My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09d
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
09d
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:33:52 PM
Creation date
3/31/2008 4:37:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/18/2008
Description
CWCB Director's Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS and further recommended that the BLM explicitly commit to <br />preparing a supplemental PEIS at a later date, when adequate inforniation is available and do so prior to <br />proceeding with the establishment of commercial oil shale regulations and the subsequent offering of <br />commercial leases. Copies of the extensive comment letter will be made available to Board members if <br />desired. <br />COMPACT CASE COULD IMPACT STATE -The U.S. Supreme Court recently accepted a case <br />filed by Montana against the state of Wyoming, claiming that coalbed methane has contributed to <br />depletion of water in the Tongue and Powder rivers in violation of the Yellowstone River Compact. North <br />Dakota also is a party to the 1950 compact. <br />Montana also raises issues of increased storage and irrigated acreage as reasons for the compact violation, <br />but more than 20,000 methane wells have been drilled in the river basins. Wyoming counters that <br />Montana has not proved injury. <br />Colorado officials are debating whether to file as an interested party in the case, since it could face some <br />of the same issues, said State Engineer Dick Wolfe. <br />Colorado has mining and drilling operations in three different basins that produce water from drilling <br />operations. The case also has some similarities to the Republican River Compact case, said State Engineer <br />Dick Wolfe. <br />Colorado now treats produced water as a `~n-aste" product, although a pending state Supreme Court case <br />could change that. Last summer, a water court judge in Durango ruled water pumped from coalbed <br />methane operations had the potential to injure the water supplies of nearby ranches and constituted a <br />"beneficial use" under Colorado water law. <br />The state appealed the decision, saying produced water is adequately regulated as a waste product and <br />falls under the jurisdiction of the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, rather than the Division of <br />Water Resources. <br />Wyoming, on the other hand, issues water well permits to energy drillers, Wolfe said. <br />In the Arkansas River Basin, about 2,000 oil and gas wells produce about 2,500 acre-feet of water <br />annually in the Raton Basin, according to a draft report on an investigation by the Colorado Geological <br />Survey. <br />There has been new concern by well owners near Walsenburg about methane in the water supply creating <br />a dangerous situation. <br />The Colorado Geological Survey study concluded most of the quality of water produced by the gas wells <br />was suitable for beneficial use. <br />Colorado does not now recognize the removal of water in the drilling operations as a beneficial use, as the <br />Durango ranchers claimed, which would require it to become part of the priority appropriation system, <br />Wolfe said. <br />~11~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.