Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />., <br />'. <br /> <br />- 53 - . <br /> <br />.'... <br /> <br />conclude that Deseret would have sufficient water at a <br /> <br />Rangely site. For example, the Western Engineers' <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />September 1979 study allocates 30,000 acre feet to coal <br /> <br />gasification. We know of no planned coal gasification <br /> <br />projects in the upper basin of the White River. The <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />David Fleming 1975 study projects 140,000 acre feet of <br /> <br />water developed for oil shale with upstream senior con- <br /> <br />ditional decrees. Yet the two Colorado federal oil <br /> <br />shale lessees are actively considering using ground <br />V <br />water resources from Piceance Basin. We also nete <br /> <br />that modified in-situ technologies, ~o the extent they <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />are used in the Piceance Creek Basin, would use con- <br /> <br />siderably less water. These and other assumptions that <br /> <br />were used in these studies were designed to give a "worst <br /> <br />case" development scenario which we doubt would occur <br /> <br />during the life of the Deseret project. Nevertheless, <br /> <br />even in the "worst case," Deseret would still receive an <br /> <br />ample supply of water. <br />The studies also provide for substantial by-passes <br /> <br />of water subsequently available to Utah (an average an- <br /> <br />nual flow of 225,000 acre feet). See Fleming, 1979. We <br /> <br />*/ The DEIS touches briefly on direct ground water sup- <br />plies for the Rangely plant. Yet it is surprising that <br />the DEIS fails to assess upstream ground water resources <br />that could reduce downstream competition for water rights. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />03~9 <br />