Citation
Projecting the future of the Yampa River Basin in northwest Colorado

Material Information

Title:
Projecting the future of the Yampa River Basin in northwest Colorado an examination of the socio-economic and land use effects of different levels of water supply and water demand
Creator:
Frost, James
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
86 leaves : charts, maps (some color) ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Regional planning -- Colorado -- Yampa River Watershed ( lcsh )
Regional planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Yampa River Watershed ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 82-84).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's degree in Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
James Frost.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
08736544 ( OCLC )
ocm08736544
Classification:
LD1190.A78 1981 .F76 ( lcc )

Full Text
PKVST
environmental design
AURARIA LIBRARY
PROJECTING THE FUTURE OF THE YAMPA RIVER BASIN IN NORTHWEST COLORADO: \ AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC AND LAND USE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF WATER SUPPLY AND WATER DEMAND
James Frost
University of Colorado at Denver Planning Thesis
Presentation: August 27, 1981
A+P
LD
1190
A73
1981
F76
PCD


CONTENTS
CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION 1
A. INTRODUCTION 1
B. PROBLEM STATEMENT 5
C. PURPOSE/IMPORT 6
D. METHOD 7
_ ' ) i y \ I ; '*
E. SCOPE AND LIMITS 9
CHAPTER IIWATER SUPPLY 10
A. EXISTING SUPPLY 11
B. WATER CONFLICTS 19
C. LEGAL CONSTRAINTS 22
D. WATER SUPPLY SCENARIOS 27
CHAPTER IIIWATER DEMAND 32
A. EXISTING WATER USE 33
B. WATER USE BY ENERGY PROJECTS 34
C. ASSUMPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SCENARIOS 41
CHAPTER IVCOMPOSITE SCENARIOS 55
A. LOW SUPPLY/LOW DEMAND 56
B. MODERATE SUPPLY/LOW DEMAND 57
C. HIGH SUPPLY/LOW DEMAND 58
D. LOW SUPPLY/MODERATE DEMAND 59
E. MODERATE SUPPLY/MODERATE DEMAND 60
F. HIGH SUPPLY/MODERATE DEMAND 61
G. LOW SUPPLY/HIGH DEMAND 62
H. MODERATE SUPPLY/HIGH DEMAND 63
I. HIGH SUPPLY/HIGH DEMAND 64
CHAPTER VEVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS 65
A. CRITERIA 66
B. EVALUATION 67
C. CONCLUSIONS 74
D. RECOMENDATIONS 76
BIBLIOGRAPHY 82
APPENDIX 1 85
APPENDIX 2 86


CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION
A. Introduction
B. Problem Statement
C. Purpose/Import
D. Method
E. Scope and Limits


A. INTRODUCTION
Northwest Colorado appears to be on the verge of an energy development boom that will, by all accounts, substantially alter its economy, its population, its way of life, and its pattern of land use. For towns such as Craig and Parachute, the boom has already arrived, with more to come. Energy development decisions made in the next few years may permanently transform the region.
It is estimated that northwest Colorado contains some 8 billion tons of coal, 2000 billion barrels of shale oil and substantial oil, gas, and uranium deposits (1). Along with these large energy reserves there is another strategic resource, vital not only to evergy development but to almost all activities in this semiarid region. That resource is water.
Perhaps the one factor which may limit energy development in the West is lack of available water. Since all energy technologies require water resources, the widespread expansion of coal mining, burning, and conversion in the arid lands of the West may be impossible simply because there is not enough available water. (2)
Several studies have projected the water requirements related to energy development for northwest Colorado (3,4,5). However, these have either considered the two major drainages in the region, the Yampa River and the White River, together as the "Green River subbasin" of the Colorado River, or they have dealt with the requirements for water but not the source. Although the two drainages are adjacent, the Yampa and the White Rivers differ greatly in terms of current and future development.
The White River Basin drains most of Rio Blanco County and parts of Garfield and Moffat Counties with an everage annual flow of 508,600 acre feet. It is directly south of the Yampa River Basin. Two tributaries, Yellow Creek and Piceance Creek, drain a major portion of the Piceance Basin. The White River Basin is currently one of the least developed and most sparsely populated areas in Colorado, and there is little doubt that the projected oil shale and synfuels
1


development would transform this area socially and economically and drastically alter existing patterns of land use and water use.
In contrast to the White River Basin, the Yampa River Basin has a present level of development which is much higher and more varied than that of its neighbor to the south. In Colorado, the Yampa Basin essentially consists of Routt and Moffat counties.
The mean annual flow of the Yampa River including its tributary the Little Snake River is 1,525,900 acre-feet, the third largest in the state. While the quality and accessibility of oil shale in this basin is much lower than in the White Basin, the two counties have the largest coal production in Colorado, as well as major power plants in Hayden and Craig, a strong skiing and tourist industry, agriculture, and oil and gas production. Routt and Moffat counties are not facing the direct, massive impacts from oil shale and synfuels development which confront neighboring Rio Blanco County, but they face a variety of growth impacts of their own as well as the potential for strong secondary impacts from adjacent oil shale development.
...each additional development occurring in an already-impacted geographic area puts additional strains on existing structures which result in an impact picture
which is greater than the sum of the individual parts----
It is relatively insignificant that the project is coal or oil shale, or power plants or recreation; rather it is the end result of each new project in relationship to the existing system which is important. (6)
Studies have been made to assess the impacts of specific new
developments in the Yampa River Basin, such as the Green River-
Ham's Fork coal leasing E. I. S. To date, no study has been done
of the cumulative impacts on this area from the many proposed
energy and reservoir developments in addition to the secondary
impacts of large-scale oil shale development. It is for this reason
that the Yampa River Basin was chosen as the subject of this study.
2


Another reason for the choice of the Yampa River Basin as a subject area for study is the data base available. A pilot interdepartmental, interdisciplinary study project involving the U. S. Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Engineer's Office has focused on the impacts of water resource development in the Yampa Basin (7,8,9,10,11). The papers and studies which comprise this project, along with the energy-development impact projections and assessments by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (12) and others (13,14,15) provide an extensive source of information. One complication for this study has been that the rapid rate of change in the Yampa Basin has rendered even some recent resource material obsolete.
3


Water divisions in Colorado established by the Stale Legislature.
Figure 1-1


B. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Existing reservoir and energy development proposals would have substantial effects on both water supply and water demand for the Yampa River Basin in northwest Colorado. This study will analyze the water equation for different sets of water supply/demand scenarios and evaluate the socio-economic and land use impacts for three of those scenarios.
5


C. PURPOSE/IMPORT
The purpose of this project is to examine and evaluate how projected changes in water availability and reservoir developmentwater supplyand energy development and population growthwater demandwill interrelate in the Yampa River Basin in Moffat and Routt Counties in northwest Colorado. This examination and evaluation will involve applying the best existing projections for all potential sources of increased demand for water and the best projections for water availability and reservoir storage to an analysis of what the water equation may be for different future scenarios.
This project is timely because, of the many projections of energy development impacts for the northwest Colorado region, none have correlated the cumulative water requirements of all potential users in relation to the supply for a single watershed such as the Yampa River Basin.
6


D. METHOD
The method used in this study was a textual review of the extensive body of information on the physical, social and economic aspects of the Yampa River Basin and the northwest Colorado region which has been developed by government and private researchers in the last decade. This information was supplemented by personal interviews where base data was unclear, and the evaluation and assembly of that data through the professional judgement of the author.
From this basis, a series of three scenarioslow, moderate and highfor future water supply and a similar series of scenarios for future water demand were assembled. These two sets of scenarios were then used to form the axis of a matrix (Figure 2). The low and high scenarios for each axis were chosen to represent the minimum and maximum levels of development that could reasonably be expected to occur, while the moderate scenarios on each axis were those judged most likely to occur.
WATER DEMAND Low Mod. High
WATER
SUPPLY
Low
Mod.
High
Figure 2
The product of this matrix was a set of nine 'hybrid' supply/ demand scenarios. Each of these was briefly described and from this set three supply/demand scenarios judged to be the most likely development alternatives were examined in greater detail, and compared and contrasted. Each of the composite scenarios selected contained one moderate component and one low or high component:
7


WATER DEMAND
WATER
SUPPLY
Low Mod. High
Low
Mod.
High
low supply/moderate demand moderate supply/high demand high supply/moderate demand
Figure 3
8


E. SCOPE AND LIMITS
Research for this project was completed on May 31, 1981, and the projections and conclusions presented are based on the best information available as of that date. The cut-off date is particularly important for any work dealing with the Western Slope of Colorado because of the large number of development proposals and the rapid rate at which plans and projections have been changing for all of that region. Forecasting the future is a notoriously risky business and a minor error or alteration in a plan may become significant when magnified over distance or time.
The intention of the projections presented here is not to produce specific numbers but rather to "bracket" the futureto narrow the scope of the development scenarios examined to the greatest degree possible while still maintaining adequate breadth in the assumptions used to ensure that the actual future falls within the described limits. Thus, while events in the next few years may render the "most likely" scenarios improbable, the overall analysis and conclusions of this study will remain valid.
9


CHAPTER IIWATER SUPPLY
A. Existing Supply
B. Water Conflicts
C. Legal Constraints
D. Water Supply Scenarios Low
Moderate High
10


A. EXISTING SUPPLY
The supply of water in Colorado is characterized by a series of imbalances. The state would be classified as semiarid along with most of the western United States. The average annual rainfall for the state as a whole is 16.5 inches and the eastern plains and the Front Range urban corridor receive less. For much of the state except for the mountains, annual evapotranspiration exceeds yearly precipitation (1). Yet even though Colorado has a limited amount of water, it also exports water.
Colorado occupies a unique position within the boundaries of the United States. With very few exceptions, waters originating in other states are not available for use in Colorado. However, water originating in Colorado, except for water consumed in the State and for natural losses, is available by gravity flow to eighteen other states outside Colorado. Colorado is compelled by court decisions and interstate compacts to deliver specific amounts of its available water to other states. Because of these legal obligations and since Colorado lacks sufficient reservoir capacity to store all the water to which the State is entitled, nearly 70 percent of the water originating in Colorado flows to other states. (2)
Within Colorado,the Western Slope, which is defined by the Colorado River drainage, has about one third of the surface area of the state, about 20 percent of the population, and over two thirds of the surface water supply(3). Although figures may show that the Western Slope has an 'excess' of water compared to the rest of the state, that water is not necessarily available upon demand.
...Surface stream runoff in the Upper Basin is characterized by two salient features. The first is the extreme variability in the amount of runoff that occurs from year to year. The estimated natural flows of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona have varied by more than a factor of two from one year to the next... The second characteristic is the monthly variation that occurs in any one year...runoff from snowmelt occurs during
11


the spring and summer months with 65 to 75 percent of the annual total arising, on the average, during the period April through July. (4)
Yampa Basin Water Quantity
The Yampa River Basin is a subbasin of the Colorado River system, and in turn is composed of two subbasins, the Yampa River subbasin and the Little Snake River subbasin. Both rivers have their headwaters in the Park Range along the Continental Divide, and both depend on snowmelt runoff for a predominance of their flow. While the drainage areas of the two subbasins are similar, the mean annual flow of the Yampa River above the confluence is about three times as large as that of the Little Snake, which Steele and others (5) attribute largely to greater total precipitation resulting in greater runoff from the Yampa River subbasin.
TABLE II-l
Area(Sq. miles) Avftage Annual
Yampa River subbasin 3,410 1,118,000
Little Snake River subbasin 3,730 407,900
Yampa River Basin Total 7,140 1,525,900
(Source: Area: Steele and others; Flow: Colorado Water Cons. Board)
As with the rest of the Colorado River Upper Basin, the year to year mean annual streamflow for the Yampa River Basin shows extreme variability. In the period from 1922 through 1977, yearly flows ranged from about 2.9 million acre-feet to less than one half million acre-feet (Figure II-2). The average monthly flows also show extreme variation, with over 80% of the total flow occurring during the months of April through July (Figure II-3).
12


