Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

12
 Winter 2009-2010  A project o the W ater Education Foundation Balancing the Colorado River’s Ecosystem and Water Delivery Capability Continued on page 4 Te Colorado River has many uses –  water supply, power generation and recreational opportunities. At the same time, a renewed emphasis on endangered species, Indian water rights settlements and ecological restoration has created an era o investment that has increased the challenge o reconciling these many competing demands. Te attention devoted to reaching a critical balance o water supply reliabil- ity and ecosystem health has involved a small army o scientic, legal and policy experts – all intently ocused on a river system that is caught in a set o ongoing environmental issues as well as predicted changes in precipitation that look to disrupt the undamental assumptions o how much water will fow in the next 100 years. Te problems conronting users o the river and those charged with managing it are as varied as they are in some cases perplexing. Invasive species such as salt cedar have taken up perma- nent residence. But even as it robs the ecosystem o moisture and habitat or native vegetation, salt cedar does provide sanctuary or some birds and wildlie. Non-native sh species are problem- atic because o their predation on native sh. However, their absolute eradication “is not practical because they are well adapted to the current regulated riverine environment and they support a sport shery that helps support local econo- mies,” said John Hamill, chie o the By Gary Pitzer 

Transcript of Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

Page 1: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 1/12

 Winter 2009-2010

 A project o the Water Education Foundation

Balancing the Colorado River’s Ecosystem

and Water Delivery Capability

Continued on page 4 

Te Colorado River has many uses – water supply, power generation andrecreational opportunities. At the sametime, a renewed emphasis on endangered

species, Indian water rights settlementsand ecological restoration has createdan era o investment that has increasedthe challenge o reconciling these many competing demands.

Te attention devoted to reaching acritical balance o water supply reliabil-ity and ecosystem health has involved asmall army o scientic, legal and policy 

experts – all intently ocused on a riversystem that is caught in a set o ongoingenvironmental issues as well as predictedchanges in precipitation that look todisrupt the undamental assumptions o how much water will fow in the next100 years.

Te problems conronting userso the river and those charged withmanaging it are as varied as they are in

some cases perplexing. Invasive speciessuch as salt cedar have taken up perma-nent residence. But even as it robs theecosystem o moisture and habitat or

native vegetation, salt cedar does providesanctuary or some birds and wildlie.

Non-native sh species are problem-atic because o their predation on nativesh. However, their absolute eradication“is not practical because they are welladapted to the current regulated riverineenvironment and they support a sportshery that helps support local econo-mies,” said John Hamill, chie o the

By Gary Pitzer 

Page 2: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 2/12

S ince our frst Colorado River Symposium in 1997, this biennial,invitation-only event has reected the times on the river – marked in some years by tension among stakeholders and discussions betweeninterests in other years. We believe our symposia have played a role insome o the landmark river agreements reached over the last 12 years because we have brought people together on the dais and in private negotiations to share ideas on how to manage the river’s energy pro-duction, irrigation supplies and drinking water.

We held our most-recent symposium in September at the Bishop’s Lodge in Santa Fe – site o the 1922 compact negotiations. Panelists at the event, “Te Colorado River: Building a Sustainable Future,”spoke at length about the “relative peace” we now have on the river inthe wake o the 2007 Record o Decision, and how this time should be used to tackle some o the 21st century issues acing us: preparing 

 or climate change, managing the river or both water supplies and environmental protection, and reaching agreement with Mexico ontransboundary issues. Te recorded discussions on environmental issues helped Writer Gary Pitzer prepare this issue o River Report.

What will happen to ongoing discussions over such issues in the wake o the recent tentative court ruling over Caliornia’s QuantifcationSettlement Agreement (see page 10) remains to be seen. But one thing I do know is this: the Foundation will continue its commitment tolearning about the many issues and diverse viewpoints in the Basinand bring you inormation and analysis o these issues through our Colorado River Project, which includes River Report, our Lower 

Colorado River our and, o course, Western Water magazine. We look to you to provide us with your knowledge o these topics and thank  you or your support.

River Report is a project o the Water Education Foundation

EditorsRita Schmidt SudmanSue McClurg

 Writer

Gary Pitzer Editorial Assistant

Robin Richie Photos

Colorado River Recovery ProgramJe JonesU.S. Bureau o Reclamation,

Lower Colorado RegionWater Education Foundation

Graphics and LayoutCurt Leipold,Graphic Communications

Te Water Education Foundation thanksall the sources and experts who reviewedthis newsletter or balance and accuracy.

Te mission o the Water EducationFoundation, an impartial, nonprotorganization, is to create a better under-standing o water resources and osterpublic understanding and resolution o 

 water resource issues through acilitation,education and outreach.

 Water Education Foundation717 K Street, Suite 317Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 444-6240ax (916) [email protected]

 www.watereducation.org

PresidentWilliam R. Mills

Executive DirectorRita Schmidt Sudman

Colorado River Project Advisory MembersHamlet “Chips” Barry, Denver WaterMichael Cohen, Pacic InstituteGordon “Je” Fassett, HDR Engineering, Inc.Herb Guenther, Arizona Department o Water ResourcesGary Hansen, Colorado River Indian ribes

 Je Kightlinger, MWD o Southern CaliorniaDavid Lindgren, Downey Brand

 James Lochhead, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Estevan Lopez, New Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionPatricia Mulroy, Southern Nevada Water Authority Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission

 Jennier Pitt, Environmental Deense FundLester Snow, Caliornia Department o Water ResourcesMaureen Stapleton, San Diego County Water Authority Gary Weatherord, Caliornia Public Utilities Commission

Dear Readers 

2 • C R Pj • R R • W -

Page 3: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 3/12

Glen Canyon Dam Aces Check-Up By Reclamation

 W - • R R • C R Pj • 3

Lower Basin

Upper Basin

Te Southern Nevada Water Author-ity (SNWA) and the Nevada Division o Natural Resources are challenging to theNevada Supreme Court a lower courtruling that aulted plans to pump waterto Las Vegas rom a proposed pipelineacross eastern Nevada.

