Study of Long-Term Augmentation Options for the Water Supply of the Colorado River System

The Seven Colorado River Basin States

Helping to provide a clear vision of water augmentation in the Colorado River Basin

March 2008 Colorado River Water Consultants CH2MHILL · BLACK & VEATCH CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Technical Committee 1 Purpose of Study Kay Brothers, Nevada 1 Introduction Larry Dozier, Arizona Robert King, Utah 2 A Shared Resource Rod Kuharich, Colorado 4 Cooperative Solutions Jan Matusak, California 6 Long-Term Options Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission Randy Seaholm, Colorado 8 Brackish Water Desalination John Shields, Wyoming 9 Coalbed Methane Produced John Whipple, New Mexico Water Jerry Zimmerman, California

10 Conjunctive Use CRWC Management Team Les Lampe 11 Ocean Water Desalination Ted Way Sean Goldwasser 12 A Wide Range of Gregg Thompson Opportunities Melissa Blanton 14 Power Plant - Reduction of Consumptive Use

15 Reservoir Evaporation Control

16 River Basin Imports

17 Stormwater Storage

18 Vegetation Management

19 Water Imports Using Ocean Routes

20 Water Reuse

21 Weather Modification

22 Summary

23 Colorado River Water Consultants Staff

24 Where To Find Out More

Seven Colorado River Basin States Purpose of Study

The Seven Colorado River Basin (CRWC) to provide a Technical augmentation of the Colorado States of Arizona, California, Col- Evaluation of Options for Long- River. Augmentation strategies orado, Nevada, New Mexico, Term Augmentation of the selected will be carried forward in Utah, and Wyoming (Seven States) Colorado River System (Study). coordination with the U.S. Bureau are implementing a proactive Twelve potential options were of Reclamation (Bureau) and others program to meet the needs of water evaluated in terms of water quality, as appropriate. The Seven Colorado users within the Colorado River technical feasibility, reliability, River Basin States recognize that Basin (Basin) and to provide con- environmental factors, and permit- there will be many challenges tinued stewardship of the Colorado ting considerations. involved with advancing alterna- River. As part of this program, the tives and are willing to consider The Seven States will use the infor- Seven States authorized the Col- partnerships beneficial to all. mation from this study in orado River Water Consultants evaluating long-term strategies for Introduction

Drought conditions in the Colorado by the Seven States and others to The major portion of this report River watershed have demonstrated meet the needs of water users describes the Study methodology the need for development of long- within the Basin and to provide and findings. Supporting documents range measures to manage the continued stewardship of the Col- in the form of White Papers were system as well as implement orado River. prepared for 12 potential long-term options to augment the flow of the options. Options were evaluated This report briefly traces the history River. This is further supported by against parameters related to water of the River and discusses the legal data from reconstructed streamflow quality, technical implementation, framework which provides protec- of the Colorado River and the environmental considerations, per- tions for the Seven States, Indian potential impacts to water supplies mitting, relative costs and projected Tribes within the Basin, and in the Basin that may happen if water yield. Through a review Mexico. Ongoing programs are also climate change and global warming process it was determined that six of described, including activities of the occur as presently predicted. The the options should be evaluated in U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Study is part of multi-faceted more detail at the Technical Memo- cooperative programs within and proactive efforts being implemented randum (TM) level. among the Seven States.

Interactive Process Evaluated Technical Features of Potential Long-Term Water Augmentation Options Coalbed Methane Adequately Reservoir Evaporation Control Described Water Imports Using Ocean Routes Review Published Information Technical Brackish Water Desalination Identify Assessment More Prepare Technical Conjunctive Use Initial Options and of Options Information White Committee Ocean Water Desalination Evaluation Including Needed Papers Workshop River Basin Imports Meetings Parameters Expert Panel (TMs) with Seven Review Stormwater Storage States and USBR to Collect Additional Part of Power Plant – Reduction of Information States’ Consumptive Use Planning Weather Modification Efforts Water Reuse Vegetation Management

Jun. 01, Sep.15, Oct. 1, Oct. 15, Mar. 15, 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007

1 A Shared Resource

For millions of years, the Col- The first development of the River Colorado River Million Acre- orado River has flowed from the has been traced to 600 AD, when Consumptive Feet/Year Rocky Mountains into the Gulf of the Anasazi Indians developed a Use Allocations (MAFY) California. Over eons, the River distribution system in Chaco California 4.4 cut a channel which became the Canyon in northwestern New Colorado 3.9 Grand Canyon, considered one of Mexico. Spanish explorers arrived the Seven Natural Wonders of the in the mid-16th century, followed Arizona 2.85 World. by religious settlers in the mid- Utah 1.7 1800s. In 1867, Congress The River begins as snowmelt in Wyoming 1.0 authorized $50,000 for construc- the Rocky Mountains. The tion of an irrigation canal on the New Mexico 0.85 snowmelt travels through a series Colorado River Indian Reserva- of tributaries into the River, which Nevada 0.3 tion, the first federally-funded winds its way south for 1,400 Mexico 1.5 irrigation project in the U.S. Two miles. The River drains 241,900 years later, John Wesley Powell led Total 16.5 MAFY square miles, with total annual a three-boat expedition that natural flows at Lees Ferry histori- explored the River through the cally ranging from 5.5 million Grand Canyon. acre-feet (MAF) to over 25 million acre-feet from 1906 through 2006.