UTAH


STREAMFLOW, IN MILLIONS OF ACRE-FEET
Annual streamflows from the Yampa River basin, 1922-77 (streamflows depict sum of flows at stations 09251000 and 09260000).
Source: Steele and others, 1979
Figure II-2
STREAMFLOW. IN BILLIONS OF CUBIC METERS


Thousand Acre-feet
YAMPA SUBBASIN-- AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW (U.S.G.S. Station no. 09251000-- Yampa River near Maybell, Colo.)
16786 42119 386757 81779 14400 20588
17987 157091 327868 23242 21275 16508
(acre-feet)
Figure II-3


TABLE II-2
Summary of diversions within the Colorado part of the Yampa River Basin during 1976
Water Use (acre feet)
Water
district* 44 54 55 57 58 Irrigation 151,594 41,594 7,054 65,140 132,791 Municipal 402 Industrial Other 2,092 856 57 4,127 1,151 Total Use 154,088 42,807 7,111 75,146 135,694

401 1,752 5,478
Totals 398,530 2,555 5,478 8,283 414,846
*Former water-district designations (Figure II-l) still used administratively by the Office of the State Engineer Source: Knudsen and Danielson, 1977.
Agricultural irrigation is the largest water user in the Yampa River Basin as it is in all of Colorado. In this area, the main irrigated crop is hay. Wheat is grown in the western parts of Routt County and in Moffat County but is not irrigated, and crops such as corn are seldom planted because of the short growing season. The ratio of withdrawal to consumption of water for agriculture is assumed to be 2.78 for western Colorado.
Municipal and rural domestic water use, although only a small fraction of the total equation, is necessary in adequate quality and supply for other uses to exist. Supply is currently adequate, but because of the rapid population growth in parts of Routt and Moffat Counties in the last decade and the expectation for continued growth (Figure II-4), water treatment facilities and storage of treated water are major concerns.
16


30
/
/
1 i i
1 1960 1970 1980 1990 t 2000
Moffat Cty. 7,061 6,525 13,129 24,696 28,299
Routt Cty. 5,900 6,592 13,374 20,700 29,223
Craig 3,984 4,204 8,134 18,881 21,216
Steamboat 1,843 2,340 5,078 8,375 11,823
Figure II-4
Historic and Projected Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; projections: Moffat and Craig-
CWACOG, Routt and Steamboat Springs-Colo. Div. of Planning
17


Yampa Basin Water Quality-
Water quality in the Yampa River Basin was examined by Wentz and Steele (6) using both recent and historic water quality data. Their intention was to establish a comprehensive data base for ambient stream quality from which changes in quality due to energy-resource development could be traced. They concluded that there had been no significant water temperature changes since 1951 for either subbasin, and that harmonic-mean temperature correlates negatively with altitude. No change in specific conductance since 1951 was noted for the Little Snake River, but specific conductance in the Yampa River had increased 14 percent since that time and this change was attributed to increased agricultural and municipal use of water.
Out of 92 sites where data was collected, some water quality degredation had occurred at 3 sites. These degredations resulted from underground drainage probably associated with coal mining at a second site, and runoff from a small watershed containing a gas field at a third site.
18


B. WATER CONFLICTS
Energy development in northwest Colorado on the scale proposed in recent years would result in massive changes in the area's population, land use, economy and water use. During 1976, agricultural irrigation accounted for more than 90 percent of the water withdrawals and 96 percent of the consumptive use of water in northwest Colorado (7).
Under the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado River Compact of 1948, the State of Colorado is entitled to between
800.000 and 1,000,000 acre feet of water per year that it is not now usingenough to support the needs of both agriculture and a
500.000 bpd oil shale industry. Colorado is not able to use this water because it lacks reservoir storage capacity. Since 65 to 75 percent of the surface flow in the upper Colorado Basin and over 80 percent in the Yampa Basin occurs during the period from April through July (Figure II-3), and since the volume of flow may vary from year to year by a factor of two (8) (Figure II-2), reservoir storage is vital to assuring a consistent water supply.
Although Colorado lacks storage capacity, states such as Utah, Arizona and California with more vigorous water storage programs do not. These states have been receiving and using the "excess" Colorado water. If Colorado is not able to put its water to 'beneficial use,' downstream states could potentially challenge Colorado's right to that water.
19


Transbasin Diversion
Colorado's Eastern Slope relies heavily on water diverted from the Colorado River drainage. As of 1979, 1,050,000 acre feet per year (9) go to the Eastern Slope by transmountain diversions, with other major diversion projects such as the Williams Fork project which has been delayed by litigation. From the Yampa River Basin, the proposed Sheephorn project would divert 132,000 acre feet per year through the Vidler Tunnel to the Denver metropolitan area, and a proposed addition to the existing Hog Park diversion would divert
31,000 acre feet per year from the eastern part of the Little Snake subbasin to Cheyenne, Wyoming (10).
Two projects have been proposed for diversion of water from the Yampa River Basin to the White River Basin as alternatives to supply water for oil shale development (11). One proposal is to divert 75,000 acre feet per year from the proposed Juniper Reservoir into the Piceance Creek area. The second would be a modification of the proposed Savery-Pothook project on the headwaters of the Little Snake to provide 57,000 acre feet per year to the same area.
Ground Water
One source of water which is largely undeveloped in northwest Colorado is groundwater. The formations that act as underground reservoirs to store groundwater are called aquifers. The aquifers in the western part of the state are only crudely mapped, and estimates of the amounts of water which they might contain are extremely imprecise (12). Estimates of groundwater in the Piceance Basin, one of the most extensively studied areas in northwest Colorado, vary from 2.5 to 25 million acre feet (13).
The question of the amount of groundwater in the Piceance Basin should be resolved if large scale mining of oil shale occurs, since oil shale is in a portion of the Green River formation known as the Mahogony Zone which separates the upper and lower aquifers in that Basin. Weeks, Leavesley, Welder and Saulvier (14) used a digital groundwater hydraulics model to simulate the effects of two mines
20


in lease tracts C-a and C-b in the Piceance Basin. They concluded in part that dewatering operations associated with these two prototype operations would cause significant changes in that hydrologic system. Mine dewatering would deplete Piceance Creek, which receives 80 percent of its flow from aquifers, and increase the concentration of dissolved solids downstream. Water from the lower aquifer contains high concentrations of dissolved solids, exceptionally high concentrations of dissolved fluoride, and sodium bicarbonate brines which could pose water quality problems for users.
21


C. LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
Current water laws in Colorado permit any individual, group, or municipality to acquire water for beneficial use to the extent that their wealth and inclination make possible, even to the total limits of availability of the resource within the state. This "dollar policy" of water management has not been a conscious creation but rather the result of a patchwork of law and edict that has grown from territorial days. Its lack of wisdom, consistency, and logic now has the state facing contradictory values.
On the one hand, the existing water rights must be respected; on the other, the threat to the public good inherent in personal or separate community decisions regarding water must be considered. (15)
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief summary of the legal and institutional constraints which affect the availability and distribution of water in the Yampa basin. These constraints, as with most of the forces and factors which will determine energy growth, are products of state and national level decisions. Greater detail and specific applications and case law are available from numerous sources, including Phase II of the Colorado State Water Plan (16), Radosevich (17,18), and others (19,20).
The rules and procedures which dictate the distribution of water in Colorado fall into three major categories
* Federal legislation and judicial proceedings, including interstate compacts;
* the judicial framework within Colorado under which water is adjudicated and administered, which is based on the doctrine of prior appropriation, or 'first in time, first in line' ;
* and the administrative procedures and practices of the State Engineer that govern the day-to-day distribution of water when there is both sufficient and insufficient supply to meet all demands.
22


Federal Legislation and Interstate Compacts
The two interstate Compacts which directly affect the apportionment and availability of water in the Yampa River basin are the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado River Compact of 1948.
The Colorado River Compact of 1922 divides the Colorado River drainage into the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. The Upper Basin includes Colorado, Wyoming, and those parts of Utah, New Mexico and Arizona drained by the Colorado above Lees Ferry, Arizona. The Lower Basin includes California, Nevada, and those parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah which drain into the Colorado River below Lees Ferry. The Compact provides that the Upper Basin will deliver an aggregate flow of not less than 75 million acre-feet at Lees Ferry in any successive 10-year period.
The Upper Colorado River Compact of 1948 apportions the water of the Upper Colorado River Basin among Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Two provisions of this compact directly affect the Yampa River. Article XI outlines the administration, diversion and measurement of flow in the Little Snake subbasin, which serves both Colorado and Wyoming. Article XIII of the 1948 compact provides that Colorado must allow the flow of the Yampa River to be not less than an aggregate 5 million acre-feet at the gauging station near Maybell, Colorado, in any successive 10-year period.
The Federal influence on water development also includes legislative, executive and administrative policy. Beyond Congressional actions which authorize and fund particular projects, a change in policy orientation by the Bureau of Reclamation from the current emphasis on agriculture to an emphasis on energy development for projects in northwestern Colorado would have potentially far-reaching effects.
23


