My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
IBCC Meeting Notes 10-18-06
CWCB
>
Interbasin Compact Committee
>
Backfile
>
IBCC Meeting Notes 10-18-06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 11:55:15 AM
Creation date
7/26/2007 3:14:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Interbasin Compact Committee
Title
Meeting Notes
Date
10/18/2006
Interbasin CC - Doc Type
Meeting Notes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />There will be significant impacts (social, water, and environmental) where the White and <br />Colorado intersect if and when the energy boom occurs. There will be impacts all the way to <br />Grand Junction. The latter will probably have m ore workers than Meeker. The IBCC needs <br />to grapple with artificial boundaries, where impacts are felt. The IBCC and relevant <br />Roundtables will have to grapple with the issue of artificial boundaries, i.e. basins, prior to <br />major energy development coming on line. <br />? <br /> <br />Shell is in the process of determining how to get electrical energy for its future project. It is <br />not yet clear where the company will get needed energy. It may make a final determination <br />in the next three years and potentially be in production in 7 more years. At this point some <br />are saying that Shell may be in full - scale production in 10 years, and the process used may <br />require three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. <br />? <br /> <br />Shell has some senior rights in the basin. Quantities needed for its projects could be several <br />hundred thousand acre feet. Water will be need for a power plant and for the extraction of <br />oil. <br />? <br /> <br />Even if oil shale production doesn’t use that much water (3 barrels of water to produce a <br />barrel of oil), there will still be secon dary water usage and other actions that will impact <br />water availability. <br />? <br /> <br />Will the proposed energy study in Yampa look at whether produced water is appropriated or <br />un - appropriated? The request for the study has been received. (The Yampa Roundtable <br />members a re comfortable with the 1400 consultant who is responsible for the work, but may <br />additionally reach out for additional studies .) A question was raised about how a consultant <br />can get information on the proposed oil shale process. Isn’t this confidential or privileged <br />information? <br />? <br /> <br />Eric K. and Dan looked into Shell’s proposal and they think that the company really does not <br />know where it will get the water . <br />? <br /> <br />Locals want to know what mitigating steps are being taken and need to be moving ahead with <br />identify th eir needs. <br /> <br />There followed a discussion of the “Yampa Doctrine,” Yampa parties’ analysis of their <br />obligations to meet calls on the Colorado River. <br /> <br />Yampa Doctrine: This area has the disadvantage of having its projects/diversions based on fairly <br />junior w ater rights. Concern is how curtailment of rights might be accomplished if there is a <br />basin call. Twenty years ago, parties in the Yampa were looking for ways to protect the Basin. <br />Title 13 of the Upper Basin Compact deals with Yampa. Some lawyers and others in the basin <br />believe that there is an apportionment among the 4 Upper Basin states — and if delivery is <br />required in the Compact, the Upper Basin states should not be required to curtail water use. <br />There is a binding agreement on the 4 states. To them this means that when there is a basin call, <br />the Yampa River can’t be called out. They interpret this to mean that the Yampa is immune to <br />calls and other Colorado parties will have to deal with future demands on their portion of the <br />Colorado and tributari es. Yampa parties have noted that they have yet to persuade others on this <br />interpretation of the Compact. <br /> <br />Review and Approval of Criteria and Guidelines <br /> <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.