Water Quality: Information on Salinity Control Projects in the Colorado
River Basin (Letter Report, 03/29/95, GAO/RCED-95-58).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on
salinity control projects in the Colorado River Basin, focusing on: (1)
the projects' cost and status; (2) factors considered in selecting
salinity control methods; and (3) the Department of the Interior's
measures of program effectiveness.

GAO found that: (1) federal agencies spent about $362 million on
salinity control projects through September 1994 and plan to spend an
additional $430 million on land management activities; (2) the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) spent about $266 million on salinity control projects,
primarily to line irrigation canals to eliminate water seepage; (3) the
Bureau of Land Management spent about $7 million on its salinity control
projects which concentrated on reducing the erosion of soil that has a
high salt content; (4) the Department of Agriculture spent about $89
million to reduce water seepage through more efficient irrigation
methods; (5) the key factors in selecting salinity control methods
include effectiveness, cost, feasibility, and effect on the environment;
(6) salinity levels have been at or below the Environmental Protection
Agency's limits; and (7) BOR expects salinity levels to remain within
the established limits beyond 2010 with the addition of new salinity
control projects.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-58
     TITLE:  Water Quality: Information on Salinity Control Projects in 
             the Colorado River Basin
      DATE:  03/29/95
   SUBJECT:  Water treatment
             Water supply management
             Soil conservation
             Water quality
             Inland waterways
             Land management
             Water resources development
             Environmental monitoring
             Cost effectiveness analysis
IDENTIFIER:  Colorado River Basin
             Hoover Dam (AZ/NV)
             Parker Dam (AZ)
             Imperial Dam (AZ)
             Arizona
             Colorado
             New Mexico
             Nevada
             Utah
             Wyoming
             USDA Colorado River Salinity Control Program
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1995

WATER QUALITY - INFORMATION ON
SALINITY CONTROL PROJECTS IN THE
COLORADO RIVER BASIN

GAO/RCED-95-58

Salinity Control Projects in the Colorado River Basin


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BLM - Bureau of Land Management
  BOR - Bureau of Reclamation
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  mg/L - milligrams per liter
  O&M - operation and maintenance
  USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-259297

March 29, 1995

The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard J.  Durbin
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Agriculture,
 Rural Development, Food and
 Drug Administration
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for more
than 18 million people in seven states; it also provides irrigation
water for about 2 million acres of land.  Yet the salinity, or salt
content, of the river is high, in large part because of natural
features such as underlying salt formations and saline springs. 
Agriculture is also a large contributor of salt to the river, as
irrigation water seeps through saline soils and returns to the river. 
Salinity in the Colorado River corrodes water pipes and damages
crops, at an annual cost of about $1 billion, according to
projections by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR).  To address such problems, the Congress passed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.  Title II of the act
authorized the Secretary to construct several salinity control
projects, most of which are located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 
Amendments to the act in 1984 authorized additional projects for BOR
and authorized projects by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
In addition, under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) approved standards established by the states for
salinity levels for the river water. 

Concerned about whether the various title II projects are effectively
combating salinity, you asked us for information on (1) the projects'
cost and status, (2) factors considered in selecting salinity control
methods, and (3) the Department of the Interior's measures of the
salinity control program's effectiveness.  You also requested
information on the responsibilities and activities that the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have under the program;
we provide this information in appendix I. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

From the program's inception through September 30, 1994, BOR, BLM,
and USDA had spent a total of about $362 million on title II salinity
control projects, and these agencies have plans to spend an
additional $430 million.\1 BOR had spent about $266 million on six
salinity control projects, primarily to line irrigation canals to
eliminate water seepage.  Three of these projects were completed, and
three were under construction.  BOR has four additional projects in
various stages of planning.  BOR estimates it will need another $201
million for the three unfinished and the four currently planned
projects.  BLM had spent about $7 million on its salinity control
program, which encompasses designated salinity control projects as
well as other land management activities intended to control salinity
and provide other benefits, according to program managers.  BLM's
projects generally concentrate on reducing the erosion of soil that
has a high salt content.  For fiscal year 1995, BLM program managers
expect to spend about $800,000 on salinity control.  USDA had spent
about $89 million on about 1,300 contracts for salinity control
projects on farms in five project areas.  Farmers voluntarily
participate in these projects to reduce water seepage through the use
of more efficient irrigation methods.  USDA program managers forecast
that they will spend about $228 million more to complete salinity
control activities in the five current project areas. 

Several factors are considered in selecting a salinity control method
from the available alternatives.  Key among these factors are the
method's effectiveness and cost.  For example, to prevent seepage
from an earthen irrigation canal, agency officials might consider
lining the canal with plastic or cement, or replacing it with a pipe. 
If all three were equally effective, agency officials explained, they
would select the cheapest method.  Feasibility and the effect on the
environment are other factors considered when salinity control
methods are selected. 

Since 1974, according to Interior's salinity control measurements,
the program has been successful in meeting its goal of maintaining
salinity levels at or below the limits approved by the EPA under the
Clean Water Act.  Without additional, new salinity control projects,
according to BOR data, salinity levels would exceed the established
limits by about the year 2000 and would steadily increase thereafter. 
With completion of all planned projects, BOR expects salinity levels
to remain within the established limits beyond the year 2010. 


