By Eric Kuhn, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Kathryn Sorensen, Jack Schmidt, and Katherine Tara
As negotiators for the seven Colorado River Basin states rapidly approach Reclamation’s November deadline for providing a framework for a seven-state agreement for the Post-2026 Operating Guidelines for Lakes Powell and Mead, a larger threat looms. Reclamation’s recently released September 24-Month study minimum probable projection is consistent with our mass balance analysis of storage in the next year, solidifying the likelihood of critical conditions if the coming winter is dry. Reclamation’s latest analysis predicts that storage at Lake Powell would fall below the 3500-ft elevation as early August 2026 and might continue to be below this critical elevation until March 2028. As we noted in our recent white paper, Reclamation has committed to protecting Lake Powell from going below 3500 ft.
This projection of future conditions in the event of persistent dry conditions poses a conundrum—Reclamation could reduce releases from Powell to protect the 3500-ft reservoir elevation, but in doing so, low releases would most likely trigger the dreaded 1922 Colorado River Compact tripwire–the amount of water delivered from Lake Powell to Lake Mead during a 10-year period that is less than the threshold. The Lower Division states are likely to litigate if the 10-yr average wire is tripped. Under one prevailing interpretation of the Compact, Upper Basin states must not cause the 10-yr flow at Lee Ferry to be depleted to less than 82.5 MAF to deliver water to the Lower Basin and Mexico. As explained in a new white paper, there is a very real chance that the 10-yr running average will be 82.78 MAF, just a hair above the tripwire, one year from now. In alternate scenarios, the 10-yr running average would hit the tripwire in 2027 or 2028. If Reclamation exercises its authority to reduce Lake Powell deliveries to as low as 6 MAF, the tripwire is triggered even earlier. In the face of this imminent possibility, Basin States and the Federal Government must commit to an enforceable agreement to reduce their total consumptive Colorado River uses with an equitable sharing of the burden sufficient to justify a waiver of claims under the Compact for the duration of the agreement. The alternative is a deeply uncertain future for the Basin.
What government giveth government taketh away. How stupid to think that government can bargain and promise that which is solely under control of mother nature. Water is simply a zero-sum game.
und das faslche Warheit wird das Zunkunft veranderen worden war!. Es sieht selbstverstaedig aus.
You have laid out the stakes with stunning clarity. We are no longer in the realm of hydrological modeling or policy preference. We are at a constitutional moment for the Colorado River.
The conundrum is that the river’s physical system can no longer support its legal framework. The November deadline is no longer about a policy agreement; it is a test of whether the political institutions of the American West are capable of suspending a century of water law to prevent a physical and economic disaster.
The question is no longer if there will be severe pain, but whether our leaders will choose a managed, collaborative pain now, or a chaotic, litigious, and far greater pain later. Based on the incentives identified, the path of least resistance—and greatest long-term danger—seems, tragically, the more likely one.
Both your latest white paper and Brad Udall’s talk at U of A revealed that the Upper Basin States have been taking about 4 MAF out of an allowed 7.5 MAF or so out of an assumed 16.5 MAF (how much to Mexico?). As I see it, that means the total flow has been 12.5 MAF or less on average since 2000 (much less because of Mead and Powell depletion?). Both Upper Basin states and Lower Basin states have been paid off by the federal government to take less. Is there a graph of total flow, preferably with Upper Basin use and Lower Basin use showing obvious deficit in most of the years since 2000? Couple of points: 1.) losses such as lake evaporation and seepage are small compared with large discharge but are a larger fraction of smaller discharge, and 2.) Upper Basin states have a point when they insist that they not be required to cut use if they mean from use and not allocation, and Denver, stop construction of facilities to take more water (is this correct?). It should be possible to construct a time series graph of (would have to be) estimated total flow with lower curves of each state’s use. I would like to see that graph.
This is a political comment that I feel must be made. Considering the pressures applied by the present administration on universities for remuneration, it would be prudent to think that an edict from higher authority could result in severe distress for some or all of the participant states.