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

.

-~....:....-....-~ --_.-

Federal Regisler I Vol. 46. No. 128 I Monday, JuJy 6. 1981 J Notices

35055

be disposed of through evaporation with
no impact on surface waters.
Depletions oC surface water by
consumptive use of synthetic fuels may
actually lower the concentrations of
disBol'ied solids in surface waters in the
Upper Basin since they wiII be removed
during diversion and retained In
evaporation ponds. However. the Lower
Basin salinity problems will be
somewhat increased by the combined
Upper and Lower Basin depletions.
n Environmental Effects
One important environmental concern
associated with synfuels waler use Is
the potenllal adverse effeCls on habitats
of Iwo endangered fish species. the
Colorado Squawfish and the HumpbaCK
Chub.
Other environmental effeels appear
limited 10 local or site-specific sjlualions
involving reservoir development and
diversion facilities, which would require
site-specific analyses.
E. Economic and Social Effects
A synthelic fuels production of nearly
3 million barre!! per day would reduce
hydroelectric power revenues by S6 to
$1 million annually.
Increased salinity concentralion in the
Lower Basin would ad\'eN.ely effect
agricultural production by $4.3 million
annually,
F. Woter Supply Costs
The investment costs in waler lIupply
development facilities for 3 million
barrels per day of synfuels producUoD 18
eslimated between $0.9 and $1.6 billion
or approximately 2 percent of the capital
investment in synfuels facilities_ Most
would occur in the White River area.

G. Need Jar Continuing Improw!f1umt in
Water Management
The Colorado Riller system is a
complex water management system
involving interesls inside and outside
both the Upper and Lower Basin,
including municipal water supply in Los
Angeles, San Diego. Denver, and

Phoenix. The complexily is illustr~ted
by: inter,lale compacts: an lntematiunal
Trealy: Supreme Court decrees: growing
regional economic activity: energy,
agricultural and em;ironmental
resources of national and worldwide
importance: immense Federal
investments in waler de\'elopmenl: and
continuing evolulion of new water
managemenl problems. challenges., and
resolutiona.
A synthetic fuels industry wtthin the
Region that would annually deplele
several bundred thousand acre.feet of
water would add 10 the complexity of
Basin management.
The following measures ere needed to
improve water man..gement in the
Basin:
(1) Greater coordination between
Federal and State programs and water.
energy, and land use agencias.
(Z) Subbasin water management plans
responsh;e to synfuels development
needs but multipurpose in scope and
formulated on an intraslate basis,
except where inlerstate considernlions
are necessary.
(3) Timely water management
decisions thaI balance competing
environment and development interests.
(4) Improve communicatlon among
8n8lysls. the public. the energy industry,
and water resource decisionmaken.
(5) Expansion of data collecllon,
particularly for groundwater in energy
resource areas.
These menu res should be achieved
under or evol\'e from the responsibilities
of existing water institulions.

III. Background

A. ,\Janagement of Assessment

Operational mansgmcnt of the
regional assessment was provided by
the Colorado Department of Natural
ResoUJ"Ces under an agreement with
WRC. An Advisory Commitlee
composed of the Upper Basin States and
Federal agendes provided the overview.
Major portions of the fuU assessment
were provided by each State and by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv1ce. U.S.

Geological Survey. the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. and the U.S. DeparlInenl
of F.nergy. The Bureau analyzed for
WRC what effects the synfuels
development in the Upper Basin would
ha\'e on. .....4iter uses in Lhe Lower Basin.
Consullanls under contraclto Colorado
performed various components of the
assessment.
The public had input to the
assessment through review of and
comment on the draft regional
assessment report prepared by Colorado
and through public workshops held in
Grand Junction and Den\'er. Colorado.
An inleragency Federal briefing on the
draft reporl also provided opportunit)'
for informal and formal comment~
WRC prepared this report and the
supporting technical report from results
of the above eHorta.

H. General melhodology

Much of the assessment dilta was
obtained from previously published
reports of Federal and State agencies.
Estimated hydrologic impacts in the
main stem of the Colorado River were
derived lhrough the Colorado River
System Simulation (CRSS) model of the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamallon.
For this assessment. waler
requirements (assumed to be
consumptive use) for synfuels
development include water for
conversion processes. wet cooling,
related facility operations. and a variety
of aecondary requirements. Examples of
the laller include water supplies 10
support associaled populalion growth I
and e}l;panded industrial activity.
revegelation of areas either surface
mined or covered with mine spoil, and
electric power requirements.

C. Overview of Upper Colorado Region

The Upper Colorado River Region
includes the Upper Colorado Rh'er 8asin
and the Great Divide Basin. a total area
of approximately 113.-170 square miles,
compriSing about 45 percenl of the entire
Colorado Ri\'er Basin {figure 1}.

8lI..I.MGCOOI..'...,....

I

I

0384