--------------------
\1 Expenditures are actual outlays; we did not adjust them to reflect
inflation because, in some cases, year-to-year data were not readily
available. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The salinity of the Colorado River increases dramatically as the
river makes its way along its 1,400-mile journey from its headwaters
in Wyoming and Colorado to its termination in Mexico.  Nearly half of
the salinity is caused by nature, when, for example, groundwater
flows through salt formations and enters the river or when saline
springs contribute their salt to the river.  But another major
contributor to the river's salinity is the use of the water for
agriculture.  Simply put, when water is diverted from the river for
irrigation, the salinity increases as the level of water in the river
is depleted.  Some of the diverted water, once applied to crops, then
seeps into the ground, picks up salt from the soil, and returns--now
with a much higher saline content--to the river.  Because there is
less water remaining in the river to dilute the salt, salinity
increases. 

Two major pieces of legislation address the salinity of the Colorado
River.  The first, the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.  1251,
1313), required national water quality standards.  In response to the
requirements of this act, the EPA approved numeric criteria for
salinity levels at three monitoring stations along the Colorado
River.  The salinity of the water passing these stations is not
supposed to exceed these criteria.  As part of its treaty of February
3, 1944, and an agreement of August 30, 1973, with the Republic of
Mexico, the United States agreed to take measures to ensure that the
water flowing into Mexico from the Colorado River would have an
average annual salinity concentration based on that of the Colorado
River water arriving at the Imperial Dam.\2 The Imperial Dam, near
Yuma, Arizona, is the last U.S.  station at which salinity standards
have been set before the river enters Mexico. 

The second act, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
1974, as amended (43 U.S.C.  1571, 1591), was passed to enhance and
protect the quality of water delivered to users in the United States
and Mexico.  Title I of the act primarily authorized the Secretary of
the Interior to construct a desalting plant to enable the United
States to comply with its treaty obligation to Mexico.  Title II of
the act directed the Secretary to proceed with a salinity control
program.  Specifically, title II authorized the Secretary, through
BOR, to proceed with the construction of four specific salinity
control projects and to continue the planning of several other
projects.  The 1984 amendments to the act required two additional
agencies--BLM and USDA--to implement salinity control programs.  The
amendments also authorized BOR to construct two additional salinity
control projects and deauthorized one of the previously authorized
projects. 

Federal agencies' efforts are coordinated through the Interagency
Salinity Control Coordinating Committee and the Technical Policy
Coordination Committee.  At the state level, representatives from
each of the seven Colorado River Basin states (Arizona, California,
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) serve on the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and Advisory Council. 
The Forum coordinates states' actions and, along with the Advisory
Council, advises the federal agencies on states' views on issues
affecting salinity.  The Forum developed basinwide salinity standards
for states' adoption, including a plan of implementation.  The Forum
has also conducted triennial reviews of the standards, including
updates to the plan of implementation. 

Regardless of the method used, the objective of salinity control is
the same:  to decrease the salinity of the river by preventing salt
from directly washing into it or percolating through the soil and
entering it.  Among the methods used are (1) lining irrigation
delivery systems, such as canals and laterals (ditches that carry
water to plots of land); (2) controlling sources of strong saline
solutions, or brine, either by pumping the brine into wells below the
water table or by plugging its source; (3) controlling the erosion of
saline soils; and (4) improving or modernizing agricultural
irrigation systems to reduce the amount of irrigation water used, and
in turn reduce the amount of salt contributed to the river. 


--------------------
\2 Specifically, Minute No.  242 of the International Boundary and
Water Commission, United States and Mexico, states that the salinity
concentration of Colorado River water entering Mexico will not
exceed, by more than 115 parts per million (plus or minus 30) of
total dissolved solids, the average annual salinity concentration of
the water at the Imperial Dam. 


   COST AND STATUS OF SALINITY
   CONTROL PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

By the end of September 1994, BOR, BLM, and USDA had spent a total of
about $362 million on title II salinity control projects.  BOR had
completed construction on 3 of its 10 salinity control projects; the
remaining 7 were in various stages of planning or construction.  BLM
had controlled salinity through projects specifically devoted to this
task as well as through multipurpose projects.  USDA had conducted
salinity control projects on farms in cooperation with individual
farmers.  (See app.  I for more information on the program activities
of the three agencies.)


      BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S
      PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Through September 30, 1994, the Congress had authorized BOR to spend
up to $301 million on the construction of salinity control projects,
of which $266 million had been expended.  (The authorization total,
or ceiling, has been increased each year to reflect inflation.)
Within the authorization ceiling, according to a BOR official, funds
may be allocated among the various projects as needed. 

By the end of September 1994, BOR had completed construction on three
salinity control projects, at a combined cost of about $69 million. 
Construction was under way on another three projects, and the
remaining four projects were in various stages of planning.  (App.  I
describes the 10 projects.) According to BOR program managers,
completing the unfinished and currently planned projects will cost
about $200 million.  Table 1 summarizes the status and construction
cost of BOR's 10 projects; figure 1 shows the projects' locations in
the Colorado River Basin. 



