Tentative water quality control policy, Colorado River in Arizona

              STATE OF ARIZONA _ ........_.__"_," ,,~ '.__ h

Tentative

! if!. TE~_~~ A~! rr"~_~~ T~~_ L."_ p O~!~ X.

COLORADO RIVER IN ARIZONA - • N. __ • ..__ ,,,__._,,.• ••__""

FOREWORD

The purpose of this poT icy statement, in addition to the obvious purpose

of endeavoring to preserve and enhance the quality of Colorado River

water, is to formulate and adopt a water quality control policy docu­ment

for Interstate Streams in Arizona as required under the following

State and Federal Acts:

1. Federal Water pollution Control Act, as amended.

2. Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 14.

While these statutes are essentially designed towards the same endeavor,

terms and definitions used therein may differ somewhat. Specifically,

the _~ ater ~ l! y.__ cr:.. Lter ia .. and i!!!. p. lement~. t ion__.~ nd ~! lfQrcement..- Q. l a' 1~ ca 11 ed

for in the Federal Act are presented in this pol icy document as_} l. ater~

Cont ro 11 ed, WateL. Q!:@ l. L! Y._ Q.!?. l~ cti~ es,! 1easur. es_.!~~<:'~!~'!'~._~~ ter.:_ g,~~ lL~ y..

Q.~ lec~ lve~.! and LJReJ~ me' 1_~~. tlo'lQLQltle~! lx~~~ The support I ng data re­quired

by the Federal Act is supplied in Description of Area andfln~.. l!'! 9_~ J_

- BObeJneecftiTcVia" lesW.-- a- t- e- r..... U--- s.- e- s---. t-- o--.- b-- e-.-- P..- ro- t- ec- t. e- d, and . R-- a- t. i- o- n-- a. 1-- e- f- o. r_'. W.- a- te. r._--. Qua_ f._ f- t- y..

Conferees from Arizona met with conferees from the other six Colorado

River Basin States. They discussed common problems associated with the

quality and quantity of water in the Colorado River in view of present

and future use, and Jointly prepared Guidelines for Formulating Water

Qual ity Standards for the Interstate Watersor-- the C'olo · radoRiverSy · s · tem.

Acopy · · of- theTa- te- st- d- raft- ort- hese-- gui de flnes- appears- Tn the- Append i xa~

Exhibit 20.

~~ tlOCUMENT IS THE PROPEf\ TY HUM BE A ; ~ -- 1_ l{ 8. · · · 1" ~ Of' THE ...... .. J ' l...

Ilr DEPARTM £ NT OF

11

1UBRARYA~ f) ARCHIVES R~ C! IV£ DAPR 2 1970

Ii: - AfH% ONA -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Waters Controlled by this Pol icy • • .. .. e .. I

DesMcariinptiSotenmooffAtrheae CanodloFraidnodinRgisver,.. W• ate• rshe• d •.. .•. 2

Tributaries .. Arizona • • .. • • • • • • 3

TTrriibbuuttaarriieess .... UNetavhada.. •• •.. •.. •• •• •.. •• •.. .•. 65

Tributaries .. Ca 1ifo rn ia .. .. • • • • .. .. 6

History of Area • • .. .. • • .. • .. • .. 6

EDciovneomrsyioannsd. R. e. so• urce.. s o.. f A.. rea• •• .... •• •.. •.. .•. 117

BenWefaitceiraQl uWalaitteyr CUsoenssitdoerbaetioPnros. tec• ted•. .•. •.. •" •.. 1185

Water Qual i ty Obj ect ivas • • • • *' .. • " .. 21

Measures to Achieve Water Qual ity Object ives 24

RImatpiloenmael netaftoiornWoafteOr bQjueacltiitvyesO. bj• ect. i. ves.. •• .•. . II. I •• 3319

•

WATER Q, UALITY CONTROL POLICY

for

COLORADO RIVER IN ARIZONA

1- 0 WATERS CONTROLLED

1- 1 This Water Qual ity Control Pol icy appl ies to the Interstate waters in the main

stem of the Colorado River in Arizona from the Utah- Arizona border to the Southerly

International Boundary with the Republ ic of Mexico, and to all those streams con­tributing

water to the main stem of the Colorado River from Arizona. The main stem

and tributary features are shown on the map below. The Gila River System upstream

from its confluence with the Colorado River will be covered by a separate pol icy.

This Water Qual ity Control Pol icy includes the Virgin River which passes through

the northwest tip of Arizona on its way from Utah to Nevada to Lake Mead.

Dam Site

Site

1NEW

: MEX.

I

Charleston loam

------- I -

Dam Site

- 1-

Existing Dams

Proposed Dams ­,..,

2- 0 DESCRIPTION OF AREA AND FINDINGS ='".__._ w · _ · · "~'__'_ · · _'_

2- 1 The Main Stem of the Colorado River: The gross watershed of the Colorado

River- encompasses portionS- of~ he states- of'Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico,

Arizona, Nevada, and California, as shown on Plate 1. The upper portions of the

watershed are drained by the Green, Colorado, and San Juan Rivers. These main

tributaries in turn drain into lake Powell, which is located behind Glen Canyon

Dam hear the Utah- Arizona boundary. Flows of these major tributaries into Lal<;;

Powell provide approximately 90 percent of the total waters available to the

lower main stem of the Colorado River. The average annual undepleted flow of

the Colorado River is approximately 15 million acre- feet.

Enroute to lake Powell, river waters in the Upper Basin ( that portion upstre: l'n

of Glen Canyon Dam) are diverted, used, and returned to the systeme The ma.: 0~

such diversions and returns are regulated by control structures which are oper­ated

under the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamat\ on c

Ma! ly_ of__!- he Burea~_~_~_~': l_! ho~ J;~~ p!.~ l~ c~~__~! l. t '!~_~. Efl~!-~~~ l':!._ r:~~~_~!!..!~ .~~ __ ~.,?~ T1:'

~ t r~~! c:~ L __~! I_~_~~_':'_' i __~~!..~~ l_':'~__ EE? l~_~~_~ __ ar~_.!'<?~_: t~ ~__ f~! lY~_~_~~!~_ e~_ d.

Waters released from Glen Canyon Dam flow in the main stem to lake Mead which

is located behind Hoover Dam. Lake Mead provides most of the storage and ; 0. qu­lation

in the lower Colorado River Basin. Hydroelectric power is generated at

both Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. lake Mead will serve as the supply reservoi~

for the Southern Nevada Project. Return flow from the Southern Nevada Project

will reach Lake Mead through Las Vegas Wash g

Water released from Hoover Dam flows into Lake

is located just north of the Nevada- California

for re- regulation of releases from Hoover Dam.

at Davis Dam.

Mohave behind Davis Dam which

botlndary. Lake Mohave is used

Hydroelectric power is generated

Water released from Davis Dam crosses the Nevada- Arizona- California boundary

and flows through the broad Mohave Valley for 33 miles before reaching the

upper end of Lake Havasu. Lake Havasu, which is a widened portion of the

Colorado River located behind Parker Dam, is about 45 miles in length. The

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California diverts water from Lake

Havasu for transport to the coastal regions of Southern California. The Central

Arizona Project plans to divert water from Lake Havasu for transport to Central

Arizona. Hydroelectric power is generated at Parker Dam.

Proceeding downstream, Headgate Rock Dam, located near Parker, Arizona, is used

to divert water for irrigating the lands of the Colorado River Indian Reservation

in Arizona. There is essentially no storage behind this dam, and no hydroelectric

power is generated. Some returns from drainage of the reservation lands reach

the Colorado River north of Palo Verde Diversion Dam, but the principal drain

empties into the river south of this dam.

Palo Verde Diversion Dam, which also has essentially no storage, is used to

divert water just north of Blythe, California, for irrigation in the Palo Verde

Valley of California. While there are some minor drainage returns to the

Colorado River from Palo Verde Valley along the adjacent reach, the predominate

farm drainage returns from Palo Verde Valley are via Palo Verde Lagoon- Outfall

- 2-

Drain at the most southerly end of the Valley.

Cibola Valley, on the Arizona side, is located near the southern tip of Palo

Verde Valley. River water is pumped into Cibola Valley for irrigation.

Imperial Reservoir is located behind Imperial Dam, approximately 15 miles north

of Yuma, Arizona. Imperial Dam is the major diversion structure for irrigation

projects in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys and Yuma areas. Releases made

to the mainstream below Imperial Dam are essentially for the purpose of satisfy­ing

treaty obligations with the Republ ic of Mexico. There is only minor river

water storage behind Imperial Dam. No hydroelectric power is generated.

' I Senator Wash Dam and Reservoir are located on the Cal ifornia side of the Colorado

River immediately upstream from Imperial Dam. The reservoir provides offstream

regulatory storage and has a maximum capacity of 13,400 acre- feet. To provide

regulation, water is either pumped from the Colorado River into the reservoir or

released back to the river. Water released from the reservoir generates hydro­electric

power. The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that approximately 170,000

acre- feet of water can be saved annually by short- term storage of releases from

upstream dams in excess of downstream requests for water deliveries.

Laguna Dam, which is located about six stream miles below Imperial Dam, serves

as somewhat of a foundation support for Imperial Dam. There is only minor water

storage behind Laguna Dam. The area between Imperial and Laguna Dam serves as

a depository of silt removed by the desilting works at Imperial Dam. The impor­tance

of this desilting operation is covered in Section 3- 5.

The routing of water diverted from Imperial Dam and measured surface return

flows to the Colorado River between Imperial Dam and the Republ ic of Mexico

Boundary is difficult to describe verbally, and is better explained schematically

in Plate 2.

Waters reaching Morelos Dam, just south of the Northerly International Boundary

with the Republic of Mexico, are diverted into the Mexicali Valley for domestic,

irrigation and other beneficial uses.

AT PRESENT ESSENTIALLY NONE OF THE COLORADO RIVER WATER IS WASTED DIRECTLY INTO

THE OCEAN and the management afforded by the present system of storage reservoirs

permits delivery of the highest quality water now economically possible consider­ing

that the supply is fully utilized. Water will be wasted to the ocean only

after all of the upstream reservoirs are filled to storage capacity and all

beneficial uses have been satisfied. This condition is not anticipated in the

foreseeable future.

2- 2 Tributaries to the Colorado River from Arizona; There are numerous tribu­tar

fes-- to-- the- Coforad- oRTver-- from- A- Flzona--- in-- fhe- loo river mil es between Page

( Glen Canyon Dam) and Yuma, Arizona. A brief description of the significant

ones follows J and available specific data on quantity and qual ity of water con­tributed

appears in Exhibit 1 in the Appendix where applicable. The Total

Dissolved Solids ( TDS) change given for each tributary is for present conditions.

As the flow from the Upper Basin decreases, the effect is expected to increase

by up to one- third from each tributary.

- 3-

a.

c.

_,' par: J~ JUve. r.,.- The Pai" ia River joins the Colorado River just downstream

of the Lees Ferry USGS gaging station. The river flows through re­mote

country from Southern Utah. The water has a high mineral content,

but is relatively free of other contamination. The TDS load at the

Colorado River is increased less than 2 mg/ l by flow from this tribu­tary.

( See Appendix 1.)

Little Colorado River - The Little Colorado River joins the Colorado

iffver'- about-' SS- ffiiles" below Lees Ferry. The river essentially starts

in eastern Arizona near Greer, although there are some minor inter­mittent

flows in creeks from New Mexico. The water has a medium to

high sal inity, depending on the flow rate. A major problem is the

contribution of salts from Blue Springs, about 13 miles upstream from

its mouth on the Navajo Indian Reservation. These springs contribute

about 547,400 tons of salt per year to the Colorado River. The TDS

load of the Colorado River is increased by about 28 mg/ l by this

tributary, with about 20 mg/ l attributable to the Blue Springs. The

problem is being investigated at the present time by the Bureau of

Reclamation. ( See Appendix 1.)

ju.. l.. 9- I:! L~ lliI § ., L~ r,~~~,- The Bright Angel Creek enters the Colorado River

from the north in Grand Canyon National Park. The flow is mostly

from springs near the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, and the quality

of the water is good. The TDS load of the Colorado River is decreased

about one ( 1) mg/ l by the dilution effect of this tributary. ( See

Append ix 1.)

d. Japea; s. ireek ~ Tapeats Creek is fed by springs on the north side of

the Colorado River in the northwest portion of Grand Canyon National

Park, a very remote and primitive area. The meager data indicate the

discharge is of low mineral ization, and the dilution would reduce the

TDS load of the main stem flow of the Colorado River by about 2 mg/ l.

( See Appendix 1 3 )

e. _ Kan~~ Creek.~, Kanab Creek has a drainage area of about 1,600 square

miles, of which about 1,000 square miles is in southern Utah. The

river crosses the border between Kanab, Utah and Fredonia, Arizona.

The water is fairly high in mineralization, but the total flow is

relatively small. The TDS load of the Colorado River is increased

less than one ( 1) mg/ l by this tributary. ( See Appendix 1.)

f. Havasu Creek - Havasu Creek drains the Coconino Plateau south of the

' Coforado-' R! ve'r and enters the river about 13 mi les downstream from

Kanab Creek. This is a remote area, and is inhabited by the Havasupai

Indians. The very meager water flow and quality data indicates good

quality water of low mineralization. The TDS load of the Colorado

River is decreased by about 0.5 mg/ l by dilution from this tributary.

( See Appendix 1.)

g. }( l. r~~ Jyer: The Vi rg i n River beg i ns in Utah, and flows into Ar i zona

near Littlefield, then into Nevada near Mesquite, and then into Lake

Mead. The Virgin River contributes about 350,000 tons of salts per

year to the Colorado River System, and the quality of the water is

.. 4-

~ Tributaries discussed in Section 2- 2

COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED

GROSS BASIIII AREA: 242,000 Sq, Mi.

