Competing objectives for the Colorado River –Can we have it all? Can science show us the way?
Jack Schmidt Center for Colorado River Studies Department of Watershed Sciences Utah State University • Why have hope?
• The role of applied science and engineering in finding a path forward High Country News, long ago
The Colorado River as river
The Colorado River as water
Yampa River in Dinosaur National Monument (photo by W. Wurtsbaugh) “The general course of the river is from north to south and from Greendale 1.9M af great altitudes to the level of the sea. Thus, Glenwood Springs it runs from the land of 2.1M af snow to the land of Green River 5.3M af Grand Junction sun.” 2.3M af John Wesley Powell (1895) Lees Ferry Cisco 14.7M af 6.7M af Bluff 2.1M af
Yuma 18.2M af Water source
Grand Canyon
Senior water users Why have hope? Water rights and water allocation national park
national monument
Why have hope? National Park and Monument system Why have hope? An endemic and endangered fish community COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUDY
6.0 Projected Future Supply and Demand Imbalances and System Reliability Metrics Using the projections of future water supply and demand identified through the scenario development and quantification process, the range of the projected total future supply and demand in the Basin is shown conceptually in figure 12. Although a range of future imbalances is plausible, when comparing the median of water supply projections to the median of the water demand projections, the long-term imbalance in future supply and demand is projected to be about 3.2 maf by 2060.
FIGURE 12 Historical Supply and Use1 and Projected Future Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand1
The effects of climate change are uncertain
(USBR, 2012) 1 Water use anDemandd demand in forclud Coloradoe Mexico’s a lRiverlotmen twater and los swilles s uincrease,ch as those primarilydue to reser vinoi r evaporation, native vegetation, and operationalrelation inefficienc toies . regional population growth
It is important to recognize two points concerning this result. First, the 3.2 maf imbalance is based on the median imbalance for a particular year and can either be more or less from year to year under any one of the projections. Second, single-year imbalances of this magnitude have occurred several times in the past. Although there have been shortages in supply in Upper Basin tributaries, Colorado River deliveries of basic apportionments in the Lower Basin have been made with 100 percent reliability, primarily as a result of the ability to capture water in system reservoirs during high-flow years and to deliver that water during Why have hope? low-flow years. The system reliability analysis entailed simulating the operation of the system, including the effects to reservoir storage, and provides detaiImpendingled informat iwateron supply or water allocation crisis regarding the specific timing and magnitude of potential imbalances and how the Basin resources may be affected. System reliability metrics, summarized in the following section, are measures that indicate these impacts.
STUDY REPORT SR-36 DECEMBER 2012 The legacy of natural science and engineering What river science and engineering have taught us
Ecosystem drivers and conditions changed by large dams:
• Longitudinal connectivity • Flow regime • Sediment supply • Temperature
Glen Canyon Dam closed in March 1963 Flaming Gorge Reservoir The river network NV UT has been fragmented. CO Longitudinal Lake Powell
Navajo connectivity for Lake Reservoir Mead Lees many of the wide- Ferry CA Lake AZ NM ranging fish species Mohave will probably never Salton Sea be restored In some places, stream flow has been greatly depleted
I 2000 Colorado River blw Yuma main canal w. w. at Yuma, AZ 1967-2000 cms Colorado River at Yuma, AZ 1923-1935 cms
D
N
O
C 1500
E
S
R
E
P
S 1923-1935
R
E
T
E 1000
M
C
I
B
U
C
N
I
,
E
G
R 500
A 1967-2000
H
C
S
I
D
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 DAY OF THE YEAR
The Delta 50 In some places, stream flow has been greatly depleted .!
.!
.!
