Fall 2008 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Fall 2008 River Report, Colorado River Project

1/12

Fall 2008

A project of the Water Education Foundation

How is the Colorado River Shortage Agreement Working?

Continued on page 4

A year ago, the Colorado River Basin wasenduring the seventh dry year of the pasteight. Inflow into Lake Powell was 68percent of average and combined storageof Powell and Lake Mead was roughly 50percent of capacity. Federal officials werefinishing a plan establishing drought-related storage and deliveries for thereservoir system. And the seven basinstates were negotiating agreements amongthemselves to address potential shortagesand augment water supplies.

The federal plan came to fruition inDecember when Interior Secretary DirkKempthorne signed off on the Record ofDecision (ROD) for the ColoradoRiver Interim Guidelines for LowerBasin Shortages and the Coordinated

Operations for Lake Powell and LakeMead. The states, in turn, inkedagreements designed to help meet new

water demands while protecting waterrights. It was a historic moment. AsKempthorne said then, This is the mostimportant agreement among the sevenbasin states since the original ColoradoRiver Compact of 1922.

Flash forward to August 2008. Whilestorage in the Colorado River Basinremains at drought levels, above-averageprecipitation in the Upper Basin resultedin higher-than-average runoff into LakePowell. The level of the massive reser-voir, which has a capacity of 27 millionacre-feet, rose nearly 50 feet to a peakelevation of 3,634 feet in mid-July. And

under terms of the new coordinatedreservoir operations, Lake Mead willbenefit, too, because Powell is requiredto release more water to Mead.

No one expected the new Powell-to-Mead release requirement to take effectthis soon, but it is a welcome develop-ment for a drought-stricken river systemthat supplies water to more than 25million people and 3.5 million acres offarmland. Even though we didnt thinkequalization would happen out of thebox, the good news is were prepared tomanage it, said Lorri Gray, regionaldirector of the U.S. Bureau ofReclamations (Reclamation) LowerColorado Region. If we didnt have theagreement, wed be very engaged [right

By Sue McClurg

Lake Powells elevation rose this year.


2/12

The Colorado River is a fascinating study of water in the arid Southwest.Its waters are shared by seven states, dozens of Indian tribes and the

Republic of Mexico but those uses are strictly regulated and managed

under the Law of the River. In December, a new document was addedto this collection of compacts, an international treaty, legislation, U.S.

Supreme Court decisions and federal administrative actions the

Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and

the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

This historic agreement set new equalization guidelines for storage in

Lakes Powell and Mead, established shortage criteria for the Lower Basin

and launched a program to encourage Lower Basin states to implement

creative measures to stretch water supplies. T hat this agreement came on

the heels of the 85th anniversary of the 1922 Colorado River Compact

adds to its significance.

In this issue ofRiver Report, Sue McClurg takes a look at what hashappened in the months following the landmark agreement. Helped along

by a wetter-than-normal winter, water users throughout the Colorado River

Basin are implementing new programs to stretch existing supplies and

researching projects to augment the rivers flows. Binational discussions

are underway on water conservation and other projects that can benefit

both the United States and Mexico. Major challenges remain, including

shortage sharing rules for Mexico and restoring the environment, but it is

encouraging to see the Colorado Rivers many stakeholders working to find

common ground.

River Report is a project of theWater Education Foundation

EditorRita Schmidt Sudman

Writer

Sue McClurg

Editorial Assistant

Robin Richie

PhotosBob MabenSnowbird Ski and Summer ResortU.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Graphics and Layout

Curt Leipold,Graphic Communications

The Water Education Foundationthanks all the sources and experts whoreviewed this newsletter for balanceand accuracy.

The mission of the Water EducationFoundation, an impartial, non-profit,organization, is to create a betterunderstanding of water issues and helpresolve water resource problems througheducational programs.

Water Education Foundation717 K Street, Suite 317

Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 444-6240fax (916) 448-7699e-mail: [email protected] page: www.watereducation.org

President

William R. MillsExecutive Director

Rita Schmidt SudmanColorado River Project Advisory Members

Hamlet Chips Barry, Denver WaterMichael Cohen, Pacific InstituteHerb Guenther, Arizona Department of Water ResourcesGary Hansen, Colorado River Indian Tribes

J. Arturo Herrera, Mexican Section, International Boundary and Water CommissionJeff Kightlinger, MWD of Southern California

David Lindgren, Downey BrandJames Lochhead, Brownstein Hyatt Farber SchreckEstevan Lopez, New Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionPatricia Mulroy, Southern Nevada Water AuthorityDon Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission

Jennifer Pitt, Environmental Defense FundLester Snow, California Department of Water ResourcesMaureen Stapleton, San Diego County Water AuthorityGary Weatherford, Weatherford & Taaffe

Dear Readers

2 COLORADO RIVERPROJECT RIVERREPORT FALL 2008


3/12

Lake Powell Pipeline Estimated to Cost $1 Billion

FALL 2008 RIVERREPORT COLORADO RIVERPROJECT 3

Lower Basin

Upper Basin

The Arizona Legislature has grantedlocal governments the authority torequire developers of new subdivisions

to have a state certificate that assuresthat the water supply will last 100 years.