~

~

APPROXIMATE SCALE

I INCH = 100MILES

PLATE I

UPPER BASI"!

AREA'IIO, OOOSc;. Mi

LOWER 8ASIN

AREA: 132,000 Sq. Mi.

GILA & YUMA

AUXILIARY

PROJECTS

PLATE 2

867,600 AF

Gravity Main Canal

ARIZONA

I

rz., 1

3.3. z. 32., 0 AF .. 1 c: x: t

~ I

° 1...

U\

...::: t l

..- 1 1 _____ _' t _

Southerly International Boundary

MEXICO

.. 8 ..:.:. t.

C\ J I

~ I,

LAGUNA DAM I I

I

Nort~ G~}~ V~ l~ y_ .. . J 1 I

7,910 AF I ,

South Gila Valley J I

4.5; 871 AF'- - - - - - I 1

1! al?- te~ aL R~ tu. rns_ _ _ _. J I

39,480 AF I

_ W~~ Ll:.! O~- M~ h!! W!:. Dra~ n 1° 2,1< 2.0fl

Gila River

79, °

AF ' t

4,970,000

MEXICO

CALIFORNIA

All American Canal

YUMA PROJECT

RESERVATION

DIVISION

IMPERIAL AND

COACHELLA

PROJECTS

~~------,

§ ...

U\

U\

U\...

C""\

WATER YEAR

1962

-- -> Measured surface return flows

-~>~ Diversions

1-- ID'i1'-,.......~ YUMA PROJECT

~ I co rz., VALLEY DIVISION

0@ 1 c: x:

H

01

: x: I CITY OF

~ YUMA

I . J:: 1

L7g9~ 3Q. 0_¥_,_ ~ I 1

: _~_ J

1 ..- 11'- 0

1 GlI: D- Northerl~ Interna~~ onal Bou_ n2a~ ry,---_ +- -;;:.. fc:.

Alamo Canal i' 1;::: 1

~.:;;;:;=~:..::.::=-----.--""-''''''''''''''''-......, J Q)

~-"""'''''''''-'''' Ig

. J _ C0r- I1)

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF DIVERSIONS AND RETURN FLOW IN THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER

AREA BELOW IMPERIAL DAM. THE INFLOW- OUTFLOW FIGURES DO NOT BALANCE BECAUSE

OF SIZEABLE UNMEASURED SURFACE AND SUB" SURFACE REIURN FLOWS TO THE RIVER.

extremely poor~ The TDS load of the Colorado River is increased 14

mg/ l as a result of this tributary, See Plate I and Appendix I for

location and details o It appears that one major source ( about one­fourth)

of these salts is LaVerkin Springs ( Dixie Hot Springs) in

southern Utah upstream from St. George~ Other specific sources are

not known at this time.

h. Bill Will iams River - The Bill WIlliams River discharges into Lake

Havasu- Cake- just- above Parker Dam. The River is erratic in flow since

it drains a desert area with sparse rainfall. Flash floods are common­place,

and these are controlled by Parker Dam, and will be further

controlled by the Alamo Dam now under construction about 35 miles from

the mouth of the river. There is some irrigated acreage in this project"

Data on water quality ( WPSS) near the Alamo Dam site between October

1963 and October 1964 indicates that the TDS of the Bill Williams water

is within the range of 535 to 698 mg/ l, or less than that of the

Colorado River arriving at Parker Dam. A source of pollution from the

mining industry on this tributary is discussed in the Implementation

Section.

i. _ Gila River ~ The Gila River joins the Colorado River just upstream of

Yuma, and below laguna Dam. The Gila River is now almost completely

controlled by upstream dams, and the water is completely utilized,

often many times. Floodwaters have never exceeded the present capacity

of the Gila River storage system upstream of its confluence with the

Salt River, and floodwaters have exceeded the capacity of the Salt­Verde

System only twice In the last 25 years~ Painted Rock Dam, north­west

of Gila Bend, is the final flood control structure on the Gila

River, and has only been used once since completion in 1959. During

calendar year 1964, only 103 acre feet of water flowed past Dome, 12

miles upstream from the mouth of the Gila River near Yuma, and all of

this flow originated downstream of Painted Rock Dam.

j. __ Other Trlbu!. aJ:. i. es.__- There are many small streams that flow for a short

period of time after rainstorms, but the flow is so intef~ mittent that

very little data Is available on total flow and water qual itYo

Many small springs and spring- fed tributaries, mostly In the reach be­tween

Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, contribute small quantities of

water and dissolved salts 6 Since most of these tributaries are in

very remote uninhabited areas, very little data on them is available.

The data that is available Is shown in Exhibit 1.

There are some intermittent creeks flowing from Arizona into Utah above

Glen Canyon Dam, and ultimately these may reach the San Juan or Colorado

Rivers. Most of these streams are in remote areas of the Navajo Indian

Reservation~

_ 2- 3 Tributaries to the Colorado River from Utah: In addition to tributaries to

the Main Stem of tFie--- Colora- do RTveru- pstream- of- the Utah- Arizona border, there

are several streams that cross the Utah- Arizona border and flow through Arizona

before reaching the Colorado River. The significant ones are as follows:

a. Paria Rivec~ This river is covered in Section 2- 2a under Arizona

tributaries.

- 5-

b. "" Kana! L"~_ reek - This creek is covered in Section 2- 2e under Arizona

tributaries.

c. Virgin River - This river is covered in Section 2- 2g under Arizona

. t r i butar- i es. -

iver from Nevada There are a few tributaries :::"---'-'~-=-"";":::-:::"':-=~" · ;":::-=--=- 7 · -"::':":';::' · -::=-;'''::''':'-=-::--=-_':':':'''":''-::,~~-.::..:,.=.::.:.. · -~-:.";:"=;:.:- common r zona border. The significant

a. Virgin River - This river is covered in Section 2- 2g under Arizona

tributaries- sInce it flows through the northwest tip of Arizona.

b. Las Ve9a~" J'!._~ sl · L- Las Vegas Wash drains the Las Vegas Valley and

flows into Lake Mead just above Hoover Dam. Although the present

flow is not great ( about 15,000 to 20,000 acre feet per year), the

salt burden is high, and the flow is expected to increase several­fold

upon completion of the Southern Nevada Project. The TDS load

of the Colorado River is increased about 4 mg/ l by this tributary

at the present time.

2- 5 Tributaries to the Colorado River from Cal ifornia: The area within

ca- ffforniawhTChdrainsnatural1Y to"- the- CoJor- ado Rive" r is a narrow strip

of land varying in width from about 10 to 40 miles. This strip extends from

the Nevada- California border to the California- Mexico boundaryo

The area is essentially semi- desert, and stream flows are intermittent. Al­though