.! 40 1900-1918 (25% - 75%) 1900-1918 (50%)
2000-2008 (25% - 75%)
)
s /
3 2000-2008 (50%) m
( 30
e
g
r
a
h
c s i Streamflow depletion on the San Rafael D 20 River, Utah due to upstream irrigation
10
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Days after January 1 Colorado River at Lees Ferry Elsewhere, the total annual flow has changed little but the flow regime has been greatly changed
Because much of the water flows to the lower basin, the primary changes in the flow regime are caused by flood control, changes in the season of high flow, and hydropeaking
1) Reduce the magnitude of floods 2) Increase the magnitude of base flows 3) Introduce daily “tides” associated with hydropower production 4) Do not change the annual volume of stream flow
(Topping et al., 2003) The natural delivery of fine sediment to the delta has been cutoff by Lake Powell and Lake Mead
Fine sediment delta in Lake Powell near Hite
Estimated average suspended sediment discharge ~1700, before significant human impact (Meade et al., 1990) Downstream channel changes caused by dams are determined by the relative change in the capacity to transport sediment and the sediment supply available to be transported
Sediment surplus, San Rafael River
1973 Sediment deficit, Colorado River in Grand Canyon
2009 water Sediment deficit
Sediment surplus
Sediment deficit sediment
Sediment surplus
Dams in different parts of the watershed affect different proportions of the stream flow and sediment supply Spillways – 3648’ (Warm)
Powerplant – 3470’ (Cold/Warm)
River Outlets – 3374’ (Cold)
Releases from large reservoirs are typically much colder than conditions in summer and warmer in winter
Releases from Glen Canyon Dam Upper Colorado San Juan River River Endangered Basin Recovery Fish Recovery Implementation Program (1988-2013) Program (1992- [$161 mil. 1989-2006 2023) [$34.6 mil ~$7 mil./yr;] 1992-2006; $2.1 mil FY06]
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Glen Canyon Dam Conservation Adaptive Program (2005- Management 2055) Program $620 mil. (50 yrs) $11 mil./yr operating ~$13 mil./yr ~$40 mil./yr lost revenue
Minute 319, 1944 Water Treaty Present efforts to mitigate adverse impacts of water supply development controlled floods
Reduced range in daily range of hydropeaking
Increase base flows
Release controlled floods The principal source of sand to the Colorado River is the Paria River whose confluence is at Lees Ferry, 25 km downstream from the dam. The Paria provides the largest supply of sand to the regulated Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam.
A bit about controlled floods … A conceptual plan to take immediate advantage of the incoming Paria River sand supply was proposed by USGS/GCMRC in Environmental Assessment Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases 2011. This plan was approved in summer 2012 as the High Flow Protocol (HFE Protocol).
Paria LCR 400 Fall Accounting Period Spring Accounting Period 350
• Allow sand from the d
)
w
a w
s
o
o
o Paria River accumulates n 300
L
d
d
o
)
t
n
n
d
v
i ) during an accounting i
n c
r
o
i
a
r W
W p
250 N
t
/ season S
A
t
e
E
E /
y
c
r
l
F
m F
a
h
O
f
H
t H
(
200
o
M
n
l
(
g
• Short-duration l
o
s
a n
d
i
M
F
r
“controlled floods” n
e 150
a p
g
s redistribute sand from S
a
u
r
o
e
low to high elevation h 100
v
t
(
A 50
0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Figure 4. The two sand accounting periods and the two high-release periods with average monthly sand loads for the Paria River and the Little Colorado River (adopted from Scott Wright, U.S. Geological Survey, personal communication, and Wright and Kennedy 2011). Implementation of the High Flow Experiment Protocol requires unprecedented collection of processing of stream-flow and sediment- transport data in real time to inform operational decisions about dam releases and power marketing These data are assembled and reported as mass balance sand budgets for 6 segments of the Colorado River ecosystem.
Making science transparent and accessible
http://www.gcmrc.gov/ Data are made available in an interactive web tool that allows the user to define computation periods and uncertainties.
Transparent data distribution revealing uncertainties. Decisions about implementing controlled floods must be made in late October in order to provide advance notice to redistribute water releases and to reallocate hydropower production.
Most, but not all, Paria flash floods have occurred by this time, and sand mass balance budgets are only available through September 30.
Controlled floods must be planned in a way that acknowledges uncertainty.