In an Oct. 15 ruling, Nevada DistrictCourt Judge Norman Robison wrote thata 2008 order by State Engineer racy aylor that would have cleared the way to bring as much as 6 billion gallons o groundwater annually to Las Vegas romrural parts o the state was an abuse o aylor’s discretion and that he urther-

 A recent inspection o Glen CanyonDam by the U.S. Bureau o Reclamation(Reclamation) revealed the 43-year-oldstructure can remain “a reliable keystone”o Colorado River storage, the agency said.

Following a survey o dierent partso the dam by divers the week o Nov. 16,Reclamation said trashracks were “not only in terric condition but also completely mussel-ree,” a reerence to the invasivequagga mussel that has been ound in Lake

Mead, Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu.Te rst day o inspections took place inthe reservoir side o the dam and primarily ocused on the intake structures.

 An examination o the spillways wascarried out because “the overall condi-tion and integrity o the tunnels were o particular interest so as to rearm theirpast repairs and continued unctional-ity,” Reclamation said. Te spillwaysconveyed incredible amounts o water in1983 – the wettest year on record sincethe construction o the dam. Spring andsummer infows to Lake Powell weremore than 100,000 cubic eet per second

(cs) at times. Because outfow could notmatch the magnitude o infow, bothspillways ended up releasing combinedrates ranging rom 20,000 to 50,000 cs.

Te high fow caused “signicant erosion”o concrete and even some sandstone,requiring maor repairs and tunnel modi-cations in 1984.

“Te spillway tunnels structuralsoundness proved to have remained at aquality level, and overall condition wasgood, considering the inherent debris and

 water leakage,” according to Reclamation.“Te true unctional test o actual spill-

 way operation will only come when water

and infow levels necessitate it, but at leastthis inspection conrms Glen CanyonDam is prepared as well as it can be orthat day’s arrival.” •

Groundwater Pumping Plan Tripped Up By Legal Rulingmore “acted arbitrarily, capriciously andoppressively.”

Las Vegas or 20 years has been plan-ning to pipe groundwater to augment itsstatic water supply, aiming or comple-tion o an approximately 300-mile pipe-line by 2019 i Lake Mead levels warrantinitiation o construction. Because theproect is designed as a resource alterna-tive i drought worsens, there is not aspecic completion year, according to theSNWA. Instead, the goal is to completeall necessary permitting so the proect is“shovel-ready” should Colorado Riverconditions warrant.

Opponents o the pipeline are con-cerned about the potential impacts onthe aquier. In July 2008, aylor grantedSNWA less than hal o the water it wasseeking while ordering it to develop amonitoring and mitigation programand to collect data or at least two yearsbeore exporting any water rom the area.

 According to Robison’s ruling, whilethe state usually requires “specic empiri-cal data” beore allowing groundwater tobe transerred out o a basin, aylor was“simply hoping or the best while com-mitting to undo his decision i the worstoccurs.” •

Mead Water Levels Hinge on Hoped-for Surplus in Lake Powell Water levels in Lake Mead, which have

dropped precipitously the past decade,could improve or worsen depending on

 whether the U.S. Bureau o Reclama-

tion (Reclamation) determines i surplusquantities are present in Lake Powell.

 As a result, by December 2010, LakeMead could rise by about 16 eet or dropto a level not seen since 1937. Te latest

two-year proection by Reclamationassumes that Lake Powell will be able torelease about 2.4 million acre-eet more

 water downstream than usual. Te largest

constructed reservoir in the United States,Lake Mead can store approximately 26million acre-eet o water.

I Lake Powell doesn’t reach what iscalled the “equalization mark,” Lake Mead

 will get 8.23 million acre-eet next year,about 770,000 acre-eet less than whatNevada, Arizona, Caliornia and Mexicoannually receive. According to reports,

there is about a 50 percent chance o thatoccurring. Te Las Vegas Valley receivesabout 90 percent o its drinking water romthe lake, and work is underway to completea third intake at a cost o $700 million. •

Page 4: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 4/12

Continued rom ront page 

F E A T U R E

U.S. Geological Survey’s Grand Canyon

Monitoring and Research Center. A legacy o industrial activity has letcostly cleanups such as uranium tail-ings that threaten water quality. Ongo-ing matters include the indeterminateimpacts on water quality rom emergingcontaminants such as pharmaceuticals,the status o the Yuma Desalting Plantand how ocials pursue multi-speciesrestoration.

 While that ensues, ocials arelooking to chart a course that includesas much current science as possible to

understand climate change and what itmeans or the lieblood o the Southwest.In September, the Department o theInterior announced its plans to addressthe impacts o climate change on naturalresources, including water. Shortly thereater the U.S. Bureau o Reclama-tion (Reclamation) unveiled its plans ora Basin water supply and demand study or the Colorado River.