                                     Table 1
                     
                          BOR's Salinity Control Project
                       Activities Through Fiscal Year 1994

                                                                      Total cost
                                                        Expenditures        when
                                                             through   completed
                                                         fiscal year    (dollars
                                                                1994          in
                                                         (dollars in  millions)\
Project           Status            Project activity       millions)           a
----------------  ----------------  ------------------  ------------  ----------
Meeker Dome       Completed         Plugged three oil             $3          $3
(Colorado)                          wells

Las Vegas,        Completed         Constructed a 4-               2           2
Pittman Bypass                      mile pipeline
(Nevada)

Paradox Valley    Completed\b       Injected brine                64          67
(Colorado)                          about 3 miles
                                    beneath the
                                    surface

Grand Valley      Under             Lining about 45              136         159
(Colorado)        construction      miles of canals;
                                    replacing 338
                                    miles of laterals
                                    with pipe

McElmo Creek      Under             Lining about 34               38          39
(Colorado)        construction      miles of laterals;
                                    replacing 7 miles
                                    of laterals with
                                    pipe

Lower Gunnison    Under             Replacing a winter            23          25
Basin: Winter     construction      watering system
Water (Colorado)                    for livestock with
                                    140 miles of pipe

Lower Gunnison    In planning\c     Combining                      0          53
Basin: East Side                    laterals;
Laterals                            replacing laterals
(Colorado)                          with pipe

San Juan-         In planning\d     Lining 20 miles of             0          12
Hammond                             canal and 7 miles
(New Mexico)                        of laterals

Uintah Basin      In planning\d     Lining over 55                 0          29
(Utah)                              miles of canals
                                    and laterals

Price-San Rafael  In planning\d     Installing 97                  0          78
(Utah)                              miles of pipe
                                    laterals

Total                                                           $266        $467
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The total cost does not include annual operations and maintenance
costs. 

\b This project was completed in 1994 and is being tested to operate
in 1995. 

\c This project has been authorized but construction has not yet
begun. 

\d These projects have not yet been authorized. 

Source:  BOR. 

   Figure 1:  Location of BOR's
   Salinity Control Projects

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note:  The Lower Gunnison Basin
   project includes two separate
   projects.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  BOR.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT'S
      PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

From 1984 through September 30, 1994, BLM had spent about $7 million
on its salinity control program.  BLM generally incorporates salinity
control objectives in its multipurpose resource land management
plans, which describe management alternatives for all resources on
and uses of the 270 million acres of public land that BLM manages. 
As part of its multipurpose land management, BLM has built structures
in gullies designed to prevent soil from washing away during heavy
thunderstorms and has improved ground cover that naturally holds the
topsoil together and keeps it from washing away.  Additionally, BLM
has implemented specific salinity control projects, such as plugging
abandoned oil and gas wells that were known sources of salt. 
According to BLM's salinity control program coordinator, information
on the specific number of salinity control projects and their costs
was not readily available.  However, according to this manager, BLM
has undertaken at least 14 such projects.  Table 2 shows examples of
BLM's salinity control activities in fiscal year 1994, as well as the
expenditures, by state, for these specific activities.  For fiscal
year 1995, BLM expects to spend about $800,000 on salinity control. 



                           Table 2
           
           Selected Salinity Control Activities by
                   BLM in Fiscal Year 1994

                         Total
              expenditures for
              salinity control
                   (dollars in  Examples of salinity control
State               thousands)  activities
------------  ----------------  ----------------------------
Arizona                    $49  Inventoried soils to
                                 identify saline soils;
                                 identified water sources
                                 for salinity control;
                                 collected and monitored
                                 water measurement data
Colorado                   149  Inventoried soils to
                                 identify saline soils;
                                 installed water monitoring
                                 stations; prescribed
                                 burning to increase
                                 vegetation cover
New Mexico                  72  Initiated a quarterly water
                                 quality monitoring program;
                                 conducted salinity studies;
                                 established vegetation
Nevada                      30  Conducted a study on the
                                 salinity of three streams;
                                 updated a soil survey to
                                 identify salinity
Utah                       180  Revegetated 200 acres;
                                 reconstructed an earthen
                                 dike and dam; collected
                                 data on precipitation,
                                 associated runoff,
                                 sediment, and the salt
                                 contributed to the river
Wyoming                    150  Plugged a flowing saline
                                 well; rehabilitated 8 miles
                                 of eroding roads; planted
                                 trees to stabilize eroding
                                 stream banks
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  BLM. 


      DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S
      PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Through September 30, 1994, USDA had spent about $89 million on its
salinity control program.  The program, in which farmers voluntarily
participate, emphasizes the use of efficient irrigation methods to
reduce water seepage (which contributes salt to the river).  Through
this program, USDA primarily (1) identifies sources of salt and
develops remediation plans; (2) provides financial and technical
assistance to farmers to plan, undertake, and maintain projects that
reduce seepage; and (3) monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of
such practices.  USDA funds 70 percent of the cost of salinity
control projects; the landowners fund the remaining 30 percent. 