Long-Term Natural Flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona Is Lower than Runoff Assumed for Compact 30 30 RUNNING AVERAGE 10-YEAR AVERAGE 25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10 ANNUAL FLOWANNUAL Acre-feet) (Million 5 5

0 0 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 YEARS USBR Final EIS, Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin 1996 through 2005: Provisional data, subject to change. Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

2 Large-scale diversions from the studies of tree rings and hydrologic The ever-evolving Law of the River began at the outset of the data have shown that the River has River is a combination of interstate 20th century. Because of the com- been drier and more prone to compacts, U.S. Supreme Court peting demands on the River, it has severe drought than was the case in decrees, a treaty between the the most complete allocation of its the early 20th century. The year United States and Mexico, federal water resources of any river in the 2000 ushered in a major drought and state legislation, and associ- world and is also one of the most that has exacerbated pressures ated contracts and agreements. heavily regulated. created by the needs of a rapidly- Key components include: expanding population. The River • Colorado River Compact A key component of the “Law of now supplies water to over 35 (1922). Divided the River into the River” is the Colorado River million people and over two the Upper and Lower Basin at Compact, approved in 1922. The Lees Ferry, Arizona. Allocated million acres of irrigated land. agreement apportioned consump- use of 7.5 MAFY to both the tive use of water between the Another complicating factor is Upper and Lower Basins to Upper and Lower Basin States. The climate change. Temperature- apportion among themselves. Upper and Lower Basins were each related effects on stream flows • Boulder Canyon Project Act apportioned 7.5 MAF for annual could include increased rain to (Introduced 1922, enacted in consumptive use. A 1944 treaty snow ratios, increased winter 1928). Authorized the with Mexico guarantees an annual runoff/decreased summer runoff, construction of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, the largest reservoir flow of not less than 1.5 MAF, and earlier and faster snowmelt. A on the River system. Authorized except in times of extraordinary recent University of Washington Arizona, California, and Nevada drought or serious accident to the report found that the Basin may be to enter into an agreement irrigation systems in the United “especially susceptible to reduced apportioning, respectively, 2.8 States. Rarely since the signing of stream flow volumes” due to the MAF, 4.4 MAF, and 0.3 MAF the Compact has the River had a almost complete allocation of con- annually to these states. 10-year average natural flow equal sumptive uses. • U.S. Treaty with Mexico (1944). to these allocations, which indi- Allotted 1.5 MAFY to Mexico. Predictions of precipitation cates the importance of reservoir change, especially over the interior • Colorado River Storage Act storage and the need for augmenta- (1956). Paved the way for of the continent (e.g. Colorado tion of the basin water supplies. construction of Glen Canyon River Basin) span the entire range Dam forming Lake Powell, the In the past decade, it has been from substantial (greater than 20 second major reservoir on the determined that the base flow used percent on annual average) mainstem of the Colorado River to establish Colorado River alloca- decreases to substantial increases. and for other reservoirs in the tions was abnormally high. Recent Upper Basin.

Colorado River and the Grand Canyon 3 Cooperative Solutions

Today, the Basin is suffering from Bureau of Reclamation the worst drought in a century and The Bureau’s Upper Colorado one of the most severe in 500 Region and Lower Colorado years. In recognition of the serious Region have issued a final Envi- drought conditions and the ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) growing demand for water, the on Colorado River Interim Guide- Seven States, other public agen- lines for Lower Basin Shortages cies, and a variety of stakeholders and Coordinated Operations for are moving forward on several Lake Powell and Lake Mead. fronts to ensure the protection of the River and all of its beneficial In December 2007, the Secretary uses. A key player in this effort is of the Interior signed a Record of the U.S. Department of the Inte- Decision implementing new, rior, which oversees the manage- interim operational guidelines to ment of the river system’s major meet the challenges of the current reservoirs. Programs and policies eight-year drought in the Basin are administered through the U.S. and, potentially, low-water condi- Bureau of Reclamation, which tions caused by continued drought resides within the Department. or other causes in the future. The Record of Decision adopts four Lake Powell above Glen Canyon Dam, key elements of river management. photo credit: Bureau of Reclamation

“…The States will move forward with a package of other actions that include… a demonstration program for extraordinary conservation… system efficiency project…[an action plan for] weather modification [and] initiation of a study for long-term augmentation of Colorado River System water supplies.”

4 Seven States Proposal Evaluation of Long-Term tutional matters. CRWC has con- Augmentation Options for the ducted the technical evaluations in On February 3, 2006, the Seven Colorado River System close coordination with the States States sent a proposal to the Secre- and with the two regional offices tary of the Interior in response to One key activity identified in the of the Bureau. the Bureau’s initiation of the short- Seven Basin States February 3, age guidelines EIS. The letter was 2006, letter was a Technical Evalu- signed by the States’ Governors’ ation of Long-Term Augmentation Representatives on Colorado River Options. The results of that evalua- Operations. The States’ consensus tion are presented in this report. proposal outlined several opera- The States selected CRWC to tional and water accounting perform technical analyses. The procedures for consideration by the States will consider the technical Bureau and other actions the States evaluations in conjunction with will undertake during and follow- legal, environmental, and/or insti- ing the EIS process.

Colorado River Basin Map

Stakeholder Meetings with Representatives of the Seven States and the Bureau Provided Information on Options • Colorado, July 25, 2006 • New Mexico, August 18, 2006 • Utah, September 7, 2006 • Wyoming, July 19, 2006

• Arizona, August 23, 2006 • California, August 11, 2006 • Nevada, August 15, 2006

• Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region, September 8, 2006 • Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region, August 17, 2006

5 Long-Term Options

Identification of Options obtain pertinent previous studies • Ocean Water Desalination and reports about these options. Twelve potential long-term options • Power Plants – Reduction of The CRWC attended meetings in were identified and were evaluated Consumptive Use each of the Seven States and in the against eight parameters (as shown offices of both the Lower Colorado • Reservoir Evaporation Control on page 7) agreed upon by repre- and Upper Colorado Regions of sentatives of the Seven States. An • River Basin Imports/Exports the Bureau of Reclamation. Expert Panel also was convened to (Exchanges Resulting in Export Minutes of these meetings were test the completeness of the Reductions) prepared and reviewed to docu- options. Finally, the Technical ment these outreach efforts. As a • Stormwater Storage Committee evaluated and reviewed result of this process, the the options, some of which were • Vegetation Management following 12 long-term augmenta- examined in greater detail. • Water Imports Using Ocean tion options were identified: Routes Outreach Effort • Brackish Water Desalination • Water Reuse An outreach effort was conducted • Coalbed Methane Produced • Weather Modification to obtain input on potential aug- Water mentation options. The objectives • Conjunctive Use of Surface and of this outreach effort were to Groundwater identify all viable options and to

