My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11158
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11158
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:16:23 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:46:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.470
Description
Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
6/1/1972
Author
Unknown
Title
Analytical Summary Report on Water and Land Resources - June 1972 - State and Federal Comments
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.
/
30
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 />on1177 <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />The areals projected increase in electric power requirements from <br />45,000 megawatts in 1970 to 75,000 megawatts in 1980, to 280,000 <br />megawatts in 2000, and to 683,000 megawatts in 2020, poses a po- <br />tential air pollution crisis if emission control technology does <br />not rapidly improve. Thirty-eight percent of the generating capacity <br />in 2020 is expected to be nuclear fueled and 54.5 percent is expected <br />to be from fossil fuel plants. It is especially interesting to note <br />that most of the thermal power plants in 2020 are expected to be <br />located along the California Coast, an area of rapidly expanding <br />population. This situation deserves greater attention than has <br />been given to it in this report, Generation of electrical energy <br />in the Pacific Southwest is a major threat to the environment that <br />cannot be resolved without questioning basic policies in land and <br />water usage of the area. <br /> <br />Alternative plans of development investigated are restricted primarily <br />to alternate levels of population growth which do not materially <br />affect the structure of the plan other than the rate or staging of <br />its development. Alternative patterns of water and land use were not <br />considered. Such alternatives could have highly significant effects <br />on the quantities of water needed and on the economic and social <br />well-being of the people in the regions. <br /> <br />The report appears to be deficient in identifying and quantifying <br />environmental effects of the base plan and the exploration of <br />alternatives which may significantly affect the environment and <br />insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and <br />values are given appropriate consideration in decision-making along <br />with economic and technical considerations as required by the <br />National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. <br /> <br />EPA reiterates its disapproval of the conclusion that the only way <br />to achieve streamflow regulation for the purposes of water quality <br />is through augmentation. This concept avoids any discussion of the <br />many legal and institutional considerations which impede water <br />quality management. The premise that no change in legal and in- <br />stitutional arrangements will be made during the next fifty yeaTs <br />imposes a questionable constraint on water quality planning. Such <br />a long-range study of water resources in the Southwest is incomplete <br />without an examination of the relationship of water quality to <br />present laws and policies governing state water rights. The COn- <br />clusions should direct the necessary legal and institutional re- <br />visions rather than ignore them. <br /> <br />EXHIBIT G <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.