A water adequacy certificate will onlybe granted by the Arizona Departmentof Water Resources if the water supply isphysically, legally and continuously

The estimated cost of constructingthe Lake Powell pipeline project tosouthern Utah cities is now $1 billion,state officials announced in July. Priorestimates were $800 million. The UtahDivision of Water Resources (DWR)said higher costs, including fuel and steelprices, are the main reason for theincrease.

Approved in 2006, the 139-milepipeline will transport about 100,000

acre-feet annually from Lake Powell toSand Hollow Reservoir supplying

communities in and around St. George.An additional 35 miles of pipeline willbe built from Sand Hollow Reservoir toCedar City. The project will includepumping facilities at Lake Powell (as

well as booster pumping stations alongthe way), seven hydropower facilities,and associated reservoirs and powertransmission lines.

The pipeline was first proposed 15years ago and it has generated consider-

able debate. Many people have pushedfor more local water conservation rather

than developing new supplies whileothers question whether sufficientsupplies will exist in Lake Powell givendrought conditions and climate change.

Dennis Strong, executive director ofthe Utah DVW, said the project willprovide southern Utah residents with anunparalleled level of water-supplysecurity when it is completed in 2020and that it will be seen as a worthyinvestment when costs are amortized

over a very long lifetime of pipelineservice.

Arizona Subdivisions Must Prove Adequate Water Supplies

available for the next 100 years. Inaddition, water quality standards mustbe met, and the developer must demon-

strate the financial capability to con-struct any necessary water shortage,treatment and delivery systems.

Before the new ordinance, a countyboard of supervisors was able to approvefinal plans as long as the first buyer was

Yuma Wetlands Restoration Receives$1.4 Million

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation(Reclamation) has awarded a $1.4million grant to continue Yuma East

Wetlands restoration work in Arizona.The grant, announced in June, willinitiate the fifth phase of the eight-yearrestoration and concentrate along thenorth side of the river channel on theQuechan Indian Tribe reservation.

The Yuma East Wetlands is arestoration site in Arizona covering

about 1,400 acres worth of nativeriparian, wetland and aquatic habitatsalong the lower Colorado River. Theproject includes reshaping the riverchannel, altering flows and removingnon-native trees and replacing them

with native cottonwood, willow andmesquite. The on-site work is expectedto be completed by September 2009.

aware that the water may run out. Thenew rule is a way of helping potentialbuyers from inheriting risks regarding

the water supply available to their homesin their subdivisions, according to thelegislation.

Now Available!

2007 Colorado

River Symposium

Proceedings

This 180-page book canbe ordered on-line at

www.watereducation.org

under the Products tab.


4/12

Continued from front page

F E A T U R E

now] in discussions on how to manage

the additional runoff instead of imple-menting the agreement.Under the new rules, this year

Powell released approximately 719,000acre-feet additional water to Lake Mead.Normally, Powell releases 8.23 millionacre-feet every year under terms estab-lished by the Coordinated Long-RangeOperating Criteria that have beenpromulgated in conformance with the1922 Colorado River Compact andthe 1944 Mexican Water Treaty.

Even with the additional water from

Powell, Lake Meads level will still dropafter it meets its delivery requirementsfor the 2008 calendar year. However,Mead wont decline as much as it wouldhave without the new operating guide-lines, easing concerns about the possibil-ity of a shortage declaration for theLower Basin.

We thought a shortage [declaration]might be just two to three years out

given drought conditions, said RogerPatterson, assistant manager for strategic

water initiatives for the MetropolitanWater District of Southern California

(MWD). The additional supply forMead has pushed that back.The Upper Basin had a much better

year than its had for a long time, saidDon Ostler, executive director of theUpper Colorado River Commission,noting that the last ski day at UtahsSnowbird resort was June 18. Thenegotiations for the new tiered operatingcriteria were driven by drought conditionsso it was somewhat surprising that thefirst year of implementation of the RODturned out to be an equalization year.