Examples of Major Augmentation Options

Add to Rainfall Reduce Evapotranspiration •Weather modification, •Vegetation management e.g. cloud seeding •Reservoir evaporation control

New Water/Reuse from Add to Inflow the System •Water from coalbed •Use desalted brackish methane production water •Importation alternatives •Reuse wastewater •Use desalted ocean or inland water

Reduce Outflow from System •Reduction of power plant consumptive use Add to Groundwater •Stormwater storage •Conjunctive use

6 Expert Panel Review Evaluation Results Parameters Used to As part of the process to identify and At an evaluation workshop with Evaluate Options evaluate augmentation options, an the Technical Committee, the 12 Location of Supply: General Expert Panel was convened to options were grouped by the geographic location of supply review the White Papers prepared on purpose they achieve and the options. the 12 options and to comment on benefit provided: (1) firm up Quantity of Water Potentially potential additional options. supply/reduce shortages, (2) Available: Amount of water expected provide new supplies, and (3) to be produced, measured in acre- The Panel agreed that the 12 feet per year (AFY). increase water use efficiency. The options were viable and that some • Quantifiable new water created that Technical Committee directed that adds to Colorado River supply. combination of options would prob- six options be evaluated in more • Improvement in supply that reduces ably comprise a beneficial deficiencies or improves efficiencies. detail (TM level). For the remain- long-term strategy. The Panel also • Localized, site-specific improve- ing options, it was determined that ments that may improve overall suggested three additional options: sufficient information had been Basin supply. structured agricultural/urban trans- developed or that the options were Water Quality: Anticipated quality of fers, accelerated urban water already being addressed by the water to be developed and potential conservation, and additional storage concerns associated with its use as a States’ water planning efforts. in the Upper Basin. water supply. • Part of States’ Planning Technical Issues: Availability of water In the subsequent discussions with Efforts: Power Plant Conserva- at the source and the means of the Seven States Technical Com- collecting it to a centralized location, tion, Water Reuse, and Weather mittee, it was determined that treatment requirements (if any), and Modification. agricultural/urban transfer pro- requirements for delivery to ultimate place of use. grams are currently part of the • Sufficient Information Devel- water management planning pro- oped: Coalbed Methane General Reliability of Supply: “Track record” of performance and grams of the individual States and Produced Water, Reservoir Evap- ability to provide sufficient water are not a feasible regional option at oration Control, and Water during a dry year or drought. this time. It was also the consensus Imports Using Ocean Routes. Environmental Issues: Short-term of the Technical Committee that (construction) and long-term impacts • TMs Commissioned: Brackish water conservation is already a on fish and wildlife, recreation, Water Desalination, Conjunctive part of the States’ planning and aesthetics, etc. Use, Ocean Water Desalination, implementation efforts. Additional Permitting: Degree of federal, state, River Basin Imports/Exports, storage in the Upper Basin is part and local approvals required. Need for Stormwater Storage, and Vegeta- new or amended compacts or treaties. of ongoing planning efforts of the tion Management. Upper Basin States and does not Costs per Acre-Foot: Cost of infrastructure (new or modified) and need to be evaluated through the O&M required to implement the Seven States Process. option.

7 Brackish Water Desalination

Brackish water has a mineral (2) an unused groundwater source Brackish Water content between fresh water and in Riverside County, California. Desalination Option ocean water. Total dissolved solids Summary: The Bureau’s Yuma Area Office (TDS) concentrations typically has been actively conducting a Location of Supply: Groundwater range from 1,000 to 10,000 mil- sources in Yuma, Arizona, and research project to understand the ligrams per liter (mg/L). The White Riverside County, California. implications of processing ground- Paper reviewed technologies for Quantity of Water Potentially water through the YDP instead of desalting groundwater, surface Available: Amounts ranging from processing drainage return flows water, agricultural return flows, 4,000 to 50,000 AFY. (Groundwater from the Wellton-Mohawk Irriga- storage for the Yuma supply is in the and drainage water. range of 600,000 to 800,000 AF, but tion and Drainage District Main regional demand is approximately The Yuma, Arizona, area is a prom- Outlet Drain Extension (MODE), 27,000 AFY). ising source because of the the intended feed water to the YDP. Water Quality: Source water highly existence of the Yuma Desalting The Bureau is also conducting the saline, but can be treated to meet all Plant (YDP) and the large volume YDP Potable Water Study to deter- regulatory requirements. of brackish groundwater in the mine what changes would be Technical Issues: Brine disposal is a area. Testing of the plant at ten necessary to allow the YDP to significant issue, especially for inland percent of capacity occurred from sites. produce potable quality water for March through May 2007. Use of use by local water districts. General Reliability of Supply: the YDP is now under considera- Highly reliable for Yuma site. Limited to eight months per year at Riverside tion, based on the testing results. site. Yuma groundwater may be a Brackish water desalination was fixed volume. therefore evaluated in a TM, which Environmental Issues: Brine developed two potential resources: disposal. Construction impacts (except (1) available water stored in a at Yuma location). groundwater mound near Yuma, Permitting: Brine disposal permitting Arizona, and associated retrofit of issues could be significant. the YDP to treat the water and Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from Yuma Desalting Plant, photo credit: Bureau of Reclamation $700 to $2,000.

