7158 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, .. '~ Porcella [16] compared with information that was obtained from various sources by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Of importance here is not whether the figures are exact, but rather the trend that is depicted. Much of the water being sold to the energy development companies was ~re~iously used for a~ricultural purposes. El-Ashry (17) 1nd1cated that the Sh1ft of water use from agriculture to energy development would have adverse impacts on surface and ground water and, consequently, on fish and wildlife. This would happen through an increased depletion of available ground w~ter resources which, in some areas, depends on deep ~ercolat1on of excess water from irrigation runoff. Streams, 1n many areas, are also sustained by excess water draining from irrigated lands. I t is also possible that another factor could cause a n~t increase in water use when ,there is a shift from irriga- t10n to energy development. There are many situations where the full allotment of water owned for the purpose of agri- cultural u~e ~s not c~mpletely utilized during a given year; however, 1t 1S Poss~ble that this may change and energy developers may cons1stently utilize the majority of the allotted water. This is a result of the different demands for water between the agriculture uses and energy development uses. One study estimated that only 5% [about 0.1 x 109 m3 (90,000 AF)J of current agricultural water supplies 1n Colorado and Utah will have been converted to energy use by the year 200~ [18J. However, several of the energy develop- ment compan1es purchased water righ ts (many of which had previously been used for agricultural purposes) during the 1950's and 60's, and may not have been included in the above study. For example, a group of energy development companies have proposed removing a maximum of 0.45 x 109 m3 <362,000 AF) of water annually from the Colorado River near the town of DeBeque, Colorado. Most of these water rights are senior and were purchased 15-30 years ago. This is just one example. The FWS has worked with several energy development companies that have proposed project s that would require significant amounts of water that has already beer. purchased, some having purchased the water several years ago. It is assumed that much of this water was used for agricultural purposes or is still being used for agricultural purposes (via leases, etc.) until it is needed for energy development. PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE The continued existence of the endangered Colorado River fishes will require cooperation an~ communication among 546 ........- diverse interest groups. As demonstrated in the snail darter vs Telico Dam case, all future development will not likely come to a halt because of unique fishes such as the bony tail chub, humpback chub, and Colorado squawfish. Probably several proposed dams and water diversion projects will have to be abandoned. Other projects must expect some delay, compromises, and modifications in pr?jects to, mai,ntain certain environmental conditions and avo1d the ext1nct1on of these rare fishes [1]. However, this rationale is not new, Wheelwright [19J pointed out that the majority of nearly 150 conflicts between the provisions of Section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act and planned, federally involved projects between 1973 and 1977, ha~ ~een resolv~d through negotiation and compromise. The ma]Or1ty of Sect10n 7 work in Colorado and Utah, dealing with fish that the FWS ha~ b7en involved in, has also resulted in some form of negot1at1on and compromise. In the future we will have to be even increasingly selective with respect to projects a~l~wed to proceed and even more demanding with respect to,mod1f1ca- tions and constraints to minimize undesirable env1ronmental alterations. Since the demand for water appears to be the issue concerning the future survival of the native upper basin fish, we must reduce this demand or face the fact that extinction of some unique fish and additional loss and modification of natural riverine ecosystems will occur. Perhaps we should look more to moderating or minimizing our demands for still more water. We cannot afford to be extravagant. The following is a list of some potential means for reducing our future water demands. 1. Use of energy alternatives (solar, etc.). 2. Conservation methods (less water use for domestic purposes, more efficient irrigation systems like those used in some arid countries, etc.). 3. Reduce the level of planned activities. 4. Development of new technologies (where cost/benefit ratios usually prohibit this aspect, the future price tags on water might make them more feasible). 5. Use of ground water that has little or no effect on surface water (Spofford [20J, estimated that the recoverable reserve of ground water in the upper 30.5 m (100 ft) of saturated rocks may be as much as 142 x 109 m3 (115 MAF). However, about 99 x 109 m3 (80 MAF) (70%) is saline). Care is required if ground water is used because ground w~ter s?urces can be easily polluted and lost, espec1ally 1f not readily recharged. 6. Weather modifications (cloud seeding).