My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04400
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04400
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:55:17 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:18:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8271.200
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Development and History - UCRB 13a Assessment
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
4/1/1979
Title
Executive Summary of Major Findings and Conclusions
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ annual basts by as much as 1.5 to 2.0 maf (based upon the period 1930-l974). <br /> <br />--.1 <br />~ Other analyses have come up with roughly similar results. suggesting that winter <br />c.o <br />cloud seeding has promise as a source of water supply. Furthermore, the available <br /> <br />evidence suggests that a reasonable order of magnitude estimate for the cost of <br /> <br />producing additional runoff is $1. to $lO per acre-foot. While such a cost is <br /> <br />clearly attractive,.the costs of capturing and delivering water to EET <br /> <br />facilities would probably remain essentially unchanged. Thus, the cost of <br /> <br />supplying water to EET's via weather modification would include both the costs <br /> <br />of cloud seeding programs as well as essentially all of the costs required to <br /> <br />develop a surface water supply system. <br /> <br />The primary legal question associated with the use of weather modification <br /> <br />as a means of supplying water to EET's is the ownership of any additional runoff <br /> <br />which might be generated. <br /> <br />None of the Upper Basin States presently has statutes <br /> <br />directly addressed to this point except Utah, where any additional runoff has been <br /> <br />declared to be public property. Thus, in the other four Upper Basin States, it <br /> <br />is not known with certainty whether the postulated EET's could finance a weather <br /> <br />modification program and then claim the increase in runoff irrespective of the <br /> <br />priority of their water rights vis-a-vis the priority of the water rights of <br /> <br />others. However, most legal commentators seem to be of the opinion that one would <br /> <br />have great difficulty, for evidentiary reasons, in .claiming any increases in <br /> <br />runoff as their own. <br /> <br />This being the case, the main importance of weather modification to EET's <br /> <br />is that their generally junior surface water rights would yield more reliable <br /> <br />water supplies than would otherwise be the case. This would occur because more <br /> <br />flow, primarily between April and July, would be available to such junior <br /> <br />appropriators , thereby enabling them to refill reservoirs more consistently or <br /> <br />to avoid being shut off as often as would otherwise be the case. The other <br /> <br />important aspect of weather modification is that it could conceivably alleviate <br /> <br />cxiv <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.