoring data. Mr. Nicholas told the 

Team that they have 40 groundwater monitoring wells – water levels are read at the beginning 

and end of each operational shutdown period. It appears that those data could be used to 
T RIP R EPORT - J ANUARY 9-10, 2008 S ITE V ISIT 

P ARADOX V ALLEY S ALINITY C ONTROL U NIT

 2 

calibrate a model of the groundwater flow network. Mr. Nicholas indicated that Reclamation 

owns 340 acres in the area. 

Following lunch, Mr. Nicholas drove the Team on a tour of the area. Sites visited included most 

of the collection wells, two of the EC Meter sites on the Dolores River, the abandoned Union 

Carbide evaporation pond site, the facility where the flow from the collection wells is monitored 

and filtered before being transmitted by pipeline to the injection facility, the Conoco Well 

location (possible site for an additional injection well), farmland on the west side of the Dolores 

River, the wildlife ponds (including Pond 3) and the injection well location. Because power to 

the facility was shut off for maintenance reasons, the Team did not enter the injection facility. 

Team members took many photographs during the field tour. 

Following the field tour, the Team returned to Moab via Grand Junction because of the ongoing 

snow storm. 

On January 10, the Team met in Moab and developed a list of additional information that would 

be requested from Reclamation. The Team also developed a preliminary list of alternatives 

before returning to their respective offices.