As the former CEOs of two of the largest water utilities using water from the Colorado River, we have been deeply engaged in interstate and federal negotiations on the river for over 30 years. Those negotiations were tough, but the basin states ultimately reached agreement, including reducing California’s use of water by 800,000 acre-feet and adopting the current set of operating rules for the federal reservoirs.
Although we fought hard to protect our individual interests, we understood that the public interest is not always served by “winner-take-all” negotiating tactics. Agreements benefiting the river as a whole also benefit every individual water user, and the environment. We recognized the responsibility of the states, tribal nations, water users and conservation organizations in the basin to determine our own future, and not to have it dictated by interstate litigation or federally mandated solutions.
The clock is running out. Unfortunately, the current negotiations remain stuck, characterized by brinksmanship and talking points.
jfleck at inkstain
A few thoughts from John Fleck, a writer of journalism and other things, living in New Mexico
Having watched this slow motion train wreck for most of the 30 years Jeff and Jim describe above, I concur that negotiations during this period (2007 Interim Guidelines, DCP) have been characterized by preservation of self interest above all. However, the river, and the hydrology that supports it, does not care about water rights established over a century ago. This is a watershed like any other watershed, and successful adjudications of watersheds are based on what the river actually delivers, not some ancient, inaccurate estimate. To that end, the Supply Driven Alternative in the DEIS is the only truly logical approach here. All others, it would seem to me, begin the negotiation with hydrological fiction and will lead us right back to where we are today.
It’s really interesting to hear about the long history of these negotiations. Reducing California’s use by that much highlights the scale of the challenge.
“In short, if the states fail to reach agreement, the federal government will be forced to impose an alternative that invites lawsuits and imposes economically and environmentally disastrous emergency operations. No one, in any part of the basin, will be spared from the consequences.”
Just sent this to the Sentinel:
In reply to “Time for states to reach consensus on the future of the Colorado River”
Colorado comes to the meetings with 1) refusal to take mandatory cuts, 2) the lie that the Lower Basin states are still taking more than their share, and 3) some sort of red herring, the most recent of which is that Arizona farmers are selling alfalfa to Saudi Arabia. (That seriously annoys me, an Arizona resident. My bet is that Upper Basin farmers are selling alfalfa to Saudi Arabia as well. You can’t control who buys your product. We are, essentially, sending Colorado River water to Saudi Arabia.)
The Upper Basin states have consistently taken 4 maf (million acre-feet). That’s why the Compact worked for 80 years and Lake Mead and Lake Powell were full in 2000. The Lower Basin States have reduced usage to 6 maf.
Here are my questions: 1) What is the graph of usage by state since 2000? It’s mainly California, Colorado and Arizona. 2) How accurate are the numbers in the Upper Basin for stream discharge, rating curves, withdrawals, and return flows? Acoustic Doppler instruments in use for 40 years approach 1%. 3) Why hasn’t the Upper Basin lost its appropriative right by non-use? and 4) Is Denver building infrastructure to take more Colorado River water?
The Law of the River is that the Upper Basin will deliver 75 maf/10 years to Lee Ferry. That’s the law, ratified by all the states.
It seems to me that they could reach an agreement based on current usage of the Lower Basin taking 6 maf and the Upper Basin taking 4 maf with a base of 4.5 maf and 3 maf, respectively, and equal proportional additional cuts, if necessary, based on the run of the river, considering that the water comes from the Upper Basin.
Michael Carpenter, hydrologist, USGS retired
[home address and phone for ID to newspaper]
worked on Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, and lower Colorado River
I have to reply to Michael Carpenter’s comment above, as it is indicative of the messaging (brainwashing?) that Arizona has perpetrated on its citizens.
Fallacy #1: Arizona and the Lower Basin (LB) states would like us to believe that they have “conserved” great quantities of water over the past several years. IN FACT, What they have (almost) achieved is bringing their uses into line with a sustainable level of consumption that accounts for the evaporative losses incurred in storing and delivering water to the LB States. The LB can yell until they’re blue in the face about AZ vs CA and how much water is “allocated” to each state through that decision, but the simple math is that unless the LB states account for evaporative losses which are on the order of 1.3-1.5 Maf/yr., Lake Mead will continue to drop EVEN WITH the UB in full compliance with the compact. Any rational conversation about LB consumption must include an accounting for these losses. When these losses are accounted for, the LB states have just barely squeaked back into the black over the past few years with respect to their 7.5 Maf allotment under the compact. That 6.0 MAF of “use” that is cited above equates to ~7.5 Maf of actual consumption. And let’s not forget, a large chunk of this “conservation” in the LB was paid for by ~$3Billion dollars of taxpayer money.