Ostler said it is a positive develop-ment because we are dealing with asystem that is on the rise and it providesinsurance that the Lower Basin willreceive more than the normal objectiverelease from Powell, facilitating normal

water deliveries from Mead. But he saidthe Upper Basin is closely watching howmuch water Mead releases to the LowerBasin water users because the level in

Lake Mead now [directly] affects thelevel in Lake Powell.

Of particular interest to the UpperBasin, Ostler said, is insuring the success

of Lower Basin efforts to stretch Colo-rado River supplies through the creativemeasures known as intentionally createdsurplus (ICS). The ICS allows LowerBasin entities to create water creditsthrough conservation measures such asland fallowing and lining canals andtake delivery of those water credits fromLake Mead at a future date.

Under terms of the agreement,entities in the Lower Basin states havethe opportunity to store up to 2.1million acre-feet of ICS water in Lake

Mead for their future use; with 5 percentof that amount credited to the overallsystem. The ICS is an opportunity forthe water users to proactively plan fortheir future, Gray said.

With the agreement in place andMother Nature providing a bit of reliefthis year, federal officials and the stateshave now turned their attention toimplementation of ICS projects andfurther study of ways to augment theColorado River system. But some of theconservation programs underway in the

United States will reduce groundwaterseepage to Mexico while others have thepotential to reduce over deliveries toMexico in excess of the Treaty require-ments. The question of how Mexico willshare in any drought-related shortage

was not settled with the ROD and allthese issues have heightened tensionsbetween the two countries.

In an effort to find common ground,the Department of the Interior an-nounced a year ago that the UnitedStates and Mexico had agreed to beginmeeting to discuss a number of issuesof mutual concern to both nationsrelated to the Colorado River througha process to be managed by the Interna-tional Boundary and Water Commission(IBWC). IBWC subsequently estab-lished a Binational Core Group toexplore cross-border issues related tothe Colorado River to identify actionsand projects that could benefit both


Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne signed the interim shortage guidelines in December 2007.


5/12

countries. The group met in March inPhoenix and set up four work groupsto focus on new water sources, with aparticular interest in binational desalina-

tion; conservation, especially irrigationprojects; system operations, seekingefficiencies in how the Colorado Riversystem operates; and the environment.The work groups have been meetingapproximately once a month.

The IBWC is a treaty-based bilateralorganization responsible for applyingthe boundary and water treaties betweenthe United States and Mexico andsettling differences that arise in theirapplication. Before the formal workgroups were established by the IBWC,

stakeholders on both sides of the borderhad been meeting informally to discusscommon needs and goals in an effort tofind potential cooperative solutions.

We want to come up with somegood recommendations for the IBWCbecause the IBWC is the vehicle tochanging Colorado River managementat the border, said Jennifer Pitt, seniorresource analyst with the EnvironmentalDefense Fund. Pitt is chair of theenvironment work group and was activein the informal cross-border stakeholder

discussions.This issue ofRiver Reportprovides

an overview of steps underway toimplement the new guidelines to bettermanage Colorado River water not onlyduring drought, but over the full rangeof reservoir operations, stretchingexisting supplies and finding ways toaugment what is often described as themost controversial and regulated river inthe United States. For more backgroundon the Colorado River, please refer tothe FoundationsLaypersons Guide to theColorado Riverand back issues ofRiverReportand Western Water.

BackgroundOver the course of the two years it tookto develop the interim shortage guide-lines and coordinated reservoir opera-tions, Reclamation staff attended morethan 75 meetings with representativesof the seven basin states and other

stakeholders. The states representatives,

in turn, held dozens of meetings of theirown to analyze various options andreach agreement on how to addresscontroversial issues related to waterallocations.

When negotiations began in 2005,the Colorado River Basin was reelingfrom five consecutive years of drought.Some feared Interior would declare thefirst official shortage in the Lower Basin.

With Powell at a record-low 33 percentof capacity in April 2005, the UpperBasin feared that Lake Powell could runout of water and the Lower Basin mightpush for a Compact call, forcing theUpper Basin states (Colorado, NewMexico, Utah and Wyoming) to reducepost-Compact uses or release water fromreservoirs upstream of Lake Powell toavoid depleting the flow at Lee Ferry tothe Lower Basin and Lake Mead.

Litigation seemed imminent.Interior Secretary Gale Norton

stepped in, calling upon the states and

other stakeholders to work through apublic process to help develop shortageguidelines for the Lower Basin (Arizona,California and Nevada) and UpperBasin/Lower Basin reservoir operationsduring drought conditions. She heldfirm to the Upper Basins normal 8.23million acre-feet release for 2005 releases helped along by higher-than-average inflow into Powell that spring.But she also asserted authority to adjustfuture Powell releases under the AnnualOperating Plan to perhaps release less

water if conditions warranted. Even asattorneys from both basins argued abouther order, representatives from the sevenstates began meeting in earnest toproduce an agreed-upon coordinatedoperation scenario for consideration byfederal officials as Reclamation began todevelop an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) to address shortagecriteria and coordinated operation for


Thanks to abundant snowfall, Utahs Snowbird resort, above, was open for skiing until June 18.