Te study includes “state o the art”proections o uture water supply anddemand, an assessment o climate change

impacts, how existing water and power

operations will perorm with “changing water realities,” and how to best meet water supply needs while accommodat-ing the environment, Reclamation said

in a Sept. 18 release.Tat same day, a panel o speakersaddressed the subect o “Balancing theColorado River’s Ecosystem and WaterDelivery System” at the Water EducationFoundation’s biennial Colorado RiverSymposium in Santa Fe, N.M. Repre-senting environmental and ederal agency viewpoints, the panelists underscoredthe Basin’s shiting status quo and theneed to address the new paradigm in acoordinated ashion.

“Te lesson is the status quo is unsta-

ble,” said Peter Culp, a Phoenix attorney  who works on environmental, naturalresource and water issues, including the

 Yuma Desalting Plant. “For environ-mentalists there is not a lot o point inpreserving the status quo i it doesn’t leadto a healthy river. And or water usersthere is very little point in ghting topreserve the status quo i that won’t helpus ace the uture together.”

Evaluating the eects o river manage-ment on the natural environment is theocus o our maor science-based con-

servation programs developed to address

endangered Colorado River native shand other species – the Upper ColoradoRiver Endangered Fish Recovery Pro-gram, which began in 1988, the San Juan

River Basin Recovery ImplementationProgram, which began in 1992, the GlenCanyon Dam Adaptive ManagementProgram, which began in 1996 and theLower Colorado River Multi-SpeciesConservation Program, which began in2005.

“oday, these conservation eortsspan the entire length o the ColoradoRiver Basin and involve scores o stateand local and ederal agencies, Native

 American tribes, diverse stakeholder in-terests and have had, I think, an increas-

ingly important infuence on both watermanagement and conservation in theColorado River basins,” Hamill said. Henoted the programs “have many com-monalities including similar and overlap-ping goals and obectives,” but that “untilvery recently there had been no ormalopportunity or inormation exchange.”

 With that as an impetus, stakehold-ers met in Scottsdale, Ariz. in November2008 or a three-day Colorado RiverBasin Science and Resource ManagementSymposium, which emphasized coordi-

nation o activities linked to restorationo the river ecosystem.

 Attendees were unied by their in-volvement in collective eorts throughoutthe Basin to address native sh recovery,a process that includes land acquisition,fow releases rom reservoirs that are morein sync with natural variability, high-fow experiments rom Glen Canyon Daminto Grand Canyon National Park, non-native sh management, extensive hatch-ery operations designed to reintroduce orbolster native sh adversely impacted by the river’s development and research andmonitoring.

“Populations o native sh have re-sponded variably to this extensive sweepo recovery actions that have been imple-mented throughout the Basin, althoughnone has achieved any o the recovery goals that have been established,” Hamillsaid, summarizing key points given at the2008 symposium.

4 • C R Pj • R R • W -

Participants on the environmental issues panel at the Colorado

 River Symposium, L to R, Peter Culp, Squire Sanders & Dempsey;

 Jay Rhodes, Hunton & Williams: Ted Melis, USGS; John Swett,

 Reclamation; Kara Gillon, Defenders of Wildlife; and Taylor Hawes,

The Nature Conservancy.

Page 5: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 5/12

Beyond the sh recovery eorts lay the larger eorts to reconcile the many demands placed on the river with theenvironmental strain it’s under. aylor

Hawes, leader o Te Nature Conser-vancy’s Colorado River Program, saidthe convergence o environmental andresource management challenges haveput the river “on the verge o a crisis.”

“I we don’t gure out ways to coursecorrect we are going to be in a crisissimilar to what we’ve seen in [Calior-nia’s] Bay-Delta,” she said. “Tere will be12 to 15 million more people in the next30 years and we need to provide drink-ing water. Agriculture is threatened dueto the pressure to transer water to urban

use. Tere is a billion-dollar recreationaleconomy. I there is not water fowing inthose streams that economy is threat-ened.”

Hamill called climate change “one o the most compelling issues” in the Basinand “a signicant threat” that restorationprograms throughout the Basin mustcontend with. Regional models indicatea hotter, drier basin during the next cen-tury, with altered patterns o runo and

 water temperature. Te changes couldcause the river to lose 5 percent o its na-

tive sh species, said Kara Gillon, seniorsta attorney with Deenders o Wildlie.

“Considering [the Colorado River]has a small assemblage o native species,that’s a signicant impact,” she said. “Wecould see ‘heat stroke’ in our sh to thelevel o extinction.”

 While Reclamation is evaluatingthe impacts o climate change on watersupply, delivery and power operations,there is no parallel eort to evaluate theimpacts o prolonged drought on waterquality or the natural, cultural and recre-ation resources, Hamill said. “Tis kindo gap will make it dicult to assess theimplications o those changes to currentrecovery and conservation strategies,” hesaid.

Native sh also are threatened by non-native sh, which Hamill called“one o the most serious challenges” toachieving native sh goals or all restora-tion programs. According to Reclama-

tion, non-native shes are “the most con-sequential actor preventing persistenceand recovery o imperiled native shes inthe Southwest, and … it is now apparentthat presence o non-native shes cancelsany benets rom habitat protection andrestoration.”

Tis issue o River Report looks atsome o the issues associated with balanc-ing the Colorado River’s ecosystem andits water delivery system, based on the

comments o a panel assembled at theFoundation’s invitation-only ColoradoRiver Symposium. Te ull written pro-ceedings o the September 2009 coner-ence will be published in Spring 2010.