Through September 30, 1994, USDA had about 1,300 contracts for
salinity control projects on farms in five project areas located in
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.  These projects generally involve
installing underground pipelines; lining earthen ditches, canals, and
laterals; leveling land to reduce runoff; and replacing conventional
irrigation systems with more efficient ones.  These projects have
affected a total of about 150,000 acres, or about 40 percent of the
approximately 360,000 acres targeted for treatment.  According to
USDA program managers, it will cost about $228 million more to
complete projects in the five current project areas.  (See app.  I
for more information on USDA's program activities.) Table 3 shows--by
project area, through fiscal year 1994--the expenditures, the number
of active contracts, and the type and number of salinity control
methods. 



                                     Table 3
                     
                         USDA's Salinity Control Project
                       Activities Through Fiscal Year 1994

                             Total
                              cost
              Expenditur      when
              es through  complete            Irrigati
                  fiscal         d                  on                      Land
               year 1994  (dollars    Active   systems            Ditche  levele
                (dollars        in  contract  installe  Pipeline       s       d
                      in  millions         s         d  installe   lined  (acres
Project area   millions)         )  (number)  (number)  d (feet)  (feet)       )
------------  ----------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------  ------
Grand Valley         $26       $63       392     1,617  2,220,03  371,71   4,964
 (Colorado)                                                  1\\       2
Uintah Basin          37        60       494     1,790  3,979,65       0   2,452
 (Utah)                                                        7
Big Sandy              7        19        15        95   138,512       0       0
 (Wyoming)
Lower                 14       145       224       402   789,293  108,13   1,262
 Gunnison                                                              0
 (Colorado)
McElmo Creek           5        30       170       218   402,991       0       0
 (Colorado)
================================================================================
Total                $89      $317     1,295     4,122  7,530,48  479,84   8,678
                                                               4       2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Individual landowners or farms can have multiple contracts. 

Source:  USDA. 


   PROGRAM MANAGERS CONSIDER
   VARIOUS FACTORS IN SELECTING
   PROJECTS' METHODS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

In their search for viable ways to control the amount of salt being
added to the Colorado River, program managers from BOR, BLM, and USDA
have considered a variety of site- specific methods.  These range
from lining irrigation canals, to implementing more efficient
irrigation systems, to retiring land from agricultural use.  In
selecting a particular salinity control method from among the
available alternatives, agency officials said they consider several
factors.  These factors include the various methods' cost and
effectiveness, as well as their feasibility and environmental
effects. 

According to agency officials, cost and effectiveness are key
considerations in selecting from among the alternative methods. 
Table 4 illustrates the cost-effectiveness and other factors
considered by BOR managers (in December 1993) in evaluating
alternative methods for one project. 



                                     Table 4
                     
                     Some Alternative Methods Considered for
                          BOR's San Juan-Hammond Project

                 Projected
                 amount of     Estimated
                      salt         cost-
                controlled  effectivenes
Method              (tons/   s (dollars/
considered           year)          ton)  Comments
--------------  ----------  ------------  --------------------------------------
Line canals         27,700      $41.65\a  Recommended method; most cost-
                                           effective; lowest environmental
                                           impact; preferred by water users
Install low-        18,400         88.75  None
 pressure
 pipelines
Retire land         31,560        187.00  Not acceptable to State of New Mexico
                                           and most irrigators; could result in
                                           the elimination of up to 3,933 acres
                                           of irrigated land and the abandonment
                                           of 27 miles of canal and 10.3 miles
                                           of laterals
Install high-       18,400        235.00  None
 pressure
 pipelines
Install low-        31,700        $98.00  Water rights unavailable
 pressure
 pipelines for
 the Muï¿½oz
 Canyon part
 of project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a BOR subsequently estimated the cost-effectiveness for this method
at $34 per ton, as reflected in table 5. 

Source:  BOR. 

BOR and USDA program managers use the same formula to compute a
method's cost-effectiveness.\3 Essentially, the formula divides a
method's estimated annualized cost by the tons of salt it is expected
to control annually, yielding the cost of preventing 1 ton of salt
from entering the river.\4 Annualized costs are composed of capital
costs as well as operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.  The total
capital cost is annualized by amortizing it using an 8-percent
interest rate over the life of the project.  For example, the capital
cost of the Las Vegas, Pittman Bypass project was $1,757,000. 
Amortizing this cost over the expected life of the project (50 years)
at 8 percent interest yields an annual cost of $143,371.  Adding the
annual O&M cost of $50,000 yields a total annual cost of $193,371. 
The project controls 3,800 tons of salt per year.  Thus, the
project's cost-effectiveness is $51 per ton:  the annual cost
($193,371) divided by the amount of salt controlled (3,800 tons). 
Table 5 shows the cost-effectiveness of BOR's salinity control
projects. 