rainfall is sparse in this area, the intensity of rainfall may be great

when it occurs, and flash floods have occurred. Flow and quality data is al­most

non~ existentD

~~~._. t! l"~~~!: y'"" g: L!~~ f_~ l ~ r"~~ R iY~ r_ J! asJ.! l De'{~ l<? p~~ nt~ The history of the develop.

ment of the Colorado River Basin is important to the consideration of water

qua 1ity.

a. General History - Irrigation development of the Colorado River Basin

started"' with- the beginning of settlement about 1860. The Upper

Basin ( above Lees Ferry) irrigated about 800,000 acres by 1905,

and about 1,400,000 acres by 1920. Development slowed down after

1920 because of both physical and economic limitations in the

availabil ity of water. In the Lower Basin, irrigation began in

the Palo Verde Valley in 1879, and development of the Yuma area

and Imperial and Coachella Valleys followed. Irrigation on the

Colorado River Indian Reservation was attempted in 1870, but in~

adequate flood control almost stopped this development until 1942.

Early development of river control centered around the agricultural

economy of the area. The river flow was very erratic and undepend­able.

Tremendous floods occurred in the lower basin around the

Yuma area when both the Colorado and Gila River systems reached

high flow stages. The Colorado River carried huge silt loads, and

led to the statement that the Colorado River was " too thick to drink

and too thin to plow'. The salt burden was low at high flow, but

very high when the flow was low.

- 6-

The construction of dams on the Colorado River and its tributaries,

especially the Gila, Salt and Verde Rivers, brought the River under

control, reduced the silt load, evened out the salt burden, and

made agricultural operations in the lower Basin stable.

This development of the Colorado River has had considerable politi­cal

problems, and further development, including quality contrOl,

will have some more political and legal problems.

~ at~ r_ compa.~ ts_ and_ lr. ea~ l~~_:, The development of the Colorado River

has necessitated a number of compacts and treaties to protect the

rights of individuals and states to the use of water. The follow­ing

are certainly important when considering water quality criteria

that could affect water use under existing rights.

( J) ~ olorado J~. i ve. L § . ompac!_- The water of the Co lorado River

was divided between the Upper and Lower Basins by the

Colorado River Compact of 1922, with the division point

at Lees Ferry. The compact recognized the potential ob­I

igation of the United States to the Republic of Mexico.

( 2)! 1. exicarLJrea! y_:, The treaJty with Mexico, signed in 1944,

provides for annual delivery by the United States to

Mexico of 1,5000,000 acre- feet of Colorado River water,

with certain exceptions due to river flow conditions.

( 3 )~~ r.,_~_ ol o,=~ qQ,,~ J'yer_,! 3a~ I n_ Come.~£~__- This Compact of

1948 apportioned the waters of the Upper Basin states

( including 50,000 acre- feet to Arizona annually) to

allow for orderly and proper development of the Upper

Basin.

( 4)~ r izon~." y'. s. ,., J,~!. fOrnL § L~,~ L!.. J n.._,~ h~_~ E. prem_~_~ our. t_~ The

Lower Basin states never agreed to a division of the

waters of the Lower Colorado River Basin, and the divi­sion

was provided by Supreme Court decree in 1964. This

decision cleared the way for further development of the

Lower Basin.

( 5) Water Quality - None of the agreements or compacts have

"- specTficaTl'y'- mentioned water qual ity. The Treaty with

Mexico provides that Mexico will take from any and all

sources.~. whatevertheir origin, the waters to which she

is entitled. Water qual ity is recognized as a factor to

be considered in recent legislation authorizing the con­struction

of projects in the Basin.

2- 7 Diversions of Water Along the Arizona Reach: Major United States projects

dive'rt anClUsew'ater-" f'romthe- Colora- do" Fflverafong the Arizona reach. A descrip­tion

of these diversions, by states, follows, and data is summarized in Exhibit

2 in the Appendix.

__ DEPARTMENT OF-IIB

n ft,, · nll. lllD.... A.. n.!! JJ \~ V'I r: S

.

..' ( of~ R I Z 0 N Po - 11 [ IbUlrndOllnlJ~. -

- 7-

( J ) ~ J.! Y...... Q. L!, ag~ __.. Page rece ives its mun ic i pa I wate r supp I y

from Lake Powell. Sewage is disposed in sewage lagoons

with minor effluent return to the Colorado River.

( 2) ColQradQ.... l~. iver.._ lndiall.. B~~ er: yati. o. n..: This project has

99,375 acres in Arizona with assigned water rights as

set forth in the Arizona vs. California Supreme Court

Decree, and about one- third is presently being irrigated

by diversions at Headgate Rock Dam. About 6~ 1o of the

water diverted is returned to the river as measured

surface return flows. In addition, there are unmeasured

surface and sub- surface returns to the river.

( 3) yuma _ frol~£~.. t._ Y..~!.~ Y_ J2.. Lv i~ on_...: About 52,000 acres in

this project are served by diversion at Imperial Dam

via the All American Canal to the Yuma Main Canal by

a siphon under the Colorado River. A portion of the

water diverted passes through measured surface drains

and wasteways back to the Colorado River south of the

Northerly International Boundary or to Mexico over the

Southerly International Boundary near San Luis, Sonora.

Additional drainage facilities are needed in portions

of the valley, particularly in the area adjacent to

the mesa.

( 5) y_~ ma~~~ LiarL. e. roiect:" Water is diverted at Imperial Dam

via the Gila Gravity Main Canal to irrigate 3,406 acres

in this project, which includes certain Warren Act Lands.

There is no measured return flow.

( a) North Gila Valley Irrigation District

( b) Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District

( c) Yuma Irrigation District ( South Gila Valley)

( d) Wellton- Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District

Surface drainage from the Gila Projects is returned to the

Colorado River above the Northerly International Boundary

except that the Wellton- Mohawk drainage facilities include

a bypass channel which extends past Morelos Dam. This by­pass

channel was put into operation on November 16, 1965,

and the Mexican Government has the option of deciding

whether the drainage waters shall be discharged above

or below Morelos Dam. About 30% of the water diverted

is returned to the river as measured surface drainage

or control water.

diverted at Imperial Dam via the

to service an authorized project

This project consists of the fol-

Gila Project - Water is

GiTa · · Gravfty · Ma in Cana I

area of 115,000 acres.

low i ng un its:

( 4)

- 8-

( 6)

( 7)

( 8)

( 10)

Cl. tr-. QL, Yuma .':" The City of Yuma presently receives most

of its water through the Yuma Main Canal. The city1s

contract with the Secretary of the InterIor provides

for delivery of the water from the river. Sewage from

Yuma is now discharged untreated to the river north of

the Northerly International Boundary, but plans are

progressing for a sewage treatment plant.

CiboL~ J!_~.! l~' t__:, Water is pumped from the Colorado River

for irrigation of the Cibola Valley.

Ce! l.! ral_. Arl.~ 9na" p. r: 21ect When authorized and built, this

project will divert water from Lake Havasu to provide

much needed supplemental water for domestic, industrial

and agricultural purposes in Central Arizona. There will

be no return flows from this project. The economic impact

and importance of this project is discussed in Section 2- 8.

£ ort, J~ ohaY~ Lrl.~ nan_ Re~ er: yatlon_- This project has 14,916

acres in Arizona with assigned water rights as set forth

in the Arizona vs. California Supreme Court Decree.

Miscellaneous Diversions - These include domestic, agri­cuI

turaland- fndustrfal'waters, and cons i st of direct

diversions or by groundwater pumping in the vicinity of

the Colorado River. Water is used by cities, recreational

centers, small farms, power plants, etc.

b. Neva2~,,- f. r,~ J~~~~_~ The Southern Nevada Proj ect is author i zed to divert

from Lake Mead, 300,000 acre- feet of water for use in the Las Vegas

area. The water will be used for domestic, agricultural and indus­trial

purposes. The Bureau of Reclamation anticipates a return flow

of approximately 50,000 acre- feet of water to Lake Mead annually.

( 1)

( 2)

( 3)

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - The

Metroporl1: an" 1Tater- oTstrT" ct" aq- ueduci- p- rov i< res- capa'c ity

for the annual diversion of 1,212,000 acre- feet of water

for domestic, industrial and agricultural use on the

coastal plain of southern California. There is essen­tially

no return flow.

Palo Verde Irrigation District - About 900,000 acre- feet

' o{" waterlS- dTvertecr- annu'a'lly'- at Palo Verde Divers ion

Dam near Blythe for agricultural purposes. Approximately

60% is returned to the Colorado River either as measured

surface drainage or excess diverted water, mostly in a

main drain at the lower end of the project.

Impe!.". i a, L! i.!:_!"~~!,!~. Q_!~ i:.. i..£~~ d _ Coache 11 ~ Val Iey.~~ u/"!.! y

y_ ater Distric!:__,.- Approximately 3,500,000 acre- feet of

water is diverted annually at Imperial Dam via the All

- 9-

American Canal for various uses within the Districts.

There is no return flow ( other than seepage from the

All American Canal and flow regulation water) to the

Colorado River. Agricultural drainage water, canal

seepage, and any excess water diverted flows to the

Salton Sea in California.

( 4) 1.!:!!!'~_ fr.. Qj~~!.. L_ B.~?-~ x~ atJg! LQ. i. Yl~ j. o" L __ About 96,000 acre­feet

of water is diverted annually at Imperial Dam via

the All American Canal for agricultural use in the Bard

Valley. A portion is returned as drainage and flow

regulation water to the Colorado River between Yuma and

the Northerly International Boundary.

~- 8_~ co!} omY_ 2.! l~.. Na~!:! r_~ LB~ so~ t£~~_~_ L~ r_ L~ Q. na. l The economy of the ent ire State

of Arizona is intimately associated with the development of the Colorado River.

Arizona is semi- arid in character with a low average annual rainfall and I im­ited

natural water supplies. Since 1947, the population of the state has

more than doubled, with more than 70% of the population residing in Maricopa

and Pima Counties. These two counties along with Pinal County comprise the

core area of the Central Arizona Project. This area is now supplied with

water by surface water systems on the Salt, Verde and Gila Rivers and by

pumping from the groundwater basins. The agricultural, domestic and industrial

users of this area are using up all of the surface water available and are

pumping approximately 3,000,000 acre- feet of water per year more than the

natural groundwater replenishment. This annual overdraft is clearly evidenced

by the accelerated decline of groundwater levels and by land subsidence in

some areas.

The central Arizona area desperately needs the additional water to be del ivered

by the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct from Lake Havasu, but the supply avail­able

is still far short of the present overdraft, and the needs of the area

are still growing. The quality of the presently available water is not always

good with respect to its salt content and this qual ity is further degraded by

multiple reuse since almost all beneficial uses of water add salts of some

variety to the water.

The remaining areas of the state face similar problems of short supply and/ or

quality of water, and it is impossible to separate these factors completely

in any proposed program of supply or regulations on quality. The total problem

can only be solved by a major water augmentation program for the Lower Colorado

River Basin.

! he p~ QPL~~ f_~ rL~ Qr:!~__ ha~~ J?~~!' L § _~ r. tY.. l! UL_~~- l~ EiQve_-.! h~ __ g!-, a 1L~~ L of-! b~.. r_~ a te r

~ nd ~ x t enj_..! tJ~_. suPEly__ fE.~ ~ 31~ Y- y"~ a r_~.. L_ ! Qn.£ LP~ i 0 r~__~_ 1~~~ r~_ J2!~ 9..!:~~.... f 0 r_.. 22.. Ll~_:

~ l_ Qfl_~ Q! ltrol was_ JnItiE... t~ g..! The quantity of water available has been extended

and the quality of the water has been enhanced by the following practices and

programs:

a. Farming practices have been steadily improved so that less water

is applied to the land per unit of crop yield. A report on this

phase of water conservation and quality enhancement is appended

as Exhibit 11.

- 10-

b. Delivery systems for both surface and groundwater have been

improved through re- design, lining and conversion to pipelines

to reduce seepage, evaporation, salt pick- up, consumptive use

by non- crop plants, and delivery waste. Statistics on past and

future programs are presented in Exhibit 12.

c. Extensive watershed planning and control programs have been initiated

to increase the yield and improve the quality of water delivered by

the surface water systems. The Arizona Water Resources Committee,

representing wildlands, banking, ranching, water authorities,

timber, irrigation, power, mining, game and recreation and munici­palities,

has an annual symposium ( 10th in 1966) to present and

discuss experimental results and plan larger scale experiments.

A summary of watershed improvement accompl ishments and future pro­grams

is appended as Exhibit 13.

d. Means of evaporation control or reduction of evaporation on reser­voirs

and streams have been investigated since evaporation of water

from the surface of reservoirs and streams not only reduces the

supply but also increases the salt content of the water remaining.

A summary of activities in this field is presented in Exhibit 14.

e. Extensive phreatophyte investigation and control programs have been

carried on to eliminate or reduce waste by certain types of vegeta­tion

growing in or near streams. Evapotranspiration by these

plants concentrate salts in the soils and contribute to the sal inity

problems of the basin, so reduction of such growth would enhance

water quality. A summary of the phreatophyte control program is

presented in Exhibit 15.

f. Programs to supply water of the best available qual ity for domestic

needs in exchange for treated sewage effluents for needs with

Jesser quality requirements are being worked out and tested. Other

water exchanges have been worked out between areas of need and sur­plus,

and more are needed. Examples are presented in Exhibit 16.

g. One Arizona city, Buckeye, has been a pioneer in providing desalin­ized

water for domestic use. An expensive electrodialysis process

was put in operation in 1962 to remove excessive salts from the

only water available to the city, making Buckeye the first town in

the U. S. A. to have its entire water supply treated by a demineraliza­tion

plant. This was a local community program, and no Federal or

State funds were involved in this project. A report on this project

is presented in the Appendix as Exhibit 17.

It should be pointed out that all of the currently available methods

of desalinization separates the influent water into two streams, one

relatively pure, and one very salty. Disposal of the salty brine

is a very great problem for an area isolated from the oceans where

most of the desalinization programs are promoted and tested.

h. The Arizona Water and Pollution Control Association meets annually

( the 39th annual meeting was held in 1966) to hear and discuss

- 11-

papers presented by both local and out- of- state people involved

in water supply and disposal problems. Educational programs are

sponsored by the Association along with other programs designed

to upgrade the quality of Arizona water. The Association is

affiliated with the Water Pollution Control Federation and the

American Water Works Association. A report of the Association

is included in the Appendix as Exhibit 18.

i. The Soil Conservation Districts of Arizona, both individually and

through their Association, have been actively engaged in projects

aimed at soil and water conservation and water quality improvement.

A summary report of the Association is presented as Exhibit 19 in

the Append ix.

j. River channel ization projects in the lower Colorado River below

Hoover Dam have been in progress for several years by the Bureau

of Reclamation to reduce consumptive losses, erosion and quality

degradation. This work is generally opposed by fish and wildlife

interests alleging it destroys natural habitat areas. Stabilized

river flow and storage impoundments made possible by dam con­struction

have, however, enhanced some fish and wildlife areas.

The following natural resources of Arizona, although presently utilized effec­tively

through good management practices, shall be protected by Arizona's water

quality control policy, and the tabulation is not intended to designate the

order of importance:

a•... A. 9! JE~ L~.~ re._- Arizona1s principal crops ( alfalfa, citrus~ cotton,

grains, and vegetables) are grown on 1,160,000 acres scattered

around the state, with some additional acreage for minor crops.

Almost all of this acreage is dependent on irrigation, and over

300,000 acres in addition to that stated above are out of pro­duction

due to water shortage. Growing conditions, and particu­larly

climatic conditions, are well adapted to crop production

under irrigation on a year- round basis, and many high value crops

such as cotton, winter vegetables and citrus fruits are produced

in addition to staple crops and feeds. The gross value of Arizona

crops was $ 344,400,000 in 1965. The continued production of these

crops is dependent upon our total water resources in Arizona, con­sidering

both quantity and quality. The quantity of flow must not

be unnecessarily reduced by unrealistic quality considerations.

Statistics on various phases of agriculture are shown in Exhibit

3 in the Appendix.

b. _ M. rban Dey~ lopmen~.- Urban development of Arizona has been growing

rapidly, and this growth has demanded increased recognition of the

need for a dependable supply of good quality water. Although the

growth has been highest in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, there has

also been considerable growth in cities adjacent to the Colorado

River. An inventory of cities along the Colorado River with perti­nent

water supply and disposal data is shown on Exhibit 4 in the

Appendix. The growth of Urban area has accompanied increased

activity in tourism ( due to climate, recreational faci) ities and

- 12-

natural attractions), manufacturing and service industries for

all state activities including but not limited to agriculture,

construction and mining. Hanufacturing statistics are shown in

Exhibit 5.

c•. Grazing and... !: l" yesto~.£ eed!.! l9 ...:- This industry is extensive in

Arizona, including the area along the Colorado River. The gross

value of livestock and products was $ 237,900,000 in 1965. Live­stock

production requires water and also produces waste which must

be controlJed~ Statistics are included in the Agricultural Exhibit

3 in the Appendix~

d. Mining Industry - There are only limited minIng operations along the

- Colorado - River-;- but mining is a major factor in the economy of Arizona

and this industry requires huge quantities of water. Reuse of water

in all phases of mining has been practiced for many years, and pollu­tion

of streams has not been a major problem. The minor problems are

being corrected, and data is given in the Implementation Section.

The gross value of mineral production was $ 580,170,000 in 1965. The

principal metals were copper, gold, silver, lead and zinc, but sub­stantial

quantities of sand, gravel, molybdenum, stone, uranium,

lime, pumice and other miscellaneous minerals were produced. Copper

produced about 86% of the total value. Statistics are shown in

Exhibit 6 in the Appendix.

e. __ Eis! Lan~ L~ ildlif~- Although much of Arizona is arid or semi- arid,

the State is blessed with fish and wildlife resources. Protection

of this important natural resource is vital in the development of

the Basin's water resources. Over 3,400,000 man- days of fishing

and hunting were enjoyed by Arizona sportsmen during 1965. Addi­tional

man- days of hunting and fishing were enjoyed on the Colorado

River by license holders of adjacent states. The Colorado River

provides excellent feeding and resting areas for migratory water­fowl,

particularly in those portions of the river where oxbows and

sandbars. exist. Additional value is created by shoreline vegetation

which provides habitat for numerous species of mammals and birds.

Both the State and Federal Government have responsibilities under

existing law to preserve and develop the fish and wildlife resources

of the Colorado River, and cooperation among the states is vital and

necessary. The Federal Government by virtue of existing treaties

with Great Britain and Mexico, is responsible for management of the

nation's migratory bird resource. This responsibility is implemented

along the Colorado River by the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wild­life

of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Both National and State

Wildlife Refuges have been established to preserve water fowl winter­ing

habitats.

The natural habitat has been constantly changing since the area was

settled by man. A significant portion of the habitat no longer ex­ists

due to river control and land development, and the wildlife has

- 13-

decreased accordingly in species and numbers. Channelization and

controlled flows have eliminated many of the productive backwaters)

bypasses, and oxbows that serve as spawning and nursery areas for

warm water fishes, and have reduced angling potential for these

species.

In contrast, the vast reservoir storage system created by the con­struction

work of the Bureau of Reclamation has virtually eliminated

flood flows, reduced turbidity, and lowered summer water temperatures

so that extensive reaches of the Colorado River are now more suitable

for trout. Fish are supplied by a National Trout Hatchery at Willow

Beach and by the three State Game and Fish Departments involved in

the Arizona reach of the Colorado River.

f. Recreational Use: In addition to the natural recreational resources

in Arizona;-- iheC- ontrolled river flows resulting from the operation

of dams and related water projects have created stable recreational

resources in the Colorado River. For the most part, this recreational

potential still remains to be developed. Stable water impoundments

behind the dams attract fisherman, boaters, water skiers, campers

and persons interested in being near the attractive water during the

pleasant fall, winter, and spring seasons, Recreation is a year- round

activity, however.

Public recreation is permitted on substantial portions of the accessi­ble

land along the Colorado River from the Utah- Arizona border to the

Mexican border. There are numerous publ ic forests, parks, marinas

and other points of interest not only to residents of the adjacent

areas, but also to national and international visitors. The major

facilities are listed in Exhibit 7 in the Appendix.

It is difficult to determine the overall recreational use of the

Colorado River because of the variety of developments spread out

over the 745 mile reach of the river in Arizona. The recreationists

who come on peak weekends for special events in some sections jam

commercial and public facil ities and overflow onto every available

piece of land along the river. Somewhat uncontrolled use has oc­curred

on other reaches of the river and adjacent lands. Individuals

and commercial interests have moved onto the Federal lands, and have

built structures varying from shacks to well- established motels,

trailer parks, fishing camps, and resort developments.

Recreational use of the river has created some serious pollution prob­lems

because of the lack of adequate sanitation facilities~ Adequate

facilities will have to be provided, and the recreationists themselves

are going to have to cooperate in making the river areas safe and

esthetically enjoyable.

Recreational use of the Colorado River area will expand along with

the population growth in the contributing metropolitan areas and as

the physical features are developed a The major recreation objective

will be reached if the quantity and quality of water are maintained,

- 14-

•

g.

and the esthetic values of the area are preserved. Control measures

are discussed in Implementation Section.

Forest Products Industry: The four mill ion acres of commercial forest

- land, out of the" totaTc)¥""" 21 mill ion forested acres in the state, are

largely situated in the northern, higher altitude areas. Managed

for multiple use the commercial forest area provides not only timber,

but has important values for water production, recreation, livestock,

forage, and wildlife. Arizona1s forest lands playa big role in

providing water to the consumer. Much of the surface water consumed

annually originates within the state as run- off from the relatively

high water- yielding forest.

The forest industry in Arizona annually harvests about 66 million

cubic feet of sawtimber and produces in excess of 300 million board

feet of lumber. The pulp and paper segment annually uses 100,000

cords of pulpwood and chips from sawmill residual equivalent to an

additional 150,000 cords. It produces about 150,000 tons of news­print

and kraft linerboard annually. The paper industry requires a

significant quantity of good quality water.

" 2- 9 Water Quali~ Qnsiderations;.. THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY FACTORS OF COLORADO

RIVER WATER ARE SO INTER- RELATED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THESE

PARAMETERS. Typical main stem flows, major diversions and return flows are

shown along with pertinent salinity data on Plate 3 for reference. The Colorado

Basin States Conferees, in drafting the Guidelines for Formulating Water Quality