6/12

under the Law of theRiver to do thingsthat weve never beenable to do before.

Michael Cohen,senior researchassociate with the

Pacific Institute, agreed. The guidelinesare a tremendous step forward; a markedchange in how the river is managed.They provide far more flexibility, hesaid.

Stretching the ResourceThe documents that comprise the Lawof the River, including the 1922Colorado River Compact and 1944

Mexican Treaty, established 16.5 millionacre-feet in annual allocations: 7.5million acre-feet to each basin and 1.5million acre-feet to the Republic ofMexico. But the estimated averageannual flow of the Colorado River iscloser to 15 million acre-feet. Previousyears of high runoff, storage reservoirs inthe Upper Basin states, storage in LakesPowell and Mead, and the fact that theUpper Basin uses only about half itsriver allocation have allowed the river toovercome this dichotomy even during

the worst drought in decades.The Upper Basin has not fully

developed its allocation, but the LowerBasin has. And even without the supplypressures from the multi-year drought,

water usage and continuing urbangrowth in the Lower Basin especiallyin water-short Nevada were the majordriving forces behind the 2007 agree-ment. Nevada has the smallest share ofthe Colorado 300,000 acre-feet. Butbeginning in the 1990s as Las Vegas

consistently ranked as one of the nationsfastest growing cities, the SouthernNevada Water Authority (SNWA)pushed aggressively for the type ofprograms included in the ICS to stretchits water supply to meet its demands.

The Las Vegas area has little in theway of local groundwater and is highlyreliant on the Colorado River. Underterms of the agreement, SNWA will nowbe able to develop a portion of its pre-

Lake Powell and Lake Mead under lowwater level conditions.

Ultimately, much of what the statesproposed was included in the final EIS

for the Colorado River InterimGuidelines for Lower Basin Shortagesand the Coordinated Operations forLake Powell and Lake Mead adoptedon Dec. 13, 2007. The interim guide-lines took effect immediately and willremain in effect through 2026 andpotentially beyond.

Observers say litigation was the likelyoutcome if the states had not been ableto agree on how to address drought-related shortages. For now, negotiation

will continue to dominate over litigation

because in the ROD, the states agreedto mandatory consultation provisions toaddress future controversies on the

Colorado Riverthrough consultationand negotiation, as arequirement, before

resorting to litigation.With respect to thevarious interests,positions and views of each of the sevenBasin States, this provision adds animportant new element to the modernevolution of the legal framework for theprudent management of the ColoradoRiver.

The best thing is the rules for theColorado River are pretty well under-stood now. The agreement provided areally good foundation for us and caused

us to move ahead with whats next andimplement whats next, Patterson said.People are being creative to find ways


We thought a shortage

[declaration] might be just

two to three years out. The

additional supply for Mead

has pushed that back.

Roger Patterson

Lake Mead in 1999.


7/12

Compact water rights on the Virgin andMuddy rivers (tributaries to the Colo-rado) and convey this water throughLake Mead forestalling the need to

build a pipeline and other infrastructureto develop and convey these supplies.SNWA also will use the river system totransport groundwater from ruralNevada counties to the Las Vegas area.

In addition, SNWA will receive waterfrom the new 8,000 acre-feet Drop 2reservoir. The reservoir will be builtadjacent to the All-American Canal inCalifornias Imperial Valley to capture

water that irrigators dont end up usingafter it is released from upstreamreservoirs. Currently, this water flows to

Mexico but is not included in Mexicosannual allocation. According to Recla-mation, these non-storable flows haveaveraged 70,000 acre-feet per year overthe past 30 years.

SNWA paid Reclamation $172million toward construction of thereservoir and in return received 600,000acre-feet of water under the systemefficiency ICS category. SNWA alsoagreed to pay any additional project costincreases up to a total of $206 million inexchange for additional water. Subse-

quently, MWD and the Central ArizonaWater Conservation District (CAWCD)each paid approximately $28.6 millionto SNWA to exercise their options toparticipate in the Drop 2 fundingagreement. Both agencies received100,000 acre-feet for this funding,reducing SNWAs total share to 400,000acre-feet. SNWA will be able to takedelivery of a maximum of 40,000 acre-feet a year between 2011 and 2036.MWD will take 34,000 acre-feet of ICS

water this year, and may take a likeamount through 2010. Between 2011and 2026, it can take up to 25,000 acre-feet per year until it reaches its 100,000acre-feet limit. The CAWCD can take itsICS water at a maximum of 65,000acre-feet a year from 2016 through2026, although Arizonas share will bereduced by the amount of creditsdelivered to SNWA and/or MWD inany given year.