                                     Table 5
                     
                       Cost-Effectiveness of BOR's Salinity
                                 Control Projects

                  Actual
               amount of
                    salt
              controlled
                 through     Potential              Annual O&M
                  fiscal     amount of  Total cost       costs
               year 1994          salt    (dollars    (dollars             Cost-
                  (tons/    controlled          in          in     effectiveness
Project\a          year)   (tons/year)   millions)   millions)    (dollars/ton)\
------------  ----------  ------------  ----------  ----------  ----------------
Meeker Dome       48,000        48,000          $3          \b                $5
 (Colorado)
Las Vegas,         3,800         3,800           2       $0.05                51
 Pittman
 Bypass
 (Nevada)
Paradox          128,000       128,000          67        3.50                77
 Valley
 (Colorado)
Grand             99,900       131,300         159        0.43               102
 Valley
 (Colorado)
McElmo            23,000        23,000          39        0.03               138
 Creek
 (Colorado)
Lower             38,734        41,380          25        0.41                58
 Gunnison
 Basin:
 Winter
 Water
 (Colorado)
Lower                 \c        64,000          53          \d                68
 Gunnison
 Basin:
 East Side
 Laterals
 (Colorado)
San Juan-             \c        27,700          12          \d                34
 Hammond
 (New
 Mexico)
Uintah                \c        25,500          29          \d                93
 Basin
 (Utah)
Price-San             \c       161,000          78          \d                39
 Rafael
 (Utah)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The expected life is 50 years for all but two projects:  Meeker
Dome's expected life is 100 years; Paradox Valley's is 25 years. 

\b No O&M costs are incurred for this project, which entailed
plugging oil wells. 

\c These projects are still in various stages of planning. 

\d BOR does not expect to have O&M costs on these projects. 

Source:  BOR. 

As shown in table 5, the cost-effectiveness of BOR's projects ranges
from $5 per ton to $138 per ton.  The variance in cost-effectiveness,
according to the BOR Salinity Control Program Coordinator, stems from
many things, such as the number and type of activities involved (as
shown in table 1), the size and complexity of the project, and
advances in technology (e.g., using a strong, thin plastic membrane
rather than concrete to line canals or laterals).  The BOR
coordinator believes that as the Bureau has gained experience in
salinity control over the years, it has gotten better at identifying
and implementing more cost-effective methods for projects. 

Although the cost-effectiveness of USDA's projects also varies, the
variance is not as much as for BOR's projects.  Overall, USDA's
projects tend to cost less per ton of salt controlled than BOR
projects, mostly because they are smaller, simpler projects.  Table 6
shows the cost-effectiveness of USDA's salinity control projects. 



                                     Table 6
                     
                      Cost-Effectiveness of USDA's Salinity
                                 Control Projects

                     Actual amount
                           of salt                   Projected
                        controlled       Potential  total cost
                    through fiscal  amount of salt    (dollars             Cost-
                         year 1994      controlled          in     effectiveness
Project                (tons/year)     (tons/year)   millions)     (dollars/ton)
------------------  --------------  --------------  ----------  ----------------
Grand Valley                63,074         132,000         $63               $38
 (Colorado)
Uintah Basin                77,549         106,800          60                45
 (Utah)
Big Sandy                   22,313          52,900          19                29
 (Wyoming)
Lower Gunnison              18,878         166,000         145                70
 (Colorado)
McElmo Creek                 9,419          46,000          30                51
 (Colorado)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Because O&M costs are borne by the participants in a project
rather than by USDA, they are excluded from this table. 

Source:  USDA. 

In addition to cost-effectiveness, program managers also consider
factors such as the available methods' acceptability to users,
legality, and potential effect on wildlife.  Consideration of these
factors, aside from or in addition to cost-effectiveness, can lead to
a method's rejection, according to program managers.  For example,
retiring land from agricultural use has generally been considered an
unacceptable method of controlling salinity, primarily because of its
adverse effect on the local economy.  Additionally, in terms of
cost-effectiveness, retiring land generally fares poorly compared to
other methods. 

Another method is marketing the water for municipal and industrial
uses rather than using it for irrigation within a particular state.\5
To date, however, water marketing has faced political and legal
barriers.  For example, several proposals to allow the marketing of
conserved water have been defeated by the Colorado State Legislature. 
However, water marketing of conserved water is allowed in California,
as we discussed in our May 1994 report.\6

Methods have also been rejected because they were environmentally
unsound.  For example, for the Paradox Valley project, program
managers considered piping brine into a holding pond and letting it
evaporate.  This method was rejected because it was deemed dangerous
to wildlife in the area. 


--------------------
\3 BLM program managers do not compute cost-effectiveness, largely
because of the multipurpose nature of their salinity control
projects. 

\4 We did not evaluate the formula as a measure of cost-
effectiveness. 

\5 Municipal and industrial uses generally contribute much less salt
to the river than does agricultural use, according to BOR. 

\6 Water Transfers:  More Efficient Water Use Possible, If Problems
Are Addressed (GAO/RCED-94-35, May 23, 1994). 