Brackish Water Desalination YDP Process Schematic ANTISCALANT BLEND WATER ANTISCALANT SULFURIC ACID Product Water to Additional Disinfection and P Distribution CHLORINE CLEARWELL Concentrate P to Bypass Canal

IRON/MANGANESE REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANES REMOVAL FILTERS WELLS

PRETREATMENT REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) 8 Coalbed Methane Produced Water

Coalbed methane (CBM) is a supply ranges from 3,000 to Coalbed Methane natural gas associated with coal 20,000 AFY, but individual wells Produced Water deposits. To produce gas from are widely dispersed. Summary: CBM wells, water is pumped out The CBM industry generally has of the formation. Location of Supply: San Juan Basin viewed and treated the water pro- (CO, NM), Piceance Basin (CO), The primary areas of CBM produced as part of gas recovery as a Uinta Basin (UT), Greater Green River duction in the Colorado River waste product; therefore, experi- Basin (WY, CO). Basin are the San Juan Basin in ence with the beneficial use of this Quantity of Water Potentially New Mexico and Colorado, the water, particularly for stream flow Available: Potentially 3,000 to 20,000 AFY. Production wells are Uinta Basin in Utah, the Piceance augmentation, is currently very dispersed, making collection of Basin in Colorado, and the Powder limited. The White Paper assessed water difficult. River Basin in Wyoming. An indi- potential CBM produced water Water Quality: High TDS vidual CBM well typically sources within the Basin. The concentrations (typically 2,000 to produces 2.5 to 4 gallons per Technical Committee determined 15,000 mg/L) will necessitate minute of high TDS water (2,000 that adequate information about treatment. to 15,000 mg/L) over a production this alternative had been developed Technical Issues: Additional life of about 10 years. The amount in the White Paper. collection, treatment, and delivery systems will be required to implement of water recoverable for water this option. Wide spacing of wells and distance from major Colorado River tributaries are factors to consider. General Reliability of Supply: Supply is reliable only if development of new coalbed methane wells continues. Individual wells have limited life (~10 years) and low water production (2–4 gpm per well) after first 1–2 years of operation. Environmental Issues: Typical issues related to construction and operation of water conveyance and treatment facilities. Disposal of high TDS treatment residuals is required. Permitting: Ability to readily obtain NPDES permits for direct discharge to Colorado River and/or major tributaries is unknown. Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from $900 to $4,600.

Wells extract water as well as coalbed methane Photo credit: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

9 Conjunctive Use

Conjunctive use, also referred to as The TM explored three alterna- Conjunctive Use “water banking,” is the coordi- tives for developing additional Option Summary: nated management of surface interstate water banking projects: Location of Supply: Sources within water and groundwater in a way (1) expansion of the Arizona Inter- the Lower Basin States to be stored in that their combined yield and relia- state Water Bank, (2) use of Arizona and California groundwater basins. bility are greater than when they established water banking pro- are managed independently. Most grams in California, and (3) a Quantity of Water Potentially Available: For TM projects, 2.8 MAF commonly, surface water is used major groundwater storage project of water could be stored and during wet periods and groundwa- in Southern California. recovered over the next 20 to 30 years ter during dry periods. Surplus Conjunctive use in the Lower (annual quantity of 8,000 to 40,000 flows of surface water not other- Basin States, particularly interstate AFY). Expansion potential. wise used to meet water supply or water banking, can be imple- Water Quality: Expected to meet ecosystem needs are diverted and mented in a relatively short period requirements of end users. used to recharge local groundwater of time through expansion of Technical Issues: No major technical basins. The water is then available Arizona Water Bank agreements or issues. for later withdrawal to meet peak, acquisition of capacity in existing General Reliability of Supply: emergency or drought conditions. programs. Dependent on the availability of It was determined that the conjunc- surface water and ability to convey As an example, the Southern water to the banking location. tive use option defined in the Nevada Water Authority has partic- However, not a perpetual water supply White Paper should be expanded ipated in interstate banking in and the States are currently operating to focus on interstate options projects to benefit local supply and Arizona and California. Other within the Lower Basin. (Current demands. opportunities within California and law potentially prohibits the trans- Environmental Issues: Not expected other basin states should be fer of water from the Upper Basin to be significant. explored. to the Lower Basin without Con- Permitting: Interstate banking gressional approval.) projects in other states will require agreements. Environmental concerns are generally not present. Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from $400 to $700.

Conjunctive Use Concept

10 Ocean Water Desalination

Ocean water desalination is similar A cost sensitivity analysis was per- Ocean Water to brackish water desalination, formed, which showed that energy Desalination except that the water is much rates substantially affect unit water saltier, ranging from 28,000 to costs. For example, a one-cent Option Summary: 37,000 mg/L in the Pacific Ocean. increase in the energy rate results in Location of Supply: Sites on the The ocean is an extremely reliable an increase of about $50 per AF in Pacific Ocean coast of California and Baja California. source of new water. The White treated water cost. A five-cent Paper reported that cost is cur- increase in the energy rate results in Quantity of Water Potentially rently high, but that unit costs are about a $250/AF increase in treated Available: Ocean water is essentially unlimited. Capacities evaluated range expected to decrease. water cost. from 20 to 100 million gallons per day During the evaluation process, it Opportunities in Baja California (20,000 to 100,000 AFY). was determined that the ocean are similar to those in California Water Quality: Source water highly water desalination option should except that permitting require- saline, but can be treated to meet all regulatory requirements. be expanded to focus on opportuni- ments would be more complex if a ties along the Pacific Ocean coast new or amended bi-national treaty Technical Issues: Brine disposal and effect of intake structure on marine life. of California and Baja California. were required. Later discussions among the states General Reliability of Supply: To date, only a few ocean desalting identified the coast in the Gulf of Highly reliable. Feasibility of specific plants of relatively small capacity projects dependent on availability of California as well. have been built along the Califor- electricity and delivery infrastructure. The TM developed a methodology nia coast. These currently augment Environmental Issues: Raw water to define a common cost approach supplies for water agencies in the intake, brine disposal, significant for desalination facilities. Several state. The treated water from ocean energy requirements. Construction impacts. studies were reviewed, and cost desalination facilities constructed comparisons were developed. to improve Colorado River water Permitting: Raw water intake and Reverse osmosis membrane tech- supplies would be used in Califor- brine disposal. Need for new or amended treaty for bi-national nology was assumed, and a robust nia or Mexico in place of water projects. Agreements required for pre-treatment process was selected otherwise diverted from the Col- interstate projects to handle water quality, environ- orado River, thereby adding to the Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from mental, and permitting issues. available supply in the Colorado $1,100 to $1,800. River and avoiding the costs of Option-specific evaluations long-distance diversion. included co-location with an existing power plant and energy use (amount of energy used, ways to 2500 address the greenhouse gas effect). 2000

