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

-.-'-........

35064

Federal Register I Vol. 46., No. 128 I Monday. July 6. 1981 I Notices

The cost estimates for lreating
wastewaters from shale oil processing
facilities are similar to those for coal
gasification plants.

VI. Water Supplies for Synfuels
De\'clopment

PrOjected consumptive use
requirements for synfuels and
associated growth in ZOOO under the
accelerated case Bre about 440.000 acre-
feet annually for the Region. This is
aboull0 percent of the )'ear 2000
depletions by conventional waler uses.
To auess water a\'ailability for
synfuels development in the Region, the
physical characteristics of water
resources. possible alternative sources.
and institutional factors affecting supply
were eJromined. To detennine waler
supply adequacy. average and monthly
natural flows v::ere adjusted for
projected deplelions by conventional
uses at the oulflow points of each
development area. Natural flow
estimates for the period 1906-1974 were
used 10 define steady-state hydrologic
conditions. During this period. the
natural flow at Lees Ferry averaged 15.7
mafper year. with Blow oflen than 7
maf and a high of nearly 24 maf.

~1. Alternative Means for Water Supply

Five alternative means of water
supply for synfuels development were
.1ppraised. They are: (1) additional
development of surface water resources.
(2l the transfer of water supplies
currenlly used for irrigated agriculture.
(3) the development of groundwater
resources. (4) weather modification to
increase precipitation. and (5) the more
efficient use of waler supplies either
exported !rom the Region for municipal
use or used in the Region for irrigation.
1. De~'el{Jpment of Surface Water
Supplies. ~iuc.h of the water-required for
s)'nfuels development ill likely to come
from the additional development of
surface water supplies, Additional
development of surface supplies would
entail the construction of new
reservoirs. pipelines or canals. and
pumping facilities. Where energy
facilities are located along major rivers.
they may be able to directly divert pari
of the river flow during higher flow
periods. Reservoir storage would still be
required to guarantee supplies durinS
low-flow periods.
The estimsted capital requirements to
develop surface water resources for
s)'nfuelll are shown in Table 6. The
estimates ar1! based on the assumption
that all requirements would be surface
supplied,

.

r.ble 5.-t;ap,lal Requfrements !or Surface
Water 0ev8lopment_2000
(lfl_ofltl1_1

~dot.....,.._.l_

.- ~.
.. -
- -
~ ,~
, ..
... ...
,~ ,~
... ...
... ,....

~GIMn""'-___
y--,-----
....,.....-,--,,--_.
l.ll>I*CoIot-_......s...._.-.:.......:.:.
l.....~_.___
...--

,-

Z. Water Transfers from Irrigated
Agriculture. Substantial quantilies of
water could be obtained by acquisition
of irrigation water rights. This would
reduce the amount o( waler currently
available for irrigation. the land area
used in irrigated agriculture. and the
amount of agricultural production. The
number of fann unils would also be
reduced. as would be number of families
deriving a living from agriculture. Such
changes would be minor. however.
compared to the other economic and
demographic changes expected to shape
social conditions in the Region even
without synfuels development.
While legally possible in all five
Upper Basin States. water lransfers from
irrigated agriculture will probably not
occur except in the White River and
Upper Colorado River main stem areas
in Colorado. Synfuel companies have
already purchased some water rights
from sgriculture at these locations.
Estimated purchase cosls for the water
rights range from $500 to $2,000 per acre-
fool. Additional costs will be incurred
for pipeline and pumping from the
diversion poinlto the synfuel facility.
Transfers of irrigation waler in the
White River basin, however. could
suppy leas than half of the requirement
for synfuels development in the
accelerated case.
3. Groundwate; Development. The
vast majority of water used in the
Region comes from surface sources.
Because of costs, water quality
problems. and other considerations.
groundwater bas not been used as a
major supply souree. In cerlain areas
prOjected for s)'nfuels development.
however. groundwaler could be a
significant supply source for energy
projects.
Although groundwater is found 10
many places. It has attracted interest as
a supply source in only tMee locations
where concentrated synfuels
development coincides with potentially
significant groundwater resources and
insufficient surface supplies. These
areas are the Piceance Creek slructlual
basin. which underlies a portion of the
While River and Upper Colorado main

stem development areas in Colorado,
the Uinta basin in northeastern Utah.
and the San Juan development area in
northwestern New Mexico. Of these. the
Piceance Creek structural basin. which
is projecled for two-thirds of the oil
shale development. has received
greatest interest.
The year 2000 projections for this area
indicate 94.000 acre.feet under the
baseline case and 194.000 acre-feet of
consumptive use under the acceleraled
case. exclusive of associated growth.
To supply the above water
requirements from groundwaler would
require a capitalized tost of
approximately $25 million for the
baseline case and S60 million for the
accelerated case. Since these cosls are
only 5 to 10 percent of the estimated
costs to develop surface water supplies
from the While Ri\'er and Upper
Colorado River main stem sreas. the oil
shale Industry may find considerable
advantage In using groundwater.
Under Colorado law. the rights of
senior surface water approprialors must
be protected from disruption o( a
groundwater system that discharges to a
natural surface stream. For the Piceance
Creek structural basin. lhe use o( either
the upper or the lower aquifer would be
contingent upon Ihe implementation of
step. either to sustain the historic now
of the natural springs that discharge to
Piceance and Yellow Creeks or to
replace any water removed from the
surface slream system.
Projected well field development and
operation would not significantly affect
regional Income and population. Major
groundwater pumping could deplele an
essentially nonrenewable resource. At
the moment, however. no other uses are
foreseen (or the!!e groundwater !!upplie!!.
4. Weather Modification. Weather
modification could be used to increase
preclpitatlon and the amount of Surface
runoff. Weather modification
consideration!! were limited to winter
orographic cloud seeding. Several
experimental programs in the Region
over the last two decades have
increased precipitation 5 to 20 percent.
nowever. the extent to which increased
precipitation affects runoff and
ownership of the increased supplies
remain. uncertain. In any event.
increased runoff would at leasl improve
the junior water rights.
Estimated co.ts per acre.foot of water
generated through orographic cloud
seeding range between $1 and $10.
\\'hile this cost is very attractive.
capturing and delivering water to
synfuel facilities would cost about the
same as those described for surface
supplies. '

I':

~