   INTERIOR'S MEASUREMENTS OF
   SALINITY SHOW THAT STATUTORY
   LIMITS ARE NOT BEING EXCEEDED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Measurements of salinity since the inception of the program show that
salt levels at the three established monitoring stations have
remained below the limits instituted under the Clean Water Act, thus
satisfying the program's goal.  According to program managers, the
goal could not be met beyond the year 2000 without the various title
II projects. 

In 1974, EPA required that "appropriate points in the Colorado River
System" be selected at which numeric criteria for salinity
concentrations would be established, using the 1972 averages.  In
1975, the states adopted and EPA approved basinwide salinity
standards.  Under these standards, the average annual salinity was to
be maintained at or below the average level found during 1972. 

In 1975, accordingly, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
selected three monitoring stations at which to apply the numeric
criteria.  Program managers said they selected monitoring stations in
the lower river basin because the effects of salinity were greater
there than in the upper basin.  The selected stations are at three
locations:  (1) below Hoover Dam, at the southern border of Nevada;
(2) below Parker Dam, at the western edge of central Arizona; and (3)
above Imperial Dam, near Yuma, Arizona.  EPA approved the Forum's
selections as being consistent with the regulatory requirements.  The
numeric criteria, stated in milligrams per liter (mg/L), are 723 mg/L
for below Hoover Dam; 747 mg/L for below Parker Dam; and 879 mg/L for
above Imperial Dam. 

Since 1974, measurements of salinity at all three stations have been
below the established limits.  As an example, figure 2 shows the
salinity measurements at the southernmost station (Imperial Dam), in
relation to the limit (879 mg/L), from 1974 through 1991 (the latest
year for which data were available). 

   Figure 2:  Salinity
   Measurements Above Imperial
   Dam, 1974 Through 1991

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's representation of data presented in Quality of Water,
Colorado River Basin, U.S.  Department of the Interior, Progress Rpt. 
No.  16 (Jan.  1993). 

The dip in salinity shown in figure 2 is due primarily to the
high-water years experienced through the mid-1980s, according to
Interior's report cited above.  The record-high flows during this
period increased the volume of water in the river, thus lessening the
concentration of salt.  The salinity levels for the same period at
the other two monitoring stations, in relation to their established
limits, followed a similar pattern. 

According to Interior's January 1993 report, natural variations in
the Colorado River, due to highly variable runoff and flows, cause
salinity levels to vary significantly.  The salinity control program
is not intended to counteract the salinity fluctuations that result
from the highly variable runoff and flows caused by climatic
conditions, precipitation, snowmelt, and other natural factors. 
Rather, the program is designed to offset the effects of development,
even as salinity varies from year to year in response to the climatic
and hydrologic conditions.  Salinity program reports concluded that,
with the completion of the existing and planned control projects,
salinity levels should remain at or below the criteria levels beyond
the year 2010.  Without these additional salinity control projects,
according to BOR's projections, the salinity levels at Imperial Dam
would exceed the established limits by about the year 2000, with
steadily increasing levels thereafter. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

As requested, we did not obtain written comments from the agencies
included in our review.  We did, however, discuss the data included
in this report with officials from BOR, BLM, USDA, EPA, and the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum: 

  Officials from BOR's Upper Colorado Region (in Salt Lake City): 
     the Regional Director; the Manager of the Resources Management
     Division; and the Program Manager, Colorado River Salinity
     Control Program. 

  Officials from BLM's Denver Service Center:  the BLM Senior
     Management Representative for the Colorado River Salinity
     Program and the BLM Technical Coordinator for the Colorado River
     Salinity Control Program. 

  Officials from USDA's headquarters (in Washington, D.C.):  the
     Director, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly
     the Soil Conservation Service); the USDA Salinity Program
     Coordinator, Natural Resources Conservation Service; the
     Director of Conservation and Environmental Protection Division,
     USDA Consolidated Farm Service Agency (formerly the Agricultural
     Stabilization and Conservation Service); and the USDA Salinity
     Control Program Manager. 

  Officials from EPA's Region VIII (in Denver):  the Chief, Water
     Quality Branch, and the EPA Region VIII Salinity Coordinator. 

  The Executive Director of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
     Forum (in Bountiful, Utah). 

They generally agreed with the information presented in this report
but suggested several technical and editorial changes that we
incorporated where appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

In conducting our review, we examined relevant documents prepared by
the various participating agencies in the Departments of the Interior
and Agriculture and by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum.  We also interviewed program managers from these organizations
at all organizational levels--in their Washington, D.C., regional,
state, and local offices, as appropriate.  In addition, we reviewed
reports by the Office of the Inspector General of the Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture.  A full description of our scope and
methodology is included in appendix II.  We conducted our review from
January 1994 through January 1995 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. 

As requested, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we
plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the
date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to
appropriate congressional committees; federal agencies; the Director,
Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties.  We
will also make copies available to others on request.  Please contact
me at (202) 512-7756 if you or your staff have any questions about
this report.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix III. 

James Duffus III
Director, Natural Resources
 Management Issues


THE FEDERAL SALINITY CONTROL
PROGRAM
=========================================================== Appendix I

At the federal level, the salinity control program includes various
agencies within the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture
(USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Interior
agencies involved in salinity control include the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.  Geological Survey. 
Coordination among the federal agencies is accomplished through the
Interagency Salinity Control Coordinating Committee. 


   BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

As the lead agency for the Department of the Interior's Salinity
Control Program, BOR is responsible for coordinating efforts within
Interior, investigating problems with salinity, analyzing the
program's needs and accomplishments, and implementing specific
congressionally approved salinity control projects.  BOR primarily
attempts to reduce the salt contributed to the Colorado River by
reconstructing primary irrigation systems.  Such reconstruction
generally involves lining irrigation canals and laterals with
concrete or plastic to eliminate the seepage and deep percolation of
irrigation water into the groundwater.  Other projects by BOR reduce
the salt contributed to the river by blocking or controlling specific
"point" sources.  For example, in one project brine is injected into
a deep well to prevent its entering the river. 

By the end of September 1994, BOR had completed construction on three
salinity control projects, at a combined cost of about $69 million. 
Construction was under way on another three projects, and another
four projects were in various planning stages. 

The Meeker Dome project, completed in 1983 at a cost of about $3
million, entailed plugging three wells that had originally been
drilled for oil exploration but had been abandoned.  The wells had
been identified as significant contributors of salt to the Colorado
River.  The Las Vegas, Pittman Bypass project, completed in 1985 at a
cost of about $2 million, entailed constructing a 4-mile pipeline to
replace an unlined ditch that carried industrial wastewater.  The
unlined ditch had allowed seepage, which in turn increased the flow
of salt into the groundwater and ultimately into the river.  The
Paradox Valley project, which was completed in 1994 at a cost of
about $64 million (and which requires an estimated $3 million to test
before it becomes fully operational), entailed injecting highly
saline groundwater into a well about 3 miles beneath the surface, a
depth that prevents the water from entering the river.  The highly
saline groundwater resulted from natural saline springs. 

The Grand Valley project, scheduled for completion in 1998 at an
estimated cost of $159 million, entails reducing seepage by lining
about 45 miles of existing earthen irrigation canals and by replacing
with pipe about 338 miles of existing earthen laterals, or ditches,
which convey water from the canals to plots of land.  The McElmo
Creek project,\7 scheduled for completion in 1997 at a cost of about
$39 million, entails lining 34 miles of existing irrigation canals,
installing 7 miles of laterals, and combining existing canals into a
new lined canal.  The Lower Gunnison Basin project, scheduled for
completion at a cost of about $78 million, includes two separate
projects that entail reducing seepage by replacing an unlined canal
with a pipe to make water available for livestock during the winter
and by combining some laterals and replacing others with pipe. 

The San Juan-Hammond project, with an estimated construction cost of
about $12 million, is planned to entail lining about 20 miles of
canal and 7 miles of laterals.  The Uintah Basin project, estimated
to cost about $29 million, is planned to involve lining over 55 miles
of canals and laterals.  The Price-San Rafael project, estimated to
cost about $78 million, is planned to entail installing 97 miles of
pipe for irrigation water. 


--------------------
\7 The McElmo Creek project is part of BOR's Dolores project, a water
project located in southwestern Colorado. 


   BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

BLM administers 48 million acres in the Colorado River Basin above
Imperial Dam, or about 36 percent of the basin's total area.  Of this
land, about 8 million acres contain saline soils.  Most of the salt
contributed to the river from BLM-managed lands is from "nonpoint"
sources such as surface runoff, erosion, and the flow of groundwater. 
Point sources on BLM lands include saline springs, mining spoil
piles, and some oil and gas production sites.  According to program
officials, the precise amount of salt contributed from BLM-managed
lands is extremely difficult to determine because of variances in the
movement of salt, sediment, and groundwater and because of the
proximity of lands not under BLM's control. 

BLM's primary focus for reducing the salt contributed to the river
from lands it administers is to control erosion and to stop specific
point sources (e.g., by plugging abandoned oil and gas wells that are
such sources).  BLM's efforts to control erosion include building
"check-dams" to prevent soils from washing away during heavy rains
and improving vegetation to better hold the ground in place.  BLM
also improves ground cover by controlling or limiting grazing. 

From its earliest days, according to program managers, BLM has
recognized the need for soil and water conservation on the lands it
administers and has actively worked to control erosion.  As early as
the 1960s, BLM had increased its efforts to include water in its
resource planning activities and to improve water quality.  In 1974,
the year the Colorado River Saliniy Control Act was enacted, BLM was
already engaged in a special appraisal of the salt contributed to the
river from BLM-administered lands.  After the 1984 amendments, which
formally added BLM to the salinity control program, BLM developed a
comprehensive program for minimizing the salt contributed to the
river.  That program was described in an Interior report to the
Congress in July 1987.\8

BLM field offices have the primary responsibility for developing and
implementing the resource management plans.  Generally, each area
manager prepares a plan for the geographic area he or she manages. 
However, district managers can initiate broader, overlapping plans
when significant issues or conflicts arise.  In developing these
plans, BLM invites public review and participation.  Thus, BLM
receives from the public, as well as from federal, state, and local
agencies, information on controlling salinity. 