1500

1000

500 Ocean Water Desalination Unit Water Cost ($/Acre -Foot) Energy Rate Sensitivity 0 0.045 0.055 0.080 0.100 0.150 0.200 (Based on 40 mgd Desalination Facility and Alamitos Conveyance Facilities in the Energy Rate ($/kWh) City of Long Beach, California) Amortized Capital Cost Amortized O&M Costs Energy Costs

11 A Wide Range of Opportunities

12 Quantity Evaluated Cost ALTERNATIVE (AFY) $ / AF

Brackish Water 4,000 – 50,000 $700 – $2,000 Desalination

Coalbed Methane 3,000 – 20,000 $900 – $4,600 Produced Water

Conjunctive Use 8,000 – 40,000 $400 – $700

Ocean Water 20,000 – 100,000 $1,100 – $1,800 Desalination

Power Plants - Reduce 1,500 – 160,000 $1,000 – $4,000 Consumptive Use

Reservoir Evaporation 0 – 270,000 $500 – $2,000 Control

Needs more River Basin Imports 30,000 – 700,000 refinement

Stormwater Storage 0 –100,000 $600 +

Vegetation 20,000 – 150,000 * $30 – $100 Management

Water Imports Using 10,000 – 300,000 $1,400 – $4,000 Ocean Routes

Water Reuse 20,000 – 800,000 $900 – $1,700

Weather Modification 150,000 – 1,400,000 $20 – $30

* Lower Basin Only

13 Power Plant - Reduction of Consumptive Use

Thermoelectric power generation Power Plant - Reduction of requires a significant amount of Consumptive Use water within the Basin to provide Summary: cooling to power plants and Location of Supply: Power plants are remove waste heat from the power located throughout the Colorado generation cycle. Evaporative River basin. cooling is the most common Quantity of Water Potentially cooling method used within the Available: The quantity of water is Basin. dependent upon the size of the power plant and the existing cooling The White Paper compared “wet technology. Up to 160,000 AFY is cooled” systems, such as once- potentially available. through cooling systems and Water Quality: The water quality of recirculated cooling water systems, augmented water would be expected to be equivalent to existing water to air-cooled systems, which use quality. an air-cooled condenser instead of Navajo Power Plant Technical Issues: Air-cooled power the typical water-cooled condenser. plants are not as efficient as wet- It was found that air-cooled cooled power plants. In addition, an systems eliminate the consumptive existing power plant cannot easily be use of water for plant cooling, but retrofitted with air-cooled technology. at the cost of lower plant efficien- General Reliability of Supply: The cies and increased plant capital reliability of the augmented water costs. The Technical Committee would be expected to follow the same trends as the Colorado River. determined that this option should be addressed by individual States. Environmental Issues: There are few if any environmental issues with converting existing power plants from Plant Capacity Consumptive Plant Name Water Source water-based cooling to air-based (MW) Use (AFY) cooling. Navajo 2,409 27,366 Lake Powell Permitting: There are few if any Jim Bridger 2,312 25,266 Green River permitting issues with converting existing power plants from water- Four Corners 2,270 22,515 San Juan River based cooling to air-based cooling. San Juan 1,848 19,981 San Juan River Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from Hunter 1,441 18,968 Cottonwood Creek $1,000 to $4,000. Huntington 996 12,307 Huntington Creek Bonanza 500 7,964 Green River Reid Gardner 612 7,500 Muddy River Naughton 707 6,081 Hams Fork River Hayden 465 2,896 Yampa River Carbon 189 2,679 Price River Craig 1,339 2,534 Yampa River

South Point Energy Center 708 1,955 Colorado River Central Arizona Desert Basin Power 646 1,810 Project Canal Water Nucla 114 1,520 San Miguel River

14 Reservoir Evaporation Control

This White Paper addressed and would raise extensive environ- Reservoir Evaporation methods for evaporation control at mental, recreational, and Control Summary: the two largest reservoirs on the permitting issues. The Technical Colorado River: Lake Mead, Committee determined that no Location of Supply: Lake Mead and Lake Powell. located in southern Nevada, and further consideration should be Lake Powell, located in southern given to this sub-option. Quantity of Water Potentially Available: Chemical covers not Utah and northern Arizona. Two Optimized operation of Lake Mead practical. Extreme modifications to sub-options were assessed: the use and Lake Powell and other reser- reservoir operations could yield up to of chemical covers and considera- 270,000 AF based on preferential voirs in the system is a prudent tion of reservoir management storage at Lake Powell and minimum strategy and is currently ongoing. elevation of 1,000 feet at Lake Mead. alternatives. Chemical covers have The States will continue opera- been used in pools and golf course Water Quality: Reduced TDS due to tional studies for these reservoirs. reduction in evaporation loss. reservoirs to reduce evaporative In addition, the Record of Decision water loss. However, attempting to Technical Issues: Low levels in Lake adopted specific operational guide- Mead impact water intakes, use chemical covers on water lines for Lakes Powell and Mead wastewater discharges, and bodies as large as Lake Mead and recreation. Chemical covers are through 2026. Lake Powell would be impractical impractical on large reservoirs. General Reliability of Supply: Overall reliability of supply enhanced by reduced evaporation loss. Environmental Issues: Habitat in Lake Mead would be adversely impacted. Reduced dilution of wastewater discharges to Lake Mead. Permitting: Significant NEPA review would be required. Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from $500 to $2,000.

