WSP06202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY otl)er fishes,. However. if this alternative were seiected, Secti.on 7 consultation with the FWS would be reinitlated. Alternative No.4: Pumping Water From the Green River TJ1e Gr$en River w\luld be depleted by 70,000 acre- feet per year which Would increase salinity at Imperial Dam by4,1 mg/1. The cumulative loss of water from this project and other proposed projects could adversely affect the continued existence of the Colorado squawfish. However. the adjustment in flows by compensating releases from Flaming Gorge Reservoir would avoid or minimize impacts to the squawfish, bony tail chub, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and other fishes through changes in river flows, If this alternative were selected. Section 7 consultation with the FWS would be reinitiated, Alternative No.5: Pumping Water From White River and Supplementing With Water Pumped From the Green River Inmost years, the majority of water (70,000 acre- feet per year) would be pumped directly from the White River for. energy development. Supplemental supplies of water from the Green River would be needed ap- proximately 20 percent of the time. Environmental im- pacts would relate primarily to the overall effect of water depletion: Salinity would increase 4.1 mg/I at Imperial Dam on the Colorado River. The cumulative loss of water from this alternative, combined with de- pletions from future projects in the White River drain- age, could cause a change in the native ecosystem, If this alternative were selected. Section 7 consultation with the FWS would be reinitiated, COST ESTIMATE AND ENERGY ANALYSIS A rough water supply cost comparison indicates that Alternative 1 (White River Dam and Reservoir) would be least expensive ($32 per acre-ft/yr) while Alterna- tive 4 (Pumping From Green River) would be greatest ($118 per acre-ft/yr), Energy analysis shows that Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 (Hell's Hole Canyon Dam) would have the lowest energy requirements for construction (7x10" British thermal units [Btu]); however, Alternative 1 would be the only producer of energy (1,1x1 0" Btu per year) during operation, based on an annual 31.4 million kilowatts generated from the power plant (BIO/WEST 1979). UNRESOLVED ISSUES Future water allocations in the White River remain unresolved in several respects: A proposed water compact between the State of Utah and the Ute Indians of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation has not been ratified by the Tribe, The Ute Indians, under the Winters Doctrine, are entitled to irrigate up to 12.833 acres (5,193 ha) of land within the Reservation. which would be diverted from the White River, A Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation boundary dispute has been In iengthy litigation contesting juris- diction of lands east of the existing reservation. includ- ing the site of the White River Dam (Hawkins 1979), The eventual consumptive use of water from the White River and Its tributaries in Colorado has not been determined, The White River Dam Project as a water supply for energy development for oil shale, tar sand. and power generation is an issue between the States of Utah and Colorado. The amount of water that can be made available for the project from the White River in Utah depends on the amount of future water development and the amount of water that would flow from Colorado into Utah, Controversy has arisen over assumptions on "reasonable" levels of future water use for the White River Dam Project. The Colorado River Water Conservation Distriqt contends that Colorado can fully utilize the entire flow of the White River. Utah's posi- tion is that a guaranteed source of water for the entire life of the project is available and future upstream use would not reduce the amount of water available for the White River Dam Project. Studies by Fields (1975) and Western Engineers (1979) concluded that. even dur- ing drought years with liberal assumptions of up- stream water development and a minimum annual average 223,000 acre-feet at the USGS Gage near Watson. the White River Dam Project could supply water for energy development and power generation, It is not known whether Colorado would be obligated to honor a water right granted to the Ute Tribe in Utah by the Winters Doctrine. a Federal decree given in 1882. The Winters Doctrine does not specify a definite amount of water but ensures that the Ute Tribe in Utah has a right to substantial quantities of irrigation water from the White River, The amount of water is not yet agreed upon by the Ute Tribe and State of Utah, The priority date of the Ute water rights is not firmly estab- lished. but will most likely be either 1882 or 1948, Utah is presently meetin!;; with the Tribe to reach an agree- ment on Tribal water needs and involve them in the White River Dam Project. The Ute Tribe is entitled to water from the White River to satisfy Winters Doctrine claims. It is likely that Winters Doctrine claims would be chargeable to 4