Judicial Framework in Colorado
Water law in Colorado is based on the doctrine of prior
appropriation, or 'first in time, first in line.' This is in
contrast to the riparian rights doctrines found in areas where water
is more plentiful. In Colorado, the prior appropriation doctrine
applies to both surface and tributary ground waters.
The appropriation of water is specifically provided for in
the Constitution of the State of Colorado in Article XVI.
Section 5 states: "Water of streams public property.
-The water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the State of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the State, subject to appropriation as herein-after provided."
Section 6 states: "Diverting unappropriated water-priority preferred uses. -The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied. Priority of appropriation shall give the better right as between those using the water for the same purpose; but when the waters of any natural stream are not sufficient for the service of all those desiring the use of the same, those using the water for domestic purposes shall have the preference over those claiming for any other purpose, and those using the water for agricultural purpose shall have preference over those using the same for manufacturing purpose."
The statutes established by the General Assembly provide the basic policies to institute the Constitutional provisions.
"The statutes set forth the duties and responsibilities of the State Engineer...provide guidelines for individuals, corporations, and associations in diverting water; specify the responsibilities of the courts...and others involved in the adjudication process, including the Division Engineer, Court referee, and applicant; and provide direct guidance for the administration of the waters of the State in general." (22)
24


Water rights in Colorado are established through adjudication procedures in a system of state water courts and water judges, rather than through the State Engineer. The priority date, which is the recognized point in time when water was first put to beneficial use, gives the holder of a right priority in receiving water over holders of rights with later, or junior, dates, even if the diversion point for that junior right is upstream.
An established water right is a property right and may be bought and sold. It is decreed to a specific point of diversion and for a specific use. If a right is not used, it is subject to loss through action of the water courts. Although the Constitution provides for a hierarchy of preference in use, statute and case law have set the priority date as the primary test for allocating water in the event of a shortage. A domestic user might acquire a water right from a lower preference user through condemnation, but only by demonstrating a need and paying compensation to the owner of that right.
Role of the State Engineer
The role of the State Engineer and his staff is to administer water rights in Colorado in accordance with the law, court decrees, and recognized administrative practices. This includes administering the diversion of water and recording the amount, consulting with the water court regarding applications for water rights, and administering on-stream reservoir operations to ensure that the required outflow is maintained.
The State Engineer is not responsible for water quality in Colorado, and does not apportion water except in special circumstances. These functions are the responsibility of the Colorado Department of Health and water courts, respectively.
25


' Federal Reserved Rights
A significant unresolved issue at this time is the question of Federal Reserved Rights. The Federal government, which is a major landholder in the Yampa basin and in the entire Colorado River drainage, has claimed water rights on lands managed by such agencies as the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. These agencies have never adjudicated their claims through the State water courts in Colorado. Since these claims are not quantified and decreed, they cannot be administered under the current State system, and represent a threat to the entire existing system of water rights administration. Recent indications are that these rights will be considered under the jurisdiction of the Colorado State courts rather than the Federal Court system.
26


D. WATER SUPPLY SCENARIOS
Three scenarios were selected to define the low, moderate, and high levels of reservoir development on the water supply axis of the matrix. The Yampa Basin has one of the largest outflows in Colorado with very little existing water storage, and a substantial number of reservoir projects have been proposed. Steele (23) lists 34 separate proposed reservoirs, some of which compete for the same sites (Appendix 2). The reservoir systems for the low, medium and high supply scenarios were chosen from among these proposals.
Low Scenario
The existing situation is the obvious choice for the low development scenario. Reservoirs are expensive to construct, often flood prime land, and have met with increasing opposition on environmental grounds. Building reservoir projects was such a popular form of political largesse in the post-World War II period that the term "pork barrel" was originally coined to describe such an appropriation by Congress. Long before President Carter's 1977 water project "hit list," many reservoir proposals faced growing opposition. If no group is able to assemble both the financial backing and political strength needed to take a project through the approval process, then the existing situation for surface water storage in the Yampa Basin will be maintained.
Moderate Scenario
The moderate scenario is the scenario judged "most likely to occur." (24) It includes what is by far the largest reservoir project proposedthe Juniper-Cross Mountain project with a total capacity of 1,290,000 acre feet, and the much smaller Bear Reservoir.
27


TABLE II-3: Existing and proposed reservoirs included in Low, Medium, and High Supply Scenarios
Supply % Basin
Scenario Reservoir Stream Capacity Plow
L M H Steamboat Lake Willow Cr. 23,060
XXX Stillwater Bear River 6,390
XXX Pearl Lake Lester Cr. 5,660
XXX Elkhead Elkhead Cr. 5,390
XXX Three Res. 3,350
(Capacity of each
between 1000 & 1200)
XXX Twenty four Res 10,210
(Capacity of each
between 100 & 1000)
XXX Lake Catamount Yampa River 7,1^00
XXX Yamcolo Bear River 9,000
Total Existing 70,14.60 I4.. 6$
X X Bear Yampa River 11,610
X X Juniper Yampa River 1,082,000
X X Cross Mtn. Yampa River 208,000
Total Moderate Scenario - 1,372,070 90$
X Blacktail Yampa River 229,250
X Childress Trout Cr. 2ij.,l60
X Lower Green Green Cr. 99,600
X Upper Middle Middle Cr. 102,200
X Lower Middle Middle Cr. 25,150
X Pothook Slater Cr. 60,000
X Sandstone Savery Cr. 15,500
Total High Scenario------------ 1,927>930_________126$
Source: Knudsen and Danielson, 1977J Steele and others, 1979
28


tXPl AN At ION
K>
Location of some representative proposed reservoirs
Source: Veenhuis and Hillier, 1981
Figure II-5


Juniper-Cross Mountain is a proposed two dam and reservoir project west of Craig on the Yampa River in Northwest Colorado. It will produce 350 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually, store almost 1.3 million acre-feet of water, accommodate 500,000 recreation days per year and has the potential to irrigate 18,000 acres directly and more by exchange. Total project cost will be paid by water and power sales revenue; there are no state or federal funds involved. The first land set-aside for the project was made in 1905 and federal power site withdrawals were made subsequently. Sponsors of the project are Colorado-Ute Electric Assn., which will own the transmission system and has expressed an intent to purchase project power, and the Colorado River District, which will own the dams and reservoirs. (25)
The Juniper-Cross Mountain project has been winding its way through the approval process for several years. It is opposed by whitewater rafters and environmental groups, but it received a strong boost with the 1981 decision by the Interior Department that the presence of endangered species (Colorado squawfish and Humpback chub) is not adequate grounds to disqualify a project. Promising hydroelectric power, irrigation and recreation, and privately financed, this project appears to have a good chance for construction.
High Scenario
The high scenario does not envision construction of all of the 34 reservoir proposals listed in Appendix 2. Some of these projects compete for the same or for overlapping sites, and it was judged that construction of the Juniper-Cross Mountain project would remove the justification for many of the other irrigation projects on the main stem of the Yampa.
What the high scenario does include, in addition to all of the projects in the moderate scenario, is the construction of two major proposals: the Oak Creek Water and Power project, a series of five reservoirs on the upper reaches of the Yampa to provide hydroelectric power and water for cooling towers, and the Savery-Pothook project proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation to provide water storage for irrigation in the northern portion of the Yampa Basin (Figure II-5).
30


The Oak Creek Water and Power proposal consists of five reservoirs on the Yampa and tributaries of the Yampa near the town of Oak Creek: Blacktail, Childress, Lower Green, Lower Middle, and Upper Middle, with a total storage capacity of 480,360 acre feet. The Savery-Pothook project was approved by Congress in 1976 but was never funded pending further study. It consists of two reservoirs on tributaries of the Little Snake River: Pothook Reservoir on Slater Fork in Moffat County, Colorado, and Sandstone Reservoir on Savery Creek in Carbon County, Wyoming. These two would have a combined capacity of 75,000 acre feet.
The total capacity for all reservoirs in the high scenario Juniper-Cross Mountain, Bear, Blacktail, Childress, Lower Green, Lower Middle, Upper Middle, Pothook, Sandstone and the existing storagewould be about 1,927,930 acre feet, with Juniper-Cross Mountain and Blacktail accounting for almost 80 percent of the total.
31


CHAPTER IIIWATER DEMAND
A. Existing Water Use
B. Water Use By Energy Projects
C. Alternative Energy Assumptions And Scenarios Low ScenarioAssumptions
Low Demand Scenario Moderate ScenarioAssumptions Moderate Demand Scenario High ScenarioAssumptions High Demand Scenario
32


A. EXISTING WATER USE
The diversion and use of water is generally divided into three categories: domestic and municipal use, agricultural use, and in-
dustrial use. In this analysis, two other categories will be distinguishedwater use related to incremental energy production, and water diverted to another basin.
In discussing water use, a distinction must be made between the withdrawal and the consumption of water. The amount of water withdrawn is the amount originally diverted. After domestic or agricultural use, a portion of the water originally diverted normally is returned to surface flow and is available to a downstream user.
The amount of water which is not returned, which is used, evaporates, or goes into the groundwater system, is the amount actually consumed. Some uses such as mining or industrial operations may result in waste-water of such poor quality that it must not be returned to surface flow and instead disposed of through such methods as evaporation ponds or cooling towers. For these uses, consumption may equal withdrawal.
A total of 414,846 acre-feet of surface water was diverted in the Colorado portion of the Yampa River Basin during 1976 (Table II-2). Of this total,agricultural irrigation was the largest use, accounting for 96.1 percent. Municipal use was 0.6 percent, industrial use was 1.3 percent, and all other uses totaled 2.0 percent. Diversions for municipal use were found in former water districts 44, 57, and 58 which contain the towns of Craig, Hayden, and Steamboat Springs respectively (Figure 1-1).
Table II-2 shows diversion for industrial use only in former water district 57 where the Hayden power plant is located. There is virtually no manufacturing or other industry in the two county area.
The only additional industrial water use in the near future will occur in 1983 when construction is completed on the Craig #3 powerplant. Operation of coal-fired power plants is discussed in the following section.
33


B. WATER USE BY ENERGY PROJECTS
Coal
The coal found in Routt and Moffat Counties is generally a high-quality bituminous coal, low in sulfur, moisture, and ash (2).
Air pollution emission regulations have put a premium on such
characteristics, and this is one factor in the rapid expansion in
coal production in the Yampa River Basin in the last decade (Figure III-l).
Coal is mined by two methods, surface or 'strip' mining and underground mining. Surface mining, where the coal seam is close enough to the surface that it can be exposed by stripping off the overburden, is simpler and less expensive where it is feasible, although the site must be revegetated after the coal has been removed. A worker at a strip mine can produce an average of 29.3 tons per day, while in an underground mine the average is 10 tons per day per worker (3). Strip mining is the predominant method in Routt and Moffat Counties.
Coal mining does not require large amounts of water. Water is used in the process for dust control on roads, in mines, and during handling and crushing of coal; for revegetation at surface mines; for sanitary and potable needs; and for service and fire water. These uses are summarized in Table III-l.
Oil Shale
The oil shale occurring in the Yampa River Basin is of a much lower quality and is more difficult to extract than that in the neighboring Piceance Basin. No development of oil shale in the Yampa drainage is forseen. Itis the potentially large scale of development in the adjacent White River drainage in the Piceance Basin that makes the development of this resource important to Moffat and Routt Counties.
The technology for processing oil shale is still in the development stage. There are three proposed methods for retorting, or using heat to release the shale oil from the sedimentary rock in
34


