Lower Colorado Basin water savings not as big as I thought

So I need to correct something that I wrote a month ago.

Tony Davis took a deep dive into the Bureau of Reclamation’s data and concluded in a story published this morning (I think accurately) that water conservation savings in the Lower Colorado River Basin will not be as large as I and others have been reporting:

It sounded too good to be true — an official forecast that 2016 water use in Arizona, California and Nevada will be the lowest since 1992.

That forecast from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was too good to be true — by the bureau’s own admission. It was widely reported recently as a sign of major progress toward conservation. But what the bureau calls its more accurate forecast, while still showing progress, is significantly higher, predicting water use in the states will be its lowest in 11 years — not 24.

The difference lies in the fact that there are two different water use accounting systems one can look at – the formal “forecast”, which is based on official water orders at the time the forecast is made (pdf here) and the operational plans included in the Bureau’s “24-month study“, which comes out monthly and projects water accounting balances in the reservoirs and among major users out for the next 24 months.

MWD forecast of Colorado River water use

MWD forecast of Colorado River water use

In the 24-month study, you can see that the big difference between the two is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. In the “forecast”, Met’s listed as taking 766,000 acre feet this year, but in the 24-month it looks like for planning purposes the Bureau expects Met to take more like a million acre feet. You can see the evolution of Met’s expected water use in this graph from the forecast report. This is the forecast for annual water use as it changes over the course of the year.

CAP forecast water use

CAP forecast water use

On the flip side of this, Arizona’s use of water from the Central Arizona Project has consistently been below the projections used in the original forecast, the result of aggressive conservation efforts in that state. (The y-axis scaling in these graphs makes comparison not exactly easy, looking closely at the numbers.)

So the bottom line: Lower Colorado River water use is currently likely to be the lowest since the second Bush administration, not the first one. Still progress, but not as much as I had hoped.

Thanks to Tony Davis for looking more deeply into this.

Absent deep water use cuts, repeat of the drought of 2000-05 would drain Lake Powell

I’m generally an optimist about our ability to solve our water problems of the western United States, but the drought of 2000-05 provides a boundary condition to my thinking.

Lake Powell, photo by Carol Highsmith, via Library of Congress

Lake Powell, photo by Carol Highsmith, via Library of Congress

In my post-journalism life, one of the most interesting projects I’ve been working on is a study for/by/with Colorado’s West Slope basin roundtables of the risks of climate change and drought to Lake Powell, the largest reservoir in the Upper Colorado River Basin. John Carron at Hydros has been doing the heavy lifting, using the big Colorado River Simulation System model to simulate some sophisticated drought and climate change scenarios, looking at reservoir operation and conservation options needed to keep Lake Powell above elevation 3,525 feet above sea level. 3,525 is the critical point below which we start to lose the ability to generate power and, more importantly, risk busting the Upper Basin’s compact delivery obligations to the Lower Basin.

As a simple proof-of-principle test to help get a handle on the issues and communicate the risks, John also did a relatively simple what-if calculation: what if drought of 2000-05 repeated today? It’s a useful scenario because most of us working on the river today were around back then. We can remember it. Tony Davis did an excellent story this morning on the results:

[A] new study warns that the lake could virtually dry up in as few as six years if the region gets a repeat of the dry spell it experienced from 2000 to 2005.

That could cripple the ability of the Colorado River’s four Upper Basin states to deliver river water to the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, as they’re legally obligated to do.

And it would increase the likelihood of cutbacks in river water deliveries to Arizona, in particular.

Eric Kuhn, who’s leading the study, explained the problem. We started that last big drought with a nearly full Lake Powell:

“Today it’s about half full,” Kuhn said. “You can’t go into a drought like that today if it’s half full. Things will have to change in how we do business.”

The point of the study is to help develop contingency plans ahead of time, so we have the tools in place to manage Powell’s decline before it turns into a mud puddle.

A note on the art: The picture is from the Library of Congress’s collection of the work of photographer Carol Highsmith. Highsmith donated a bunch of her work to the the LoC, freely licensed, and it’s an awesome collection. Yay the commons.