Cooperation between science, engineering, and public policy
Graphs were developed in late September and used as planning tools to estimate the amount of sand mobilized by hypothetical HFEs. Identifying an acceptable threshold in the range of daily load-following fluctuations to recreate a healthy food base
Kennedy et al., 2016 Existence of a large Reservoir dam operations
Flow regime hydropeaking Complete changes trapping of • Flood incoming control sediment • Increase in base flow
Temperature regime changes • Increase winter water temperature • Decrease summer water temperatures
The effects of large dams and reservoirs are caused by changes in flow regime and sediment supply that are related to water supply and hydroelectric power production Existence of a large Reservoir dam operations
Change rules concerning Flow regime Reduce or which reservoirs store changes eliminate water; change allocation • Controlled floods hydropeaking agreements • Change seasonality of Restore sediment supply flows by sediment by-pass Temperature regime changes • Increase summer water Change flood control temperature rules • Decrease decrease winter water temperatures Eliminate fragmentation caused by dams Existence of a large Reservoir dam operations
Change rules concerning Flow regime Reduce or which reservoirs store changes eliminate water; change allocation • Controlled floods hydropeaking agreements • Change seasonality of Restore sediment supply flows by sediment by-pass Temperature regime changes • Increase summer water Change flood control temperature rules • Decrease decrease winter water temperatures Eliminate fragmentation caused by dams
Most adjustments in dam management have been focused on changing reservoir operations, not on changing water-supply management. There is no societal consensus to transfer fine sediment from Lake Powell to Grand Canyon
Addition of 4.3 x 106 Mg/yr by dredging and pipeline; appraisal level cost estimates Slurry pipeline Navajo Canyon to Glen Canyon Dam ($220 million capital costs; $6.6 million annual operating cost) Slurry pipeline Navajo Canyon to Lees Ferry ($430 million capital costs; $17 million annual operating cost)
Randle et al, 2007 Long segments of western US rivers are now perturbed into sediment deficit. Elsewhere, surplus exists. Reservoir releases for any environmental or water- supply purpose have the potential to exacerbate or ameliorate sediment deficit or surplus conditions and ought to be monitored.
Sediment gaging network outside of Grand Canyon primarily funded by Park Service. Funding base needs to be expanded. (Schmidt and Wilcock, 2008) Cataract Canyon
Hoover Dam Glen Canyon Lake Powell
Lake Mead Glen Canyon Dam
Marble Canyon Grand Canyon
Reconsider how water is stored in Lake Powell and Lake Mead … equalization or preferential storage in Lake Mead
Fill Mead First Proposal
Phase I – reduce storage in Lake Powell to minimum power pool elevation (surface area of reservoir is 31% of full pool surface area)
Phase II – reduce storage in Lake Powell to dead pool (surface area of reservoir is 13% of full pool surface area)
Phase III – drill new diversion tunnels and fully drain Lake Powell
• Expose Glen Canyon’s sandstone walls • Recreate natural flow regime • Save water Would a natural flow regime be established in Grand Canyon? How much of Glen Canyon would be exposed?
Capacity of River Outlets at Different Reservoir Elevations 3,520
L
E
V
E 3,500
L minimum power pool
A
E
S 3,480
N
A
E
M
E 3,460
V
O
B
A
T 3,440
E
E
F
N
I
, 3,420
N
O The limited capacity of the penstocks
I
T
A and river outlets would prevent a
V 3,400
E
L natural flow regime from being re-
E 3,380 established in Grand Canyon. 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 CAPACITY OF RIVER OUTLETS, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
