WSP06798

• File Number: 8040.260
• Description: Section D General Studies-Oil Shale/Coal
• Date: 7/6/1981
• Title: 13a-Oil Shale Data and Notes-Federal Register-Vol 46 No 128-Part III-Water Resources Council-Synthetic Fuels Development for the Upper Colorado Region Water Assessment
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

------.......-..,....-

~

-

"- .'- ~

35062

Federal Register I Vol. 46. No. 128 I ~Ionday. July 6. 1981 I Notices

judicia] nor the executive branch of
State government bas discretionary
aUlhority over the type. place. or
quantify of use. The remainins Upper
Basin Stales. howe\'er, use II permit
system in which the State Engineer must
approve the right to appropriate water,
Here. the State Engineer may deny an
application if it is detennlned to be
contrary to the "public interest."
All Upper Basin States (1) allow water
rights to be claimed as of the dale the
application was received. even though
aclual use is deferred fen a period of
years: 12l anow for the transfer of a
water right [rom one use to another, one
owner to another, or one location to
another. and 131 disallow instream now
use as a basis for granttng a private
waler right. Only Colorado law Includet
instream now uses and provides for
State acquisition of a water right In an
amount necessary "to preserve the
nalural environmeotto a reasonable
degree."
State laws governing the
appropriation of groundwater have
similarities, Colorado's procedures are
probably the mostlltringenl.
Groundwater in Colorado is classified
as eHher tributary or nontributary.
Because tributary groundwater II
hydraulically connected to a surface
stream. it is included in the statutory
definition of a natural stream and
admInistered under the surface priority
s)'stem. Nontributary groundwater.
which is found in confined formations
often under artesian pressure, is
administered by Ihe State Eogin~r
through a pennil system that limits the
amount of annual withdrawnl to 1
percent of the water In storage below
the applicant's property.

3. Federal and lndian Reserved
Rights. Title 10 varioU-.S quantities of
water il currently held by the Federal
Go\'emment Bnd B number of Indian
tribes under the ~al principles of
Federal reserved waler rights. Because
these reserved rights are generally not
being used. current water availabnity is
little affected. Future tellerved right
claims and awards could. however,
affect the a\'ailability of water for other
purposes.
4. Environmental Regulatory Lows
and Programs. A number of Federal
laws and programs, although oot
directly im.olved with water allocation
and use, indirectly affect potential
development and/or its associated
water impllcations. 1nOfie most
pertinent to synfuels development In the
Region are:
(1) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(P.L 85-ZM)
(2) National Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (P.L 90-542)
(3) Endangered Species Act (P.L. 9:1-
205)
(4) WildemeSJ Act (P.L 88-577) I
15) Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500. liS
amended by PL. 9~217).
10 addition to the foregoing, the seven
States of the Colorado River Basin have
adopted a foinl objective of maintaining
salinity in the lower main stem of the
Colorado River at or below the average
value found dwing_ll172. while
continuing to develop their compact.
apportioned waters. Numeric salinity
criteria have been approved by each of
the 'slates and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency at three downstream
locations, Although subject to change.
the criteria palle oonslraints on water
use and developmenlln the Upper

Table 3.-$ynthetit;Fuo/s ~(PlIttsms-2000

Basin. The average normal salinity
levels not to be exceeded are 723 mg/I
below Hoover Dam, 747 mg/I below
Parker Dam, and 879 mgl1 below
Imperial Dam, all in the Lower Colorado
Basin..
V. Water Requirements for Synfuels
De\.elopment
Estimated demands on Regional
energy resoun:es were developed by
DOE through disaggregation of the
nalional energy demand forecasts for
the years 1985 and 2000. Two levels of
synthetic fuels development In the
Region were forecast-a baseline and
an accelerated development level. The
baseUne case was based on the
principal assumption thet synfuels
development would proceed according
to a "huslneu al usual" pace. The
accelerated case was based 00 the
assumptions that: synfuels development
would substilule for II greater portion of
domestic ges and oil and reduce foreign
Imports: would have-Federal financial
support; would have an optimistic
degree of success in early market
penetration: and production cosls would
make the product competitive,
A. Patterns of Synfuels Dei"elopment
Hypothetical aiting patterns were then
developed for the projected le\'els of
development according to localion of oil
shale and coal deposits and waler
availability. Table 3 shows lha projected
siting for tbe year ZOOO for the baseline
and accelerated case projections.
Information for 1985 bas been excluded
because of Ihe small scale of projected
development and its relative
unimportance to the overall quesllons of
water supply adequacy and water-
related impacla.

~_."'-1I."

--

--
"'"'
~dIyl
t.;: ~

"'"
.......,.
~OCfJdWI

00_
-

00_
--

'-
,.

':r:

---
v_",,"-
--
-...
IAM'I._..,.
Upp<<~_""'Sl____.
l_~_
s..........~_
--
-......

(I 25Q Z5../lal
. , ,
, '''''''
(l (l ~50.ClOO
(I (I 2OO00D
. , ,

. '" l.oo,'~
, '" .
, , ''''''''00
, , ...-
'" , ...-
, '" ,
. ,~ ,
, 1.410 .
'" ,... 2.4400,.'50

,

(I '87& (I
".,0 (I
(12._ l.soo.ooo

.-
'~_"I'--*'\J__f~.."'_",-..ww-.