Laserfiche WebLink
<br />pipeline from the diversion facility to the reservoirs. <br />compari son Wi'S made between pumpi ng 1 i fts and pi pe 1 i ne 1 engths <br />the conceptual plans. <br /> <br />A genenl <br />required for <br /> <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I, <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />. <br /> <br />All of the oi 1 shale water delivery routes provided water to the Upper <br />Piceance CreElk Basin. The various routes involved pump lifts ranging from <br />700 to 1200 feet, depending upon the pipeline route selected. The delivery <br />system for irrigation and coal was much more diversified. Faci I ities for <br />this system included pumping plants, tunnels, pipelines, canals, and <br />diversion darrs. Some of these systems had no pumping, while others lift~d <br />water more than 700 feet. The delivery systems ranged in length from less <br />than a mile to several miles. <br /> <br />In all, 16 plans were formulated using 15 dam sites, 11 oil shale water <br />delivery routes, and eight systems to deliver coal and irrigation water. <br />Seven of the plans required one reservoir, eight used two reservoirs, a1d <br />one plan included three reservoirs. The locations of the reservoirs <br />considered in the 16 plans are shown on Figure, IV-I. Cost estimates were <br />not made for these 16 plans, but the faci"lity sizes ~ere compared to develop <br />an idea of the relative cost. <br /> <br />After the 16 conceptual alternatives were developed, they were presented to <br />CWCB staff and the Advisory Committee for comment. Several plans were <br />obviously inferior to others in providing water supplies for the potential <br />demands. For example, Veatch Gulch was dropped because the reservoir was <br />limited and resulted in a high and expensive dam. Powell Park and Sheep <br />Creek could provide water efficiently to oil shale, but were not conducive <br />to supply other purposes conveniently. They were subsequently eliminated <br />from consideration as single-reservoir plans. <br /> <br />More two-reservoir concepts were eliminatl~d because a single reservoir could <br />accomplish the desired effects at less cost. One exception was the Powell <br />Park-upstream reservoir combination. Powell Park is situated at a location <br />which provides good potential for storage, regulation, and hydropower, bJt <br />it would require an additional site upstream to meet the irrigation and cOl.l <br />demands. The Powell Park-Lost Park combination was suggested in the review. <br /> <br />IV-2 <br />