Mulroy: We don’t need to tear up the compact

Posted by on

John McChesney has posted a great interview with Pat Mulroy, head of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, about future directions for Colorado River management. She’s the most vocal proponent for mechanisms that might allow sharing of shortages among water users across the Colorado River basin, rather than a strict prior appropriation approach where junior users get cut off completely before senior users suffer any losses. She argues this can be done without abandoning or rewriting the Colorado River compact, but rather that it can be accomplished within the existing legal framework:

I think there are enough flexibilities in this that we can overcome these first-in-time, first-in-right provisions that we hang on to so dearly. I mean, for example, we are paying the state of Arizona 350 million dollars to store their unused water in their groundwater basins for our future use. We’re covering their cost. That allows us during shortages, to the extent that Phoenix, Tucson, their cities aren’t shorted, to be able to take water out of that groundwater basin. During Metropolitan’s shortage period all the water we were conserving in southern Nevada we were giving to southern California with the understanding that one day when we needed it we would get it back. It’s that kind of relationship that will start blurring and muting the negative effects of the first in time first in right doctrine.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

Dry Year

Posted by on

We’ve received 2.15 inches (5.46 cm) of precipitation since Oct. 1 (the “water year”) at the Heineman-Fleck house in Albuquerque. That’s 44 percent of average for the first 8 months of the water year. (My average is based on data going back to the 1999-2000 water year.)

A sidelight: 1.41 inches of that (3.58 cm) came in a single storm, overnight Dec. 16-17. Aside from that one fluke storm (and a remarkable one it was) we’ve been remarkably dry.

Stuff I Wrote Elsewhere: A Great View of Mars

Posted by on

From the morning paper, an epitaph to NASA’s Mars rover Spirit (sub/ad req).

I’ve been writing about Spirit with some regulatory since before the mission, thanks to the presence of mission scientist and geologist Larry Crumpler in our midst here in Albuquerque. Larry is a delight in part because he really gets how cool it is to do field geology by driving a rover around Mars:

It’s easy to anthropomorphize the plucky little robots wandering the surface of Mars, to imbue them in our minds with human characteristics. But to listen to Crumpler and his colleagues talk, something more interesting and subtle has happened.

Listen, for example, to how Crumpler described Spirit’s demise: “We just ran out of power.”

Not “it.” “We.”

A visiting scholar spent time with the team, Crumpler said, and concluded that its day-to-day language suggested that the rover was not so much a thing apart as an extension of the team — almost like the team members were there on the planet, riding a bus around together, stopping and hopping off to look at the rocks just like an earthbound geology field trip.

“You really feel like you’ve been walking around on Mars,” he said.

California and the Problem of Variability in Water Management

Posted by on

Part of my standard schtick when I talk about water management in the arid southwest is an explanation of the problem of variability as it relates to aridity. It is so obvious that it almost goes without saying that life in an arid climate poses climate problems because it’s dry. But the more subtle problem, as I like to point out, is variability. If it’s extremely dry, but in a consistent way, you can plan for it – building your water infrastructure (flood control, irrigation, water distribution, etc.) based on that consistent amount. But extreme variance from year to year (and, really, on all sorts of different time scales) is what poses the real problem.

In addition, arid climates in general also tend to be more highly variable climates.

So I thought I was hip to the problem variability poses for water management, and that the heart of the problem was out here in the arid interior Southwest, where I live.

US Precipitation and Runoff Variability

US Precipitation and Runoff Variability

But this paper by Mike Dettinger* suggests I didn’t fully grasp the issue, especially as it relates to California. Dettinger and colleagues make two important points. First, variability (they use the “coefficient of variability” as their measure, which for wonks is the standard deviation divided by the mean) is higher in California than in the rest of the West, as this map shows. (The pink east has the least variability, yellows are more variability and the blues and blacks are the highest variability.)

At the core of many of California’s water issues is its generally high degree of year-to-year and within-year precipitation variability…. Clearly precipitation and, somewhat less so, streamflow in California are proportionally more variable from year to year than are flows in other parts of the West Coast, and broadly more variable than most parts of the western and eastern states. Only some rivers contributing to the Mississippi from the west and in eastern Texas are similarly variable. The larger variations in California necessitate heroic levels of management of the State’s water resources to accommodate wider swings of wet and dry years than in any other state.

Their second point is that California, more than other places, gets a disproportionate share of its water from a handful of single-storm events.

If just a couple of storms do not arrive in California, or yield significantly less precipitation than
needed, in a given year, that year’s precipitation total and water resources suffer disproportionately, compared to other regions. Alternatively a relatively few large or “extra” storms may result in a particularly wet year.

* Dettinger, M.D.; Ralph, F.M.; Das, T.; Neiman, P.J.; Cayan, D.R. Atmospheric Rivers, Floods and the Water Resources of California. Water 2011, 3, 445-478.

 

Co-Equal Goals

Posted by on
Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown

Mark Reisner, in Cadillac Desert, describes Jerry Brown’s struggle back in the late 1970s and early ’80s to sort out the conflicting interests surrounding the Bay-Delta System as plans were developed for what was then known as the Peripheral Canal:

Jerry Brown’s dilemma – which was insoluble, but which he thought he could solve anyway – was trying to please the water lobby and his large environmental constituency at the same time. He wanted a project, but he wanted it to be “environmentally sound”.

Fast forward to the 2008 Delta Vision Report, which provides the the underpinnings for the latest attempt to solve the delta problem:

The Delta ecosystem and a reliable water supply for California are the primary, co- equal goals for sustainable management of the Delta.