Standards for the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River System*, recognized

.' that water quality standards could drastically restrict present and future uses

of the Colorado River water under existing compacts. The following data on the

quality of water in the Arizona Reach of the Colorado River is presented to

provide the basis for stream standards listed in Section 4 of this Water Quality

Control Policy for the Colorado River in Arizona:

a. Qual ity of Water ReachiniLAri.?; Qna;." Historically, the water reaching

-- Arizo" na-" lO--" the ColoradoRiver at Lees Ferry has been high in both

salt and silt burden. Other pollutants have been negligible. The

salinity has been steadily increasing due to both increased use in

the Upper Basin and to depletions by trans- mountain diversion of the

best quality water near the headwaters of the Colorado River. The

quality of the water at Lees Ferry has been monitored diligently by

the USGS, and excellent published records for the 1941- 1964 period

are available for comparison with other stations on the Colorado River.

The Total Dissolved Solids ( or TDS) in mill igrams per liter ( mg/ l)

is probably the best single parameter to judge the quality of the water.

Examination of the record indicates/ a wide variation in daily, weekly,

monthly and yearly figures for TDS, and any water quality standards

proposed will have to recognize this feature. In general, the TDS is

low at high water flows and high at low water flows. This variation

* See Exhibit 20 in the Appendix

- 15-

PLATE : 5

1962

WATER YEAR

___ U~ a_ h _

Arizona

Paria River, 15,090 AF

TDS 1173 Av

Bright Angel Creek, 20,460 AF, TDS 19

Change, Storage Zero

-------

161 000 AF TDS 2 00

Little Colo. River I 7 800 AF

TDS 700

Main Stem 15 250 000 AF

Grand Canyon, TDS 531 Av.

8 00 AF

Stem 8 30 000 AF TDS 72

Bill Williams River, 18,380 AF

~ TDS 535- 698

Future Central Arizona Project

So. Nevada

-< Metropolitan Water Dist., 1,039,377

AF

," Colo. R. Indian Res., 455,400 AF) a:

.-<.. r-=- P.:;;; al=.; o;;....,.:; V..:: e:=., r,=. de.:;:....:: I:;.: r;...:. r;..•.:.....; D::; l:;.: s · :;.: t:..;•:'... z.,-.::...; 94:::,; 8::.. l,~ 1;.;::; 0..::;, 0.....; A:.;,: F=---_'+- I >- c..:. R~ I.:.. R~ -? 77JOO AF _

~ TDS 800 - 1500

... falCLV~ rde. Irt:. Dist. u ... 57. Q., 600,.! F__

TDS 1500- 2000

, i

Gila River 0 AF

_ Calif.=. B:, etur..£ s. z.. 2J," 28LAL _

TDS- No change ta...... 3, Q.. oQ qalif.

Mexico

Mexico Proj ects

~ Ari~. 1ietur~,... J2b~ 7~ F.. JMea~.:)_

T TDS No change to 5000

ain Stem 1 000 AF

Arizona

Mexico

230,400

diagram of the Colorado River main stem flow with major tributaries,

and return flows. The inflow- outflow figures do not balance because

zeable unmeasured surface and sub- surface return flows to the river.

is discussed under sources of salinityo Variations in TDS at Lees

Ferry are shown on Exhibit 8 in the Appendix.

Further development of the Upper Basin and increased use of the water

upstream is expected to further degrade the water as far as TDS is

concerned. In addition, further control of the flow of the river

upstream will cause variation of the quality of the water. As an

example, the effect of the closing of the gates at Glen Canyon Dam

is seen in the TDS record for Lees Ferry in Exhibit 8. A partial

explanation is shown in IDS variations in Lake Powell, Exhibit 9,

Appendix.

Future storage in upstream reservoirs will ultimately decrease the

flow in the Colorado River without appreciably changing the total

salt burden, so this will increase the TDS. The present predictions

are that the present TDS content will increase by 22 to 43% by 1990

( 7)( 15). Other authorities prognosticate a somewhat lesser increase

in TDS accompanied by a deterioration in sodium and chloride content

( 16). These estimates are not keyed to the year 1990 and hence a

direct comparison is difficult.

b. ._~~! lty.. E. f~ ate!:.. Rel~~ sed _!. rom~~~.._ Mead: The water record for water

released at Hoover Dam shows higher average TDS for water than that

at Lees Ferry, but with much less fluctuation in quality because of

the storage in Lake Mead. The TDS content appears to be gradually

increasing.

The higher TDS can be attributed mainly to the increased TDS at Lees

Ferry and natural sources of sal inity between Lees Ferry and Lake

Mead since there is negligible use of the Colorado River water in

this reach. Some of these natural sources of salinity were discussed

in Sections 2- 2, 2- 3 and 2- 5, with further data in Exhibit 1 in the

Appendixo Control of these natural sources of salinity should be in­vestigated

as a means of enhancing water quality, not only in this

reach, but in the Upper Basin. Plans are discussed in Implementation

Sect ion.

Evaporation from the surface in the main stream and reservoirs is a

contributing factor to the increased TDS. For example, the record

shows that 907,200 acre- feet evaporated from Lake Mead in Water Year

1963, leaving behind approximately 800,000 tons of salt. Some of

this salt is bel ieved to have been precipitated out ( 7), but much of

it undoubtedly contributes to downstream TDS. TDS comparisons at

various points in the river are shown on Exhibit 10 in the Appendix.

Future river salinity like future streamflow can be predicted only

from statistical records of past salinity and from knowledge of the

changes in the river caused by impoundment and diminution of flow due

to consumptive use. The most recent predictions on future salinity

vary somewhat, but all indicate that progressive deterioration will

occur. The Department of Interior study ( 7) and the Hill study ( 15)

represent the most probable conditions. Hill predicts that the TDS

- 16-

load by the year 1990 will increase to 735 mg/ I at Lees Ferry and

to 926 mg/ l at Lake Havasu, compared to the Department of Interior

figures of 663 mg/ I and 865 mg/ l at these same stations. These

figures represent increases of 22 to 43% by 1990, and assume that

current practices are not changed, a water augmentation program will

not be implemented, future Upper Basin developments and trans- mountain

diversions will be made, and that natural sources of salinity will

not be controlled.

c. ... Qu~ litY_~ LWat~ r __~~-.. f.~!: ker Dam-=.. There is little TDS change in the

quality of water between Hoover and Parker Dams. Increased population

in this area, and increased recreational use could degrade the present

quality, especially bacteriologically. Increased control of sanitary

waste disposal from boats and recreational areas will be necessary.

d.. _ Qua !_!!: L~ f ._~ ateL._~ L!! fl.~~. f- L~ J DS! TIl... The TDS of the water reach ing

Imperial Dam shows a steady increase. A substantial part of this

increase is due to agricultural drainage from the Colorado River

Indian Reservation, the Palo Verde Valley, and probably some from the

Cibola Valley. Reduced flow in the river due to consumptive use and

diversions out of the basin has substantially reduced the assimilative

and dilution capacity of the stream. A part of the increased TOS can

be traced to evaporation from the water surface and phreatophyte

growth along the river. The TDS record is shown on Exhibit 10 in the

Append ix.

There is apparently little bacteriological deterioration in this sec­tion

of the river, but new habitation along the river could become a

source of pollution Q

e•.._ Qua.!. l.~ y_ ot.~~ t~. r-_~_~_ t1Qr~ Jo~._ J) al! l"'; .._ The flow of the Colorado River has

been reduced to a minimum at this point, and except for occasional

storm flows, only enough flow is maintained to supply the Mexican

Treaty requirements. The TOS fluctuates somewhat because of change

of demand as compared with volumes of return flows. This problem is

of International concern, and some reI ief has been afforded by the

construction of the Wellton- Mohawk Drain Extension shown on Plate 2.

The final solution of this problem is of total Basin concern, and the

entire burden should not be placed on the local area or on one State

of the Basin.

The City of Yuma is pr¢ sently discharging untreated sewage to the

river above Morelos Dam, and measures are being taken by the State

Department of Hea 1th and the City of Yuma to e 1im i nate th i s poll ut ion

at the earliest possible date.

- 17-

3~ O BENEFICIAL WATER USES TO BE PROTECTED

3- 1 ~~ l:~ t; All of the surface waters of Arizona are subject to either the

appropriative rights doctrine or to water use contracts with the Secretary of

the Interior. There are no Riparian water rights in Arizona. Some of Arizona! s

decreed entitlement to main stem waters of the Colorado River is not now diverted

and is being used by other states until additional Arizona facilities are autho­rized

and built. The following beneficial water uses are required of waters in

the entire reach of the Colorado River in Arizona, and the tabulation is not in­tended

to designate order of importance or rights to such useo

3- 2 Agricultural:

--~--~..,-------_.~---'

( a) Waters diverted at Headgate Rock Dam are used on farmlands in the

Colorado River Indian Reservation.

( b) Waters diverted at Imperial Dam are used on farmlands in the Yuma

Valley, the Wellton- Mohawk Valley, the North and South Gila Valleys

and on the Yuma Mesa.

( c) Waters pumped from the Colorado River are used on farmlands in the

Ci bo Ia Vall ey.

( d) Waters of the Colorado River and its irrigation diversion systems

are used for stockwatering.

( e) Isolated diversions for agricultural use are made along the entire

Colorado River reach.

( f) Water to be diverted at Parker Dam through the proposed Central

Arizona project Aqueduct will be used on existing farmlands in

Central Arizona.

3- 3 Raw Domestic Water:

( a)

( b)

( c)

( d)

( e)

Water diverted at Imperial Dam is utilized for domestic purposes by

Yuma area communities and rural inhabitants as their only source.

Water diverted at Glen Canyon Dam is utilized for domestic purposes

by the City of Page.

Various cities, communities and Indian Reservations along the entire

reach of the Colorado River obtain their domestic water supply di­rectly

from the river or from wells, some of which may be influenced

by Colorado River water.

Water to be diverted at Parker Dam through the proposed Central

Arizona Project Aqueduct will be used for domestic purposes in many

cities and communities of Central Arizona.

Isolated establishments along the river, ranging in size from major

trailer courts to individual cabins, obtain water from welts adjacent

to the Colorado River~ and from the river itself.

3- 4 Industrial: _~ M'_,.,..__,. ._--,._".•• _

( a) Water diverted at Imperial Dam is used by various industries in the

Yuma area Q

( b) Colorado River water is used for hydroelectric power generation.

( c) Colorado River water is used or will be used for steam- power gener­ation.

- 18-

( d) Water to be diverted at Parker Dam through the proposed Central

Arizona Project Aqueduct will be used for various industrial pur­poses

in Central Arizona~

3- 5 Propagation of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources: :.----"..--------------...--.-.------.---.--~--------~--.- · - · -, "'_~ c · ---_ · _. · __.. _

( a) The entire Colorado River contains aquatic and wildlife resources e

Such resources include production of organisms, both plant and

animal, that contribute to the food chain supporting a fish popula­tion,

and populations of other animal life including water fowl and

shore bt rds"

The reach between Imperial and Laguna Dams is used primarily as a

silt depository for the desilting works at Imperial Dam and for

operational control o Measures for the protection of aquatic and

wildlife resources in this section will be practiced to the fullest

extent possible consistent with the normal operation of the facility

as a desiiting works~ Prior to the construction of the Imperial

Dam and desilting works, most of the silt load of the Colorado River

flowed through the canal system onto the irrigated fields, and silt

control cost about one million dollars annually. Although the amount

of silt decreased with the completion of Hoover Dam, channel de­gradation,

bank ~ rosion and storm runoff still contribute a heavy

silt load at Imperial Dam ( about 805,000 tons annually) .. The bulk

of this silt is removed continuously in six classifier type basins

on the California side and by a single basin with periodic sluicing

of silt on the Arizona side of the river.

This operation results in a varying but heavy silt deposition in the

area between the dams, and a rapidly varying water depth. The opera­tion

is absOlutely essential in maIntaIning a low silt content water

delIvery into the canal systems of both Arizona and California.

( b) Water is used in the operation of the National Wildlife Service ref­uges,

the Havasu Lake and Imperial Wildlife Refuges. This water use

is covered by the Arizona vS o Cal ifornia Suprem~ Court Decree" Con­sideration

is being given to deducation of a portion of the Lower

Palo Verde- CIbola Valley region to waterfowl management purposes, to

provide enough buffer lands to protect the waterfowl and to provIde

for future related recreatIonal needs.

( c) Water is used at Mittry Lake, an Arizona State waterfowl area in the

downstream area from Imperial Dam. A State Wildlife Area is being

farmed for waterfowl habitat preservation and feed in the CIbola

Valley.

-- R_ ecreat iona 1: .._.__.._----~._._-

( a) This includes fishing, boating, swimmIng, water skiing, huntIng, and

esthetic enjoyment. Applicable for the entIre reach of the Colorado

RIver in Arizona.

Future Uses of Surface Water: Future consumptive uses of surface water,

.. 19-

other than those specifically mentioned as allocated, are of necessity re­stricted

until a major water augmentation program is realized. It is probable

that some uses wi II have to be replaced by a higher priority use under due

process of law with full recognition of legal water rights.

3- 8 Classification of Waters According to Use: It is difficult to isolate

certain sections of the Colorado River for a special purpose because of the

extensive and varied use.

water for domestic purposes is of prime importance throughout the Arizona Reach

of the Colorado River. Although the application of conventional water treatment

including flocculation, coagulation, fi ltration and disinfection to Colorado

River water will generally not provide a water meeting the recommended drinking

water standards of the U. S. Public Health Service, such treatment does provide a

water meeting the mandatory requirements of the drinking water standards. Since

a better alternate source of supply is usually not readi ly avai lable, Colorado

River water is used as a source of raw domestic water.

In view of the fact that much of the salinity of the Colorado River water is due

to natural origin, and since it is difficult to control this source, it may be

necessary in the future to seek alternate supplies of raw domestic water or pro­vide

desalinization facilities for the extreme southern portion of the Colorado

River Basin. Raw domestic water requires a very minor fraction of the water

reaching Imperial Dam, and expensive treatment of this small fraction of the flow

might offer the most practical and economic solution to the salinity problem,

even though entire basin subsidy might be required to protect the rights of

domestic users in this area. Other beneficial users of water in the area are

not affected by the salinity as are the domestic users.

Restrictions on use of portions of the Colorado River for any purpose should be

made only after avai lable alternates are proved impracticable.

3- 9__.~ ® a~ ce! flen!__~ LW~~~~_._ 9...~ l!! Y_ 5~. f. __~~~ __ go lora~~_--'~ lY~ L_~ ate ':~_ I n view 0 f the

present quality of Colorado River water and the prospect of further degradation

by upstream development, it is imperative that a major water augmentation pro­gram

be instituted for the Colorado River System. Since this program would

entai I interstate cooperation and Federal sponsorship, the efforts of other

appropriate State and Federal agencies are necessary to effectuate it.

ectives:

( a) To provide the highest quality water as practical for all beneficial

uses.

( b) To protect the public health.

( c) To preclude pollution of the Colorado River and its tributaries.

4- 2 Bacteriological:

-------_."----~---_._~.._-

( a) The Colorado River shall remain bacteriologically safe for all bene­ficial

uses. Specifically, the arithmetic average of at least five

consecutive samples in a 30 day period shall not exceed 5000 coliforms

per 100 ml or 20 fecal streptococci per 100 mlo

4- 3 _ i~' i~ l_~~ L~~...~~! h~_ ti c_._ Q.~ j e~.!_~~~_~_~

( a) The water shall be free from floating debris, oil, grease, scum,

or other carried or floating materials from other than natural

sources. Natural sources of these materials will be controlled

to the most practical extent.

( b) The streams shall be free from bottom deposits or sludge attributable

to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable sources.

( c) The water shall be free from tastes or odors attributable to domestic

or industrial waste or other controllable sources.

( d) The water shall be free from materials attributable to domestic or

industrial waste or other controllable sources that cause detectable

off- flavor in the flesh of fish.

( e) The turbidity or color of the water will be maintained at the lowest

practical value possible.

( f) Temperature changes in the water will be held to the lowest practical

value commensurate with all beneficial uses of the stream.

4- 4 Chemical Characteristics: The following chemical characteristics shall

app Iy- t_~~ co 1oradO~:~ T'. Ie r- w~ fe ~.! .------.--------_.----------------.----..-,---- ---.-----.-.-..----

( a) . Co. ns!_!. tu~! 1ts contr ibu~-'_ ng_~~_ sa lJ.! L!_ ty_~!!.~... to l! lc!:~ a~~_!! l_ sodi.~ l!!.

p_ c:.!:..~ e"!. tage•.

Degradation of water quality will result from increased intensity

of beneficial usage of water within the Colorado River System.

Minimization of this degradation without unreasonably restricting

any beneficial use is mandatory. The setting of numerical standards

on Total Dissolved Solids ( TOS), chlorides, sulfates and sodium,

which in effect would be allocating the dilution capacity of the

stream, could be construed as re- allocating water rights and appro­priations

under existing compacts and treaties. Therefore, until

this issue is resolved, no numerical values for these items will be

established, but all identifiable sources of salinity increase in

Colorado River water will be managed and controlled to the degree

reasonably practicable with available technology. This subject is

covered in the implementation section •

. · ... 2.1-

( d)

( b) ..! iea~ metal sand associated chemical s:_

The general objective Is the mInimization of toxicants in the river.

Wastes, from municipal, industrial, or other controllable sources,

containing heavy metals or associated chemicals shall not be dis­charged

into the Colorado River in amounts such that their cumulative

effects may interfere with any beneficial use. In all cases, the con­centration

of these heavy metals and assocIated chemicals shall be

the minimum concentrationswhich are physIcally and economically fea­sible

to achieve, regardless of the dilution capacity of the stream

at the point of discharge.

Specific limits for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cyanide p lead,

selenium, slIver, copper and zinc will be placed at various points on

the Colorado River in keeping wIth the Colorado Basin Interstate

Guidelines ( Appendix 20) when the extent of the problem has been doc­umented

and interstate agreement on each state's equitable loading

has been made. This task is expected to be complete In one to three

years.

Biocide concentrations in Colorado River water shall be kept below

levels which are deleterious to human, animal, plant or aquatic 1ife,

or In amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the

watero

_~~~ oac~_~~! ty_.~._..

Radioactive materials attributable to municipal, Industrial or other

controllable sources shall be minimum concentrations which are physi­cally

and economically feasible to achieve. The cumulative effects

of these materials will be recognized In discharge requirementso In

no case shall such materials exceed the limits established in the

1962 Pub) ic Health Service Drinking Water Standards or 1/ 10 of the

168- hr. values for other radioactive substances specified in National

Bureau of Standards Handbook 690

( e) ~~~ so.! y~~ O~' t~ e~.;.._....

The dissolved oxygen content in Colorado River water shall at all

tImes be maintained above 6 mg/ l*.

* In-- th~'- r~ ach- b-; tw~ en- r~ p; riaT-- Damand laguna- Dam- achr; v~ m~ ntof" the obT; ctTv~

for dissolved oxygen shall remain subject to river control operations of the

Bureau of Reclamation.

- 22-

The pH of Colorado River water shall remain within the 1imits of 6~ 5

and 8.6 at all times.

( 9) Other Chemical Characteristics:

The general objective is the minimization of miscellaneous chemicals

that may Interfere with any beneficial use of the water. These

include but are not limited to methylene blue anionic surfactants,

fluoride. boron, nitrate, phosphate, ammonia and phenols.

None of these substances now appear to be a major problem in Colorado

River water, and specific I imits will not be establ ished for stream

standards until interstate and possibly international agreement is

achieved on apportioned loadings of these chemicals and the present

condition is fully documented ..

jCl General: Although the water quality indicators under consideration are numer­ous,

they may effectively be grouped in the consideration of contributory sources

and of achievement measures o In the selection of measures to achieve a particular

quality objective, consideration must be given to the economic and social effects

which may result therefrom. In the discussions below, the indicators are grouped

into the categories contained under the Water Quality Objectives ( Section 4- 0).

i::. LBact~!.. LQ~ gical£_ The objective is that Colorado River waters shall remain

bacteriologically safe for all beneficial uses. This objective is oriented par­ticularly

towards protection of persons engaged in water- contact sports, since

raw domestic water withdrawn from the Colorado River receives treatment before

livery to individual users. The contributory sources of pathogens are dispos­als

of sanitary wastes from communities, from private establishments, and from

boats.

Although the most effective measure against water carriage of pathogenic organ­isms

is the complete elimination of sewage discharges to the river, the necessity

for water conservation in the Southwest dictates that beneficial reuse of sewage

effluents should be encouraged. In addition, the increased recreational use of

the entire area could contribute human pathogens to offset the effect of the

elimination of properly treated effluents. This objective will be met by estab­lishment

of effluent discharge requirements on sanitary wastes from private and

community sewage systems, organic processing plants, and recreational faci lities,

including boats. Secondary treatment of sewage is mandatory before discharge to

any river or dry wash, and tertiary treatment is required in certain cases. There

are no known combined sanitary sewers and storm drains in Arizona, and such fa­cilities

wi 11 not be allowed. Specific problems, regulations, and time schedules

for compliance are given in the Implementation Section.

Decaying vegetable matter can cause some esthetic problems, and every effort

should be made to reduce the amount of nutrients causing excess vegetation in

the ri ver.

There are no known slaughter houses on the Colorado River that dispose of meat

trimmings, etc. that could increase the BOD loadings on the river.

Livestock feeding operations are conducted at several locations along the Colo­rado

River. In order to prevent pollution of Colorado River water by livestock,

the folloWing measures wi 11 be enforced:

a. Livestock, other than those which are grazing or pasturing, shall

not enter or inhabit waters in the Colorado River drainage system.

b. Livestock which are corralled in the proximate area of the Colo­rado

River and its tributaries shall be effectively excluded from

entry into the waters.

c. Adequate permanent type measures shall be taken to assure that sew­age

from livestock other than from grazing or pasturing, shall not

enter the Colorado and its tributaries without approved treatment~

Industrial wastes, cooling water for power plants

rver control operations might reasonably be expected to

cause temperature rise in Colorado River waters. River control

is a necessary item to which temperature control must be subor­dinated.

Since the number of industrial and power plants along

the river are few p these should be considered on an individual

basis for necessary control by discharge requirements.

b. __ Floating Debri s, Oi I, Grease, Scum, etc: These indicators are

essent i aITyabserlt- Tn- theArTzona- reach- of the Co lor ado River

due to the scarcity of waste disposals to the river. Future

problems wi 11 be prevented by discharge requirements.

c. M. LL1Qad;. The si It load of the Colorado River has always been

a problem, but river control has been constantly reducing this

parameter. Tota 1 contro 1 of s i I t wi 11 never be achi eved due to

esthetic desires with regard to the " wi ld river" concept and to

general watershed conditions. Si It loadings due to man- made

facilities wi 11 be subject to abatement.