Lake Mead, photo credit: Bureau of Reclamation

15 River Basin Imports

There are many possible river before any alternative is defined. River Basin Imports basin import options. However, all Issues include but are not limited to Option Summary: come with numerous technical, the environmental effects of Location of Supply: River basins with environmental, legal and political reduced discharge from the export- large volumes of water discharging into the ocean or with large quantities obstacles. River Basin Imports ing basin, potential effects on of unappropriated water. were considered in this review, biological communities in both Quantity of Water Potentially however, the level of effort needed export and import basins, infra- Available: Preliminary estimates of to determine the viability of any structure requirements and water potentially available varied river basin import alternative was conveyance facility alignment significantly from tens to hundreds of beyond the scope of this report. between export and import points, thousands of acre feet annually More detailed analysis of political, potential footprint impacts related Water Quality: Variable by source, legal, socioeconomic, technical, to facilities’ construction, and the generally good to excellent. environmental and other factors need for high voltage power facili- Technical Issues: Alternatives will will be required in multiple basins ties in remote locations. Findings require some storage, diversion and conveyance facilities, discharge to fully understand the challenges, also indicate a high likelihood for infrastructure, and high voltage power potential impacts and benefits extensive permitting requirements, supplies in relatively remote locations. associated with a particular river and the potential that the reliability General Reliability of Supply: basin import alternative. of imports could be affected by in- Reliability depends primarily on water stream flow requirements and In general, it appears that river rights, interstate compacts, and intergovernmental agreements. The surplus volumes available. basin import alternatives may offer technical committee is generally of potential to bring a significant Environmental Issues: Effects of the opinion that if any import reduced river flows at the source, quantity of water to the Basin project is to proceed with any construction impacts, potential States or the Colorado River environmental and biological impacts, chance for success it must be done System. The preliminary findings and water quality impacts at points of in partnership with all the govern- discharge into receiving river basins. in the White Paper and TM also mental agencies affected and in a suggest that there are several key Permitting: Extensive permitting likely manner that will provide some required especially when crossing issues that need further study multiple states. Potential issues of benefit to all. construction on state and federal lands. Costs per Acre-Foot: Needs more refinement.

16 Stormwater Storage

Stormwater has been captured for A review of 46 years of flow data Stormwater Storage flood control purposes for many from the gauge below the dam Option Summary: years. The concept of using indicated that water available from stormwater to augment water sup- the Gila River exceeded 10,000 AF Location of Supply: Southwest plies is more recent, but practiced only 20 years of the 46-year period Arizona from Painted Rock Dam on the Gila River to Imperial Dam on the extensively in Australia, Singapore, of record, or about 43.5 percent of Colorado River. and some parts of the United States. the time. The evaluation of inflows Quantity of Water Potentially Stormwater storage within the Basin from 1960 to 2005 indicated that Available: Painted Rock inflows does not provide much benefit many years have significant greater than 100,000 AFY in one- because Upper Basin and Lower inflows to the reservoir. However, third of years and greater than Basin water is already captured in many other periods — such as the 10,000 AFY in 43 percent of years. Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and lower nine years from 1996 through 2004 Inflow for 1996 through 2004 essentially zero. mainstem reservoirs. An exception — have inflows insufficient to is the Gila River, which conveys allow any significant releases. This Water Quality: Issues with sediments, pesticides, metals, inorganics, and stormwater runoff to the Colorado means that use of the reservoir for nutrients. River. At the direction of the Techni- water supply would be for skim- cal Committee, a TM was proposed ming flows during years when Technical Issues: Construction of major infrastructure to convey water to focus on the feasibility of storing runoff is sufficient. from Painted Rock Dam to Colorado stormwater at Painted Rock Dam River. Potential retrofit of Dam to be Several water quality issues are and Reservoir with a diversion canal operated as a storage facility as well associated with this option. Pesti- to above Imperial Dam. as a flood control facility cide contamination in the Gila General Reliability of Supply: Painted Rock Dam has a drainage River is significant, and Painted Variable supply availability, but no area of 50,800 square miles, and Rock Reservoir acts as a “contami- dependable annual yield. more than half of the storm runoff nant sink.” In addition, high Environmental Issues: Effect of entering the reservoir is unregu- nutrient inflows and abundant sun- reduced river discharge on Gila River lated inflow. The dam provides light cause algal growths, which ecology. Construction impacts. temporary storage space for runoff have depleted oxygen levels at the Permitting: Several permits required. and is designed to release flood reservoir, frequently creating anaer- Significant issues. flows at a rate no greater than the obic conditions. The subsequent Costs per Acre-Foot: From $600 downstream channel capacity. release of hydrogen sulfide gases and up. causes objectionable odors as well In 1978, the Bureau of Reclamation as corrosive conditions impacting studied a proposal for Gila River the reservoir control features. flood flows to be conveyed to the Colorado River upstream of Impe- rial Dam. The study noted that the infrequency of floods and the high evaporation loss rate for Painted Rock Reservoir would require flows to be released soon after their storage. The recommendation was to develop a canal alternative to transport the water from Painted Rock Dam to Imperial Dam. Cost information in the 1978 report was indexed to December 2006 to determine the cost of building a 110-mile canal today. Painted Rock Control Tower, photo credit: USACE 17 Vegetation Management

This option considered two sub- Recent studies show that, in the last Vegetation Management options: saltcedar (tamarisk) 20 years, saltcedar has spread at a Option Summary: removal and forest management. rate of about 3 – 4 percent per year Location of Supply: Saltcedar Saltcedar is an aggressive non- and nearly doubled in acreage. control scenarios are described for the native species that by some Virgin and Lower Colorado Rivers. To determine how vegetation man- estimates could account for up to Quantity of Water Potentially agement will produce (conserve) one million AF of water consump- Available: Gains from saltcedar water that is usable, the TM team tion in the Basin. This control are estimated to be 20,000 developed three conceptual vegeta- AFY on the Virgin and 150,000 AFY consumptive use is expected to tion management scenarios for on the Lower Colorado. increase dramatically if saltcedar increased water yield: (1) saltcedar Water Quality: Variable. Dependent growth continues unchecked. control on the lower Virgin River, on saltcedar control method. Similar Opportunities exist for water to shallow groundwater quality. which represents a single, smaller savings wherever saltcedar is watercourse where the location and Technical Issues: Selection of removed in the Colorado River removal method; accessibility of yield primarily would be in Nevada, Basin. Through the evaluation thickets; maintenance requirements of (2) saltcedar control on the Lower long-term control. process, it was determined that the Colorado River, a large regional relationship of non-native species General Reliability of Supply: project with substantial implications Reliability dependent upon depth to to the declining flows on the River for multiple states, and (3) a no- shallow groundwater and degree to should be further explored. which saltcedar roots effectively action scenario evaluating potential explore available soil water. Information on forest management increased spread of saltcedar and the Environmental Issues: Substantial practices (such as tree harvesting implications on Basin water yield. long-term biological, recreation, and and prescribed burning) was con- If no major efforts to control the fire management benefits. Short-term sidered sufficient in the White concerns are water quality, special spread of saltcedar are imple- Paper; the concept did not need to status species, and cultural resources. mented, the species could spread be developed further. Permitting: Potential changes in from about 300,000 acres at present habitat would require regulatory The TM evaluated the relationship in the Colorado River Basin to compliance. of non-native species to the declin- about 600,000 acres in the year Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from $30 ing flows on the River; saltcedar 2020. This would result in the loss to $100 for saltcedar management. occurrence, spread, and control; of as much as an additional one and the sustainability of controls. million AF of water each year.