COAL PRODUCTION (Millions of tons)
A
6 "
,COAL PRODUCTION, ROUTT AND MOFFAT COUNTIES
/
/
/
/
/
/

/
/

5"
4"
3"
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/
S'
/
/
/
/
f
/
/
2 "
/
/
/

ROUTT COUNTY -MOFFAT COUNTY

-------^
H-----------h
1972 1973 1974 !975 1976 1977 1976 1979 I960
Figure III-l


MILLIONS OF TONS OF COAL MINED ANNUALLY
Routt and Moffat --Annual coal production, 1908 77.
Counties
Figure III-2
MILLIONS OF METRIC TONS OF COAL MINED ANNUALLY


which it is found. All three methods require extensive amounts of water.
Surface retorting is used in the TOSCO II, Paraho and Union processes. The oil shale is mined, crushed and retorted to separate the crude oil, and the spent, shale is spread and revegetated.
Water requirements for this process include dust control on roads, in the mines, and during handling and crushing; the retorting process itself and the subsequent upgrading process; for revegetation; for sanitary and potable needs; and for service and fire water. The surface retorting process is the closest to commercial application.
The in situ process involves retorting the oil shale in place, underground, by first fracturing the shale with explosives, forcing air through the fractures, and igniting part of the shale formation to heat and retort the rest. Once freed, the crude oil is pumped to the surface. This process lends itself to situations where the shale is difficult to mine, and it avoids the problems of handling and disposing of the spent shale and revegetation.
Problems include the contamination of groundwater with shale residue, and the presence of groundwater in the shale formation.
Water requirements would include dust control for roads and the site; for use in the upgrading process; sanitary and potable needs; and service and fire water. The in situ processes are the least developed. Estimates of total water requirements are less than 50 percent of that required for the surface retorting processes (4 and Table III-l).
The modified in situ process combines surface and underground retorting. A portion of the shale formation is removed by mining and retorted at the surface. Underground shale is then rubble-ized in the space created by the mining, and a controlled combustion is used to heat the shale. The crude is pumped from the bottom of the fractured zone. No full scale tests of this process have been performed so that water requirements are not known. Since it is a
37


TABLE III-l: Water Requirements for Energy Production
Method Production Unit Withdrawal. (Acre-feet) Consumption (Acre-feet)
Steam Electric Coal-Gas-Oil 1,000 MW Capacity 9304 6381
Wet Tower Cooling 70% load factor
Hayden Power Plant 465 MW 90% load factor 5017 4917
Craig Power Plant 1348 MW 90% load factor 13,032 12,771*
Coal Mining Underground Million Tons/Yr 146 110
Surface Million Tons/Yr 73 71
Coal Gasification Lurgi Process Wet Tower Cooling 250 mill.SCF/Day 7900 6700
Coal Liquification Wet Tower Cooling 50,000 bpd capacity 90% load factor 5300 4600
Oil Shale Surface Retort 50,000 bpd capacity 7900 6700
(ie. TOSCO II) In Situ (BuMines Process) 90% load factor 3495 3495
*Assumes similar conditions to Hayden
Source---CERI, 1981


combination of the in situ and surface processes, the water needs should also fall between the requirements of those two processes, and uses would be similar.
Steam Electric Power
A steam electric power plant operates by burning a fuel such as coal, oil or gas to superheat water into steam. The superheated steam passes through a turbine which powers an electrical generator, and then it is cooled back to water and the process is repeated.
The process water is in a closed system and little is lost. Water is also required for the cooling process. In Colorado a wet tower technique is commonly used to cool the steam, and a portion of the cooling water is lost to evaporation.
One of the largest coal-fired power plants in the state is located at Hayden in west-central Routt County, and a similar facility with an even larger generating capacity is scheduled to be completed in Craig in 1983. Both plants use wet towers for cooling. The Hayden plant produces 465 MW and consumes 4,917 acre-feet of water per year, with very little discharge (5). Consumption for the Craig plant is not yet known, but with a generating capacity of 1,348 MW and operating at the same load factor as the Hayden plant, estimated consumption will be 12,770 acre-feet per year.
Coal Gasification
This is a synfuel process which begins with low-grade coal and water and through several steps produces a high Btu synthetic natural gas of SNG. The SNG is comparable to natural gas and can use the same pipelines. As with oil shale, the technology for full scale production of SNG by coal gasification is still being developed. The best known process for coal gasification is the Lurgi process. Estimates for water consumption in this process vary, with a high-end estimate of 7,900 acre-feet per year for a 250 million scf per day capacity and wet tower cooling (Table III-l). W.R.
Grace is currently planning to construct a coal gasification facility in Moffat County south of Craig, to be completed in 1990.


Coal Slurry
Slurry pipelines offer a possible alternative to railroads for transportation of coal and other minerals. In this process coal is crushed, mixed with water at a ratio of about 1 lb. of water to 1 lb. of coal (6) or about 767 acre-feet of water for one million tons of coal (7) and pumped through a pipeline to its destination.
It is then dewatered before use. Construction of a pipeline is a capital intensive undertaking, and is practical only to transport large volumes of coal from one fixed point to another.
Railroad companies view slurry pipelines as a threat to their business, and are reluctant to grant rights-of-way across rail lines. Another problem is that large amounts of water are required at the sending terminal, which makes this method of transport more difficult in the western U.S. One suggested solution is to return the transport water to the sending terminal, but this requires the expense of a second pipeline. A coal slurry pipeline has been included as part of the high demand scenario.
Coal Liquification
Two types of coal liquification processes exist, indirect and direct. Indirect liquification is accomplished by first gasifying the coal and then catalyzing the gas into a liquid and gas mixture. The resulting products are separated and upgraded. This process is in commercial use in South Africa.
Direct liquification reacts hydrogen with coal to produce a fuel. The coal is slurried with a solvent, and the slurry is then injected with hydrogen into a reactor where the process is completed. This method has not yet reached commercial scale, but will be more efficient than the indirect process.
40


C. ASSUMPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SCENARIOS
The three alternative energy scenarios are based on three different sets of assumptions as to what the state, national and world energy situation will be. The assumptions presented here are derived from the Department of Natural Resources' Cumulative Impact Task Force (8) and from work by the Colorado Energy Research Institute (9).
The Low Scenario anticipates a low level of energy development through the year 2000. It does not represent the lowest possible level of energy development, but the lowest level that would reasonably be expected to occur.
The Moderate Scenario anticipates a level of energy development in line with that projected by the energy companies' expectations. It assumes positive but not radically increased market demand.
The High Scenario anticipates the United States setting energy independence as a national priority in the immediate future.
Figures presented for this scenario represent the highest practical level of development that could be achieved if such a program was embarked upon soon.
41


Water Use Assumptions For All Demand Scenarios
1. The minimum outflow of the Yampa River subbasin will be not less than 5 million acre-feet during any consecutive ten year period to meet the requirements of the Upper Colorado River Compact. This represents an annual mean outflow of 500,000 acre-feet, or just less than half of the mean annual outflow for that subbasin.
2. Agriculture is assumed to be supply-limited. This implies
that it will use any additional water which becomes available to it.
3. The economics of water are such that domestic and industrial users are able to purchase additional water rights from agricultural users if there is no unclaimed water available, and that other users never sell or give up their water rights.
4. For the High Demand Scenario only, it is assumed that transmountain diversions occur at the level of 31,000 acre-feet from the Little Snake River subbasin to Cheyenne (Hog Park diversion), and 66,000 acre-feet are diverted from the Yampa River subbasin either through the Vidler Tunnel diversion or from the site of the Juniper Reservoir to the White River Basin.
5. It will be assumed that water can be transferred at will within the study area.
42


Low Demand ScenarioAssumptions
1. Conservation and worldwide production stability reduce political and market pressures; United States dependence on OPEC oil is reduced by other suppliers such as Mexico.
2. The Federal government fails to implement a long-term energy-resource strategy.
3. Restrictive state policy and federal environmental regulations (siting, permits, air, water and severance) slow energy production.
4. Lack of firm long-term contracts for Colorado coal, substantial increases in coal rail transportation costs, and competition from other Western, Midwestern and Eastern coal producers limit coal production.
5. Lack of any additional conversion by out-of-state industries from oil and gas to coal prevent additional coal contracts.
6. Oil shale development delayed by technical difficulties and the belief by investors that oil shale production will not become economically feasible.
43


Low Demand Scenario
Economic
This scenario projects a stagnant energy market with little or no increase in demand for coal and minimal synfuels development. Coal production in Routt County will decrease to about 4 million tons per year as strippable supplies are used up and the market will not support the additional cost of underground coal. Moffat County will become the leading coal producer in the state, increasing production to 10 million tons per year by 1990 (10). Oil shale and synfuels development is limited, with only 12,000 bpd production in Rio Blanco County by the year 2000 in this scenario.
Both Routt and Moffat Counties will continue steady, moderate increases in population, although at a much slower rate than during the 1970's. Craig will continue to dominate growth in Moffat County with expansion from coal and its position as a regional center.
Routt County's growth will be based on the recreation and tourism industry as coal declines in importance. Agriculture will remain stable.
Social
The existing mild 'boom' problems will ease as housing, services and infrastructure catch up to needs. Towns such as Hayden which overbuilt during the 1970's in anticipation of a major boom will recover only slowly. Overall, the percentage of transient workers and young single males will drop throughout the study area.
Land Use
In this scenario existing land use patterns will continue unchanged. Some dry range land near Hayden and Craig will be converted to coal mining, and there will be a minor increase in residential land use. Mine sites near Oak Creek which have been mined out will begin revegetation (See Table III-2A).
44


Moderate Demand ScenarioAssumptions
1. Modest increases in energy demand make it conducive for firms to expand production; world oil supply continues with steady supply and regular but meetable increases in price.
2. Federal energy incentives are implemented making small-scale synfuels production economically feasible.
3. State policy and federal environmental regulations (siting, permits, air, water, severance taxes) support moderate energy expansion.
4. National policy balances Appalachian and Western coal.
5. Transportation, work force and materials are sufficiently available to allow expanded production.
6. Some additional conversion from oil and gas to coal by out-of-state industry occurs.
7. Selected synfuels technologies meet no unexpected delays as they are scaled up; discharge technologies are refined and do not act as constraints.
45