~~~~~~:_"~;~_~~~_~~~~~~~~.~~~_"_ Discharges from Upper Basin developments may in

tons of these chemicals in Colorado River waters enter­In

addition, further development in adjacent states could

e the same problem. Should such occur or threaten, corrective measures would

initially sought through cooperative efforts with the Basin States. Any tabu­ions

or omissions of limiting concentrations contained in Section 4 are not to

construed as the Counci lIS agreement to accept loading of these chemicals into

Colorado River from sources either inside or outside of Arizona.

( a) __ Sall!:! Lti- End"_~ odi_ um Percentage:. Measures to achI eve the desi red

objective of minimizing degradation of Colorado River water through

salinity increase are as follows:

1. Natural sources of salinity in the Arizona Reach of the

Colorado River: Some of the natural sources of salinity

have been enumerated in Sections 2- 2, 2- 3 and 2- 4" The

Bureau of Reclamation is currently studying the Blue

Springs source in the Little Colorado River to determine

the best possible means of control. A report and recom­mendations

should be available within one year.

Interstate cooperation wi 11 be necessary to evaluate and

reduce the salinity of waters reaching the Colorado River

from adjacent states as covered previously. The soils of

the Colorado River Basin closely resemble the geological

formations of their origin, namely igneous, sedimentary

and metamorphic. The silts removed by constant erosion

of the upper areas have been deposited in the Lower Basin

to form the great delta of the Colorado River. These

si Its contain large quantities of salts such as sodium,

calcium and magnesium combined with chlorides, carbonate,

bicarbonate and sulfates. Thus the soi Is of the Colorado

River Basin are the basic source of the salinity in the

water. Only limited areas have been leached sufficiently

to remove these soluble salts, and most lands of the Basin

must be leached befose they wi 11 become productive.

- 25-

,: <

) ,

Efforts to control the natural sources of salinity between

Lees Ferry and Lake Mead may meet with opposition from cer­tain

conservation groups who have been attacking further

development of the Colorado River in this area. Everyef­fort

must be made to reconcile the many differences of

opinion on river development.

Gypsum reefs are quite common in the Lake Mead area, and

there is no feasible method of isolating these areas. For­tunately,

they do not appear to contribute a large amount

of total salt as evidenced by U. S. B. R. reports on Lake Mead

and the Colorado River ( 7). The answer could be found in

deposition of silts and/ or precipitation of calcium carbon­ate

as a crust over the gypsum beds.