New Pacific Institute report on water demand forecasting

One of the centerpieces of the argument I make in my book, Water is for Fighting Over: and Other Myths about Water in the West, is that changing patterns in water demand (specifically, that we’re using a lot less of it than we used to, across all sectors of the economy) create significant new flexibility in managing water in the West. I drilled down into that argument in a piece published this summer by the Breakthrough Institute:

Unfortunately, a deeply entrenched water management paradigm continues to stand in the way. Consider the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, one of the nation’s largest municipal water retailers, serving 4 million people. In a major 2005 planning effort, LADWP managers projected that over the coming decade their water demand would rise by 7 percent. In reality, it dropped by 18 percent. Yet despite steady declines, the 2016 version of the agency’s draft water management plan again projects the trend that has resulted in a long term water use decline dating back to the 1990 will reverse itself, with water use rising again from their current low levels.

This pattern of overestimating future demand and underestimating consumer conservation is widespread, and is the major impediment to capturing the benefits that decoupling offers.

Into this public policy mess come Matthew Heberger and colleagues at the Pacific Institute with a helpful new white paper – A Community Guide for Evaluating Future Urban Water Demand:

For much of the 20th century, water use in American cities grew in proportion to population and the economy. Since the 1980s, however, water use in communities across the United States has remained steady or declined despite continued population and economic growth, due to improved water conservation and efficiency and structural changes in the American economy.

While the water sector has undergone a fundamental transformation, the practice of water demand forecasting has been slow to keep pace. Water suppliers routinely overestimate future water demand based on often overstated estimates of population and economic growth and underestimates of the effects of water conservation and efficiency improvements. These inflated estimates of future water needs can result in unneeded water supply and treatment infrastructure, higher costs to ratepayers, and unnecessary environmental impacts.

River District Annual Water Seminar, Sept. 16 in Grand Junction

The Colorado River District has a great agenda again this year for its annual Water Seminar:  “Colorado River Waves of the Future: Fitting the West to the River’s New Normal“.

ProPublica’s Abrahm Lustgarten is the lunch speaker, talking about his excelent “Killing the Colorado” series/documentary, which won special recognition award in this year’s Stanford Knight-Risser Prize for Western Environmental Journalism.

A bunch of other great speakers, including Eric Kuhn and Jeff Lucas. Worth attending if you’re anywhere close to being in the neighborhood.

Hey Albuquerque, I wanna sign your book

I’ll be talking about my new book Water is for Fighting Over: and Other Myths about Water in the West next Wednesday (Sept. 7) at Bookworks in Albuquerque. I have a fistful of nice new Sharpies if anybody wants me to sign a copy or three.

I’ll talk about that time this guy’s pickup truck got stuck in the bed of the Colorado River when the water came:

Pickup stuck in a sandy riverbed as the Rio Colorado arrives, March 25, 2014, by John Fleck

Pickup stuck in a sandy riverbed as the Rio Colorado arrives, March 25, 2014, by John Fleck

A socioeconomic stratification in US water infrastructure?

We all know about the problems of Flint’s water supply, and the relationship between poor communities and infrastructure problems. We also know about the more general decay of our water infrastructure. Robert Glennon has knitted those two problems together with an interesting argument:

Episodes such as Flint undermine the public’s confidence in the safety of their drinking water. As Americans begin to doubt the quality of municipal water, some will opt out, choosing to install expensive water filtration systems in their homes. When more affluent citizens no longer have a stake in maintaining high-quality municipal water, that leaves behind people of more modest means – people without the same influence on elected officials.

It is a disturbing possibility.

 

Book Day: Water is For Fighting Over, and Other Myths….

book party!

book party!

My friends in the University of New Mexico water community, faculty and students, threw a party for me last night to welcome me as the new director of UNM’s Water Resources Program and celebrate Book Day Eve. A bunch of Albuquerque water people came too. It was a blast, nobody got drunk and trashed the place, and I signed a bunch of books.

It was great to share with the people who have surrounded and supported me these years as I toiled on something that would otherwise have been lonely.

I wish y’all, my Inkstain readers, could have been there too, because the conversation here has been a big part of what made the book popular. Readers of Water is for Fighting Over: and Other Myths about Water in the West will find much that is familiar. This has been my sketchbook, where I worked out the ideas that ultimately became the book, and I thank you all especially for also making it a less lonely endeavor.

With the official publication date today, I’m now asking for help to get the word out.