Concept: Saltcedar removed by spraying and burning. Ongoing revegetation and spraying as needed. Quantity: 17,000 AFY Cost: $100 / AF

Lower Virgin River Vegetation Management Saltcedar along the Colorado River 18 Water Imports Using Ocean Routes

Some of the options available for would require land-based or off- Water Imports Using providing long-term augmentation shore loading and unloading Ocean Routes Summary: of the water supply within the facilities, a terminal storage reser- Basin include importing water from voir, and pipelines to bring water Location of Supply: • The undersea aqueduct would draw other sources. In addition to the to and from these facilities. Iceberg water from the Columbia River or TM on River Basin Imports transport would require some type northern California • The tanker and water bag options described on page 16, a White of plastic to cover the iceberg and would draw water from rivers in Paper was prepared on Water land-based or offshore facilities to Alaska. Imports Using Ocean Routes. Four dock the iceberg and capture the • Icebergs would likely be from the Arctic. methods were evaluated: (1) under- meltwater. Technical issues range sea pipeline from the Columbia from fuel consumption (all Quantity of Water Potentially Available: River or northern California rivers, options) to undersea construction • Quantity of water available from (2) water tankers bringing supplies methods (pipeline), materials the Columbia river is not well defined; more water would be from Alaska, (3) transporting water integrity (water bags), and water available in the winter. bags, and (4) towing icebergs. loss (icebergs). • Up to 1 million AF of water may be available from Alaska. System features for the undersea The consensus of the Technical • Each small iceberg could produce aqueduct would include transition Committee was that the White 250 to 850 AF of water. Total annual quantity from 10,000 to conduits, undersea pipelines, a ter- Paper presented useful information 300,000 AFY. minal storage reservoir, and and that additional evaluation was Water Quality: Water quality from all land-based pumping facilities. not required at this time. sources considered is generally good Transport by tankers or water bags and in some cases excellent. Technical Issues: • Transporting water by tankers and water bags occurs in limited areas now. The primary technical issues are fuel consumption and integrity of the water bags. • The undersea aqueduct has major technical issues including crossing submarine canyons and fault zones, selection of pipe materials, and underwater construction in depths of 250 – 300 feet. General Reliability of Supply: Reliability of the supply depends primarily on the water rights agreements made. Environmental Issues: Include the effect of reduced river discharge on biological communities especially on anadromous fish species and impacts due to construction of facilities. Permitting: Most complex for the undersea aqueduct. Water transport from northern California rivers would require approval from the State Water Resources Control Board and other agencies. Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from $1,400 to $4,000. Towing an iceberg 19 Water Reuse

Water recycling and reuse is one of decades. However, the Basin’s Water Reuse Summary: many effective ways to conserve several large urban areas have addi- Location of Supply: Large urban water. Through recycling, water tional recycling opportunities. areas or any locality where wastewater is available, particularly southern that normally would be discharged Agricultural reuse also has potential California. as treated wastewater to inland or for selected applications. A major Quantity of Water Potentially coastal bodies of water is treated advantage to agricultural reuse is Available: Ranges from 20,000 AFY and reused. Development of urban the potential to recycle large quanti- to 760,000 AFY. and agricultural reuse projects ties of water in controlled Water Quality: Generally good. assists in augmenting water sup- environments with limited public Reuse from Colorado River-derived plies by replacing the need for access. Water reuse technologies wastewater somewhat higher in TDS potable (drinkable) water for non- have a long track record in the than Colorado River water. potable uses as well as surface or Seven States, which are implement- Technical Issues: Treatment groundwater for agricultural use. ing their own programs. Through requirements may be extensive. the evaluation process, it was deter- Seasonal storage may be required. The White Paper described how Location of reuse water available may mined that reuse contributes to urban and agricultural reuse could be distant from area of need. water efficiency, and this option be used as options to extend water General Reliability of Supply: will continue to be addressed by resources in the Seven States. The Extremely reliable and constant supply. individual States as part of their focus was on reuse in large urban Environmental Issues: Site specific, water management efforts. areas. Urban reuse in the Seven primarily related to construction activities. States has been practiced for Permitting: Site specific for urban, however, mostly driven by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in southern California. Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from $900 to $1,700.