2._ fuI! Jc:: yJ,!-':![~ L~~,':!!: c::~~__ 2f__~ ali -!! l_~ i, 8n operational sa I t ba 1-

ance must be established in all agricultural operations. In

general, all of the salt entering an agricultural project

must be removed from the area if a sustained operation is to

be possible. Failure to resolve this problem has apparently

destroyed great civilizations in the past, including the

Hohokam Indian civilization in the Salt River Valley of Ari­zona

a few hundred years ago. Essentially, about two- thirds

of the water applied to crops is removed by transpiration

from the plants, use by the plants, and by evaporation from

the soil itself, concentrating all the salts originally

present in the remaining one- third of the water. This water

must be drained away to prevent salt damage to future crops.

Thus, agricultural drainage water wi 11 have about three times

the concentration of dissolved salts or TOS present in the

applied water. The higher the TOS content of available water,

the greater the concentration effect will be. The high TOS

initially present in Colorado River water makes the drainage

water in the Lower Basin quite saline.

The TDS concentration of drainage water resulting from the

leaching of new lands can be higher than the concentration

resulting from a salt balance operation. The effect, how­ever,

diminishes rapidly.

The programs outlined in Section 2- 8 ( canal lining, pipe in­stallation,

land levelling, phreatophyte removal, watershed

improvement etc.) are the currently acceptable methods of

water conservation which contribute to water quality enhance­ment.

These programs should be continued, and new, practical

processes for reducing the salinity of irrigation return

flows should be applied as they are developed.

Specific projects where improvement is necessary and applic­able

are presented in the Implementation Section.

3. J-,} dustrl~__ so,:! rces_~ f.~ a1inL! Y~,. There are a few minor sources

of salinity in industrial operations along the Arizona reach

- 26-

of the Colorado River. Most of these can be held to a mInI­mum

by proper discharge requirements. Current problems are

discussed in the lmplementation Section.

4. _ Munt~ e~. souJ: f~~. f__.~. al i.!! JJ. Yl. Salts are added to water

used for domestic purposes. Domestic sewage generally has

a TOS increase of about 300 mg/ l over the supply water.

This increase can be attributed to a number of factors such

as but not limited to human waste, water softener operation,

washing clothes and dishes, garbage disposals, etc. The

most significant increa~ e is in sodium chloride.

Return flows from lawn and garden watering follows the pat­tern

set forth for agricultural drainage previously discussed.

Light industrial and commercial operations in cities usually

contribute salts to the municipal sewage or to the ground­water

eventually returning to the river. Although the in­dividual

contribution may be small, the collective total

can become appreciable, and all sources should be evaluated

for effective control.

5•.. Itte t9..!~ L_~~ Li! lL~' i_£.!: Q.! ll.~.!._._ Jhe salts added by the natural

and beneficial use sources listed above combine with dimin­ishing

flows due to consumptive use and diversions out of

the Colorado River Basin to create a serious salinity prob­lem

for all of the users of Colorado River water downstream

of Lake Mead. The Bureau of Reclamation and Geological

Survey are cooperating in an electric analog study of the

diversions, use and returns for the area downstream of

Imperial Dam, but this study is far too limited in scope

and tends to convey the idea that the salinity problem is

the responsibi lity of this one area alone, whereas it is a

total Basin problem. This concept of a localized problem

as set forth in Minute 218 ( Exhibit 21) is totally unaccept­able

to Arizona, and the temporary alleviation procedure

effective until November 16, 1970, must be replaced by a

more acceptable procedure which recognizes total Basin re­sponsibi

lity. The Council wi 11 cooperate with the above

agencies in working out a satisfactory policy on salinity

contro 1.

A report on the study and suggestions on the problem solu­tion

by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Geological Survey

is due on May 16~ 1970.

( aL_~ ea~ Me.!. al_~_. a~!~ ssoci~ te~ LC'lemJ.. f~..! s:_. The concentrations of these

chemicals in Colorado River water are historically very low. Wastes

containing these elements are widely scattered and can be controlled

by discharge requirements on the individual waste stream. Each dis­charge

requirement wi 11 be based on appropriate factors such as, but

not limited to the dilution capacity of the stream and beneficial uses

of the stream.

The setting of stream standards for any reach of the river at USPHS

drinking water limits could be interpreted by a discharger as meaning

that he could discharge these chemicals into the stream up to the

limit. In effect, then, standards could be unjustly used to descrimi­nate

against downstream users because there is no dilution capacity

left. This problem of apportionment of di lution capacity of the

stream must be solved on an entire basin level before specific

limits can be placed on the main stem of the Colorado. This task is

expected to take one to three years.

Until specific limits are set, the policy of the Counci I through the

State Department of Health is to minimize any discharge of these chem­icals

to the riverG Generally, industry is the source of disposals

containing these chemicals; and also generally~ these wastes are con­tained

in relatively small volumes of water which could be economically

disposable elsewhere~

Known or potential sources of these chemicals on the Colorado River

are listed in the Implementation Section with methods of control&

( c) Biocides: Biocides have been the subject of much discussion in the

' past-,- and probably will be discussed for many years. Prudent use of

biocides has enabled our agricultural industry to provide ample food

and fiber products for our high standard of living_ Esthetically, we

can have better gardens and a more healthful existence because of bio­cides.

Uncontrolled use of biocides is not beneficial, and should not

be allowed. Generally speaking, biocides are expensive, and over­applications

are seldom made. Discharges of wastes containing bio­cides

from manufacturing and tank cleaning operations must not be

allowed.

More research and study of the cumulative effects of biocides on

humans and wildlife must be made, and appropriate safeguards applied

as standards for the Colorado River.

Types and effects of biocides are too numerous and varied for tabula­tion.

Further, the intricacies and variotions of technical analysis

for biocides presently defies the prescrlption of anyone or a few tests

for their detection or determination ( 4)~ Bio- assay tests can be used

to establish allowable limits for biocides.

Unreasonable application of biocides in ~ gricultural operations which

could result in biocide levels in Colorado River water which are dele­terious

to human 1 animal, plant or aquatic life shall be s~ lbject to

abatement. Mere detection of a biocide in the water is not cause for

abatement.

( d) Radioactivity: Radioactivity in Colorado River water is contained

- within- satIsfactory limits. There are no wastes containing radio­activity

being discharged into the Arizona reach. Future problems

wi 11 be controlled by discharge requirements.

- 28-

( e) Q. L~ solveQ.. Ox'{ g~!,!.!. The dissolved oxygen content in Colorado River

water is satisfactorily above the objective minimum of 6 mg/ l. The

maintenance of a satisfactory level of dissolved oxygen is obtained

as a corollary of the institution of the above listed measures to

ach ieve water qua 1i ty obj ect ives 0

( f) Ot! 1. § cfh~!!! lf~. L. fh~. r.~~ ter~ tic~~ The objectives I isted in Section 4- 4g

will normally be achieved by the measures 1isted above or by discharge

requirementso Boron reduction will be considered along with reduction

of salinity in agricultural return flows.

Phenols and organic chemical concentrations are not now a problem, and

there are no known discharges~ Any proposed discharges will be subject

to regulations commensurate with timely technology.

The major probl em

utants n ver s that the method

reduce the quantity of water available to downstream users, or may

~ n\ IO~' CO y affect the user downstream by a chemical or physical change in the

Factors such as the following should be considered in setting stream

" r: lnt1lards.

a. Hardness in domestic water is undesirable, and can be removed by

several processes e Ion exchange or precipitation methods can alter

the cation balance of the water to the extent that the change can

adversely change penetration rates of water in agricultural opera­tions.

b. Disposal of sewage effluents outside of the river area can reduce the

total flow of the river and reduce the assimilative capacity of the

river downstream, denying the downstream user of his legal entitle­ment

to use of the water.

c. When waters containing considerable dissolved salts are being con­sidered

for discharge to the river, total resource effects should

be determined, and the decision should not be made on the basis of

the concentration of the discharge alone o This concept is vital in

the conservation of total water supply in the streamo Unwarranted

depletions could deprive downstream users of valuable rights to water

use.

d. In view of the fact that water disposed of on land in a basin could

return to the river underground in worse condition than when I~ isposed

of II, careful consideration of requirements for disposal on land must

be made. In effect, such disposal could be similar to reclamation of

new land for agricultural purposes as far as sal inity build up is con­cerned.

5: 6 Additional Measures to Enhance Water Quality:

-_._-_.-._--"._-------~_._.---- ..__.".-.-_._-_.._,._-"-.-------_._-._--_._'.,-----.-._----.

a. Water augmentation: The need of a major water augmentation program

- for theCoTorado- RTver System is immed iate.. Inst i tut ion of th I 5 im­portant

program requires cooperative actions and representations

between local, state, interstate and federal agencies. The Council

... 29-

and the State Department of Health will do all that it can to expedite

the institution of such water augmentation program, to improve water

quality in the Colorado River.

b. _, lnves! Igatlol'!_~;. In view of the changing topography and increasing

intensity of multiple use of Colorado River waters, it is necessary

that periodic investigations be conducted in the river or on the

watershed to remain apprised of the most recent conditions which

may degrade water quality, and which may effect any particular

benef~ ial use of the river waters. The scope of such investiga­tions~

wi 11 vary from cursory field inspections to technical studies

of water quality conditions. Where possible, the investigations

will be conducted under the direction of the Counci 1 by the State

Department of Health staff either alone or in cooperation with

other agencies. However, where $ pecialty is required, the ~ tete

Department of Health will either request or contract the necssary

services~

Special emphasis wi 11 be placed on finding practical means of reduc-

~ ing the salinity of agricultural drainage water, since this bene­ficial

use requires that large quantities of water be returned to

the river in order to maintain a salt balanceD

c.. Coordination with Other Agencies: The Council and the State Depart­ment--

of Hea 1th-,- fnThe-- p- ursua- nce - o- f thei r water qua 1i ty cont ro 1

activities wi 11 at all times remain in advisement and consultation

with the several interested agencies, and will work cooperatively

with these agencies to produce the most effective water quality con­trol

program along Arizona's reach of the Colorado River.

- 30-

6- 0 IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVES

Preservation and enhancement of water qual ity in Arizonals reach of

River is a primary function of the State Water Qual ity Control Council

Council's implementation plan is a comprehensive program of surveillance, con­of

discharges to the Colorado River, enforcement, and special activities

ating to investigations, research, coordination with other agencies concerned

th water qual ity~ ontrol, and support of a water augmentation program for the

orado River. These activities will be elaborated on in the remainder of this

sect ion.

None of the provIsions of this Water Qual ity Control Pol icy, including specific

criteria, measures or methods of implementation shall be construed as an exemption

or a modification of the Rules and Regulations of the State Department of Health

governing waste treatment and/ or discharge requirements. The pol icy of the

Department will require the maximum practicable degree of treatment for all waste

sources under the jurisdiction of the Department and treatment methods shall com­ply

with the applicable rules and regulations.

6- 2 Surveillance: Surveillance is the continued observance of waters of the

State;- lncTudfng-' measurement of water quality indicators and evaluation of water

qual ity factors. It also includes the continuous review of monitoring data sup­pI

led by waste dischargers for compl iance with requirements prescribed by the

Council and the State Department of Health.

The surveillance program is designed to produce sufficient water qual ity data at

key stations for continued, effective appraisement of water qual ity conditions in

- the Colorado Rivero Advantage is taken of existing monitoring programs of other

agencies, with supplement as necessary. The Council will encourage the other

agencies to incorporate the supplement into their programs.

Sampl ing and analyses in the surveillance program shall be conducted in accordance

wIth the procedures contained in the latest edition of I/ Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater", or by other acceptable procedures.

At the present time the Geological Survey ( USGS) maintains water qual ity and stream

flow gaging stations at various points on both the main stem of the Colorado River

and major trrbutaries~ The Federal Water PollutIon Control Administration has

also established several water quality surveillance stations at key locations under

the Water Pollution Surveillance System ( WPSS)~ The Colorado River Basin Project

( CRBP) maintains a radium monitoring system, and plans additional sampl ing at ex­isiting

qual ity stations~ The WPSS and CRBP parameter coverage Is more compre­hensive

than the USGS c Consol idation of these programs should be encouraged.

The existing or proposed surveillance network on the main stem and tributaries In

the Arizona reach consists of the following~

.. 31-

--~-""_._~---~-~---""-._•...-~.-,._•• _~~__••~"_._.•_"_' H"__' "__ H••'_•• __' "'_" "~.' ""_~~~' •__, • • . ".•• • ~

b. Disposals to the Colorado River - Monitoring data received on individ­ual

disposals to the Colorado River will be reviewed and recorded 9

a. Local Agencies - Data submitted by local agencies, in addition to that

included in Table It will be reviewed and acted upon as may be approp­riate.

P :: proposed

USGS WPSS CRBP

Si1 t, temp and/ or

gaging station

point.

o ..

control

•..

Station

Page X

Lees Ferry X

Paria River 0

Little Colorado River 0 P

Grand Canyon X

Virgin River X P

Las Vegas Wash X P

Hoover Dam X X X

Davi s Dam X

Parker Dam X X p*

Imperial Dam X-{ c

Northerly Int" Bound. X* P

X = Chemical

Quality Station,

* Station is near this

Moni tori

c. Land Use Investigations" Periodic land use investigations will be

conducted along the entire Arizona Reach of the Colorado River to

determine any features of Arizona operations which may adversely af~

fect water qual ity.

proposed monitoring schedule for the Arizona Reach of the Colorado River is

for the various indicators at the basic stations in Table I. This

e is designed to take advantage of the data being compiled by the USGS,

and other agencies, and new stations mayor may not be necessary"

State Department of Health will initiate a program of sampling for bacterl­ogical

quality and other special conditions not covered by existing monitoring

nrnlnr;~ m~ o It is anticipated that the Department's monitoring schedule will not

rigid but rather will be aimed at identifying special conditions that may vary

th the season of the year and therefore require intensive monitoring rather than

y or monthly schedules. Other state agencies~ including the Game and Fish

rtment, will assist in the sampl ing aspects of this monitoring program.

d~ Records - Records of surveillance are to be maintained in the office

of the State Health Department, in a document titled IISurve i11ance

Record - Colorado Riverll

•

~ Waste Discharge Requirements: The State Board of Health of Arizona has the

authority- to prescrIb" ewaste- discharge requirements under ARS Section 36- 1855.

