Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />in.!!. .!\YBJ.,I..JUI.l.LJ."ll'; IJ):" WATt;.t( ~'OR OIL SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN <br /> <br />REFERENCES <br /> <br />~ <br />g <br /> <br />and social changes that would be caused by the oil <br />shale industry itself. The social and economic impact <br />associated with the industry itself would be two to <br />three orders of magnitude greater than anything that <br />might be caused by the few extra workers (and their <br />families) needed to maintain and operate well fields. <br /> <br />Perhaps the most important aspect of utilizing <br />ground water as a source of supply 1s that relatively <br />large rates of pumping would lead to mining of the <br />ground water resource. The use of such waters, which <br />have been stored over geologic time, represents an <br />irrevocable decision to deplete an essentially non- <br />renewable resource. The question in all such instance <br />is whether benefits would be maximized by using the <br />resource now as opposed to using it at some point in <br />the future. <br /> <br />To the extent that consumption of surface Bupplie <br />(including those which originate as tributary ground <br />water) might be reduced by use of ground water, stream <br />flows would increase relative to those to be expected <br />were the industry to rely solely upon surface supplies. <br />In turn. fishery habitat conditions and recreational <br />opportunities could be different from those otherwise <br />expected. Except in the White River Basin, however. <br />substitution of ground water for surface water would <br />probably have relatively little impact since the in- <br />cremental effect of surface water consumption by the <br />oil shale industry on other rivers is likely to be <br />relatively small. <br /> <br />SU 9314 <br /> <br />1. This paper is based upon a study conducted by the <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources for the <br />u.s. Water Resources Council. <br /> <br />2. Associated growth" refers to the municipal and <br />industrial (e.g.. steam-electric power generation) <br />growth that oil shale developments would spawn. <br /> <br />3. The Upper Division States are Colorado, New Mexico <br />Utah and Wyoming. Arizona lies partially within <br />the Upper Basin and is entitled to consume 50.000 <br />acre-feet per year from the Upper Basin's allo- <br />cation. <br /> <br />4. The natural, or virgin, flow of a river is that <br />flow which would occur if the river were in its <br />natural state unaffected by the activities of man. <br /> <br />5. The assumption employed is for illustrative pur- <br />poses only and is not to be taken as representing <br />the position of any Upper or Lower Division State <br />or of any Federal official or agency. <br /> <br />6. The reader must not assume that an additional <br />750,000 acre-feet of water for the Upper Basin <br />would mean that an oil shale industry four times <br />la~ge~ than the one indicated here (i.e., 1.5 <br />million versus 6 million bbl/day) could be <br />supported. Oil shale development in some Upper <br />Basin States would still be constrained by local- <br />ized limitations on surface water availability be- <br />fore the industry achieved a size of 6 million <br />bb1/day. <br /> <br />Table 1. Average Annual Depletions <br />for Non-Oil Shale Uses <br /> <br />Present <br />Conditions <br />(1975) <br /> <br />Year 2000 <br /> <br />(in 1,000 AF) <br /> <br />Arizona 26 50 <br />Co lorado 1,803 2,507 <br />New Mexico 255 601 <br />Utah 697 1,064 <br />Wyoming 335 561 <br />Mainstem Reservoir <br />Evaporation 715 ~ <br />Total 3,831 5,428 <br />