Moderate Demand Scenario
Economic
This scenario projects a moderate increase in energy demand with steady increases in coal production, and oil shale reaching a commercial scale of 350,000 bpd production in northwest Colorado by the end of the century. In Moffat County, coal production will increase steadily and some impact from oil shale development will be seen in the Craig area, especially in the service sector. Coal production in Routt County will increase slightly as surface supplies are exhausted and underground mining increases. Total coal production for both counties will reach almost 22 million tons by the year 2000. Power companies will take advantage of the availability of low sulfur, high Btu coal to expand and double generating capacity in the 1990's.
Population in the Yampa River Basin will continue to increase at a steady rate, with Routt County balanced between growth from recreation and tourism and growth from coal, and Moffat County growth based on energy. Agriculture will remain stable, although declining in relative importance.
Social
The Craig area will continue to be the most heavily impacted town in the Yampa River Basin and the present boom conditions will continue. Hayden, Oak Creek, and Steamboat Springs will also be impacted to a lesser extent. Trailer suburbs will increase near these towns and there will be a shortage of some service and infrastructure facilities. The area will continue to have a higher-than-average percentage of young males. Because of the high growth conditions that existed throughout the 1970's and the fact that many of the residents are themselves recent migrants into the area, acceptance of the continuing growth will be higher than would otherwise be expected.
46


Land Use
In southeast Moffat County and western Routt County, some dry grazing land will be lost as the Green River-Ham's Fork coal lease tracts are brought into production, although several tracts will be extensions of existing operations. Near Oak Creek, revegetation will begin on exhausted strip mine sites. Some prime agricultural land in the valley floors and some grazing land will be lost to residential land use. Outside of the U.S. 40 corridor from Steamboat Springs to Craig and south, land use patterns will remain unchanged (See Table III-2B).
47


High ScenarioAssumptions
1. Instability in foreign nations decreases world oil supplies available to the United States and pushes domestic replacement efforts.
2. Federal policies give priority to evergy development; environmental constraints are relaxed.
3. State policies work to assist energy development.
4. Adjustment of coal rail transportation costs make northwest Colorado coal more competitive.
5. Northwest Colorado receives major foreign (Japanese) coal contracts.
6. Out-of-state industrial users convert to coal.
48


High Demand Scenario
Economic
This scenario projects that the increase of domestic energy production will be set as a national priority. Oil shale and syn-fuels development will receive strong federal and state support to reach a combined total production equivalent to almost one million bpd in northwest Colorado. Oil shale production alone will reach 400,000 bpd by 1990 and 640,000 bpd by the year 2000. Syn-fuels technology will have a strong effect on southeastern Moffat County as a 750 scf (standard cubic foot) coal gasification plant and a 50,000 bpd coal liquification plant go into production there in the 1990's.
Coal production will increase greatly throughout both counties, reaching 35 million tons by the end of this century. Even with unit trains, the railroads will be unable to carry the volume of coal produced, and an 11 million ton per year coal slurry pipeline will be constructed. In addition to feedstock for the synfuels plants and high export demand, coal production will also be spurred by the construction of several "mine-mouth" generating plants.
Electrical power from these plants will increase the generating capacity in the Yampa River Basin by 2-^ times to 4600 MW by the end of the 1990s.
Agriculture will suffer from a labor shortage as farm employees are lost to higher paying energy jobs. For the service sector, demand will be very strong in all areas and expansion rapid. Social
Local and county social structures will be unable to meet the needs of the influx of new energy workers. Housing, schools, water and sewer and all other services will be inadequate, especially for Craig, Hayden, Oak Creek, and to a lesser extent, Steamboat Springs. Both counties will have a large increase in the number of residents living in mobile homes and recreational vehicles.
49


Classic boomtown symptoms such as increased violence, alcoholism, divorce and depression will appear. Because of the scarcity of housing, the ratio of persons-per-household will rise. The population will contain a very high percentage of the workforce (more than 25 percent) who are young unmarried males. Some friction will appear between local residents and new arrivals.
Land Use
The effects of the boom on land use will mainly be concentrated along the U.S. 40/Yampa River corridor extending from central Routt County through southeast Moffat County. The large increase in human and industrial activity will be apparent in the reduction in air quality due to emissions from the powerplants and greatly increased automobile and rail traffic.
Agriculture in the corridor area will steadily lose ground to mining, industrial and residential land use. Recreational land use and pressure will greatly increase at the ski areas and outlying parts of both counties from the energy workers in the Piceance Basin and in the study area itself (See Table III-2C).
50


TABLE III-2A:
Low Demand Summary
Production Population .WitSt^lwai Consumption
1985 cicc l ) j
2 Coal (mill.tons/yr) 13.55 7073 1163 1055
Steam Electricity (MW) 1815 896 18050 17690
Coal Gas. (1000 SCF/day)
Coal Liq. (1000 bpd)
Coal Slurry (mill.tons/yr)
Oil Shale (1000 bpd)3
Total Energy 7969 19213 18745
4 Agr. Irrigation 394737 142105
Base Population 23485
Total Population3 31454 7051 4407
Total Water (in basin) 421001 165257
Transbasin Diversion
Total 31454 421001 165257
2000
2 Coal (mill, tons/yr) 14.05 8550 1206 1094
Steam Electricity (MW) 1815 896 18050 17690
Coal Gas. (1000 SCF/day)
Coal Liq. (1000 bpd)
Coal Slurry (mill, tons/yr)
Oil Shale (1000 bpd)3 (12) 115 (1896) (1608)
Total Energy 9561 19256 18784
. T 4,6 Agr. Irrigation 473686 170527
Base Population 35835
Total Population 45396 10177 6360
Total Water (in basin) 503119 195671
Transbasin Diversion
Total 45396 503119 195671
51


TABLE III-2B:
Moderate Demand Summary
1
Production Population ,WitSirIwa , Water, 1 Consumption
1985 (aci"e-f feet )(acre-reer)
2 Coal (mill.tons/yr) 15.55 8117 1335 1211
Steam Electricity (MW) 1815 896 18050 17690
Coal Gas. (1000 SCF/day)
Coal Liq. (1000 bpd)
Coal Slurry (mill.tons/yr)
Oil Shale (1000 bpd)3 (14) 2713 (2212) (1876)
Total Energy 11726 19385 18901
4 Agr. Irrigation 394737 142105
Base Population 23485
Total Population 35211 7894 4934
Total Water (in basin) 422016 165940
Transbasin Diversion
Total 35211 422016 165940
2000
2 Coal (mill.tons/yr) 21.9 13327 1818 1646
Steam Electricity (MW) 3611 1783 35911 35195
Coal Gas. (1000 SCF/day)
Coal Liq. (1000 bpd)
Coal Slurry (mill.tons/yr)
Oil Shale (1000 bpd)3 (130) 6577 (24540) (17420)
Total Energy 16359 37729 36841
4 6 Agr. Irrigation 473686 170527
Base Population 35835
Total Population 57522 12895 8060
Total Water (in basin) 524310 215428
Transbasin Diversion
Total 524310 215428
52


TABLE III-2C:
High Demand Summary
Production Population Witliirfwa^ Consump? ion
1985
2 Coal (mill.tons/yr) 15.55 8117 1335 1211
Steam Electricity (MW) 1815 896 18050 17690
Coal Gas. (1000 SCF/day)
Coal Liq. (1000 bpd)
Coal Slurry (mill.tons/yr)
Oil Shale (1000 bpd)3 (50) 3141 (7900) (6700)
Total Energy 12154 19385 18901
Agr. Irrigation^ 394737 142105
Base Population 23485
Total Population^ 35639 7990 4993
Total Water (in basin) 422912 165999
Transbasin Diversion 66000 66000
Total 35639 488912 231999
2000
2 Coal (mill.tons/yr) 35.0 21299 3005 2726
Steam Electricity (MW) 5200 2568 41946 41109
Coal Gas. (1000 SCF/day) 750 13860 21200 18700
Coal Liq. (1000 bpd) 50 5015 5300 5300
Coal Slurry (mill.tons/yr) 11 704 8437 8437
Oil Shale (1000 bpd)3 (240) 12142 (37920) (32160)
Total Energy 55588 79888 76272
4 Agr. Irrigation 473686 170527
Base Population 35835
Total Population3 91423 21441 12768
Total Water (in basin) 575015 259567
Transbasin Diversion 66000 66000
Total 641015 325567
53


TABLE III-2NOTES
(1) Adapted from CERI, 1981, as noted.
(2) Based on Hart, 1981, production/population figures.
(3) Rio Blanco production only, adapted from CERI, 1981.
(4) Consumption assumed to be 36% of withdrawal for Colorado River Basin.
(5) Adapted from Hart Associates, 1981.
(6) Long term shows a 20% increase in agricultural water use.
54


CHAPTER IVCOMPOSITE SCENARIOS
A. Low Supply/Low Demand
B. Moderate Supply/Low Demand
C. High Supply/Low Demand
D. Low Supply/Moderate Demand
E. Moderate Supply/Moderate Demand
F. High Supply/Moderate Demand
G. Low Supply/High Demand
H. Moderate Supply/High Demand
I. High Supply/High Demand
55


A. LOW SUPPLY/LOW DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO
Supply Summary
The existing supply system is characterized by wide variations in both year-to-year and month-to-month flows. Mean annual basin flows since 1922 have varied from 2.9 million acre-feet to less than one half million acre-feet. Mean monthly flows show 64% of the yearly flow occurring during May and June, 3.4% during August and September.
Demand Summary
Agriculture dominates water use with over 90% of the total diversions, largely during late spring and summer. Agriculture is assumed to be supply-limited and will expand its water use with an increased supply. Small percentages of demand come from year round users including steam electric power plants, increasing population, and increasing coal mining in Moffat County. Demand for these users can be met from existing flows or through small storage reservoirs (Figure III-2A).
Synthesis
In this combined scenario, supply and demand factors continue in a relationship similar to the existing one with small increases in domestic and industrial use. Agricultural use cannot expand with no increase in supply. Water use patterns are maintained with agriculture dominant, although limited by yearly and seasonal fluctuations. No major dislocations.
56


B. MODERATE SUPPLY/LOW DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO
Supply Summary
The construction of Juniper-Cross in this scenario results in a drastic increase in storage capacity over the low (existing) supply scenario. The effect of this is that water from the spring runoff is retained in the system for year round use. The added storage capacity also gives some protection against year-to-year supply variations. The Little Snake subbasin gains no additional storage over the low supply scenario, but exchange allows some improvement in its supply.
Demand Summary
Agriculture dominates water use with over 90% of the total diversions, largely during late spring and summer. Agriculture is assumed to be supply-limited and will expand its water use with an increased supply. Small percentages of demand come from year round users including steam electric power plants, increasing population, and increasing coal mining in Moffat County. Demand for these users
An assured year-long water supply allows agricultural use to expand by 18%. No other users in the system were water-limited. Construction of Juniper-Cross greatly increases the popularity of the Yampa River Basin as a recreational area for Colorado residents and others, including energy workers. Population in the study area doubles by the end of the century.
can be met from existing flows or through Synthesis
57