If you’d like to buy a copy from Island Press, use the code 4FLECK, which is good for a 20% discount. You can also get it from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and your local independent bookseller. And this month only, you can get the e-book for just $3.99.

I hope you will consider sharing the book with your own networks. You can help in a few ways:

  • Forward this message to your own contacts or share the news on your social media networks. Feel free to include the discount code, 4FLECK.
  • If you’d like to review it for a publication or website, you can request a review copy from press@islandpress.org.
  • If you’d like to use it in a class, you can request an exam copy here.
  • Encourage your organization to ask info@islandpress.org for details about a discounted bulk purchase.
  • Review the book on Amazon, Goodreads, or another review site.

Good at helping communities conserve water? Albuquerque would like to chat….

The Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority is looking to hire a new Water Conservation Program Manager. Pass the word, we’re already pretty good at conservation here (I brag about this a lot!) but we’re not letting up. More info can be found at the water authority’s hiring web site. Click on “open positions” in the left bar.

Book week: a hat tip to Elinor Ostrom

With my book Water is for Fighting Over: and Other Myths about Water in the West officially releasing Thursday, this week I’m visiting here some of the issues, themes, and back stories. Mostly I’m doing this for fun, but I would also be delighted if you would click here and buy a copy or two for yourself and the water managers in your world.

Elinor Ostrom. © Holger Motzkau 2010, Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons (cc-by-sa-3.0)

Elinor Ostrom. © Holger Motzkau 2010, Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons (cc-by-sa-3.0)

One of the most important characters in the book is the late Elinor Ostrom, a political science who in 2009 won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, more commonly called “the Nobel Prize in economics”. In the book, I make fun of the fact that when the award was announced, a number of prominent economists allowed as how they’d never heard of her. But to be truthful, I never had either.

I was working at the newspaper at the time, and had been spending the previous few years trying to better understand economics, to fill a hole in my intellectual tool kit. I’d taken a couple of courses in the UNM economics department and fancied myself an econ nerd. So when the prize was announced, I killed a couple of hours in the afternoon reading the Nobel committee’s lay audience summary of Ostrom’s work (pdf).

It was a head smacking day for me. Toiling outside the mainstream of economics, Ostrom and her colleagues, including a remarkable generation of grad students had been looking, empirically and in great volume, at case studies of how people actually manage common pool resources. The conventional view, so powerfully captured by Garrett Hardin’s 1968 essay The Tragedy of the Commons, is that we will overuse such resources – an open pasture, or an unregulated aquifer – unless it is either turned into a private property regime or regulated by an outside governmental authority.

Working on water, Hardin’s work framed my approach to the questions I was writing about. Yet here was Ostrom telling me that I was missing something. From the Nobel summary of her work:

As a political scientist Elinor Ostrom’s research methods differed from how most economists work. Usually they start with a hypothesis, an assumption of reality, which is then put to the test. Elinor Ostrom started with an actual reality instead. She gathered information through field studies and then analyzed this material. In her book ‘Governing the Commons’ from 1990, she demonstrated how common property can be successfully managed by user associations and that economic analysis can shed light on most forms of social organization.

Insofar as one accepts the Hardin framework in water management, turning it into a private commodity is difficult on many fronts. So we’re left with the heavy hand of government. And that is what I had come to expect the solutions to the West’s water problems would look like – a mandate from the “state” or the “federal government” to ration the scarce supplies remaining. And here came Ostrom blowing into my life like a refreshing breeze off of Santa Monica Bay. There is a third path, Ostrom found. It’s a messy, fuzzy process in which users come together and craft their own institutions, their own rules. Often, it works!

I bought her book Governing the Commons, and the direction of my work shifted. I began to look not for opportunities for regulatory intervention, but rather for the ways in which users of a common pool resource come together to regulate themselves.

When I dove into work on the book in earnest the following year, in 2010, the questions suggested by Ostrom’s ideas were everywhere. They completely reframed my thinking about how to approach water problems. It completely framed everything I did from that point forward.