Seeking a SustainableRiver SystemOnce described as “too thick to drink,too thin to plow,” the Colorado Riverhas seen substantial development thathas brought water to araway places andenabled the Southwest to thrive as avibrant part o America. At the same time,the costs to the environment have been no

less substantial. Te damming and diver-sion o the natural river system has hadconsequences intended and unintended,something that years o environmental

laws have sought to rectiy.“Tere are certainly places in theColorado River Basin where water andpower providers have changed theiroperations to make accommodation orenvironmental concerns,” said JennierPitt, senior resource analyst with theEnvironmental Deense Fund. ”But ustabout all the Colorado River inrastruc-ture was built beore our modern envi-ronmental laws were on the books, so asthose proects were built all the ‘giving’

 was on the part o the environment,

 while the ‘taking’ was done by those whodeveloped the resource.”

 Ater many years o river operationsdesigned to maximize water supply reli-ability and hydropower generation, thetide began to turn in the 1980s as agen-cies and stakeholder interests combinedto pursue modications designed toprovide or the well-being o endangeredspecies.

“Te evolution o and amendmentsto operating criteria and the alterationo water supply and power generation

activities to accommodate environmen-tal concerns demonstrate a signicant

 W - • R R • C R Pj • 5

“There are certainly places in

the Colorado River Basin where

water and power providers

have changed their operations

to make accommodation for 

environmental concerns.”  – Jennifer Pitt,

Environmental Defense Fund 

 A Northern Pike and a Colorado

Pikeminnow it was eating. Non-

native species like the Northern

Pike are threatening several 

native species.

Page 6: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 6/12

southern Arizona, Hamill said. Unor-tunately, the use o instream barriersto prevent upstream migration “is nottechnically or politically easible in large

rivers.”Hawes said stakeholders “need toembrace the concept o adaptive manage-ment using sound science to determine

 whether we are hurting or helping thesituation and adapting as necessary.” It isalso important that sustainable undingsources be developed because “integrated

 water management is not going to be in-expensive but it is going to be critical toour uture.” As such, she cited potentialsources such as ees on water bills thatbetter refect “the true cost o water” as

 well as the needs o the environment.

Creating New Habitats:The MSCPOn the Lower Colorado River, meetingenvironmental needs took a big step in2005 with the Multi-Species Conserva-tion Program (MSCP), a 50-year, $626million commitment to protect the LowerColorado River environment while ensur-ing the certainty o existing river waterand power operations. Te MSCP strivesto protect 26 covered species and theirhabitat in the Lower Basin, including sixederally listed endangered and threatenedspecies. Te MSCP also is intended to re-duce the likelihood that additional species

 will be listed as threatened or endangeredduring the lie o the program.

Te stated goal in the MSCP HabitatConservation Plan is “work toward therecovery” o threatened and endangeredspecies and also reducing the likelihoodo additional listings, said John Swett,

 who manages the program or Reclama-

tion. At the same time, current water andpower production is being accommodat-ed. “We are optimizing uture water andpower production. It’s a stated goal,” hesaid. “We are not ignoring the act thatas the population increases, we are goingto have to deal with this.”

Beginning in 1996, ocials began theramework o the MSCP, which has thegoal o creating more than 8,100 acreso riparian, marsh and backwater habitat

commitment to the environment,”said Robert Lynch, assistant secretary-treasurer o the Irrigation and ElectricalDistricts Association o Arizona.

 Whatever dierences stakeholdersmay have, “it’s probably sae to say we all want a sustainable river system … that will provide or the needs o humans andthe environment or uture generations,”Hawes said. Te lack o an integratedapproach “has led to winners and losersin the Basin, conficts, uncertainty, losso species, water shortages and increasingrisk [and] sacricing one use or the sakeo the other has rarely worked out in thelong run.”

Hawes said ocials need to explore

solutions such as water banking, possibly in the Upper Basin as a way to solvethe needs o water managers and theenvironment. She stressed that environ-mental fow needs should be includedin the planning process “and not be anaterthought.”

“We need to explore scenario plan-ning at a basinwide scale so we ully understand the tradeos as we plan orour children and grandchildren,” Hawessaid. “We can’t have it all. I think we allrecognize that. It is about tradeos …

 we can’t save every place and have every demand met.”

Numbers o endangered Coloradopikeminnow increased in the ColoradoRiver rom 1992 through 2005. Al-though numbers o Colorado pikemin-now decreased in the Green River rom2000 to 2003, preliminary inormationrom 2006 to 2008 shows numbers areincreasing. Humpback chub, also endan-gered, are declining in the Yampa River,

remain stable in the upper ColoradoRiver and, ater a decade o decline, haveincreased by 50 percent in the GrandCanyon, Hamill said.

Te conundrum o protecting andrestoring native sh has prompted someto conclude that segregating native romnon-native sh “is the only viable tactic”to save threatened native sh. Tis isbeing done in some headwater streamsin the Gila River Basin, which starts insouthwest New Mexico and meets theColorado near Yuma, draining most o 

6 • C R Pj • R R • W -

“We need to explore scenario

planning at a basinwide scale so

we fully understand the trad-

eoffs as we plan for our children

and grandchildren.”  – Taylor Hawes,

The Nature Conservancy 

The Imperial Ponds habitat 

dedication Nov. 5, 2007 marked 

completion of the rst MSCP

backwater habitat restora-

tion project along the lower

Colorado River.

Page 7: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 7/12

or our listed species and 16 other spe-cies native to the Lower Colorado River.Swett said the need or environmentalcompliance in Colorado River opera-

tions, along with the need or certainty in the context o the increasing watersupply impacts o Endangered Species

 Act (ESA) regulations, convinced wateragencies to oin in the MSCP process.