The reservoirs construction wasauthorized in the congressional ridersigned in December 2006 that requiredthe lining of the All-American Canal to

proceed. A contract for the project wasawarded on Aug. 21 to Ames Construc-tion, Inc. of Phoenix and CoffmanSpecialties, Inc., of San Diego. Con-struction is set to begin in October. Thereservoir is scheduled for completion in2010. This project will make historyfor the American Southwest, Reclama-tion Commissioner Robert Johnson saidin a press release. This contract awardsignals the next phase of a significant

water storage project near our nationssouthern border.

Although the environmental commu-nity is a strong advocate of waterconservation, environmentalists and

Mexican officials opposed the Drop 2project because those over-deliveriescurrently help to sustain riparian habitatbelow Morelos Dam. In recent years,

Cohen said, 80 percent of the time therehas been no flow below Morelos Dam.With Drop 2, he said, there will be zeroflow below Morelos Dam 97 percent ofthe time.

In addition, Cohen says the Drop 2project is contrary to the concept of theICS program. All the other ICS pro-grams are designed so that the district hasto demonstrate that the water wasactually conserved before it can take itout [of Lake Mead], he said. This year,MWD will receive 34,000 acre-feet of

Drop 2 ICS even though the reservoirhasnt even been constructed yet.

But Reclamation Regional Director

Lake Mead in 2006.


8/12

Gray said because[the regulating]reservoir is a systemconservation opportu-

nity providingbenefits to the entiresystem long into thefuture a deal was puttogether for a scheduleof [water] delivery.

In addition to system conservation,the other categories of ICS water areextraordinary conservation, tributaryconservation or the importation of non-Colorado River System water.

One of the primary purposes of theICS is to help minimize or avoid

shortages to water users in the LowerBasin. The secretary of the Interior hasthe authority to declare a shortage in theLower Basin if there is not enough waterto meet the full 7.5 million acre-feetannual mainstream allocation; to date ashortage has never been declared. Theinterim guidelines give the water users in

Arizona, California and Nevada specificunderstanding of when Lake Meadselevation would trigger a shortage andhow much deliveries would be reducedto Arizona and Nevada. (California

maintains the highest priority of rights

under terms of theColorado River BasinProject Act of 1968and would continue

to receive its full 4.4million acre-feetmainstream alloca-tion in all but themost severe ofdrought conditions.)

But Ostler is concerned that the ICSrestrictions might be too tough becausethey do not allow some ICS credits tobe used during a shortage. The UpperBasin saw great importance for theLower Basin to find more ways toincrease its supply and meet its growth

and decrease the potential for shortage,he said. We really want to see [the ICS]

work. We want to see the Lower Basinstates find ways to meet their needs.

The federal ROD does includeanother category of water developedshortage supply that could be used,

with some limitations, in a shortage.This water would include purchasingdocumented pre-June 25, 1929, waterrights on Colorado River Systemtributaries within the contractors stateand/or introducing non-Colorado River

System water in that contractors state

into the mainstem under certain criteriafor use during shortages.

As for the ICS supplies, while waterfrom the Drop 2 reservoir and other

system efficiency water would not beavailable during an official shortage,Bill Hasencamp, with MWD, said theguidelines are silent on his agencysability to recover ICS water it stores inLake Mead during a shortage. MWD

wants that right, but Arizona officialsbelieve it violates the Supreme Courtdecree. To resolve the issue,Hasencamp said, Arizona and MWDreached a verbal agreement to not decidethe issue in the guidelines and insteadresolve it if and when [MWD] would

need to recover its ICS water during adeclared shortage.

ICS water is seen as a criticalcomponent of stretching supplies in theLower Basin to meet continuing andgrowing demands. But such programsare seen as short-term solutions to fit

within the interim nature (19 years) ofthis agreement. Thus, in 2006, the sevenstates agreed to a joint study of thepotential to implement a broad range oflong-range alternatives to augment theColorado River. In March, the $750,000

study, funded by SNWA and developedby CH2M Hill and Black & Veatch, wasreleased. The Study of Long-Term

Augmentation Options for the WaterSupply of the Colorado River Systemprovides a preliminary overview of thepotential amounts of water and financialcosts of 12 potential actions, andpotential environmental issues.

