My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP13055
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
WSP13055
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 1:54:18 PM
Creation date
4/18/2008 9:02:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8040.200
Description
Energy
State
CO
Date
2/1/1982
Author
Musick and Cope
Title
Briefing Paper on Critical Water Supply Variables for Energy Development in the Upper Colorado River Basin
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.
/
54
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 />The compact benchmark for the White River in Colorado as <br />shown on Table 4 above is l45,OOO acre-feet. As shown in <br />· Table 8, this is a middle to optimistic scenario. <br /> <br />According to the Colorado DNR data, existing depletions <br />on the White River in Colorado amount to 43,000 acre-feet per <br />year (also shown on Table 4). This leaves only about lOO,OOO <br />acre-feet per year of consumptive use for all new water devel- <br />opments on the White River, before such developments will <br />start to impinge: l) on water developments on another tribu- <br />tary in Colorado; 2) on another Upper Basin state's Compact <br />entitlement; or 3) on the assumed Lower Basin delivery obli- <br />gation. Presently there are about 30 major water supply pro- <br />jects planned for the White River in Colorado, whose water <br />right claims amount to almost 7,000 csf of direct flow <br />rights, and almost 2,000,000 acre-feet of storage. (See <br />Appendix 2.) A number of these claims are mutually exclu- <br />sive, but even after some cancelling out, it is clear that <br />only a handful of these projects can be developed without <br />requiring some sort of interstate or intertributary compact <br />accommodation. <br /> <br />Table 9 below shows how quickly this White River compact <br />benchmark can be reached. This benchmark is reached with the <br />development of just the first four, major conditional water <br />rights filings. This means that multitude of filings and <br />water development plans on the White River with water rights <br />priorities which are junior to these first four filings can <br />only be developed in peril of compact constraints. <br /> <br />The potential depletions associated with the development <br />of these first four filings are rough quesses, may be less <br />than the decreed amounts of the water rights, and may be low. <br />The potential depletions associated with the Yellow Jacket <br />Project, for example, have been estimated by some to be as <br />high as 100,000 acre-feet instead of about 50,000. Such a <br />project alignment would push even the rather senior Yellow <br />Jacket filings over the benchmark. <br /> <br />Table 9 - MAJOR, MOST SENIOR CONDITIONAL WATER RIGHTS ON <br />THE WHITE RIVER IN COLORADO (IN ORDER OF PRIORITY) <br /> <br />Project/Structure <br /> <br />1. Stillwater <br /> Project <br />2. Rangely Water <br /> Plant <br />3. Oakridge Park <br /> Ditch <br />4. Yellow Jacket <br /> . Project <br />s. ROM POCO Project <br /> <br />Claimant <br /> <br />Potential Depletions <br />(af/yr) ,'-{ ,. <br /> <br />25,000 <br /> <br />Exxon <br /> <br />Town of Rangely <br /> <br />15,000 <br /> <br />Seely, et ale <br /> <br />25,000 <br /> <br />Yellow Jacket Water <br />Conservancy District <br /> <br />50,000 <br /> <br />Gulf/Standard <br /> <br />100,000 <br /> <br />Total <br /> <br />215,000 <br /> <br />-38- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.