 With that in mind, a decade o plan-ning unolded to provide the parameterso ust what species preservation wouldlook like. Te process was ar rom easy.“Tose 10 years … were denitely chal-lenging,” Swett said. “Tere were times

 we weren’t sure the MSCP would come toruition.”

But perseverance paid o, leading toa multi-stakeholder, ederal/non-ederalpartnership that seeks to balance use o the river in compliance with the ESA –“the driver o the program.”

Lynch said the MSCP is designed toprovide mitigation and enhancement o the river corridor below Hoover Damto the Mexican border “and, by treatingthe entire area holistically, improve thehabitat or endangered and other species

 while allowing the Basin states and their water and power users to continue to

benet rom those resources.”Te MSCP’s habitat conservation

includes some ambitious goals. “We haveover 1.2 million native sh that we haveto stock back into the Lower ColoradoRiver. We have over 8,100 acres o ripari-an marsh and backwater habitats we haveto create or these covered species,” Swettsaid. “And we are creating new habitats.

 We are not enhancing existing, we arenot restoring; we are creating new.”

O course, starting habitat romscratch can be a challenge. Swett said inthe early 1990s it took two weeks to plantseven acres o trees – a laborious task o digging 700 holes by hand. In the ourthyear o the MSCP, more than 1 milliontrees have been planted and more than3,300 acres o land plus water have beensecured. More than 107,000 native shhave been stocked into the system. Teresults o the MSCP’s work are cominginto view.

 W - • R R • C R Pj • 7

“Anytime you see a big bunch o trees[on the river], they’re ours,” he said. “It’sbecoming a big dierence and a notice-able dierence.”

“Being the ourth and most recent o the river programs, we eel we are a littlemore evolutionarily advanced rom theother ones; we weren’t so ‘sh-centric,’

 we were looking at a more ecosystemapproach,” he said.

Challenges remain, including theimpact o climate change on uture watersupplies. “You can’t do passive restora-tion in most o the Colorado River,”Swett said. “It’s an active restorationprogram and it requires water to man-age it through the 50 years.” Tere also

are practical considerations, such as thedesire to separate native rom non-nativesh, which is controversial because o theassociated impacts on the sport shingeconomy.

Changing Climate,Changing Needs

 While climate change “presents opportu-nities and challenges” to the environmentand those dependent on the ColoradoRiver, the depth o ocus is lacking inassessing its impacts within the river basin,Gillon said.

“We need to see a conversationbetween water managers and naturalresource managers when it comes toadapting to climate change,” she said.“Te strategies or adapting to and in-creasing our resilience to climate changeor ecosystems and or our river inra-structure could be complementary andit’s increasingly important that they notbe at odds.”

Climate change “adds an incredible

uncertainty to the mix,” with predictedfow reductions ranging rom 5 percentto 30 percent. “We know it is coming,

 we ust don’t when,” Hawes said. “Wedon’t know what it’s going to look like.”

Gillon said it’s important or everyoneto recognize that reliable water suppliesand resilient food protection dependupon ecosystem sustainability.

She quoted rom Caliornia’s dratclimate change adaptation study as an

example. “Building adaptive capacity or both public saety and ecosystemrequires that water and food manage-ment proects maintain and enhance

biological diversity and natural ecosystemprocesses,” she read. “Water supply andfood management systems are signi-cantly more sustainable and economicalover time when they preserve, enhanceand restore ecosystem unctions, thereby creating integrated systems that su-er less damage rom and recover morequickly ater severe natural disruptions.Tat’s the sort o thinking we need to see

 when we talk about climate change.”Gillon said she hopes Reclamation’s

new Colorado River Basin study will

include strategies and alternatives torestore resiliency in natural ecosystemprocesses as they assess the imbalancesthat climate change will cause. “Moresustainable” storage and modied damoperations “are things we will need tolook at as climate change changes how our reservoirs currently work,” she said.

Reclamation Commissioner MikeConnor said the basin studies “are ourrst step down the path” o implement-ing the provisions in the Secure Water

 Act having to do with the Climate

Change Adaptation Program and that“next year we’re certainly going to belooking to bolster our scientic expertisein this area.”

“Te modeling is getting morein-depth,” he said at the ColoradoRiver Symposium. “Te risk assessmentactivities are getting more complicatedand we’re going to start to build ourcapability to not only address that withinReclamation, but as we partner withother ederal agencies as well as states andlocal entities in trying to get our armsaround this problem.”

Explaining Cause and EffectOn March 5, 2008 a surge o water wasreleased into the Colorado River romGlen Canyon Dam – about 41,500 cubiceet per second or about 60 hours. Teexperiment, the latest in a series, aimedto stir up and redistribute sediment toenlarge existing beaches and sandbars,

Page 8: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 8/12

 create new ones and distribute sedimentinto drainage channels.

Te high-fow experiments, which were unheard o 20 years ago, began with

regularity in the mid-1990s at Glen Can-yon. What remains elusive is a denitiveaccount o the eects the pulse fow haveon the river system below the dam. edMelis, deputy chie o the Grand CanyonMonitoring and Research Center, saidthe challenge is to move beyond theintuitive assumption that the mimickedfood must inherently benet the GrandCanyon river corridor.

“Te dilemma scientists have is know-ing some treatment might be availableand it might be eective but we can’t

explain the cause and eect at least toeach other so we don’t eel compelled toadvocate it as an eective treatment or

 whatever the malady is,” he said.High-fow experiments have occurred

on other rivers – seven years on theSan Juan and ve on the Green – whilescientists seek to clariy what it is they hope to achieve and how those goals areattainted. “Are [high fows] achieving thedesired restoration obectives? Maybethey are, maybe they aren’t,” Melis said.“Science has to explain why or why not

and it becomes a dilemma to convey thatinormation back to water managers whohave to balance action with knowledge.”