Brackish water desalination isviewed as a viable option becausediscussions are already underway toperhaps use the now-idled YumaDesalting Plant. One idea discussed inthe report was to desalt the largevolumes of brackish groundwaterunderlying the Yuma, Ariz., area forlocal/regional use in exchange for takingColorado River water further upstream.The engineering consultants estimateddesalting groundwater in this area and/or in inland Southern Californiacommunities could generate up to


Plan photo of the 8,000 acre-foot Drop 2 reservoir to be built next to Californias

All-American Canal.

The Upper Basin saw

great importance for the

Lower Basin to find more

ways to increase its supply

and meet its growth and

decrease the potential forshortage.

Don Ostler


9/12

October1-3 Sustaining Colorado Watersheds, sponsored by Colorado Watershed

Assembly, Vail, CO Contact: 970-872-2433

Web: http://www.coloradowater.org/annualconference.php

8-10 WaterSmart Innovations 08, sponsored by Southern Nevada Water Authorityand U.S. EPA, Las Vegas, NV Web: http://www.watersmartinnovations.com

15-17 Western States Water Council Annual Meeting, Oklahoma City, OKContact: 801-561-5300 Web: http://www.westgov.org/wswc/158mtg.html

16-18 Utah Water Law SuperConference, sponsored by CLE International, SaltLake City, UT Contact: 800-873-7130 Web: http://www.cle.com/product.php?proid=1018&page=Utah_Water_Law_SuperConference

30-31 Arizona Growth & Water Supply, sponsored by CLE International,Phoenix, AZ Contact: 800-873-7130

Web: http://www.cle.com/product.php?proid=1033&src=phxgwswef

31-Nov.1 The Fate and Future of the Colorado River, sponsored by Huntington-USCInstitute on Water and the West and Water Education Foundation,San Marino, CA Web: http://college.usc.edu/huntington

November13-14 2008 Climate Change Summit, sponsored by California DWR and Water

Education Foundation, Long Beach, CA Contact: 916-444-6240Web: http://www.watereducation.org/doc.asp?id=852

18-20 Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium,sponsored by USGS, Water Education Foundation and other organizations,Scottsdale, AZ Contact: 916-444-6240

Web: http://www.watereducation.org/doc.asp?id=1072

19-21 NWRA Annual Conference, sponsored by National Water Resources

Association, San Diego, CA Contact: 703-524-1544Web: http://www.nwra.org

December15-17 Annual Colorado River Water Users Association Conference, sponsored by

the CRWUA, Las Vegas, NV. Contact: 760- 398-2651Crystal Thompson [email protected] Web: http://www.crwua.org

January15-16 National Salinity Summit, sponsored by Multi-State Salinity Council and

Bureau of Reclamation, Las Vegas, NVWeb: http://wrri.nmsu.edu/conf/NSS.pdf

28-30 51st Annual Conference, sponsored by the Colorado Water Congress,Denver, CO. Contact: http://www.cowatercongress.org/

default2.asp?active_page_id=89

February5-6 Nevada Water Law, sponsored by CLE International, Reno, NV

Contact: 800-873-7130 Web: http://www.cle.com/product.php?proid=1068&page=Nevada_Water_Law

Contact Sue McClurg with your calendar items from December 2008 through

June 2009 for inclusion in the Summer issue ofRiver Report,[email protected] or 717 K Street, Suite 317, Sacramento, CA 95814

50,000 acre-feet per year at an estimatedcost of $700 to $2,000 per acre foot.Disposal of the brine generated by thedesalting plant is listed as one environ-

mental consideration.However, since the report was issued,Pitt said the focus for possible use of the

Yuma Desalting Plant has shifted fromlocal groundwater to drainage returnflows from the Wellton-MohawkIrrigation and Drainage District. That

water is now diverted around the idledplant through the Main Outlet DrainExtension and is a primary source of

water for the Cienega de Santa Clarawetlands in the Colorado River Delta.

Water quality, acre-foot costs between

$900 and $4,600 and a low quantity ofpotential supply are all concernsassociated with coalbed methane(CBM) produced water and after itsassessment, the consultants recom-mended against this potential source ofaugmentation.

The study recommended furtherexploration of interstate conjunctive use jointly using groundwater and surface

water such as expansion of the ArizonaInterstate Water Bank. Consultantsbelieve this idea could be developed

fairly quickly, although legal hurdleswould have to be overcome. Costs peracre foot range from $400 to $700. Theauthors of the report do not expectsignificant environmental issues.

