Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CJ The fourth and final major assumption which lies behind this conclusion <br />...:i <br />C) concerns the interpretation of the Colorado River Compact. In particular, <br />o <br /> <br />the conclusion is based upon the assumption that the "Upper Division" States <br /> <br />(Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) incur an obligation pursuant to <br /> <br />article III (c) of the Colorado River Compact to deliver one-half ( i.e., 750,000 <br /> <br />acre-feet per year) of the water required by the Mexican Water Treaty. 1 <br /> <br />Disagreement over the interpretation of ,this provision is perhaps the most <br /> <br />controversial issue surrounding the compact. In turn, particularly given the <br /> <br />potential amount of water involved, there is a large measure of uncertainty <br /> <br />regarding the amount of water available to the Upper Division States. Obviously, <br /> <br />if the Upper Division States were to incur no obligation whatsoever, the <br /> <br />additional 750,000 acre-feet per year of water could, all other assumptions <br /> <br />reamining constant, be used to support a synfuels industry larger than the 1.5 <br />2 <br />million barrel per day industry indicated here. Likewise, of course, if the <br /> <br />Upper Division States were to incur an obligation in excess of 750,000 acre-feet, <br /> <br />then something less than an industry of 1.5 million barrels per day could be <br /> <br />sustained. <br /> <br />1. The assumption employed in this assessment is for illustrative purposes only <br />and is not to be taken as representing the position of any Upper or Lower Division <br />State. <br /> <br />2. The reader must not assume that an additional 750,000 acre-feet of water for the <br />Upper Basin, which would increase the water available for EET's from 200,000 -250,000 <br />to about 1 maf per year would mean that a synfuels industry four times larger than <br />the one indicated here (i.e., 1.5 million versus 6 million barrels of oil per day) <br />could be supported. The reason for this is that EET development would probably be <br />constrained by localized limitations on surface water availability before the industry <br />achieved a size of 6 million barrels per day. This would be particularly so for oil <br />shale development in Colorado and Utah on the White River, which river has a relatively <br />small virgin yield (a little better than 500,000 acre-feet per year on the average for <br />the period 1930-1974). In addition, EET developments in anyone Upper Division State <br />could still be constrained by compact considerations (pursuant to the terms of the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin Compact). <br /> <br />cv <br />