- 32-

TABLE I

SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULE AT BASIC STATIONS

Schedule will be worked

out for final documento

- 33-

-----------

TABLE I ( conte)

SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULE AT BA& IC STATIONS

Schedule will be worked

out for final documento

- 34-

discharge requirements will be set in keeping with the stream standards set

the Council.

State Department of Health will propose additional rules and regulations for

ion by the State Board of Health. Such regulations have not been written at

is time due to a shortage of staff. Such regulations should be adopted within

ve months after these standards become effective~ The regulations may include,

be I imited to the following considerations:

I. Effluent standards as required to meet the stream standards and protect

the publ ic health.

2. Minimum sanitation facil ities for recreational areas such as marinas,

parks, and picnic areas.

3. Land use practices such as logging, highway construction, livestock

operations, solid waste disposal, etc.

4. Degradation due to consumptive and non- consumptive usage of water for

cool ing, ore leaching, conveyance, etc.

State Department of Health issues a permit for each discharge of waste to the

River. Disposal requirements in each permit are directed mainly towards

rol of pollution and nuisance, and maintenance of the water qualIty objectives.

Hnl~ p.~ rp. r, where appropriate, consideration will be given to possible enhancement of

I itYo Where considered necessary, the permit shall specIfy a monitoring

sCnledlJle, requiring that the discharger periodically obtain and report various

ical data concerning the disposals. A discharger may not modify an exisiting

disposal system or Increase the volume or strength of any wastes under an existing

permi to

A record, titled '\ laste Disposals- Colorado Riverll

, containing permit data for

waste disposals that may affect the Colorado River is to be maintained in the

office of the State Department of Health •

. § .: 4~ ene'=.~ L..~ nforcement!. Enforcement activities are directed mainly towards ob­taining

compl iance with prescribed waste discharge requirementso Generally, en­forcement

is initiated on staff level. Here attempt is made to obtain correction

by informal discussion of the problem. Where such informal procedures fail to

produce adequate correction~ the alleged violation will be considered by the State

Department of Health to determine whether the discharge is taking place contrary

to the prescribed requirementso

Upon finding affirmatively, the State Department of Health will cause a written

complaint to be served upon the alleged violator, specifying the regulation

violated, and shall order that corrective action be taken within a specified

reasonable time, affording opportunity for a fair hearing as prescribed by law.

Upon failure of the discharger to comply with the cease and desist order, the

State Department of Health will certify the facts to the Attorney General, whose

duty is to bring an action for an injunction against the alleged violator. There­after,

the State Department of Health will provide evidence as requested by the

Attorney General or the court.

- 35'"

Special Enforcement Actions: The following are specific areas that need ex­anation

regarding enforcement action in the immediate and foreseeable future:

a. The City of Yuma Is located near the Northerly International Boundary

with Mexico. It has a population of approximately 30,000~ Yuma does

not have a waste treatment facil ity at the present time. The City

has acquired title to the land on which a facility is to be built.

A consulting firm has been retained to prepare a feasibil ity report,

prepare construction drawings and inspect construction. The engi­neering

report is to be submitted by August 19670 It is anticipated

that a contract for construction of an adequate facll ity will be

awarded before July 1, 1968.

b. The City of Parker is located approximately fifteen miles downstream

from Parker Dam. Parker has a population of approximately 1600 people

and is unsewered~ The domestic wastes are currently disposed of by

individual septic tanks and there is little or no contribution of

wastes to the Colorado River. This community has retained a consult­ing

engineer to prepare plans and specifications for a waste collec­tion

and treatment system. It is anticipated that this community will

be contributing treated effluent to the Colorado River within two

years.

c. The area adjacent to the Colorado River between Lake Havasu City and

Davis Dam is currently undergoing extensive land development. Liter­ally

thousands of lots have been subdivided and sold, or leased, to

the public in this area. The vast majority of these subdivisions are

to be served by individual septic tank systems. There is a lim/ ted

amount of building in the area at the present time since many buyers

of these lots are speculating on an increase in value or expect to

build a retirement home many years in the future. The number of sum­mer

and/ or retirement homes is expected to increase at rather slow but

steady rate in the next few years e The potentially large number of

septic tank installations in this area are expected to present a pol­lution

and publ ic health problem in the future. A specific time

schedule for enforcement tn this area cannot be adopted at this time

since the problem is a potential one rather than a real problem. Con­struction

of community sewerage facil ities will be dependent on popu­lation

densities that will make such facil ities economically feasible.

There are currently two methods by which such areas may obtain com­munity

sewerage systems when the need arises. The owners in a given

area may form an improvement district to finance the construction of

needed facil ities and turn over the facil ity to an existing authority

such as a city or util ity company upon its completion or they may form

a sanitary district which provides for construction and continuation

of operation.

d. There are several marinas and/ or parks located on Lake Mead and the

Colorado River. Sanitation facil ities in these areas have received

very little attention in the paste There have been reports that some

of these areas are contributing wastes to the Colorado River system

- 36-

due to lack of adequate facil ities. This Department intends to make

a comprehensive survey of these areas prior to July I, 1968. The

Department will then apply the provisions of the applicable regula­tions

to el iminate the problem prior to 1969.

e. There are many areas in Arizona that have sources of pollution but do

not fall under the direct jurisdiction of the Department" These in­clude

areas under the control of the Department of Defense, the Bureau

of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the

National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U. S G Public Health

Service, and the International Boundary and Water Commission. Some of

these areas have not always provided adequate facilities in the past

and a few such areas are still a problem" A particular areas of concern

is the stretch of the Colorado River' between Parker and Yuma. There

are numerous " squatters" on government land that use the Colorado River

as an ill icit source of water and as a receiving body for their un­treated

or Inadequately treated wastes. Arizona is confident that

sources of pollution from areas under the control of the federal govern­ment

will be rigidly controlled to ensure compl lance with the require­ments

of the Department of Health q

6-~. J.~~ § _~ to r:.' i_~ t..!'. 2. LL!!!.. i£! 1~. L ...~ 0l: J!" c ~~_ 2!!_.~!:!~_~ 21.~ I~ doJ! tY~!_.!'!_. l:\. r.!~<:>!. l~.~_ Po t ent i a I

Pollution sources are I isted and evaluated in Table II.

- 37-

TABLE II

following is a general outline on pollutional sources by sub- basins in the

tate of Arizona as of April 10, 1967. ( All locations noted are straightline

istances and river mile data is for the respective rivers.)

A. San Juan Sub~ basin

==

1. The City of Rock Point ( BIA Board School) located in Apache County, has

a base population of 350 during the school season. Wastes produced are

treated in a stabilization lagoon and released to Chinle Creek at the

rate of 30 1 000 gallons per day at a point approximately 20 miles south

of the Utah- Arizona border. The facility is owned and operated by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs. Deficiences at these facilities have not

been reported to date. Information available does lndicate that this

facility is adequate.

2. The City of Lukachukai ( BIA Boarding School) has a population of

approximately 900 during the school year~ Wastes produced at this

school are treated in a stabil ization lagoon. A daily flow of approx­imately

75,000 gallons per day is discharged to the Lukachukai Wash

at a point approximately 45 miles south of the Arizona- Utah border.

The facility is owned and operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Deficiences at these facilities have not been reported. to date.

Information available does indicate that this facility is adequate.

3. The City of Many Farms ( BIA Boarding School) has a population of

approximately 1600 during the school year and produces ap~ roximately

130,000 gallons per day waste Q The wastes are treated in a sewage

stabilization lagoon and discharged to the Chinle Wash at a point

approximately 48 miles south of Arizona- Utah border and 35 miles west

of the Arizona~ New Mexico border~ The facility is owned and operated

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Deficiences at these facilities have

not been reported to date. Information available does indicate that

this facility is adequate.

4. The City of Chinle. The population of this community is at this time

unknown, however, records indicate that wastes are produced at the

rate of 300,000 gallons per day. These wastes are treated by a

stabilization lagoon and discharged into the Chinle Wash at a point

approximately 55 miles south of the Arizona- Utah border and 30 miles

west of the Arizona- New Mexico border. This facility is known to be

adequate at this time.

5. The City of Dinnehotso has a population of approximately 200 with a

daily waste volume of 20,000 gallons. These wastes are treated by a

se~ tic tank- oxidation lagoon system and discharged to Laguna Creek at

a point approximately 10 miles south of the Arizona- Utah border and

50 miles west of tha Arizona- New Mexico border. This facility is

known to be adequate at this time.

- 38-

TABLE II ( conlt)

above communities contribute approximately 555,000 gallons per day of

sewage effluent to the San Juan Sub- bas in_ It should be noted that during the

warmer parts of the year very little of this effluent reaches the San Juan

River. In suwmer months the receiving washes are essentially dry with the

effluent being lost to subsurface flow and evaporation.

B. Little Colorado River Sub- basin

1. The City of Houck, situated in Apache County has a population of 200

and produces waste at the rate of 7,000 gallons per day. The wastes

are treated in an extended aeration sewage treatment facility that is

adequate at this time and discharged to a dry wash which flows into

the Rio Puerto River ( river mile 75) and then into the Little Colorado

River at river mile 203.40.

2. The Cities of Springerville and Eager have a combined sewage dispasal

facility for a population of approximately 2,200 people. A stabili­zation

lagoon system treats approximately 112,000 gallons per day.

The effluent is partly used for irrigation and the remainder discharged

to Nutrioso Wash which is tributary to the Little Colorado River at

river mile 319.20. This facility may be inadequate due to increasing

population during summer month~.

3. The City of St. Johns, situated in Apache County has a population of

1350 people and treats its waste by a stabilization lagoon system

whereby it is discharged to irrigation, of which any excess is put into

the Little Colorado River at river mile location 282~ 20. There are no

projected needs for this community.

4. The City of Holbrook is situated in Navajo County and has a population

of 4,500 and treats its waste by stabilization lagoon system. The

effluent Is discharged to the Little Colorado River at river mile

201.30. The sewage disposal facility is inadequate at this time and

plans are presently being formulated for modification of the lagoon

system..

5. Joseph City. This community has a population of 500 and is located in

Navajo County. Wastes are produced at the rate of 5,000 gallons per

day and are treated by a stabilization lagoon. The effluent is

discharged into the Little Colorado River at river mile location

186.30. This is a new facility and appears adequate at this time.

6. The City of Winslow has a population of 9,000 and is located in Navajo

County. This community provides primary and secondary treatment of

its sewage by the use of clarifiers, oxidation ponds, and sludge dis­posal

by anaerobic digesters. The average flow of approximately

525,000 gallons per day is discharged to the Little Colorado River at

river mile location 157~ 16. The community recently had a plant

failure and of this writing is not using the full capacity of the

clarifiers and digesters, thus imposing a larger load on the

oxidation ponds,.

- 38a-

TABLE II ( contt)

7. The City of Moenkopi located in Coconino County has a population of

around 500~ Wastes are treated by stabilization lagoon system and

are discharged at the rate of 50,000 gallons per day to the Moenkopi

Wash at river mile 52.50 which is tributary to the Colorado River.

These facilities are adequate at this time.

8e ' The City of Desert Butte located in Coconino County has a population of

about 700. Wastes are treated in a stabilization lagoon system at the

rate of 71,000 gallons per day and are discharged to a wash that

carries the effluent to the Little Colorado River at a point 2 miles

above the confluences of the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River

at river mile 651.50e The sewage disposal facility is adequate at

this time.

9. ( a) The City of Flagstaff is located in Coconino County and has a

population of approximately 30,000. The sewage disposal facii~

ities are at this writing being modified to handle future demands.

Presently the facility consists of clarifiers and a trickling

filter which treats close to 2.8 mgd. The plant is seriously

overloaded and every attempt is being made to hasten the comple­tion

of the present modifications. The effluent is discharged

to the Rio de Flag Wash. This wash enters the San Francisco

Wash which is tributary to the Little Colorado River at river

mile Jllf o60, approximately 40 miles east of Flagstaff. Effluent

from this facility will rarely, if ever, reach the Little

Colorado River.

( b) Ponderosa Paper Products Company located within the Flagstaff city

limits discharges paper pulp wastes to Rio de Flag Wash and adds

to the pollutiona} load already carried by this wash.

10. Southwest Forest Mills operates a paper ~ roducts plant approximately

14 miles east of the community of Snowflake. Paper pulp wastes are

discharged to a drainage ditch which carries it approximately 6 miles

north to a shallow impoundment lake located on private property_ There

is no discharge from this facitity~ Possible effects on the ground

water of this area are unknown at present.

C. Lower Colorado River Main Stem Basin

1. ( a) Grand Canyon ( North Rim) located in Coconino County has a popu­lation

of approximately 800. Wastes are treated in a community

septic tank system and then chlorinated whereby approximately

40,000 gallons per day are discharged to a dry wash which

eventually reaches the Colorado River via Bright Angel Creek at

river mile location 623.00. No recent inspections have been made

of this facility, however, it is felt to be adequate.

( b) Grand Canyon ( South Rim), The National Park Service presently

maintains a facility that treats approximately 40s000 gallons per

day with the effluent used for flushing toilets, sprinkling lawns

and irrigation.