The most fun I had writing my book was the months in the summer of 2014 spent writing about Ostrom. I was still working part time at the newspaper at that point, so much of the work was done tucked away in my little University of New Mexico office on weekend afternoons. I ordered a bound copy of her doctoral thesis, her first great case study, of the West Basin on the coastal fringe of Los Angeles:

Traditional histories of California water generally treat what happened in the West Basin and the adjoining groundwater basins with a wave of the hand, as if what the communities did was straightfor- ward—they were over-pumping, so they all got together and came up with a plan to pump less groundwater and bring in Colorado River water to replace it. Ostrom’s genius was in not taking that for granted, in realizing that the central question was how they came together to do that. Questions that to others seemed trivial to Ostrom were not. What she showed is that creating institutions capable of collectively managing the West Basin’s groundwater was not as simple as slapping down a new government agency and then flipping a switch to turn it on.

As I toy with ideas for my next book, the idea of an Elinor Ostrom biography is there. But I think I will probably not try it. I know my limitations, and I know I don’t have the writerly chops or the depth of understanding of her ideas to do her justice. She deserves a great biography.

Lake Mead back above 1,075

1,075.05

1,075.05

Apparently in celebration of this week’s official release date for my book Water is for Fighting Over: and Other Myths about Water in the West, Lake Mead overnight crept above the magic elevation level of 1,075 feet above sea level. That’s number attached in policy and, more importantly, the public mind to the notion of shortage on the Colorado River. At this point the elevation milestone is merely symbolic. The shortage policy, with mandatory cutbacks, only kicks in if the reservoir is below 1,075 on Jan. 1 of any given year. Mead typically rises between August and the end of the year, so there will be no shortage declaration at the end of the year.

Don’t get too excited about rising above 1,075. We’re still on track to set another one of those “lowest elevation since Lake Mead was filled” records yet again this month. The end-of-August record low is 1,078.31 which we set last year. And as Brett Walton noted this morning in Circle of Blue’s Federal Water Tap, there’s a greater than 50 percent chance of a below-1,075 shortage declaration in 2018.

As a science-policy communicator, I’m fascinated with the way “1,075” has become such a useful shorthand for a complex set of issues. The origin of its importance lies in the 2007 “Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead”. The rules are complicated: every year in August, the Bureau of Reclamation runs its Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) model, a dynamic simulation that takes current reservoir levels, projected demands and forecasts for the coming months, and estimates the elevation of Lake Mead the following Jan. 1. That estimate (and an accompanying one for Lake Powell, the big reservoir upstream) triggers a number of policy responses. If there’s a bunch of extra water in Lake Powell, we enter one of a couple of operating regimes under which what I’ve come to call “bonus water” can be released from Powell to prop up Lake Mead, a process intended to “equalize” the levels between the two reservoirs.

Boulder Harbor, Lake Mead, Oct. 18, 2010

Boulder Harbor, Lake Mead, Oct. 18, 2010

If Mead is low, separate rules kick in which reduce the allocation of water to downstream users, mostly the states of Arizona and Nevada. The first threshold for “low” is 1,075, which would trigger a shortage declaration.

The intellectual exercise of trying to understand these rules (they’re quite complex) and more importantly the process of conflict and negotiation through which they came about laid a lot of the groundwork for my book. My argument, which grew as much as anything out of a long conservation in the spring of 2010 with John Entsminger, then chief counsel and now general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, is that the success or failure of water management in the Colorado River Basin hangs on the ability of a network of people, both formal and informal, who must simultaneous fight for their own states’ allocation of water from the river while at the same time realizing that we have to have negotiated deals in which everyone takes less water. From Chapter 10:

Somehow, the network’s members now had to come up with a new set of rules that could both balance reservoir levels in Mead and Powell, as well as provide some certainty for how shortages would be handled among the Lower Basin states if Lake Mead kept dropping.

It meant understanding one another’s positions, but it also meant honoring a shared goal—keeping their dispute out of court. “We knew where the disagreements were,” said Entsminger, “and the choice was litigate those disagreements or find a working solution.”

What’s fascinating now is the way “1,075” has rippled out from the core group of negotiators and a complex set of federal documents to become a symbolic stand-in for the deep issues confronting the Colorado River Basin. As I wrote six years ago when I first started working on the book, drought in the Colorado River Basin is such an abstraction. 1,075 has helped make it a bit more real.

With a new set of negotiations underway that are likely to lead to deeper water usage cuts, and sooner, it’s entirely possible that in the coming year 1,075 will become less relevant. Maybe 1,090 as a new threshold? But wherever we end up 1,075 has done great work in helping us grapple with the Colorado River Basin’s problems.