Irrigation using reclaimed water

20 Weather Modification

The majority of runoff produced in target area. It is commonly Weather Modification the Basin comes from melting believed that snow flakes produced Summary: snow within the Upper Basin by seeding are formed from water watersheds. Much of this snow droplets which otherwise would be Location of Supply: The majority of additional runoff would flow into Lake accumulates at elevations above lost to evaporation. Powell and a smaller amount of 8,000 feet, remains throughout the The White Paper focused on the additional runoff can be obtained in winter season, and becomes runoff Lower Basin states of Arizona and use of winter cloud seeding pro- between mid-May and mid-July. California. grams to increase water Additional precipitation in the Quantity of Water Potentially precipitation within the Basin and form of snow produced from oper- Available: As much as 1,200,000 AF augment the system. The majority in Upper Basin, and 150,000 AF in ation of winter cloud seeding of additional runoff would flow Lower Basin. programs would increase the total into Lake Powell, and a smaller Water Quality: Quality assumed runoff within the Basin. amount would be available in equal to existing water within Colorado The process of wintertime cloud Arizona and California. It would River basin. Some unquantifiable improvement in quality may occur. seeding is simple in theory. The be difficult to quantify the addi- seeding operation releases multi- tional water obtained and Technical Issues: Additional collection, treatment, and delivery tudes of embryonic ice nuclei that determine the location of addi- systems will not be required for can convert supercooled cloud tional supply. However, cloud utilization of additional water supply. droplets to ice crystals, which, seeding has promise, and several Difficulty in quantifying additional water obtained and determination of upon reaching an adequate size, of the Basin States are currently location of additional supply. fall to the ground as snow flakes. sponsoring weather modification General Reliability of Supply: Under the right conditions, these programs. Weather modification activities most snow flakes will fall in an intended advantageous to increase winter snowpack in mountains. Significant anecdotal evidence that operating programs create a 10 percent increase in precipitation and snow melt runoff. Proof of additional supply is difficult. Environmental Issues: Some concerns over spread and disposition of silver iodide used for cloud seeding. Permitting: Some concern related to disposition of silver iodide. Costs per Acre-Foot: Range from $20 to $30.

Weather Modification Programs in Western U.S.

21 Summary

The Seven States are implementing long-term augmentation of the River long-term strategies for augmentation proactive programs to meet the system. Twelve potential options of the Colorado River. The augmen- needs of water users within the were evaluated in terms of water tation strategies carried forward will Basin and to provide continued quality, technical feasibility, reliabil- be coordinated among the Basin stewardship of the Colorado River. ity, environmental factors, and States and with the appropriate As part of this program, the Seven permitting considerations. Federal agencies, including the States authorized CRWC to provide Bureau of Reclamation. The Seven States will use the infor- a technical evaluation of options for mation from this study in evaluating

SUMMARY OF AUGMENTATION OPTIONS

Water Supply Option Water Quality Technical Issues Reliability Environmental Permitting Benefit Brackish Water New water, opportunity Highly saline, Brine disposal High Brine disposal Extensive Desalination to use existing facilities but treatable Extensive collection, Coalbed Methane Highly saline, but Significant per- New water treatment and deliv- Low Brine disposal Produced Water treatable mitting issues ery systems required Site-specific options Moderate, improve local supply, Various except for inter- No major technical Not expected to be Conjunctive Use Interstate water bank constituents, but High state banking issues significant would improve sys- all treatable projects in temwide supplies California Ocean Water New water, highly reli- Highly saline, but Brine disposal, Brine disposal Excellent Extensive Desalination able, created near user treatable energy requirements Equivalent to Reduced plant effi- Power Plant Reduction Increase water use High No significant Few permitting present Colorado ciency, air-cooled of Consumptive Use efficiency impacts issues River quality retrofit difficult 1 Unproven at scale Reservoir Evaporation required Further analysis of Equivalent to 1 Negligible Control Firm up supply, reduce 2 Potential impacts impacts on habitat Extensive NEPA 1 Chemical covers present Colorado 2 Undeter- shortages on water intakes and recreation review required 2 Operations at Lake River quality mined and wastewater required Mead and Lake Powell discharges Infrastructure Dependent Effects of reduced Ranges from requirements. High on water river discharge, River Basin Imports New water Extensive good to excellent voltage power lines rights and construction within in remote areas compacts National Forests New water in years Wide range of Infrastructure Effects of reduced Stormwater Storage when high flows on water quality requirements for Low river discharge in Significant (Painted Rock Reservoir) Gila River issues canal Gila River Vegetation Dependent Equivalent to Substantial long- Related to Follow-up upon depth Management Systemwide benefit present Colorado term benefits, minor environmental • Saltcedar control maintenance to shallow River quality short-term concerns issues • Forest management groundwater Water Imports Using Major technical issues with under- Extensive for Ocean Routes Potential new water, Potential flow • Undersea aqueduct Generally good sea aqueduct, aqueduct, but of variable Moderate impacts in source • Tanker transport to excellent moderate technical moderate for reliability rivers • Water bags issues with other other options • Towing icebergs options (Reuse of Extensive treatment Water Reuse Various con- Site specific, Site specific municipal and agricultural Increase water use effi- requirements, may stituents, but High primarily related to due to urban wastewater not returning ciency require long-dis- treatable construction environment to the Colorado River) tance transmission Equivalent to Firm up supply, reduce Difficult to quantify Spread and disposi- Moderate Weather Modification present Colorado Moderate shortages increase in supply tion of silver iodide requirements River quality

22 Colorado River Water Consultants Staff

Project Authors and Q/C Reviewers Expert Panel Dave Argo Karl Dreher Don Baker Jeff Featherstone Jim Bays Jerry Gilbert Bob Bergman B.J. Miller Rick Bond Project Support Ralph Brooks Nancy Hendrick Jon Diebel Nancy Swartz Doug Elder Lori Warren Terry Foreman Scott Freeman Juan Gomez James Gorham Richard Hayslett Brad Hemken Lisa Henthorne Rob Huehmer Sharon Jean-Baptiste Rob Kaessner Andrew Lazenby Joseph Lin Jim Lozier Anne Lynch Steven Mader Denny Mengel Charles Nichols Mike Preston Beth Quinlan Klint Reedy Alan Rimer Dan Robinette Fred Soroushian Perri Standish-Lee Srinivas Veerapaneni

23 Where To Find Out More

For more information or additional copies, please contact the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Beth Moore Phone number: (702) 258-3930 E-mail address: [email protected] Web address: snwa.com/augmentation/

24 Helping to provide a clear vision of water augmentation in the Colorado River Basin

Colorado River Water Consultants CH2MHILL · BLACK & VEATCH