Corollary to Fallacy #1: The “Sweet Spot”. Not only does Arizona want us to believe they are suffering through so-called “cuts”, they have actually acted in ways to guarantee increased releases of water from Lake Powell and have hastened the critically low storage levels we have today (see https://www.inkstain.net/2018/04/is-the-central-arizona-project-gaming-reservoir-levels-to-take-more-water-from-the-upper-basin/). The ironic thing about the “Sweet Spot” slide is it vividly illustrates the fact that even with the Upper Basin delivering 8.23 MAF, the Lower Basin is over-consuming by not assigning evaporation to the states as part of their allocation. “Releases of 8.23 MAF will drop the lake level (Mead) more quickly and drive the system into shortage more quickly” – Central Arizona Project. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Fallacy #2: The Upper Basin (UB) states “refuse” to take mandatory cuts. UB water users take mandatory cuts ALL THE TIME. Its called prior appropriation and in Colorado was ratified in the State Constitution in 1876. If you look at John Fleck’s previous post that includes a graph of UB consumptive use, you see a lot of variability from year to year. that is not a change in DEMAND, it is a change in AVAILABILITY. those years of low consumptive use occur when there is insufficient water to meet all the demands on the system. Even during the years of higher consumptive use many water users in the UB states are still forced to curtail their usage. Water users in the UB are subject to shortages on a regular basis (oh, and they don’t get any of that $3B to mitigate their losses…).
What about mandatory cuts in Federal projects you say? Well, Reclamation’s Colorado Big Thompson project regularly allocates water to its users at less than a full quota. in fact, since the millennial drought began, there has been exactly one year with a 100% quota. Since 2000, the annual quota has hovered around 75%. We certainly don’t see any news coming out of the Arizona spin machine acknowledging involuntary and uncompensated reductions and curtailments of water to users in the Upper Basin do we? Meanwhile, the LB did not declare an official shortage until 2021. And that shortage reduced the allocation by less than 10%.
While it may seem counter-productive to revisit the past instead of looking for solutions, it IS important to understand how “we” got into this situation, and look at the facts instead of political spin.
As for an equitable solution? perhaps we should go back to the foundational ideas of the compact itself. The compact negotiators arrived at a 50/50 split of the waters in the basin (with a bit “extra” for the LB – read Science be Damned https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780816540051?aff=jfleck ). Seems to me that a reasonable starting point given the original intent would be a 50/50 split of what is actually available now.
“How Ancestral Puebloans Thrived After The 536-541-AD Climate Catastrophe” https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/climate-catastrophe-0016105
Full report: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.19
Here is a graph of discharge at Lee’s Ferry since 2000 with 10-year average in red. Do the Upper Basin states owe any additional for Mexico’s 1.5 maf than the 75 maf/10 years they owe Lee Ferry? As I see it, the Upper Basin has done its job. I guess by Lake Powell being depleted. But if the Upper Basin has delivered, why is Lake Mead depleted? IS THERE A PLOT OF TOTAL DISCHARGE OF THE COLORADO RIVER AND EACH STATE’S WITHDRAWAL SINCE 2000. Well, the graph won’t post but it shows a minimum of more than 8 maf, 10-year average at Lee’s Ferry gage.
In reply to John Carron. I believe my statements are correct, Lower Basin use is down to 6 maf and Upper Basin use has been consistent at 4 maf. I agree with him that arguments coming from Arizona don’t deal with Arizona taking a lower right than other Lower Basin states in order to get the CAP. I did not make those arguments. My main question deals with the fact, as I see it, that things do not add up. Even with evaporative loss from Lake Powell, the Upper Basin delivered. The reservoirs were full in 2000. Is there a graph of total discharge in the Upper Basin, delivery to Lee Ferry (Lee’s Ferry is good enough), evaporative losses from Powell and Mead, depletion of Powell and Mead, and usage by each Lower Basin state.
One of the ugly truths of water management is that measuring water diversions is frequently not accurate at all. My guess is that diversions could be way more than the reported use in many places. If you stand at the Imperial Dam watching most of what is left of the river disappear into the All American Canal the sense you get is not “wow, that looks like a really accurate flow measurement system”. From there, the use of water is sometimes measured based on acreage of crops rather than actual metering – slide gate positions are considered meters in some places. The error bars in measurement are rather large. The phrase “what gets measured gets managed” comes to mind and IMHO the measurement systems stink. Heck, there are still a lot of quantified water rights in California that are defined in miners inches!