WSPC05190

• File Number: 8200.700
• Description: Colorado River Basin - General Publications
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 7/6/1981
• Author: Federal Register
• Title: Federal Register - Part III - Water Resources Council - Synthetic Fuels Development for the Upper Colorado Region Water Assessment
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

OOiiSj3

Federal Register I Vol. 46. No. 128 I Monday, July 6. 1981 I Norices

35055

be disposed of through evaporation with
no Impact on surface waters.
Depletions of surface water by
consumplive use of synthetic fuel! may
actually lower the concentrations of
dissolved solids in lIurface waters in the
Upper Basin since !!'ley will be removed
during diversion and retained in
evaporation ponds. However, the Lower
Basin salinity problems will be
somewhallncreased by the combined
Upper and Lower Basin deplelionL

D. Environmental Effe&l!l

One imporlant environmental concern
8esocialed wilh synfuels water use Is
thf! potenlial adverse effecls on habitats
of two endangered fish species. the
Colorado Squawfish and the HumpbilcK
O1ub.
Other environmental effects appear
limited 10 local or site.specific siluations
involving reservoir development and
diversion facilities. which would require
site-specific analyses.

E. Economic ond Sociol Effects

A synthetic fuels production of helil/ly
3 million barrels per day would reduce
hydroeleclric power revenues by S6 to
$1 million annually.
lncreased salinity concentration in the
Lower Basin would adversely effect
agricultural produclion by $4.3 million
annually.

F. Water Supply Costs

The invelltmenl COtlts in water llupply
development facilities for 3 minion
barrels per day of synfueltl production I,
estimated between $0.9 Bnd $1.6 billion
or Bpproximately 2 percenl of the capital
Invetltment in synfuels facililiefl. Most
would occur in the WhJte River Brea.

G. Need for Continuing Impro..ement in
lVater Management
The Colorado River system is a
complex waler managemenl system
Involving interesls inside and oulside
both the Upper and Lower Basin.
Including municipal waler supply in Los
Angeles. San Diego. Denver. and

Phoenix. The complexity ill illustrated
by: lnlerstale compact!!: an Internalionel
Treaty: Supreme Court decree!!: growing
regional economic activity: energy.
agricultural and environmenlal
resources of national and worldwide
Importance: immense Federal
investmenls in water development; and
continUing evolution of new WOller
management problema. challenges. and
resolutions.
A synthetic fuels industry wilhin the
Region that would annually deplete
se\'eral hundred thousand acre.feet of
water would add 10 the comple:lUty of
Basin management.
The following measures lire Deeded to
improve water maniilgemenlln Ihe
Basin:
(I) Greater coordination between
Federallllld Stllte programs and water.
energy. and lend use agendes.
(2) Subbasin waler management plans
responsive to synfuels development
needs but multipurpose in scope and
formulated on an intrastate busis.
except where interstate considerations
are necessary.
13} Timely water management
decision. that balance competing
environment and developmenl interests.
(4) Improve communication among
analysta. the public, the energy industry.
and waler resource decisionmakers.
(5) Expansion of dala collection.
particularly for groundwater in energy
resource areas.
These measures should be achieved
under or evolve from the responsibilities
of existing water Institutions.

III. Background

A. A!anogemenl of Assessment

Operational managment of the
regional assessment was provided by
the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources under an agreement with
WRC. An Advisory Commitlee
composed of the Upper Basin Slates and
Federal agendes provided the overview.
Malor portions of the full assessment
were provided by each State and by the
U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. u.s.

Geological Survey, the U.s, Bureau of
Reclamlltion. and Ihe U.S. Department
of Energy. The Bureau analyzed for
WRC what dfects the nnfuels
development in the Upp~r Basin would
have on water usea in the Lower Ballin.
Consultanls under contract to Colorado
performed various components of the
assessment.
The public had input to the
assessment through re\iew of and
comment on the draft regional
assessment report prepared by Colorado
and through public workshops held in
Grand Junction and Denver. Colorado.
An interagency Federal briefing on the
draft report also provided opporhmity
for informal and formal commenl.
WRC prepared Ihis report and the
supporting technical reporl from results
of the above efforts.

B, General methodology

Much of the assessment data was
oblained from previously published
reports of Federal and State agencies.
EsUmated hydrologic impacts in the
main stem of the Colorado River were
derived through the Colorado River
System Simulation ICRSS) model of the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
For this ilssessment. waler
requirements (assumed to be
consumptive use) for synfuels
development include water for
conversion proceS8es. wet cooling.
related facility operations. and a variety
of secondary requirements. Examples of
th~ latter include water aupplies to
support associated population growth
IiInd expanded industrial activity.
revegetation of areas either surface
mined or covered wilh mine spoil. and
electric power requirements.

C. Overview of Upper Colorado Region

The Upper Colorado River Region
includes the Upper Colorado River Basin
and lhe Creat Divide Basin. a total area
of appcodmalely 113.470 aquare miles.
comprising about 45 percenl of the entire
Colorado River Basin (r18Ule I}.

."-~ COOl 54_"".

,