Many of the states representativeshave suggested ocean water desalina-tion as a way to allow for direct deliveryand/or exchanges of Colorado River

water. There has been a lot of discussionof whether SNWA and other U.S. waterutilities should pay to build a desalina-tion plant in the Gulf of California tobenefit water users in both the UnitedStates and Mexico. There would beenvironmental and permitting chal-lenges for such a bi-national project,however, and there is some concernabout the amount of energy it wouldtake to desalt the water. The reportestimates acre foot costs of such a projectrange from $1,100 to $1,800. As withbrackish water desalination, brine



10/1210 COLORADO RIVER PROJECT RIVER REPORT FALL 2008

The guidelines are a

tremendous step forward;

a marked change in how

the river is managed. Michael Cohen

disposal was identifiedas a potential environ-mental issue along

with energy require-

ments and construc-tion impacts.Reducing the amount ofconsump-

tive use at thermoelectric power plants

could generate up to 160,000 acre-feetannually at a cost of $1,000 to $4,000per acre foot by replacing evaporativecooling systems with air-cooled systems;but, such measures would reduce theefficiency of those power plants.Subsequently, the technical committeedetermined that this option should beaddressed by the individual states.

The consultants determined that it isdifficult to determine how much watermight be conserved by controllingreservoir evaporation and that themethods available would be impracticalfor use on Lakes Mead and Powell andrecommended no further consideration.

The study released in April notedthat more refinement is needed ofanother option: river basin importsfrom several different rivers, includingthe Mississippi, to determine the costper acre foot. However, the study noted

that numerous issues related to techni-cal, environmental, legal and politicalobstacles would need more detailedanalysis. A wide range of environmentalissues were identified such as the effectsof reduced river flows at the source and

water quality impacts at points ofdischarge into receiving basins.

Stormwater collection on the GilaRiver system by storing it at PaintedRock Dam and Reservoir with adiversion canal to just upstream ofImperial Dam could generate up to100,000 acre-feet of water per year for$600-plus per acre foot, according to thereport. But stormwater collection on theGila River would capture the remainingpotential source for flood flows into theColorado River Delta and there areissues of water quality associated withsuch a project.

Already underway in some areas areefforts for vegetation management in

which invasive saltcedar (tamarisk)plants are removedfrom riparian areas.

The report estimatesthat gains from saltcedar control are estimated at 20,000acre-feet annually on the Virgin Riverand 150,000 acre-feet annually on theColorado River. Cost per acre foot isrelatively low: $30 to $100. While thereis concern about short-term impacts toendangered species from loss of habitat,the consultants say potential long-termbeneficial environmental impactsinclude recreation and fire management.

Another method ofwater imports

using ocean routes is estimated to costanywhere from $1,400 to $4,000 peracre foot. The report looked at optionsranging from towing icebergs tobuilding an undersea pipeline from theColumbia River or Northern Californiarivers to the Colorado River. And whilethe potential quantity could be signifi-cant up to 300,000 acre-feet thereport notes that the list of technicalissues related with such a project,including permitting, also are signifi-cant.

The consultants included water reuseas one means of augmenting the long-term supply within the Colorado RiverBasin, but ultimately, the states repre-sentatives determined that such pro-grams should continue to be addressedby the individual states.

Weather modification also is a low-cost way to potentially create new water,$20 to $30 per acre foot, but theconsultants noted it is hard to quantifyhow much additional precipitation suchefforts generate. Several of the states arecurrently sponsoring weather modifica-tion programs. Wyoming is presentlyfunding a research project with theNational Center for AtmosphericResearch to seek scientifically validverification of the amount of new waterproduced by weather modification.There is some concern about environ-mental impacts from the disposition ofthe silver iodide used for cloud seeding.

Although the report notes its intentwas to develop projects beyond existingplans by individual states for such thingsas water conservation and water trans-

fers, Cohen said he was still disap-pointed that the one idea the augmen-tation study did not look at is urbanconservation. As for desalination, hepointed out that it is extremely energyintensive and that there remain majorissues in coastal communities over whereto site such projects, potential fishentrainment and disposal of the brine.

Beyond these issues, Cohen said thestates may need to reconsider how muchadditional water is needed to supplyurban growth. He said even when the

housing market rebounds, he believesthe cost of energy and other currenteconomic conditions might result ineither less growth and/or smaller houses

with less landscaping, which, in turn,could reduce future demands for water.Climate change is another wildcard aschanges in water quantity or runoffcould effect which ICS projects are mosteffective.

