NOTE: Notice how much water and electricity it takes to produce the oil...
400,000 Acre feet = 400,000 Acres under 1 foot of water
For reference, Herrington Lake (near Danville) is 2,940 surface acres say 135 ft average depth
(400 max) or about the same amount of water.
14 new coal fired power plants = 1,200+ megawatts each
Double the population on the front range = more diversions possible from Fryingpan and Roaring Fork Rivers already diversion reduced flow

Dustin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published on Aspen Daily News Online (http://www.aspendailynews.com)
Threats to regional rivers growing

Writer: Brent Gardner-Smith
Byline: Aspen Daily News Staff Writer

There are at least four looming threats to the water in the Colorado River basin, which includes the Roaring Fork River: oil shale production, population growth, climate change and the Colorado River Compact.

Those threats were showcased at a meeting in Montrose on Friday of four Western Slope “basin roundtable” groups convened by the Colorado Water Conservation Board to create a statewide vision for Colorado’s water supply.

One of the largest potential users of water is large-scale commercial oil shale production, which could use up to 400,000 acre feet of water a year by 2050 to produce 1.5 million barrels of oil a day.

“It is a huge draw on water,” said Greg Trainor, co-chair of a subcommittee of the Colorado Basin Roundtable that recently completed a study on energy sector water use.

Trainor said that oil shale production could also require 14 new power plants the size of the plant in Craig, which is Colorado’s largest coal-fired power station with a capacity of 1,274 megawatts of electricity.

But Trainor, who is the utilities manager for the city of Grand Junction, also posed the question of whether large-scale oil shale production will “actually ever happen.”

The viability of oil shale in Colorado is still unknown, but Harris Sherman, the director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, told the group he just returned from an oil shale production facility in Canada that is now producing 1.5 million barrels a day of oil and could go to 3 million barrels a day.

Even if oil shale production doesn’t reach full-on commercial levels, ongoing oil and gas production, plus limited oil shale production, could still require close to 50,000 acre feet of water a year by 2030, Trainor said, noting that the energy sector “has an extensive portfolio of conditional and absolute water rights.”

Next, Eric Kuhn, the general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, said that while the chance for a demand for water from downstream states under the rules of the Colorado River Compact is “pretty damn small,” it would also be the “equivalent of a natural disaster.”

The Colorado River Compact is a seven-state agreement signed in 1922 that requires the four states in the Upper Basin — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico —– to deliver about 7.5 million acre feet per year of water to the Lower Basin states, which include California, Nevada and Arizona.

If a serious multi-year drought lingers in the Rocky Mountains, it could be difficult to deliver that much water downstream and still let many holders of post-1922 water rights in Colorado use their water.

The demand for water from downstream is called a “curtailment” and such a demand has never been made under the Colorado River Compact.

“A curtailment could be significant and protracted, impacting all post-1922 rights,” Kuhn said.

On the other hand, Kuhn said it would not likely be a sudden event as it would come during a prolonged drought and “Lake Powell would basically be empty.”

To help protect local water supplies, the River District is working to ensure that water rights held by individual owners that pre-date 1922 are not lost or abandoned. And it is developing a statewide plan where pre-1922 water rights holders would be compensated for agreeing to share their water in the event of a curtailment.

Harris Sherman also said the state is considering leasing 200,000 acre feet of water in the Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River from the federal government, which could also be used to meet a curtailment.

Pitkin County Commissioner Rachel Richards told Sherman that if water from Blue Mesa is set aside to meet a compact call, then more water could potentially be diverted to the Front Range from headwater rivers, like the Roaring Fork.

“We have a lot of flexibility in this,” responded Sherman, essentially brushing aside the issue.

Yet the Front Range’s thirst for Western Slope water is indeed expected to grow. The state’s population is now over 5 million and is forecast to reach 10 million by the year 2050.

About 80 percent of the state’s population lives on the Eastern Slope, but 80 percent of the state’s water is on the Western Slope.

That means more trans-basin diversions could be called for, placing greater demands on Western Slope rivers like the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan.

Today, 58,000 acre feet a year is diverted from the Fryingpan and 38,000 acre feet a year is diverted from the Roaring Fork.

Then there is the threat of climate change.

A recent study by the Colorado Water Conservation Board concluded that temperatures in Colorado are forecast to increase by 2.5 to 4 degrees, which could mean less water.

“Recent hydrology projections suggest declining runoff for most of Colorado’s river basins in the 21st century,” according to “Climate Change in Colorado.”

Yet the demand for water is expected to grow.

Eric Hecox, the section chief for Intrastate Water Management and Development at the CWCB, said 215,000 acre feet of water a year from the Colorado River basin could be required by growing cities in Colorado by 2030.

And that’s after taking into account aggressive water conservation measures, a 15 percent reduction in irrigated farmland, and after several Front Range water delivery projects now being planned are implemented.

That remaining “gap” of 215,000 acre feet a year bothers Commissioner Richards.

She told Hecox that the state’s analysis assumes the Front Range will not embrace residential growth controls.

She said the state agency should produce a “sustainability model” as part of its forecast that includes the possibility of less growth on Colorado’s Eastern Slope.

“It is just a deficient process” if it doesn’t include some growth-control scenarios, Richards said.

bgs@aspendailynews.com

Dustin Anderson

Fortunately we will have a much friendlier administration in office as stewards of our public lands...I think we will see more balance, depending on who Obama appoints as head of the Dept. of Interior and how local BLM and USFS office managers change the way they do "business". Top down isn't a good approach for public land management.
Its been run by industry people for 8 years. I'm hoping this mad rush to open up land and push this through without taking local and regional issues into consideration is over.

Oil Shale is not yet feasible, even Shell Oil says 10-20 years out at best, and they have invested more time and money into it than anyone else in the US. Even if it becomes economically feasible here, the water issue will be the next major hurdle. Hopefully investments in new technology will make extraction much less intrusive, and less water-dependant.

I hope balance is restored out west. The Colorado Plateau is a special place.