C. HIGH SUPPLY/LOW DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO
Supply Summary
The supply system is characterized by a greatly increased supply of water for energy development and agricultural irrigation in the Yampa River subbasin and by greatly increased capacity for agricultural irrigation in the Little Snake subbasin. Total storage capacity of the system is 126% of the mean annual flow. Impacts in the Yampa River Basin from both yearly and seasonal variations in flow are minimized.
Demand Summary
Agriculture dominates water use with over 90% of the total diversions, largely during late spring and summer. Agriculture is assumed to be supply-limited and will expand its water use with an increased supply. Small percentages of demand come from year round users including steam electric power plants, increasing population, and increasing coal mining in Moffat County. Demand for these users can be met from existing flows or through small storage reservoirs (Figure III-2A).
Synthesis
This is not an economically plausible scenario. The additional capacity supplied in the Yampa subbasin beyond that from the Juniper-Cross Mountain project would only be constructed to supply additional energy development. Agriculture is assumed to be water-limited, but the existing Federal attitude toward financing water projects for irrigation would have to be reversed.
58


D. LOW SUPPLY/MODERATE DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO
Supply Summary
The existing supply system is characterized by extreme variations in both year-to-year and month-to-month flows. Mean annual basin flows since 1922 have varied from 2.9 million acre-feet to less than one half million acre-feet. Mean monthly flows show 64% of the yearly flow occurring during May and June, 3.4% during August and September.
Demand Summary
Agriculture continues to dominate water use in the Yampa River Basin, although its percentage of total water use drops as other demand increases moderately. Steam electric power generation and population both double by the year 2000; coal production increases 40%.
No coal 'gasification, liquification or coal slurry pipelines are seen. The oil shale production in Rio Blanco County reaches
130,000 bpd by the end of the century (Figure III-2B).
Synthesis
As demand expands with no increase in supply, the solution for other users is to buy out agricultural water rights and convert their use. Loss of these rights to other users is not of great significance to agriculture over all; it remains the dominant water user, but declines economically relative to other users.
59


E. MODERATE SUPPLY/MODERATE DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO Supply Summary
The supply system is characterized by a drastic increase in storage capacity over the low (existing) supply scenario. The effect of this is to retain water from the spring runoff in the system for year round use. The added storage capacity also gives some protection against year-to-year supply variations. The Little Snake subbasin gains no additional storage over the low supply scenario, but exchange allows some improvement in its supply.
Demand Summary
Agriculture continues to dominate water use in the Yampa River Basin, although its percentage of total water use drops as other demand increases moderately. Steam electric power generation and population both double by the year 2000; coal production increases 40%. No coal gasification plants or liquification plants, and no coal slurry pipelines are constructed. The oil shale production in Rio Blanco County reaches 130,000 bpd by the end of the century (Figure III-2B).
Synthesis
The stabilized water supply is a benefit to all economic sectors. Agriculture expands irrigated acreage by 18%. With more water available, agricultural rights are not purchased and converted to other uses. The boost in the recreational sector caused by the Juniper-Cross Mountain project makes the expansion pictured in the moderate demand scenario more plausible than under the low supply scenario.
60


F. HIGH SUPPLY/MODERATE DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO
Supply Summary
The supply system is characterized by a greatly increased supply of water for energy development and agricultural irrigation in the Yampa River subbasin and by greatly increased capacity for agricultural irrigation in the Little Snake subbasin. Total storage capacity of the system is 126% of the mean annual flow. Impacts in the Yampa River Basin from both yearly and seasonal variations in flow are minimized.
Demand Summary
Agriculture continues to dominate water use in the Yampa River Basin, although its percentage of total water use drops as other demand moderately increases. Steam electric power generation and population both double by the year 2000; coal production increases 40%. No coal gasification plants or liquification plants, and no coal slurry pipelines are constructed. The oil shale production
in Rio Blanco County reaches 130,000 bpd by the end of the century.
(See Figure III-2B)
Synthesis
This scenario is plausible with the inclusion of additional hydro and steam electric generation to the moderate scenario. Agriculture expands in both the Yampa River and Little Snake River subbasins with the additional water availability. The recreation and tourism sector of the area's economy is boosted in both Routt and Moffat Counties by the large reservoirs.
61


G. LOW SUPPLY/HIGH DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO
Supply Summary
The existing supply system is characterized by extreme variations in both year-to-year and month-to-month flows. Mean annual basin flows since 1922 have varied from 2.9 million acre-feet to less than one half million acre-feet. Mean monthly flows show 64% of the yearly flow occurring during May and June, 3.4% during August and September. Demand Summary
The demand for water from energy production more than quadruples by the end of the century, and population more than triples. Syn-fuels technology is sufficiently sophisticated that there are large scale coal gasification and liquification plants operating in southeast Moffat County along with a coal slurry pipeline. Several new 'mine mouth' steam electric generating plants are also in operation. Transbasin diversions remove 66,000 acre-feet per year from the Yampa River subbasin and 31,000 acre-feet per year from the Little Snake River subbasin. By the year 2000, energy-based population accounts for 60% of the total for both counties. The status of agriculture is dependent upon the water supply (Figure III-2C). Synthesis
This is not an economically plausible scenario. This level of use is not possible without additional water storage. The lack of water after the spring runoff would make it impossible to meet the increased industrial and municipal needs, even if diversions were minimized during the low flows and maximized during high flows. The same would be true of the transbasin diversions, which could be assumed to feed storage reservoirs outside of the Yampa River Basin.
62


H. MODERATE SUPPLY/HIGH DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO
Supply Summary
The supply system is characterized by a drastic increase in storage capacity over the low (existing) supply scenario. The effect of this is to retain water from the spring runoff in the system for year round use. The added storage capacity also gives some protection against year-to-year supply variations. The Little Snake subbasin gains no additional storage over the low supply scenario, but exchange allows some improvement in its supply.
Demand Summary
The demand for water from energy producers more than quadruples by the end of the century, and population more than triples. Syn-fuels technology is sufficiently sophisticated that there are large scale coal gasification and liquification plants operating in southeast Moffat County along with a coal slurry pipeline. Several new 'mine mouth' steam electric generating plants are also in operation. Transbasin diversions remove 66,000 acre-feet per year from the Yampa River subbasin and 31,000 acre-feet per year from the Little Snake River subbasin. By the year 2000, energy-based population accounts for 60% of the total for the two counties. The status of agriculture is dependent upon the water supply (Figure III-2C). Synthesis
The high demand scenario would be difficult to achieve even with the large increase in storage capacity due to the Juniper-Cross Mountain project. Even with exchange, an adequate supply of water in Routt County would be difficult to attain for a steam electric generating plant near Oak Creek without purchase of agricultural water rights and some additional storage. Routt County has a strong agricultural base, and drying up part of that base would lead to social dislocations.
63


I. HIGH SUPPLY/HIGH DEMAND COMPOSITE SCENARIO
Supply Summary
The supply system is characterized by a greatly increased supply of water for energy development and agricultural irrigation in the Yampa River subbasin and by greatly increased capacity for agricultural irrigation in the Little Snake subbasin. Total storage capacity of the system is 126% of the mean annual flow. Impacts in the Yampa River Basin from both yearly and seasonal variations in flow are minimized.
Demand Summary
The demand for water from energy producers more than quadruples by the end of the century, and population more than triples. Syn-fuels technology is sufficiently sophisticated that there are large scale coal gasification and liquification plants operating in southeast Moffat County along with a coal slurry pipeline. Several new 'mine mouth'steam electric generating plants are also in operation. Transbasin diversions remove 66,000 acre-feet per year of water from the Yampa River subbasin and 31,000 acre-feet per year from the Little Snake River subbasin. By the year 2000, energy-based population accounts for 60% of the total for both counties. The status of agriculture is dependent upon the water supply (Figure III-2C). Synthesis
This scenario would involve a massive investment in both water supply projects and energy projects. Given that those costs can be paid, and given that the area could withstand the social costs inherent in tripling the population in less than twenty years, this scenario is plausible. With excellent water storage, agriculture could expand somewhat in the Yampa River subbasin, and substantially in the Little Snake River subbasin, even with the transbasin diversions. In the U.S. 40/Yampa River corridor, there would be a significant loss of prime farmland due to pressure from industrial and residential users.
64


CHAPTER VEVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Criteria
B. Evaluation
C. Conclusions
D. Recomendations
65


A. CRITERIA
The three selected composite scenarios were evaluated based upon the balance of public and private, long term and short term costs and benefits which they produced. More specifically, a series of planning criteria embodying economic, social and land use goals were used in this evaluation. A scenario was evaluated as to whether it helped, hindered, or neither helped nor hindered the achievement of each of the following criteria:
1. Contribution to the economic base of the area.
2. Avoidance of excessive costs for roads, utilities, and capital improvements.
3. Minimization of social disruption.
4. Allowance for basic service and housing needs to be met.
5. Minimization of disruption of the physical environment.
66


B. EVALUATION
Because of the long lead time required for major development projects such as new reservoirs or mines (1), short-term (1985) supply/demand projections show little differentiation (Table II-2A,B,C). Evaluation of the supply/demand composites is based, therefore, on comparison of the long range (year 2000) projections.
1. Contribution to the economic base of the area.
This criterion is often the primary basis for decisions involving growth and development. Unfortunately, emphasizing maximum economic development alone often directly conflicts with the other criteria listed. Generally an area does benefit economically as the level of development increases for both the water supply and water demand scales, so that more development is desirable. Large scale development of one segment of the economy such as energy may adversely affect other segments. For example, the level of development in the high demand scenario will very possibly result in a lowering of air and water quality which in turn could harm agriculture or tourism. Thus each development project must be evaluated upon its individual merits.
In the present situation the Yampa Basin has a relatively small population concentrated in a few centers, with limited facilities and infrastructure. Under the low demand projections, there will be a population of 45,000, two times the present population, in twenty years (Table III-2A); under the moderate demand projection, the population will be 57,000, two and one half times the present figure (Figure II-4 and Table III-2B); and under the high demand projection the population will be 90,000, almost four times the present level, in twenty years (Table III-2C).
All scenarios involve economic growth, and therefore all help achieve this criterion, with the moderate supply/high demand composite providing the most economic growth. Given the large, rapid increase
67