- 38b-

TABLE II ( con It)

( c) Grand Canyon Moqui Lodge ( South Rim) is open only part of the

year and operates two stabilization lagoons with design capacity

of 85,000 gallons per day. Effluent is discharged to a wash

draining away from the canyon~

2. Hoover Dam situated on the Colorado River has an equivalent population

of approximately 2,300 people ( tourist traffic, site seeing tours of

dam facility). A daily waste load of approximately 70,000 gallons per

day is treated by an activated sludge facility with digested sludge

hauled away b~ tank truck. The effluent is then discharged into the

Colorado River below the dam at river mile 356.00. The plant has been

in operation since 1958 and is, reportedly, providing adequate

treatment.

3. Davis Dam, located in Mohave County, treats sewage produced by the

employees and tourist visits to the dam by a septic tank system. The

effluent of this facil ity is inserted directly into the Colorado River

below the dam at river mile 287.20. The effluent is unsuitable for

discharge into the Colorado and the means of treatment inadequate.

Plans are under study for abatement of this problem.

4. Davis Dam Community is located adjacent to the dam and provides resi­dences

for employees at the dam. Wastes are treated by a septic tank­lagoon

disposal facil ity. It is estimated that approximately 10,000

gallons per day pass thru this facility into a wash which discharges

into the Colorado River just below the dam at river mile 285.20 in

the colder months of the year. This facility is inadequate.

5. Bul1heed City is located in Mohave County on the Colorado River at

river mile 283.50, just south of Davis Dam. The following are waste

sources in this community:

( a) Claude Bil1 l s Broasted Chicken Restaurant wastes are treated in

an extended aeration package plant at the rate of 2,500 gallons

per day and discharged into the Colorado River.

( b) Holiday Shores Subdivision is served by an extended aeration pack­age

plant that has a design capacity of 40,000 gallons pe~ day.

This facil ity is less than a year old and is currently receiving

only a fraction of the design flow. The chlorinated effluent is

discharged to the Colorado River.

( c) River Queen Trailer Park produces 50,000 gallons of waste per day

which are treated by extended aeration and chlorination and then

discharged into the Colorado River.

( d) River Bend Subdivision located in Mohave County approximately 6

miles south of Bullhead City. Waste produced in this subdivision

is treated in an extended aeration plant of 40,000 gallons per day

capacity and then discharged, after chlorination, to the Colorado

River at river mile 280.70. This unit was recently installed and

has sufficient capacity to provide adequate service for a number

of years.

- 38c-

- 38d-

9. Catfish Paradise Trailer Park is located approximately 2 miles north

of Topock, Arizona, in Mohave County~ Approximately 15,000 gallons

per day of wastes are treated In an extended aeration sewage disposal

systemD The effluent is discharged to the Colorado River after

chlorination. The facil ity was functioning properly during the last

inspection.

l2~ The Bagdad Copper Corporation Is located adjacent to the community of

Bc: gdad" Acid l€;; jching wastes from this operation have presented a

pcllution proble; n in the past" Construction of curtain wall dams in

washes leading from the mining regions and el iminatlcn of the ponds

receiving ferrous wastes has led to the abatement of the major portion

of this problema

TABLE II ( conti)

County on the Colorado River at

approximately 1,200 people

facil ity with the effluent

located in Mohave

This community of

extended aeration

for i rri gat ion.

Lake Havasu City is

river mile 219~ 00~

treats wastes by an

being used entirely

7. The community of Kingman has a population of 6,000 and is currently

served by two separate stabil izatton lagoon systems. The effluent of

pond serving the west side of the city enters a dry wash that is

tributary to Sacramento Wash 15 miles southwest of the city 1imitsc

The lagoon serving the eastern portion of the community has no

effluent at this time as it is Jost to percolation and evaporation.

These facil itles are inadequate and the city has retained a consulting

engineer to prepare a report as a prel imlnary step in obtaining an

adequate facil Ity~

8. Duval IS copper- molydenum mine and mill is located in the Cerbat

Mountains 14 miles due north of Kingman c The mining operation at

present is processing 5 million tons of ore annually with no measurable

wastes leaving the mining region.

10. The City of WIll lams is located in Coconino County and has a population

of approximately 5,000 0 The wastes are treated in a stabll ization

lagoon system. The effluent, estimated to be 40,000 gallons per

day, is discharged to Cataract Creek which enters Cataract Lake some

two miles downstream¢ The community is remote in the watershed in

relation to the Colorado River. It is also doubtful that the effluent

ever reaches the Colorado River. This facility Is inadequate and the

community has been urged to improve their waste disposal facil ity~

11. The community of Bagdad, located in Yavapai County, has a population

of 1,500 with a substantial portion of the community being sewered~

Dorrestic wastes are presently treated by an outmoded Imhoff Tank and

trickling filter systemo The effluent from the present facil ity

enters Bridle Creek which is tributary to the Santa Maria River at

river mlle 25 0 80 0 This faci] ity is inadequate and a consulting

engineer has been retained to prepare a report as a preliminary step

in obtaining an adequate facil Ityo

TABLE II

13. Buckskin Mountain State Park located on the Colorado River at river

mile 197.50 has recently installed a 15,000 gpd package aeration plant.

The effluent is chlorinated and used for irrigation with any excess

discharged to the river.

14. Arizona Ranch and Metals Corportaion is a new copper mInIng operation

located near the Bill Will iams River approximately five river miles

from the confluence with the Colorado River. The new operation has

presented a pollution problem from leaching wastes leaking through

holding pond dykes into Mineral Wash. This drainage travels by sub­surface

flow and has been detected in the Bill Williams River. Proper

sealing of these holding lagoons may solve the problem.

15. ( a) The City of Yuma is located in Yuma County and has a population

of 30,000. There is presently no form of sewage treatment for

this community and the wastes are collected and discharged to

the Colorado River at the rate of 2.24 million gallons per day at

river mile 27.00. Preliminary plans are being formulated for the

construction of a sewage treatment plant in the near future.

( See Section 6- 5a)

( b) A cantaloupe produce company is located in the Yuma area adjacent

to the Colorado River. This plant operates seasonally and dis­charges

ground cantaloupe wastes into the Colorado River.

16. The community of Somerton, with a population of approximately 2,000, is

located in the lower southwest corner of Yuma County. The city is

partially sewered and treats collected wastes in a septic tank- oxidation

lagoon system. The effluent is discharged to an irrigation canal.

- 38e-

. L: · J._. Q~~ e!, al~_ Each beneficial water use requires certain indicators of water

quality as desirable or essential. Pertinent indicators are investigated for

adequate protection of each beneficial use. Water quality objectives are for­mulated

in consideration of these indicators, and effects upon the economy of

the area which may result from various levels of control. Where more than one

level of an indicator is under consideration in the protection of various bene­ficial

uses, preferential selection is given to that level which represents the

superior water quality.

1- 2 ~ l cu I ture. L The most important water qua Ii ty i ndi cators for protection of

irrigated agriculture are salinity, sodium relationships, boron and bicarbonate

effects. These indicators are as follows:

a. ~ liDjtYl- Excessive salinity in the root zone causes adverse effects

upon plant life, ranging from leaf- burn to death of the plant. Sa­linity

characteristics of water for agricultural applications are most

effectively indicated by measuring the

( 1) Total Dissolved Solids ( TDS), in mg/ l ..

( 2) Electrical Conductivity ( ECxI06), micromhos~

The records indicate some increase of salinity in Colorado River water

released towards Arizona, as well as continuing increase in total quan­tities

of salts returned to the main stem from farm drainage on both

sides of the river along the Arizona reach.

The use of Colorado River water for irrigation requires special manage­ment

for salinity control. Adequate drainage must be provided, and

crop selection must be limited to those crops which will tolerate the

existing salt content at the point of use.

TOS limits for stockwatering are far more liberal than are those for

irrigation. Therefore, salinity control is oriented towards irriga­tion

requirements.

b. 12. Q. LumJ~ elationshi~ 1. The predominance of sodium salts in soi I is

detrimental to maintenance of proper ti Ith and structure for agricul­tural

purposes. High concentrations of sodium in agricultural supply

waters ( relative to calcium and magnesium) wi II cause cationic exchange

whereby sodium will replace calcium and magnesium in the soi I. The

water quality indicator which expresses the level of sodium, relative

to calcium and magnesium, is called IIpercent sodiumll , and is expressed

mathematically as

._ N- a-- x-_ 1.. 00 _-

Na+ Ca+ Mg+ K

where the basic constituents are expressed as mi lliequivalents per liter.

Percent sodium in Colorado River water ranges from approximately 28 at

Lees Ferry to approximately 51 at Imperial Dam. The recommended safe

- 39-

- 40-

RSC = ( C0 3 ... HC0 3) - ( Ca ... Mg)

The RSC levels of Colorado River water in Arizona are as follows ( 1962

water year, the last data available before the fi lling of Lake Powell)

.. B.?_ L!:- e!~ L_ .._

- 3.7 meqll

- 4. I meq/ l

- 3.8 meq/ l

§ tatlo~...__ ..

Lees Ferry

Hoover Dam

Imperial Dam

In view of the negative values, it appears that the bicarbonate level

of Colorado River water is well within the safe range for agricultural

purposes.

These ionic constituents are expressed as mi lliequivalents per liter.

Waters containing 1 0 25 - 2.5 meq. per liter of RSC are of marginal

quality for irrigation purposes. Waters containing over 2.5 meq. per

liter of RSC are not suitable for irrigation purposes.

limit of this characteristic for continuous applications is 50. In

view of the low soi I permeability of many Lower Basin areas being

irrigated with this water, every effort should be made to control

sodium content in Colorado River waters, such that the present level

of this indicator will not be increased at Imperial Dam.

c. Boro&'!.. L The symptoms of boron injury, particularly in trees which are

less tolerant to this constituent, are leaf yellowing and burning,

premature leaf drop, and reduced yieldo Citrus trees are among the

crops most sensitive to boron. The critical concentration is accepted

as 0 0 4 to 0.5 mg/ l in irrigation waters. Citrus is one of the main

crops in both the Yuma area of Arizona and the Coachella Valley of

California. Both of these areas draw water from Imperial Dam. During

1961l-, the average boron content of Colorado River water at Imperial

Dam was 0.2 mg/ l and the maximum value was 0.4 mg/ l.

To protect the extensive citrus industries cited, the quality of

Colorado River Water at Imperial Dam, as represented by boron concen­trations,

must be at least maintained, and this quality should be en­hanced

if at all possible.

d. Bicarbonate Effects~ Bicarbonate in irrigation water adds to the sodium

-" hazardby- p- recTpitating out the calcium and magnesium salts, with the

resultant proportional increase in sodium content. This effect is

usually expressed in terms of the IIresidual sodium carbonate" ( RSC),

defined as

7- 3 Raw Domestic Water: The State Department of Health is the unit of State

Go · v- ernment wi th-- p- rTmary- respons ibi 1i ty for formu Iat i ng and enfo rc i ng qua Ii ty of

water delivered for domestic purposes. This responsibility also includes consid­eration

of the quality of raw water being diverted for domestic use~ The USPHS

Drinking Water Standards are applicable~ but liberal interpretation must be used

because of the high natural salinity of Arizona waters~

t is recognized that USPHS Standards apply to treated drinking water supplies.

~ n~~ e~ rer, since many of the indicators cannot be removed by conventional or reason­Ie

treatment, the USPHS limits for most of the indicators are applicable to raw

tic water supplies. Bacteriological, physical, chemical and radioactivity

ndicators must be considered, as follows:

a. _ Bacter: l~!~ lcaLQua_!_! ty~_ Published records show that existing coli­form

counts in certain reaches of the Colorado River are appreciable.

Coliform counts at NWQN Stations in the Upper Colorado River Basin

have been consistently higher than those at Page, Arizona. The reason

for this can probably be found in the long stretches of the river in

remote, inaccessible areas with no sewage discharges. There has not

been sufficient time to determine the effects of storage and increased

recreational use by the formation of Lake Powell.

Although the most effective assurance against water- carriage of patho­genic

organisms is the complete elimination of sewage discharges to

the river, conservation of water policies dictate that beneficial reuse

of sewage effluents should be encouraged after adequate treatment.

All water from the Colorado River System should receive treatment,

under State Department of Health Standards, before delivery to individ­ual

domestic users.

b. Physical Characteristics: Turbidity, color and suspended matter, if

p" resenT- af-- thepornt- oT- aTversi on, wi II genera 11 y be carri ed to the

municipal treatment plants where removal is difficult and expensive.

Also, in place, the presence of these indicators detracts from esthetic

and recreational appeal, and it reduces the transmission of sunlight

needed for propagation of aquatic life.

Further investigations are needed before turbidity, color, and suspended

matter from natural conditions and from necessary river control opera­tions

may become objects of water quality control. However, turbidity

and suspended matter that result from construction and dredging opera­tions

in the main stem of the river wi 11 be considered for control,

except in the reach between Imperial Dam and Laguna Dam.

c. Chemical Characteristics: Sections 5.21 and 5.22 of the USPHS Drinking

' WaterSfan< Iards-- reacf- asfo I lows :

" 5.21 The following chemical substances should not be present in a

water supply in excess of the listed concentrations where, in the

judgment of the Reporting Agency and the Certifying Authority, other

more suitable supplies are or can be made available.

- 41-

~ ubs.!: ance__ Concentratioil

__~_ mgLL__.

Alkyl Benzene Sulfonte ( ABS) .. .. • .. • • .. 0 0 5

Arsenic ( AS) tI .. " .. .. .. • • ? 0 .. i> 0.01

Chloride ( cl) .. -. ~ • ¢ .. .. .. .. .. .. • 250",

Copper ( Cu). • .. " " • "