WSP07644 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r' .. ... ~~l.... . Page 2 the State. {"Qual ity of Water - Colorado River Basin", Progress ~eport No.6 Bureau of Reclamation, January, 1973~ This fact does not lnclude other'requirements which remain unsettled either in operation or by . court action. As you well know, 7.5 MAF is allotted to the Upper Basln States and the same amount to the Lower Basin States by the Colorado River Compact. Since Arizona and California are developing their al~o!ment faster than the Upper Basin States, upper basin development may be llmlted to the remainder of the water in the river system. Thus, the Lower Basin States may have preemptive appropriative rights on their 7.5 MAF. In addition, Mexico is entitled to 1.5 MAF by the treaty of 1944. A desalination plant which is proposed as a solution to the water quality problem of Mexico deliveries, may further increase total demand on the river because such plants using current techno- logy return only 70% of water intake. A possible conclusion is that the river may not, in the future, provide sufficient water to meet FAP diversions and maintain existing water compacts. This brief review of an admittedly complex hydrologic, legal, and political situation is not meant to be conclusive, but it does point out some of the factors omitted from the discussion of the FAP development. A more definitive analysis of the present consumptive use situation should be presented which would include alternative uses of the amount of water yet to be diverted, approxi- mately 50,000 acre-feet annually. These new uses would include, in light of the recent energy situation, the proposed oil shale, coal, gas, and oil developments expected to expand in Western Colorado. New irrigation projects, new industrial development, and population growth on the western slope should be considered as it relates to water demand, water supply and the necessity of energy production expansion. Further, the utilization of water for fishery, recrea- tion and wildlife is now recognized by the State of Colorado to be a beneficial use. (Senate Bill No. 97 passed by the Colorado State Legislature effective July 1,1973) These developments have occurred since authorization of FAP in 1962, but should be considered prior to further construction. You might refer to Volume 1 of the Interior final EIS on prototype oil shale development for a discussion of water supply in the Colorado River Basin. . . The economic costs of salinity increases are not accurately presented in the draft statement. These costs are not fully repre- sented by direct costs alone but should also include indirect costs to both agriculture and urban users. Direct costs to irrigators were estimated by the Bureau in another report to be $66,400 annually for each mg/l, not $42,000 as indicated in the draft. (See Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program, Status Report, January 1974) In addition, the same report states indirect costs were estimated at $42,000 per year for a total of $108,400 annual cost to irriga- tors. By,forecasting use of Colorado River water and projections of salinity increases, values for total costs to municipal, industrial and agriculture users were predicated by this Status Report to be XI-271