Binational IssuesThe Mexican Water Treaty of 1944

committed the United States to deliver1.5 million acre-feet of water to Mexicoon an annual basis, plus an additional200,000 acre-feet under surplusconditions. In addition, Mexico hasbenefited from flood releases in the1990s and water overruns when waterusers do not use all the water they order allowing additional water to flowacross the border. The large flood flowsof the 1990s helped to restore the

wetlands of the Colorado River Delta

and farmers in the Mexicali Valley havebenefited from groundwater seepagefrom the All-American Canal.

The United States decision to replacesections of this earth-lined canal with aconcrete-lined channel to save anestimated 67,700 acre-feet per yearsparked a lawsuit in 2005. The lawsuit

was eventually decided in favor of theUnited States and the lining was allowedto proceed through the December 2006


11/12

FALL 2008 RIVER REPORT COLORADO RIVER PROJECT 11

congressional rider that also authorizedconstruction of the Drop 2 reservoir. Asdiscussed earlier, that project will reduce,if not eliminate, the excess flows from

canceled water orders.Although tension related to theseprojects remains, stakeholders on bothsides of the border are now looking for

ways to help Mexico improve its wateruse efficiency perhaps allowing Mexicoto store its water in Mead and formpartnerships to develop infrastructure toconserve water, increase supplies andrestore the environment. When the fourborder work groups were established inMarch, the IBWC said the groupsobjectives are to explore, identify and

ultimately implement water conserva-tion, shortage management, augmenta-tion and environmental initiatives withbinational benefits in the area ofenvironmental, agricultural and urban

water use.Patterson said water users in the

United States, particularly the LowerBasin states, are looking for partner-ships with Mexico for desalination,agricultural conservation and agricul-tural fallowing to help conserve water.He said the dialog through the IBWC

work groups is going well, but thatultimately, the process will require amore formal government-to-govern-ment negotiation.

There is concern among some thatthis could forestall the groups progress,especially given the pending change inthe U.S.s presidential administration

after the November election. Pitt saidall the participants are aware of thetime pressures. Im very optimistic.But were at the early stage and willneed to show some progress to keepparticipation, she said.

A key issue still to be addressedrelates to shortage conditions on theriver. The 1944 Treaty notes thatMexicos share of the river (1.5 millionacre-feet annually) will be reduced inthe event of extraordinary drought orserious accident to the irrigation system

in the United States. The term extraor-dinary drought has never been defined.

And while the interim guidelines signedlast December established guidelines fora shortage declaration for Arizona,California and Nevada, it did notinclude Mexico. Reclamations EIS saidthe determination of deliveries toMexico is not part of the proposedfederal action. Any such determination

would be made in accordance with the1944 Treaty. The State Departmentretains jurisdiction over this issue.

In its Terms of Reference LegalFramework for the Binational CoreGroup released in March, the IBWCemphasized that all joint cooperative

projects and measures must be consis-tent with the 1944 Treaty. Includedon the list of eight U.S. objectives forthis process is to implement manage-

ment procedures and programs thatbetter enable affected parties to manageshortage conditions. Mexicos list of11 items includes implement manage-ment procedures for shortage condi-tions.

Both countries also have a long list ofother measures designed to addresscurrent water needs for cities and farmsand the environment; evaluate efficiencyimprovements for water augmentation;determine the potential for developmentof new water; evaluate current and

future climate conditions; managesalinity, and discuss ways in which newdata can be exchanged and developed forresearch and investment programs.

Bill Rinne, director of surface waterresources for SNWA, said Nevada and

Arizona agreed to certain shortagenumbers in the seven-state process andthat they also expect Mexico to sharein any shortages. But he said the maingoal is to prevent and minimize theimpacts of shortage on the ColoradoRiver including Mexico and

identifying projects that providebinational benefits. Were working tofind projects we can rally behind,he said.

The Colorado River between Imperial and Morelos dams.


12/12

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

717 K Street, Suite 317Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6240Fax: (916) 448-7699

Internet: www.watereducation.org

Non-Profit Organization

U.S. PostageP A I D

Sacramento, CAPermit No. 430

C O N T R I B U T O R S F O R M

Please accept my contribution of:

$25 $50 $100 $250 Other $________

I would like to pledge $__________ Please invoice me: quarterly annually

Your Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Company/Organization: __________________________________________________________________________________

Mailing Address_________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone(_______)_________________________

Email _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Method of Payment: Check Credit Card Please send invoice

Credit Card Information: Visa MasterCard American Express

Card # _____________________________________________________________________________ Exp. Date__________

Signature ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Fully 83% of contributions to the Water Education Foundation go toward education programs.

Contributions to the Water Education Foundation and the Colorado River Project are tax-deductible to the fullest allowable by law.

Purchase Order Number

Fall 2008 River Report, Colorado River Project

Documents

Transcript of Fall 2008 River Report, Colorado River Project