Using less water on the Lower Colorado River

At the end of April, Lake Mead sat at 1,085 feet above sea level, more than eight feet higher than it was a year ago. That is in part thanks to a big winter upstream, which has ensured continued above-average releases from Lake Powell upstream.

But equally important is the fact that folks in the Lower Colorado Rive Basin are using less water.

Lower Colorado River Basin water use (2017 forecast)

According to the current Bureau of Reclamation Forecast, water agencies are expected to take 6.849 million acre feet of water out of Mead this year to supply farms and cities in Arizona, California, and Nevada. If the forecast holds, that would be the lowest Lower Basin use since 1992. As Tony Davis has pointed out, we need to be careful about putting too much stock in these forecasts this early in the year. There is a lot of water allotment juggling underway right now, including questions about how much Northern California’s wet winter will allow the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to leave extra “intentionally created surplus” water in Lake Mead, and the ups and downs of Imperial Irrigation District’s use as it adjusts to changes in its water-saving fallowing program that kick in beginning July 1.

But the preliminary forecast can give us at least an inkling of where the water savings are coming from:

  • Metropolitan Water District (southern California municipal water) is currently forecast to take 522,000 acre feet of water, which would be its lowest year since as far as my records go back, which is to 1964. This could change – lots of discussion now about Met’s approach to storing surplus water, and there are indications elsewhere in the Bureau’s water forecasting system that Met’s take could be as high as 768,000 acre feet – but no matter how things end up, Met will likely have a very low water use year, well below its 937,000 acre foot per year 21st century average.
  • Central Arizona Project is forecast to take 1.506 million acre feet, roughly the same as the last couple of years, about 5 percent below its 21st-century average.
  • Imperial Irrigation District is forecast to take 2.5 million acre feet. This is 20 percent below its 2003 peak – Imperial’s a remarkable case study in agricultural prosperity in the face of reduced water availability.

Overall, under the current forecast Colorado River water use in Nevada, California, and Arizona would end the year 18 percent below its peak in 2002.

Where the Water Goes

There is much to like in Where the Water Goes, David Owen’s new book about “life and death along the Colorado River”, but the thing I liked most was the bemused charm with which Owen himself confronts western water’s absurdities, which must be embraced, but which are easily taken for granted.

Where the Water Goes

Here he is in Denver conference room a Continental Divide removed from the Colorado River Basin itself, introduced to (and introducing us to) the strange distinction between “paper water” and “wet water” that underpins much of western water discourse. Water lawyer Kent Holsinger is our guide, describing the cattle ranch near Walden, Colorado, on which he grew up:

A stream crosses the ranch, and the Holsingers draw water from it, but their right to do so isn’t based on the fact that their property is adjacent to its banks, as it would be in the East. “Water law in Colorado and most states in the West is based on the doctrine of ‘prior appropriation,'” he said. That doctrine holds that the first person to make “beneficial use” of water gains the right to use that quantity for that purpose forever.

I was amused to note that Amazon has categorized Owen’s book in “General Western US Travel Guides” (where it happily is the #1 New Release). But on reflection, the choice made sense. Structure in a narrative like this is always a great challenge, and some of our best books about rivers (think Fradkin’s River No More as one shining example) have used the “headwaters to sea” device. Here Owen deploys it effectively, taking us along on his travels as he follows the Colorado’s twisting path from the Rocky Mountains to the Sea of Cortez. I never would have called this a “travel guide”, but on reflection could see it serving solid road trip duty.

By itself, the travelogue is delightful – his side trip into the RV culture of Quartzite on the desert Colorado’s Arizona bank left me full of writerly admiration. Who has travelled the Lower Colorado in winter and not pondered the strange immensity of the human experience spread across the great snowbird RV parks? This is the charm of Owen’s writing, the slightly self-deprecating way he invites us along as he visits interesting people and places, learning new things along the way.