And the guy who inherited the struggle to carry it out is California Gov. Jerry Brown.

update: To be clear – I’m not arguing here that the historical lesson to draw between the parallels is the insolubility, to borrow Reisner’s wonderful word. Rather, it is the parallel structure in the way the problem was defined then and now – co-equal goals today and pleasing the water lobby and the environmental constituency. I’m very interested in the search for the solution space today, and not at all convinced that it is insoluble.

Our water, our values

Posted by on

Here’s one of those societal water value questions that doesn’t get a lot of attention. How cool are massive waterfalls?

“Breathtaking, that’s what it is,” said Lynne Bousie of Scotland, who stopped to pose for a photograph at the spot where the paved trail to Yosemite Falls makes a turn and the first full view of its entire 2,425-foot drop comes into view.

 

River Beat: Drop 2 From Space

Posted by on
Drop 2 From Space

Drop 2 From Space

One of the strangest western water projects of recent years is the Drop 2 Reservoir on the All-American Canal.

Here’s the problem. Irrigators in southeastern California, mostly in the Imperial Valley, get their water from the Colorado River. It sits in storage behind Lake Mead, and when they need it, they put in a request for a release from the Bureau of Reclamation, which releases it on schedule a couple of days ahead of when it’s needed. If it rains between the time it’s released and the time they’re scheduled to use it, they won’t need it. In the olden days, it would flow on down for use in Mexico or on out to the delta – wasted, in the view of the water managers.

Drop 2 allows the water to be captured and stored for later use. So it won’t be “wasted.” The Lower Basin states shared the cost in return for shares of the water saved.

Which is a long way of introducing this very cool NASA satellite photo of the Algodones Dunes, the major landscape feature that defines the southern edge of the Salton Sink and is a far prettier part of the NASA satellite picture you see (click through for bigness). Unless you’re a water nerd, in which case Drop 2 is the star. It’s the little bluish square on the bottom left.

Its new name is the Warren H. Brock Reservoir, after an Imperial Valley luminary. But I will forever want to call it “Drop 2.”

Background on Drop 2 from Shaun McKinnon, the Arizona Republic’s excellent water guy.

Three Gorges: Spanning the Environmental Kuznets Curve

Posted by on

Environmental economists talk about the relationship between affluence and environmental values – the idea that a society’s desire for things like clean air and water are low when folks are poor, but as basic needs for food and shelter are satisfied, environmental desires rise. It’s captured notionally in the “Environmental Kuznets Curve”. It’s not a perfect tool (lots of argument over the cases in which it doesn’t seem to have much explanatory power – see the Wiki page for a good discussion), but I think it’s a useful tool.

Which is a circular way of approaching the current discussion in China over Three Gorges Dam. Elizabeth Economy at CFR explains the Chinese government’s willingness to acknowledge the dam’s enormous problems:

It has only taken ninety years, but China’s leaders have finally admitted that the Three Gorges Dam is a disaster. With Wen Jiabao at the helm, the State Council noted last week that there were “urgent problems” concerning the relocation effort, the environment and disaster prevention that would now require an infusion of US$23 billion on top of the $45 billion spent already.

This strikes me as a project that was planned and begun when China was well down on the EKC, when of course it made sense to build a big giant dam regardless of those pesky environmental (and other) consequences because it would help make them less poor. As China’s affluence drags it up the curve, remorse is setting in.

 

River Beat: On the lack of a plan

Posted by on

Rob Davis at Voice of San Diego has an excellent explainer this week on his community’s dependence on Colorado River water, and the central problem of what happens if Lake Mead gets really low:

If the Colorado consistently comes up short, no one knows who will cut consumption to keep Lake Mead from running dry. A short-term plan is in place from the time the reservoir hits 1,075 feet above sea level until 1,025 feet. Arizona and Las Vegas take that hit. (At 895 feet, the reservoir wouldn’t be able to distribute water and the Hoover Dam wouldn’t produce power. The lake is currently at 1,096 and climbing.)

Hitting those triggers would be monumental. At 1,025 feet, the reservoir would be a 25-foot drop away from cutting off Las Vegas. Someone would have to take less water to stop the decline. But there is no plan on how to ensure water gets to the big city in the middle of the desert — only an agreement that states will meet to negotiate. And with the vicious politics that can thrive around water, that meeting won’t be easy. It would require Mexico, California, Arizona or Nevada to give up some of their water.

I think Rob nails the central dilemma here – the question of now how will we use less water (taking ag land out of production, urban conservation, slow/no growth, etc.) but how the various parties on the river will allocate the shortages. That’s the horse – the shortage allocation process. The cart pulled behind, then, will determine how the individual water-using entities will conserve to make up their share of shortages.

The Water Pricing Dilemma

Posted by on

Janet Zimmerman in the Riverside (Calif.) Press Enterprise on what happens to water agencies when their customers use less:

Water use has dropped by double digits across Southern California as residents heeded the call to conserve.

As a result, water district revenues fell drastically. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the wholesaler that supplies most local agencies, saw water sales decline by $16 million between March 31 of last year and this year.

The agency raised rates to compensate for that and other shortfalls from investments, and the cost ultimately was passed on to consumers. This year alone, Metropolitan’s prices rose 7.5 percent in January and will jump another 7.5 percent in the coming months; they follow two increases of 14.3 percent and 19.7 percent in 2009.

“In a year when they’re not selling as much water, they have to pass on those fixed costs. If they’re selling less, there’s less acre-feet to divide it over and they have to pass it on,” said John Rossi, Western’s general manager.