By the end of September 1994, BLM had spent about $7 million on the
control of salinity--both through multipurpose resource management
activities and specific salinity control projects.  In fiscal year
1994, BLM spent about $800,000 on salinity control; the projected
expenditure for fiscal year 1995 is $800,000. 


--------------------
\8 Salinity Control on BLM Administered Public Lands in the Colorado
River Basin, A Report to Congress, July 1987, U.S.  Department of the
Interior (Washington, D.C.:  July 1987). 


   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

USDA's salinity control program involves voluntary "cost-share"
projects on farms and on lands adjacent to farms.  Applicants agree
to construct, operate, and maintain an irrigation improvement project
designed to reduce the amount of salt contributed to the river as a
result of irrigation practices.  Primarily, these projects improve
irrigation methods and delivery systems, thereby reducing the seepage
and deep percolation of salt into the groundwater.  The projects
include improving sprinkler systems, installing pipe, and lining
delivery canals.  Landowners who wish to participate in the program
submit an application to the local USDA office; each office assigns a
priority to each application received.  For example, in the Grand
Valley project area, priorities are based primarily on need--that is,
projects are ranked according to the level of salinity in the area. 
Thus, a farm located in a highly saline area would receive a higher
priority than would a farm in an area with less saline soil.  Once an
application is approved, the office develops a salinity control plan
and executes an implementation contract with the applicant for a
period of 3 to 10 years.  Besides agreeing to build and install the
project, the landowner agrees to operate and maintain the project for
as long as 25 years. 

By the end of September 1994, USDA had about 1,300 contracts for
projects affecting about 150,000 acres.  The program's expenditures
through September 1994 were about $89 million; about $228 million
more is needed to complete projects planned in the five project
areas. 

At the local level, USDA agencies administer the program through
county offices.  These offices identify potential acreage for
treatment under the program; prepare estimates of project areas'
funding needs; develop and present information about the program;
review, prioritize, and approve applications for participation in the
program; help applicants prepare salinity control plans; prepare
construction contracts for the projects; prepare operation and
maintenance agreements for the contracts; obligate and disburse
cost-share funds; provide technical assistance to participants in the
program; inspect and certify projects' completion; estimate and
report on the reduction in salinity attributable to the projects; and
maintain records and statistical reports. 


   OTHER AGENCIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

EPA and Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.  Geological
Survey are other agencies involved in the salinity control program. 
EPA reviews and approves water quality standards, including numeric
criteria.  EPA also reviews environmental documents and provides
technical comments on the impacts that salinity control projects have
on the environment and the plans to mitigate these impacts.  The Fish
and Wildlife Service provides support during planning for technical
issues such as the impacts projects will have on fish, wetlands, and
wildlife habitat.  The Geological Survey monitors the salinity of the
Colorado River, provides pertinent information in published reports,
and conducts special investigations to identify sources of salt. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II

The Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Resources, and the
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, House Committee on
Appropriations, in their former roles as Chairs, asked us to review
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.  Specifically,
they requested that we gather information on (1) the cost and status
of the salinity control projects, (2) factors considered in selecting
salinity control methods, and (3) the Department of the Interior's
measures of the salinity control program's effectiveness.  They also
requested information on the responsibilities and activities of the
agencies involved.  We concentrated our review on three agencies
involved in the salinity control program:  Interior's BOR and BLM,
and USDA. 

We reviewed relevant documents and interviewed salinity control
program managers in the Department of the Interior and USDA.  In
Interior, we met with program officials from BOR and BLM.  In USDA,
we met with program officials from the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Service.  We also
interviewed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum's
Chairman and Executive Director.  Additionally, we interviewed
representatives of the International Boundary and Water Commission,
in El Paso, Texas; the Environmental Defense Fund, in Boulder,
Colorado; and an irrigation district in Grand Junction, Colorado. 
Finally, we interviewed interested or concerned citizens in the Grand
Junction area. 

To determine the cost and status of salinity control projects, we
obtained project summaries from program managers in Interior and
USDA.  To identify the factors considered in selecting project
methods, we reviewed the project summaries and interviewed program
managers in the two departments.  To provide information on the
salinity control program's effectiveness, we reviewed the Department
of the Interior's salinity measurements and progress reports.  We
also interviewed officials from USDA's Office of the Inspector
General and EPA's regional office in Denver. 

Additionally, we reviewed four audit reports issued by the Inspectors
General of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to
identify recommendations pertaining to title II of the Salinity
Control Act.  We then reviewed the agencies' tracking files and
interviewed agency officials about actions taken to implement the
recommendations.  At the time of our review, USDA's Inspector General
was auditing the agency's salinity control projects in southwestern
Colorado.  The Inspector General's report had not been issued at the
time of this report. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
ISSUES

Sue Naiberk, Assistant Director
David E.  Flores, Evaluator-in-Charge
Janet L.  Peace, Staff Evaluator
Pamela K.  Tumler, Communications Analyst
Philip Farah, Senior Economist
Stanley G.  Feinstein, Senior Attorney