in population which this scenario requires, conflicts with other criteria may well mean that the maximum economic growth is not the optimum economic growth.
2. Avoidance of excessive costs for roads, utilities, and capital improvements.
This criterion is closely related to the concept of regulated, planned growth. For water supply, it is assumed that new reservoirs are not financed as capital improvements and that the existence of additional water storage will neither help nor hinder this criterion.
For the water demand portion of the composites, excessive costs may be generated both by rapid growth and by non-adjacent, leap-frog development. Rapid growth may well exceed the capacity of a local government to prepare, coordinate, and finance major capital projects. Construction of a new hospital or school, even with adequate financing, may require several years lead time. Non-adj acent, leap-frog development may force a governmental body to pay extra costs to extend a utility to reach an outlying development or to put an oversized facility in place before it is needed.
Under this criterion, the moderate supply/high demand scenario is most likely to produce rapid growth which exceeds the regulatory capacity of the local governmental bodies and hinder achievement of this goal. The low supply/moderate demand and high supply/moderate demand scenarios, which still call for the population to increase from 26,000 to 57,000 in twenty years, may also hinder the achievement of this goal, but are less likely to do so.
In summary, all three scenarios will potentially generate excessive costs under this criterion. Mitigation, such as a workable master plan, may reduce or remove the negative effects, with the moderate supply/ high demand scenario requiring the most mitigation.
3. Minimization of social disruption.
Social disprution is a consequence of change which occurs too quickly or is so major that the traditional community support systems
68


break down. It may occur among both recent arrivals and long time residents of energy boom areas and its symptoms increased violence, divorce, alcoholism and depression are familiar. The city of Craig has been used as an example of a community experiencing social disruption (2).
The water supply component of the scenarios again is considered to neither help nor hinder compliance with this criterion. A major reservoir such as Juniper-Cross Mountain might bring an influx of tourists into a small town such as Maybell, but tourism is an established industry in this region and such an effect would be deemed minor.
For the water demand component of the scenarios, similar factors apply as for the previous criterion. A large or rapid change may exceed the ability of institutions such as churches, social clubs or schools to support their members when change occurs. Without mitigation, the moderate supply/high demand scenario describes the greatest, most rapid change and thus most hinders the minimization of social disruption. The low supply/moderate demand and high supply/ moderate demand scenarios both call for less change and thus less social disruption.
4. Allow basic service and housing needs to be met.
The protection of public health and safety falls under this criterion. As with the two preceeding criteria, large and/or rapid change may overwhelm the ability of existing institutions to meet the need for new or expanded services or housing. Again, regulated and planned growth is an important means to ensure that these basic needs are met. Even with adequate financing, building a new library or fire station or buying a new ambulance or recruiting, hiring and training additional police officers or building inspectors requires time.
The water supply component of the scenarios again is considered to neither help nor hinder the provision of basic service and housing needs. A possible impact might arise from the presence of
69


construction workers, but the presence of construction workers is a normal condition for the study area, and the number of those workers would be slight in comparison with the number of workers generated by the water demand component.
The water demand component is again the portion of the scenarios which most affects this criterion and again the moderate supply/high demand scenario without mitigation would most hinder the meeting of basic service and housing needs. Similarly, the low supply/moderate demand and high supply/moderate demand scenarios, without mitigation, will also hinder the meeting of this criterion, but to a much lesser extent.
5. Minimization of disruption of the physical environment.
This is an important criterion for the Yampa River Basin in several ways. Tourism, skiing and outdoor recreation are significant components of the economy the area, and many local residents chose to live there for the same reasons that tourists come. Physical disruption such as visible strip mining, smoke stacks from power plants or air pollution could damage this attraction.
For this criterion, the water supply component is important. Compared to the overall size of the Yampa River watershed, the amount of land which would be flooded by construction of the various proposed reservoirs is small. While much of the area of the watershed consists of steep mountainsides or dry grazing land, the valleys proposed as reservoir sites often contain portions of critical wildlife habitat or prime agricultural land (Figure V-l).
The water demand component of the composite scenarios also could cause disruption of land, water and air through visible strip mines and smokestacks, mine seepage and wastewater runoff, and reduced air quality from coal burning. Particular attention must be given to the standards for air and water for the emerging synfuels technology for such processes as coal gasification and coal liquification which are included in the High Demand summary (Table III-2C; see Figure V-2).
70


O/Uf Pothook
' Grouse¥ Mountain
Hinman
fParkl
? Twenty-mile# Lower l^v^Park tJjMiddie Tlr/i,\Cjk^r Creek!
Dunckle
Childress
Lower
Thornburgl
Pleasant i VallevL
illeyL|
Green
Creek
Morrison I Creek Res
LEGEND
I
Category Ne I (Highest Valued Areas) Category No 2 Category No. 3 Cotegory No A
Category No. 5 (Lowest Volued Areas J
Uncategorized *
Uncolored areas indicate that none of the 31 species, in the composite, were mapped there.
Water Developments

Figure V-l Source: Porter et al., 1979
Potential conflicts between proposed water developments and composited wildlife


ho
LEGEND
Cotegory No I (Highest Volued Areas) Category No 2 Category No. 3 Category No 4
Cotegory No. 5 ( Lowest Volutd Ar*a* )
Uncategorized *
Existing Federal Coal Leases Proposed Federal Coal Leoses
r...
L . !
F
EZZzJ
Figure V-2 Source: Porter et al.( 1979
* Uncolored areas Indicate that none of the 31 species, in the composite, were mapped there.
Potential conflicts between Federal coal leases and rnmnnsitpd wildlife. HictriKntinnc


Because more development is potentially more disruptive of the environment given equal degrees of mitigation, the moderate supply/ high demand and high supply/moderate demand scenarios are considered to be most disruptive of the physical environment. The low supply/ moderate demand scenario is considered less disruptive simply because it calls for less development activity.
6. Evaluation Summary
The five evaluation criteria can effectively be divided into one economic criterion and four non-economic criteria. Only the economic criterion, "contribution to the economic base of the area", favors unlimited growth and development, and of course "unlimited" is an oversimplification. The other four evaluation criteria chosen might be said to represent social and environmental problems which often have emerged as hidden costs of development. None of the four non-economic criteria are intrinsically anti-change or anti-development; an expanding economy may well help to fill housing and service needs. The distinction which must be made for any of the development scenarios or for individual proposals is whether the scale and rate of development will be manageable, and if not what mitigation measures are available to make them or it manageable.
73


c.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Although the Yampa River Basin contains 7,140 square miles, the major impacts of energy and water development and most of the population will be concentrated in a much smaller area consisting of the U.S. 40-Yampa River corridor between Steamboat Springs and Craig. Developments and impacts in this area are of prime concern.
2. The Yampa River Basin has the third largest mean annual flow in Colorado, but availability of water is limited by extreme variations in both seasonal and yearly flow (see Figures II-2 and II-3). Any water user requiring a consistant year-round water supply will need storage facilities.
3. Agricultural irrigation is and will continue to be the dominent water use in the Yampa River Basin. The economics of such water use make it unlikely that any ;additional storage solely for agricultural use will be built.
4. The quality and quantity of groundwater available in the study area is an unanswered question which may strongly influence future decisions as to water storage.
5. The most important energy industry in the Yampa River Basin and the one most capiable of rapid expansion is coal mining. Routt and Moffat Counties now lead Colorado in coal production (see Figures III-l and III-2). As a traditional base industry in the study area, the expansion of coal mining would meet little social resistance and the primary impacts would result from increased needs for housing, services and transportation.
6. Predictions made during the mid-I970's of a vast expansion
in the demand for coal have not been realized, although some increase in production has occured. The coal market currently is very uncertain.
7. Unlike oil shale and synfuels technology, coal production does not require large amounts of water, so that energy production in the Yampa Basin is not dependant upon a consistant, sizeable water supply.
74


8. Because of an eight to ten year lead time required for major development projects, short term comparisons of different scenarios show little variation. The only visible short-term effect of a crash program begun now would be an increase in production from existing coal mines operating currently at less than capacity.
9. All predictions call for the population growth in Routt and Moffat Counties to continue, with the major question being the rate of increase. Low series projections call for the population of the study area to double by the year 2000; high series projections call for population to almost quadruple.
10. The issue for the Yampa River Basin is not whether growth and development will occur, but whether the scale and rate of development will be manageable. The rate of development, especially energy development, may be largely determined by factors external to the region such as the world energy market and this country's national energy policy. At this time, the adoption of a national policy of energy independence does not appear imminent; however, any event which would cut off Middle Eastern oil supplies could literally transform the picture overnight.
11. Synfuels technology, especially processes for coal liqui-fication and coal gasification, may have a significant impact in Moffat County by the year 2000.
12. If water is not available when needed for energy development, energy companies will tend to buy senior agricultural rights because the water is worth more when used in energy development than when used in agriculture. Thus, energy companies can afford to purchase agricultural water and dry up some agricultural use.
75


D. RECOMENDATIONS
1. The broad scope of this study has made it infeasible to examine individual development proposals on their merits in relation to specific existing conditions, so that the evaluations in the preceeding section suffer from generality. Individual projects should be considered on the basis of how their costs, benefits and potential mitigations will fit in to the area as a whole.
2. The State Engineer's Office needs to discover what quantity and quality of groundwater is available in northwest Colorado, and what effect such activities as mining and retorting oil shale may have.
3. With even the low level projections calling for population
to double in Routt and Moffat Counties by the year 2000, both Counties need to have in place land use plans and policies which strongly encourage new development adjacent to existing development and discourage leap-frog development, and which require that any company or industry which generates the need for new or increased cervices shall be responsible to the county or city for any significant front-end costs.
4. Any new facilities such as water treatment plants should be designed and constructed with expansion is mind.
5. Construction of the proposed Juniper-Cross Mountain Reservoir project should be given serious consideration. This project, consisting of two dams on the main stem of the Yampa below Craig, would transform thewater storage capacity of the watershed from 4.6 percent to 90 percent of the mean annual flow and would assure the area of a substantial year-round supply. This construction would remove the justification for construction of many of the smaller proposed reservoirs. Opposition to Juniper-Cross Mountain is based on loss of wildlife and fish habitat and loss of whitewater rafting.
6. Continue research into synfuels technology for such processes as coal gasification, coal liquification, and coal slurry methods.
76