 While decisions should be based onthe best available science, “we also needto err on the side o caution, because thesocial and environmental consequenceso ailing are too great,” Hawes said. “Wehave to be proactive to ensure survival o these species and it will mean operatingour reservoirs in a way that balances theenvironmental and human needs.”

Scientists with the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program arelooking to rene the high-fow experi-ments, which include gathering inorma-tion rom the other Basin restorationprograms, including the degree to whichfow experiments have been reported andconveyed to water managers, Melis said.He said he hopes experts will continueto share inormation on a large scale.“We want to share what we have learned

about the fow experiments,” he said. “I they are not working, we need to explain

 why and what the other alternatives

might be i the fows don’t meet thoseobectives or trying to get the restorationaccomplished.”

Tere are “many questions” aboutthe ecology below Glen Canyon Dam,including the impacts o the dam “ustbeing there vs. the way it is operated”and to what extent mitigation measurescan or need to be employed, Lynchsaid. Because the “relative value” o thefood fow experiments is still beingdetermined, “what we have, in act, is a27-year learning curve that is still being

developed.”

Getting Beyond NarrowPositions: The YDP and theCiénegaGiven the stretched water supplies o theColorado River, the saga o the YumaDesalting Plant (YDP) and the Ciénegade Santa Clara is a vivid example o allthings related to the struggle to pro-

vide water or people while preserving asignicant environmental asset. Createdaccidentally through the disposal o 

agricultural runo, the Ciénega de SantaClara is 40,000 acres o precious wetlandhabitat in what used to be a vast ColoradoRiver Delta in Mexico.

Te Ciénega is home to thousands o migratory and resident birds and is animportant resting and eeding groundalong the Pacic Flyway, the north-southroute migratory birds ollow rom Alaskato South America. Triving as it has witha steady source o water, the Ciénega hasbeen part o the controversy regardingthe obligation to provide Mexico with

higher-quality water, a process that re-sulted in the YDP’s development to treatbrackish agricultural return fows rom

 Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drain-age District and return them to the river.

Operating minimally since its incep-tion, the YDP remains a divisive issue. Ithas generated no small amount o atten-tion but at the same time has opened anunprecedented level o dialogue between

8 • C R Pj • R R • W -

Four open jet tubes at Glen

Canyon Dam during the 2008

high-ow experiment.

Page 9: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 9/12

 January 27-29 52ndColoradoWaterCongressAnnualConvention

Denver, CO • Contact: 303-837-0812  web: http://www.cowatercongress.org/AnnualConvention

February 18-19 NationalSalinitySummit 

Sponsored by Multi-State Salinity Coalition, Las Vegas, NV Contact: Donna Bloom, 775-626-6389, email: [email protected]

  web: http://multi-statesalinitycoalition.com/#2010AG

25-26 15thInternationalWaterConservationandXeriscapeConerenceSponsored by Xeriscape Council o New Mexico, Albuquerque, NMContact: 505-468-1021, web: http://www.xeriscapenm.com/xeriscape_conerences/2010/index.php

March 2-4 AnnualConerence, sponsored by Nevada Water Resources AssociationLas Vegas, NV • Contact: 775-473-5473, web: http://www.nvwra.org/events.asp#2010NWRA 

10-12 WaterEducationFoundation’sLowerColoradoRiverTourLas Vegas, NV • Contact Diana Farmer, 916-444-6240email: [email protected], web: http://www.waterducation.org/tours

18-19 NevadaWaterLaw Sponsored by CLE International, Reno, NV Contact: 800-873-7130, web: http://www.cle.com/product.php?proid=1188&page=Nevada_Water_Law 

25-26 WaterEducationFoundation’sAnnualExecutiveBriefng Sacramento, CA • Contact: Diana Farmer, 916-444-6240email: [email protected],

  web: http://www.watereducation.org/conerences

April 5-8 AnnualConerence, sponsored by New Mexico Rural Water Association

 Albuquerque, NM • Contact: 505-884-1031, web: http://www.nmrwa.org/2010conerence.php

May 13-14 LawotheColoradoRiver

Sponsored by CLE International, Reno, NV Contact: 800-873-7130, web: http://www.cle.com/product.php?proid=1196&page=Law_o_the_Colorado_River

 June 27-29 WesternGovernorsAssociationAnnualMeeting 

 Whitesh, M • web: http://www.westgov.org

 

Contact Sue McClurg with your calendar items rom July 2010 through December 2010  or inclusion in the Summer issue o River Report, [email protected] or 717 K Street, Suite 317, Sacramento, CA 95814 

 W - • R R • C R Pj • 9

ocials and nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs) about meeting water sup-ply needs and obligations while keepingthe Ciénega the vital ecological preserve

it is. Te issue has required more thanits share o creative thinking because theUnited States is not obligated under theU.S.-Mexico treaty to provide water tosupport the Ciénega ecosystem.

Culp, the Phoenix attorney who has witnessed all the whys and whereoreso the issue, said the YDP “highlights

 why we need to keep thinking biggerand broader about the river system andmaybe some o the opportunities thatcome out o doing that.”

