Laserfiche WebLink
<br />N <br />W <br />o <br />-..J <br /> <br />First, surface water supplies can be made available ~or the development <br />of the EETs only if; <br /> <br />1. water not presently under contract is purchased from existing U.S. <br />Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs; and/or <br /> <br />2. new reservoir, pipeline, and pumping facilities, ,are constructed in <br />order to capture, store, and transport: the water. <br /> <br />For a 1.5 million obl/day industry, a crude estimate of the capitalized <br />cost of developing the necessary surface water supplies is $1 billion. <br />This would be not more than 1 or 2 percent, if that much, of the capitalized <br />costs of constructing and operating the coal gasification and oil shale <br />facilities proper. <br /> <br />Second, it must be recognized that ,the above conclusion only takes <br />into account the projections of other consumptive uses. The increased <br />depletions and hydrologic regulation attributable to EETs could reduce <br />the supply of instream recreational opportunities and the habitat avail~ <br />able for various fish species from what they might otherwise be. It is <br />emphasized, however, that the existence and character of such impacts can <br />vary substantially from one location to the next. Thus, investigations at <br />a much greater level of detail than was possible in this study will be <br />necessary before any definitive conclusions can be reached. <br /> <br />Third, this conclusion takes into account only those institutional <br />factors that are embodied in each State's water rights system and in the <br />"Law of the River" (i.e., an international treaty, interstate compacts, <br />U.S. Supreme Court decrees, and acts of Congress governing the operation <br />of Colorado River reservoirs). While not part of the traditional body of <br />laws governing the use and allocation of water in and among the Upper <br />Basin States, numerous oth~r institutional factors, primarily Federal <br />environmental regulatory laws and programs, may affect the timing, manner, <br />and location of water resource developments in the Upper Basin. It is <br />impossible to quantify the effect that these latter factors may have upon <br />the availability of water for EETs (or any other use for that matter), <br />but iC is apparent that they are part Of the institutional framework within <br />which future questions of water availability mus't be addressed. <br /> <br />Fourth, and finally, the above concluQion must be qualified by tbe' <br />observation that the amount of EET development in anyone Upper Basin <br />State could be constrained by interstate compact considerations. This is <br />because the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact allocates set percentages <br />of thelwater available to the entire Upper'Basin to each Upper Division <br />State. Consequently, the level of EET development in anyone State could <br /> <br />1. The Upper Division States are Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. <br />Arizona lies partially within the Upper Basin and is entitled to consume <br />50,000 acre-feet per year from tbe Upper Basin's allocation. <br /> <br />1-2 <br />