But within the geographical structure, Owen is doing something more subtle, leading us through the ways in which society and river interact as we go through the complex motions of moving water out of the river channel and doing with it what we do. By the book’s end, he’s easily and gently laid a foundation that allows a discussion of the hard stuff, as he leads us through the effect the global food market has on Larry Cox’s Imperial Valley farm, and therefore on the Colorado River’s water:

“Even on the citrus we grow – lemons for export have to be different sizes from lemons for domestic. Then we’ve got fancy grade, choice grade, standard grade. We put up thirty-two different packs, between lettuce and broccoli and mixed lettuce and sleeved romaine – and it’s okay, but you kind of feel like a poodle jumping through hoops.”

Ultimately the hard stuff includes the recognition that the Colorado River’s problems really are hard, not amenable to easy “rewrite the Law of the River” or “abandon prior appropriation/Imperial/Las Vegas” narratives, and it is to Owens’ credit that he ably sums up this no-easy-fixes reality.

Even water nerds who think they know everything about the Colorado River <cough>me</cough> will likely learn stuff they didn’t know, but you’re not the book’s primary audience. Y’all should pick it up. But really, Where the Water Goes is a water book for everyone else.

people build markets

I said some stuff about water markets in this Q&A with Drew Beckwith of Western Resources Advocates:

Beckwith: That’s certainly an NGO concern, that an unbridled market does not take into account the environment and that water would just run uphill towards money.

Fleck: This is a problem with thinking about markets, right? A market is built by humans to meet a need. So you can build a market that would include environmental values for water and have an institutional framework that pays farmers to leave water in-river for an environmental purpose. It’s just an implementation detail of building a market, it’s not intrinsic to markets. This is a question of where you draw the boundaries in and around the market and what do you include. Markets are built by people to accomplish particular goals. They’re not some magic thing off on the side. This is one of the failures of our public understanding of economics that’s gotten us in all kinds of trouble. People build markets.

Flood plain connectivity, Rio Grande style

Through much of Albuquerque, the Rio Grande flows between levees at a grade slightly higher than the surrounding valley floor.

As a result, storm water must be pumped over the levees into the river’s central channel, with a string of pumping stations and big pipe outfalls like this, on the east side of the river just north of the Avenida Cesar Chavez bridge.

flood plain connectivity, Rio Grande style

we have a Deputy Interior Secretary nominee

McClatchy’s Stuart Leavenworth has details on the nominee to be of Deputy Interior Secretary, one of the key positions top the federal bureaucracy that helps manage western water:

His name is David Longly Bernhardt, and he’s worked as the top lobbyist for California’s Westlands Water District, the largest agricultural entity of its kind in the nation. He’s sued the Interior Department and helped write legislation on behalf of his client. Largely because of his services, Westlands has paid Bernhardt and the law firm where he works $1.27 million since 2011.

Costs, benefits of direct and indirect potable reuse

My UNM faculty colleague Caroline Scruggs and soon-to-be-graduate of both Community and Regional Planning and the Water Resources Program Jason Herman have a new paper on the costs of treating and reusing wastewater. Caroline and her students have been looking closely at the issue in the context of small inland communities, which are increasingly eyeing both direct and indirect potable reuse as a supply option:

We find that the present worth for indirect potable reuse is substantially higher than for direct potable reuse because of additional pumping and piping requirements, and scenarios including reverse osmosis for advanced treatment have significantly higher present worth values than those including ozone/biological activated carbon. Costs aside, any scenario must also be acceptable to regulators and the public and approvable from a water rights perspective.

who’s in charge of Arizona’s Colorado River water?

The feud within Arizona over who’s in charge of the state’s Colorado River water – the state Department of Water Resources or the Central Arizona Water Conservation District – escalated this week.

This is from an April 25 “cease and desist” letter (obtained by me through a state public records act request) from the Arizona governor’s office and DWR to CAWCD (the entity that operates the Central Arizona Project):

This is super arcane legal stuff, but the underlying conflict has been a serious setback to Arizona’s progress on Colorado River Basin-wide drought contingency planning.

Excellent background in this from Kathleen Ferris.

Click on the “view entire document link” to see the whole letter.