While that process unolds, Culp said

it and other realities acing the Upperand Lower Basin states illustrate why it istime to think about the river and its usesin a dierent manner. “Te lessons thatcame out o YDP and the whole Basinstates experience with the shortage guide-lines is recognition at the basic level thatthe status quo is unstable and it may noteven be desirable,” he said. “Te Ciénega,

 while it couldn’t be ignored as a resource,is not a resource that could survive inthe long run on its current water supply,

 which is eventually going away. It was

created by accident so it probably couldbe managed better.”

Te quandary o the Ciénega’s atehas brought the recognition it “is a very small part o a big and very growingissue,” namely how to operate a river sys-tem in the uture in the ace o so muchuncertainty.

“We are acing a much broader seto water supply challenges and envi-ronmental problems both inside theU.S. and with Mexico that have ustmade preserving people’s legal posi-tions somewhat untenable,” Culp said.“Whether we are looking at the risk o shortage, population growth or environ-mental needs, we’ve got to begin to think dierently. We have to get beyond zerosum outcomes and look or fexibility,look or practical solutions, think moreholistically, try and view problems as parto a broader picture and begin thinkinglonger term.”

Page 10: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 10/1210 • C R Pj • R R • W -

F R O M T H E H E A D L I N E S

Judge’s Ruling Jolts Basis o QuantifcationSettlement Agreement

 A Sacramento Superior Court udgehas tentatively ruled the state’s agreement

to pay or Salton Sea environmental miti-gation costs under a historic ColoradoRiver transer agreement is a constitu-tionally invalid ununded mandate – adevelopment that has interested partiespondering the uture o shared water use.

 Judge Roland Candee’s tentative rulingDec. 10 said the 2003 QuanticationSettlement Agreement (QSA) was incon-sistent with state law, which prohibits theincurrence o debt more than $300,000

 without appropriation o the Legislature.I the ruling stands, it would invalidatethe oint powers authority agreementthat was entered into by the ederalgovernment, the Imperial IrrigationDistrict (IID), the Coachella Valley WaterDistrict, the Metropolitan Water Districto Southern Caliornia and the San DiegoCounty Water Authority (SDCWA).Candee made no urther decisions Dec.17 ater a two-hour hearing. It is unclear

 when he will issue a nal ruling.Te decision will not have an im-

mediate impact as appeals are expected to

take years in the state and ederal courtsystem. “It’s way too premature to pushthe panic button,” Dennis Cushman,assistant general manager o the SanDiego County Water Authority, told theSan Diego Union-ribune .

Nevertheless, the QSA is viewed asthe oundation or many o the subse-quent multi-state/ederal agreementsrelated to managing the Colorado Riverin times o surplus and shortage, and

the other Colorado River Basin statesare closely watching. “[Te ruling] ust

causes so much uncertainty and it desta-bilizes everything at a time when havingstability among the states is critically important,” Pat Mulroy, general managero the Southern Nevada Water Authority told the Associated Press.

News o the tentative ruling cameduring the annual Colorado River WaterUsers Association conerence. “Reclama-tion has valid and binding agreements

 with Caliornia agencies and plans tostand by those agreements,” U.S. Bureauo Reclamation Commissioner MikeConnor said at the conerence.

Te QSA quantied how much o the state’s annual 4.4 million acre-eet o Colorado River water was available orthe our Caliornia water districts, makingpossible water transers among them, in-cluding a 35-year transer (with potentialextensions to 75 years) o water rom IIDto SDCWA. Te QSA also commits thestate to a restoration path or the environ-mentally sensitive Salton Sea and providesull mitigation or these water supply 

programs. Restoring the state’s largest lake was a crucial piece o the agreement.Candee ruled the state improperly 

agreed to pick up much o the cost o saving the shrinking Salton Sea in thesoutheastern Caliornia desert. Te stateput no limit on costs, “even i they ulti-mately amounted to millions or billionso dollars,” he wrote. “Te Court hasno ability to sanction a way to contractaround the Constitution.”

Under the QSA, the state committedto pay mitigation costs that exceed $133million. Candee’s ruling compared thatto a “blank check.”

 According to news reports, IID will meet with the other QSA partiesto discuss how to deal with paying orSalton Sea mitigation, including possibleunding rom the Legislature to mitigateimpacts to the Salton Sea caused by the

 water transer.“Among the options the board will

be considering are direct talks with the

other parties and the state to address any deciencies in the Salton Sea mitiga-tion unding mechanism and obtaininga continuing appropriation rom theLegislature or impacts to the SaltonSea caused by the water transer,” IIDGeneral Manager Brian Brady said in astatement.

For those amiliar with the case, theruling was unanticipated, although thelegal theory (and its possible challenge)regarding the responsibility or SaltonSea restoration always existed. Becausethe Salton Sea is such a critical piece o any water-sharing agreement, sourcessaid the court ruling poses a direct threatto the peace unless all the involvedparties can preserve their position whilending a unding source or the SaltonSea.

“Te constraint on IID is that i they don’t transer they ace the … threat o reduction which spurred them in the rstinstance,” said a source amiliar with thecase. “Te QSA is critical or SDCWA so

it may try to corral everyone not to break away.”In a separate lawsuit led in ederal

court Oct. 9, Imperial County and theImperial County Air Pollution ControlDistrict Imperial are challenging thelegality o the QSA based on possibleadverse impact on air quality as dust isstirred up rom the exposed Salton Seabed. •

 – Gary Pitzer

 A tentative court ruling has raised questions about how much the

state can spend to mitigate water transfer effects on the Salton Sea.

