My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08911
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:50:09 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:21:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8271.200
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Development and History - UCRB 13a Assessment
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
5/1/1979
Author
US Fish and Wildlife
Title
A Report on Use of A Regional Reconnaissance Methodology to Determine Instream Flow Effects As Applied to the Analysis of Impacts of Coal and Oil Shale --- part 1 of 2 - Title Page - page 100
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />in turn an extension of FEA's (Federal Energy Administra- <br /> <br /> <br />tion' 5) Basel ine of developments for 1985. The Accel- <br /> <br /> <br />erated Synfuel scenario was formulated by DOE, envisioning <br /> <br /> <br />increased production of synthetic fuels from coal and more <br /> <br />..... <br />-..1 rapid development of oil shale resources. <br />CJl <br />{.0 <br /> <br />2' Based Upon Alternative Delivery Systems <br /> <br />In light of the !iillocation: oil shale resource locations <br /> <br /> <br />and potential future development, it became evident that <br /> <br /> <br />water demands would be made upon the White and Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />Rivers in Colorado. Location of coal fields in Utah <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />indicated the probability of further demands upon the <br /> <br /> <br />White River if coal gasification plants were to be <br /> <br /> <br />established there. Neither the White River nor the <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado River could sustain those demands if delivery <br /> <br /> <br />were to be made by direct diversion of available stream <br /> <br />flow; the White River because of naturally insufficient <br /> <br /> <br />water during late summer, fall, and winter; the Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />River because of prior water rights for irrigation in the <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Grand Valley area and second to those rights, the rights <br /> <br /> <br />to export water from the Colorado Basin headwaters. <br /> <br /> <br />Therefore, the pass i bil it ies for carryover storage were <br /> <br /> <br />given cursory considerations. This appears to offer a <br /> <br /> <br />viable solution in both the Colorado and Utah situations, <br /> <br /> <br />considering only the availability of water for EEl <br /> <br /> <br />development without infringing of legally-recognized water <br /> <br /> <br />uses and rights thereto. <br /> <br />41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.