NOTES
Chapter IIntroduction
(1) Morse, Jerome C., Energy Resources in Colorado: Coal,
Oil Shale, and Uranium, p. 10, 124.
(2) Ibid., pi. 63.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Colorado Energy Research Institute, Water and Energy In Colorado's Future: The Impacts of Energy Development on Water Use in 1985 and 2000.
(5) Colorado Department of Natural Resources, The Availability of Water for Oil Shale and Coal Gasification Development in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
(6) Fred C. Hart Associates, Socio-Economic Characterization of Northwest Colorado, pp. 51-2.
(7) Veenliuis, Jack E. and Hillier, Donald E., Impact of Reservoir-Development Alternatives on Streamflow Quantity in the Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming.
(8) Steele, T.D., Bauer, D.P., Wentz, D.A., and Warner, J.W.,
The Yampa River Basin, Colorado and WyomingA Preview to Expanded Coal-Resource Development and Its Impacts on Regional Water Resources.
(9) Wentz, D.A., and Steele, T.D., Analysis of Stream Quality in the Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming.
(10) Knudsen, W.I., Jr., and Danielson, J.A., A Discussion
of Legal and Institutional Constraints on Energy-Related Water Development in the Yampa River Basin, Northwestern Colorado.
(11) Porter, L.R., Towns, G.W., Carlson, L.W., Hamill, J.F., Fresquez, V.F., Promising Methodologies for Fish and Wildlife Planning and Impact Assessments.
(12) Colorado Department of Natural Resources, The Availability of Water for Oil Shale and Coal Gasification Development in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
(13) U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Green River-Ham's Fork Final Environmental Impact Statement.
(14) Hart Associates, op. cit.
(15) Colorado West Area C.O.G., Region XI Population Projections, Municipal and County Population Projections: 1980-2000.
77


NOTES
Chapter IIWater Supply
(1) Colorado Energy Research Institure, Water and Energy In ColoradoTs Future: The Impacts of Energy Development on Water Use in 1985 and 2000, p. 47.
(2) Ibid., pp. 7,8.
(3) Water for Tomorrow: Colorado State Water Plan, Phase I-Appraisal Report, pp. 2.2, 3.3.
(4) Colorado Department of Natural Resources, The Availability of Water for Oil Shale and Coal Gasification Development in the Upper Colorado River Basin, pp. 2-5, 2-7.
(5) Steele, T.D., Bauer, D.P., Wentz, D.A., and Warner, J.W.,
The Yampa River Basin, Colorado and WyomingA Preview
to Expanded Coal-Resource Development and Its Impacts on Regional Water Resources.
(6) Wentz, D.A., and Steele, T.D., Analysis of Stream Quality in the Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming.
(7) Veenhuis, Jack E., and Hillier, Donald E., Impact of Reservoir-Development Alternatives on Streamflow Quantity in the Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming, p. 38-U.S.G.S., 1981.
(8) Colorado Department of Natural Resources, op, cit. p.
2-5, 2-7.
(9) State Engineer's Office, April 30, 1979.
(10) Veenhuis, Jack E., and Hillier, Donald E., op, cit., p.48.
(11) Steele, T.D., Bauer, D.P., Wentz, D.A., and Warner, J.W., op.cit., p. 105.
(12) John Romero, State Engineer's Office, interview, August 3, 1981.
(13) Colorado Department of Natural Resources, op.cit., p. 34.
(14) Veenhuis, Jack E., and Hillier, Donald E., op.cit.
(15) Water For Tomorrow: Colorado State Water Plan, Phase II-Legal and Institutional Considerations, p. 5.3.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Radosevich, G.E., Nobe, K.C., Meek, R.L., and Flack, J.E., Economic, Political and Legal Aspects of Colorado
Water Law.
(18) Radosevich, G.E., Hamberg, C.H., and Swink, L.L. (eds.), Colorado Water LawsA Compilation of Regulations, Compacts, and Selected Cases.
(19) Knudsen, W.I., Jr., and Danielson, J. A., A Discussion of Legal and Institutional Constraints on Energy-Related Water Development in the Yampa River Basin, Northwestern Colorado, pp. 100-104.
78


(20) Colorado Energy Research Institute, op. cit., pp. 257-282.
(21) Knudsen, W.I., Jr., and Danielson, J.A., op cit., p. 12.
(22) United States vs. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U.S. 520, and United States vs. District Court for Water Division 5, 401 U.S. 527.
(23) Steele, T.D., Bauer, D.P., Wentz, D.A., and Warner, J.W., op. cit., pp. 106-107.
(24) John Fletcher, Colorado Water Commission Board, interview, May, 1981.
(25) Colorado River Water Conservation District, Going Forward With Juniper Cross Mountain, copyright, 1980.
79


NOTES
Chapter IIIEnergy and Water Demand
(1) URS Company in association with Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers, Inc., Steamboat Springs, Colorado Water System Master Plan, (Preliminary draft), and Moffat County Master Plan, p. 42.
(2) Morse, Jerome C., Energy Resources In Colorado Coal, Oil Shale, and Uranium, p. 12.
(3) Colorado Energy Research Institute, Water and Energy in Colorado's Future: The Impacts of Energy Development on Water Use in 1985 and 2000, p. 99.
(4) Ibid. p. 157.
(5) Ibid., p. 133.
(6) Morse, Jerome C., op. cit., p. 74.
(7) Colorado Energy Research Institute, op. cit., p. 127.
(8) Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Projections of Northwest Colorado Energy Development and Associated Impacts Through the Mid-1990's: A Preliminary Regional Perspective.
(9) Colorado Energy Research Institute, op. cit.
(10) Fred C. Hart Associates, Socio-Economic Characterization of Northwest Colorado.
80


NOTES
Chapter VEvaluation and Conclusions
(1) Green River-Ham's Fork Final Environmental Impact Statement, p. 247.
(2) Ibid., pp. 110-113.
81


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Colorado Energy Research Institute, Water and Energy in Colorado's Future: The Impacts of Energy Development on Water Use in 1985 and 2000. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1981.
Colorado Energy Research Institure, Colorado Energy Production for the 80*s: A Background Paper. 1980.
Colorado Energy Research Institute, Colorado Oil Shale Development Scenarios, 1981-2000. Colorado School of Mines, 1981.
Colorado Energy Resource Development Plan Project, Projections of Northwest Colorado Energy Development and Associated Impacts Through the Mid-1990's: A Preliminary Regional Perspective. Executive Director's Office, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, October, 1980.
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, The Availability of Water for Oil Shale and Coal Gasification Development in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Public Review Draft) Office of the Executive Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, October, 1979.
Colorado West Area C.O.G., Region XI Population Projections,
Municipal and County Population Projections: 1980-2000.
Rifle, Colorado, September, 1980.
Comprehensive Plan for the Craig Area of Moffat County. Craig, Colorado, July 1977.
Fred C. Hart Associates, Socio-Economic Characterization of Northwest Colorado. For the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Denver, Colorado, April 1981.
Knudsen, W.I., Jr., and Danielson, J.A., A Discussion of Legal and Institutional Constraints on Energy-Related Water Development in the Yampa River Basin, Northwestern Colorado. U.S.
Geological Survey, Contract No. 14-08-0001-15075, December,
1977, 20 p.
Koulet, Kim, memorandum re: Energy and Employment Projections for Northwest Colorado. (Preliminary figures) Cumulative Impact Task Force, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, May 22, 1981.
82


Morse, Jerome C., Energy Resources in Colorado: Coal, Oil Shale, and Uranium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1979.
Porter, L.R., Towns, G.W., Carlson, L.W., Hamill, J.F., Fresquez., V.F., Promising Methodologies for Fish and Wildlife Planning and Impact Assessments. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Region 6, Denver, Colorado, October, 1979.
Radosevich, G.E., Nobe, K.C., Meek, R. L., and Flack, J.E.,
Economic, Political and Legal Aspects of Colorado Water Law.
Fort Collins, 1973, Colorado State University, Environmental Resource Center, Completion Report Series 44, 49 p.
Radosevich, G. E., Hamberg, C. H., and Swink, L. L., (eds.), Colorado
Water Laws---A Compilation of Regulations, Compacts, and
Selected Cases. Fort Collins, Colorado State University,
Center for Economic Education and Environmental Resources Center, inf. Series 17, 2 vols., 1975.
Routt County Regional Planning Commission, Routt County Master Plan. Steamboat Springs, Colorado, December 11, 1980.
Steele, T.D., Bauer, D.P., Wentz, D.A., and Warner, J.W., The Yampa River Basin, Colorado and WyomingA Preview to Expanded Coal-Resource Development and Its Impacts on Regional Water Resources. U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigations 78-126, Lakewood, Colorado, September, 1979, 133 p.
Wentz, D.A., and Steele, T. D., Analysis of Stream Quality in the Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming. U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigations 80-8, Lakewood, Colorado, April,
1980, 162 p.
VTN Colorado, Socioeconomic and Environmental Land Use Survey
Moffat, Routt and Rio Blanco Counties, for W.R. Grace and Co., 1975.
H.E.C.-3 Reservoir System Analysis for Conservation: User's
Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, No. 723-030, July, 1974.
H.E.C.-3 Reservoir System Analysis for Conservation: Programmer's Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, No. 723-X6-L2030, January, 1976.
83


Water for Tomorrow: Colorado State Water Plan, Phase IAppraisal Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, February, 1974.
Water for Tomorrow: Colorado State Water Plan, Phase II
Legal and Institutional Considerations. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, August, 1974.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Northwest Colorado Coal Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Northwest Supplemental Report. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Green River-Ham's Fork Final
Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
Veenhuis, Jack E., and Hillier, Donald E., Impact of Reservoir Development Alternatives on Streamflow Quantity in the Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming. Preliminary Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colorado, 1980.
84


Star# Lin* 1,297,700 205,200 1,502,900
Discharge
APPENDIX 1
Water budget for the Yampa River Basin.
SOURCE: Colorado Water Conservation Board, 1969
85


APPENDIX 2: Proposed Reservoirs, Yampa River Basin
Reservoir River or creek Total capacity
Carbon County, Wyoming ^acre-reeci
Savery Savery (19,000)
Sandstone Savery 15,500
Moffat County, Colorado
Pot Hook Slater 60,000
Juniper Yampa 1,079,990
Cross Mountain Yampa 142,000
Jubb Jubb 2,250
Thornburg Milk 36,000
Craig Yampa 44,490
Rampart Fortification 12,330
Routt County, Colorado
California Park Elkhead 36,540
Hayden (Mesa) Sage 8,620
Trout Trout 23,340
Childress Trout 24,160
Upper Middle Middle 102,200
Lower Middle Middle 25,150
Twenty Mile Fish 15,300
Dunckley Fish 57,090
Hinman Park Elk 44,040
Big Creek Big 6,900
Grouse Mountain Willow 79,260
Pleasant Valley Yampa (43,220)
Woodchuck Yampa (40,000)
Lake Catamount Yampa 7,400
Yampa Yampa (151,120)
Blacktail Yampa 229,250
Lower Green Green 99,600
Main Green Green (103,230)
Yampa Yampa (32,500)
Morrison Morrison (12,500)
Service Service (22,000)
Wren Fish 2,160
Allen Basin Middle Hunt 2,250
Bear Yampa 11,610
Yamcolo Bear 9,000
Total 2,176,430 acre-feet
Capacities in parentheses indicate reservoirs competing for the
same sites.
Source: Steele, Bauer, Wentz and Warner, 1979
86