Page 11: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 11/12

 W - • R R • C R Pj • 11

 An example o that burgeoningrelationship occurred with the initialcommitment by U.S. and Mexicanocials, plus NGOs, to provide replace-

ment water to the Ciénega during timesthe YDP is operated. “Te signicance o that agreement is … the commitment it-sel in which each o our countries oundsome value in making a commitment tothe other,” Culp said. “It is important[the Ciénega] was recognized as havingsignicance beyond a legal argument and

 which had to be addressed through athoughtul binational discussion.”

Culp said the YDP agreement couldserve as a template or similar resolutions.“o me, the most basic lesson is that you

had a group o people who it seemedcould never get along with each other,but by virtue o taking time to sit downand share inormation and perspectivesand begin building relationships andtrust … with a common goal … thatprocess I think is indenable but it pro-duces results,” he said. “Te relationshipsthat were ormed there ended up beingmore important than the outcome itsel.”

Making the Leap TogetherManaging the Colorado River’s uses or

the next century is not likely to be based onany blueprint developed since the ColoradoRiver Compact was signed in 1922. Forthis reason, it is necessary to chart a coursethat recognizes the evolutionary processthat has occurred since the river’s most sig-nicant development and how that impactshow adaptations are made.

“Rather than trying to answer thequestion about who has ‘given’ more,it may be more useul to ask i today 

 we have a unctioning Colorado Riverecosystem, and i we have sustainableconditions or the species that dependon this resource,” Pitt said. “I’d say insome parts o the watershed the speciesand their habitat are doing all right, butin many, perhaps most, reaches there areserious problems. Te act o the matteris that i we want a unctioning riverecosystem, and we don’t want to drivethe species that depend on it to extinc-tion, we will need to make additional

changes, including habitat restoration,and, in some cases, operational changesto improve environmental fows.”

 A “common challenge” to all the res-

toration programs is to assess the overalleectiveness o actions taken to preserveand bolster sh populations, said Hamill

 with USGS. “Te act that multipleactions are being implemented simul-taneously in combination with naturalvariability in the ecosystem and the longtime it takes or native species to show improvement makes it extremely dicultto evaluate the success o any individualexperimental or management action.”

 As such, monitoring is “critical” todetermine the degree to which success

occurs. “Te importance o monitor-ing cannot be overstated yet historically it has not been included consistently in restoration programs,” Hamill said.“Oten it is done qualitatively or anec-dotally and not sustained or a sucienttime or intensity to adequately track resource conditions.”

Development o an overarching sci-ence authority or the Colorado RiverBasin would “promote a more eectivebalancing between environmental and

 water supply obectives” and would allow 

or setting basin-wide priorities.“Some would say this goes beyond the

compliance requirements o the ESA orGrand Canyon Protection Act,” he said.“Tat may be true but I believe it willlead to what is needed: a more sustain-able and eective science-based conserva-tion eort throughout the Basin.”

Swett said the subect o consolidat-ing Colorado River restoration programshas been raised, but that it is unlikely aunied program would be ormed. “Eachindividual area has a dierent story totell … so one solution … doesn’t alwaysoverarch the entire river system. It’s avery long river and it changes reach toreach.”

Planning strategies need to be fexibleenough to account or the variability o a changing climate and should not

 wait to take their cues rom the ederalgovernment, Gillon said, adding thatmany states and municipalities already 

are exploring what kind o fexibility isneeded or adaptation. On the ColoradoRiver, she said, there needs to be a dis-cussion o how climate change will aect

the many resource issues.“I haven’t heard i anyone is lookingat how climate change will impact theecosystem, food control, recreation,clean water, cultural resources – even usta sense o place and quality o lie,” shesaid. “I we begin that discussion now 

 we can make that leap together and besimilarly vested in what happens.”

 While not supportive o mergingthe our restoration programs, given themany extenuating circumstances such asbudgetary limitations and the basin-wide

impacts o invasive species and climatechange, Hamill said “it is time to con-sider developing a broader ramework toguide overall eorts.”

Such an approach, which wouldinclude an independent science orga-nization, “would be useul in establish-ing undamental science practices toguide restoration eorts throughout theBasin,” he said, “conduct regional scaleanalyses and assessments o the status o important resources, establish indices o ecosystem health and develop the neces-

sary data to inorm those indices andserve as a clearinghouse or reports andprovide inormation on the best availablemanagement practices.”

But there is concern that those whomanage the water system throughout theColorado River Basin will be asked tosomehow compensate or the anticipatedloss o precipitation that comes withclimate change. Te Nature Conservan-cy’s Hawes, who was previously counselto the Colorado River Water Conserva-tion District, said “we all have to givea little bit to make this work,” whichacilitates confict resolution and movesnegotiations orward.

“It’s not going to be one interestgroup’s ox that’s gored,” she said. “We allhave to provide water and I think thereare some things like water banking thatcan use those reservoirs to provide eco-logical needs but it’s not going to come

 ust rom water providers.” •

Page 12: Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

8/3/2019 Winter 2009 River Report, Colorado River Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/winter-2009-river-report-colorado-river-project 12/12

❏ $35 yearly subscription to River Report 

Please accept my additional contribution to the Colorado River Project:❏ $50 ❏ $100 ❏ $250 ❏ Other $________

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

 Your Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Company/Organization: __________________________________________________________________________________

Mailing Address _________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone(_______)_________________________

Email _________________________________________________________________________________________________

MethodoPayment:  ❏ Check  ❏ Credit Card ❏ Please send invoice

CreditCardInormation:  ❏ 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

C O N R I B U O R’ S F O R M

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

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

Non-Prot OrganizationU.S. PostagePAID

Sacramento, CA Permit No. 430