Data: Bureau of Reclamation In Phase I of FMF, part of the incoming snowmelt flood would be temporarily stored in Lake Powell Inflow from Upstream Outflow Phase II
80000
70000 In Phase II of FMF, most of the incoming 60000 snowmelt flood would 50000 be stored in Lake Powell
40000 and it might take >1 Flow Flow (cfs) 30000 year to release that 20000 water downstream 10000
0 1/1/08 2/1/08 3/1/08 4/1/08 5/1/08 6/1/08 7/1/08 8/1/08 9/1/08 10/1/08 11/1/08 12/1/08
Inflow from Upstream Elevation
80000 3520
70000 3500 3480 60000 3460 50000 3440 40000
3420 Inflow(cfs)
30000 Elevation (ft) 3400 20000 3380
10000 3360
0 3340 1/1/08 2/1/08 3/1/08 4/1/08 5/1/08 6/1/08 7/1/08 8/1/08 9/1/08 10/1/08 11/1/08 12/1/08 Inflow to Lake Powell Phase II Reservoir Elevation
100000 3600
90000 3550 80000
70000 3500
60000 3450
50000
Inflow Inflow (cfs) 3400 40000 Elevation (ft)
30000 3350
20000 3300 10000
0 3250
Mar-72
Mar-70 Mar-78
Mar-74
Mar-76
Mar-12
Mar-10
Mar-14
Mar-16
Mar-02
Mar-82
Mar-80 Mar-88 Mar-00 Mar-08
Mar-84 Mar-04
Mar-92
Mar-90 Mar-06
Mar-64 Mar-68 Mar-86 Mar-94 Mar-98
Mar-66 Mar-96 Date
In Phase II of FMF, Lake Powell would rarely be at dead pool elevation Inflow to Lake Powell Phase II Outflow
100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000 Flow Flow (cfs) 40000
30000
20000
10000
0
The flow regime in Grand Canyon would be very different from the natural regime in Phase II. Phase I
Phase II
The lower reservoir levels of Phase I and Phase II would cause the San Juan and Colorado Rivers to incise into their deltas. The mobilized fine seidment would form new deltas within the lowered reservoir. Downstream releases would be clear water. 1
Would Fill Mead First Save Water? H (1962-1975)
T
N
O 0.8
M
R
E
P
T
E
E 0.6
F
N
I
,
E
T
A
R 0.4
N
O
I
1 T
A
R
(1953-1973) O 0.2
P
(CRSS) A
H (1965-1979)
V
T (1997-1999) E
N
O 0.8
M 0
R Ja F Mar Ap May Jun Jul Au S O N D
E
P
T
E
E 0.6
F
N Evaporation measurements at
I
,
E Lake Powell and Lake Mead
T
A
R 0.4 (1974-1994) •
N Evaporation pans
O
I
T • Water budgets
A
R • Mass transfer O 0.2
P
A • Eddy covariance
V
E (2010-2015)
0 Ja F Mar Ap May Jun Jul Au S O N D 1 Lake Mead (2010-2015)
H eddy covariance
T
N measurements
O 0.8
M
R
E
P
T
E
E 0.6
F
N
I
,
E
T
A
R 0.4
N
O
I
T
A
R
O 0.2 P Lake Powell (1965-1979)
A
V mass transfer E measurements 0 Ja F Mar Ap May Jun Jul Au S O N D
Most recent evaporation measurements at each reservoir 180,000
LAKE POWELL 160,000
140,000
T
E
E
F
E
R 120,000
C
A LAKE MEAD
N
I
, 100,000
A
E
R
A
E 80,000
C
A
F
R
U
S 60,000 Minimum Power Pool
40,000
20,000 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 TOTAL RESERVOIR STORAGE, IN ACRE FEET
Reservoir surface area in relation to storage contents LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD TOTAL RESERVOIR STORAGE, IN ACRE FEET 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 30,000,000
T 25,000,000
E
E
F
E
R
C
A
20,000,000
N
I
,
L
L
E
W 15,000,000
O
P
E
K Equalization
A
L
N
I 10,000,000 Fill Mead First -
E
G Phase I A LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD TOTAL RESERVOIR STORAGE,
R
O IN ACRE FEET
T
S 5,000,000 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 Fill Mead First - 30,000,000 Phase II
Fill Mead First - 0 Phase II 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 25,000,000 Equalization
T
E
PROPORTION OF TOTAL LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD LIVE STORAGE E
F
E Fill Mead First -
R
C 20,000,000 Phase I
A
N
I
,
D
A E 15,000,000
M
E
K
A
L
N
I 10,000,000 Assumed allocation of storage E
G
A
R
under different management O
T schemes S 5,000,000
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
PROPORTION OF TOTAL LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD LIVE STORAGE LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD TOTAL RESERVOIR STORAGE, IN ACRE FEET 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 200,000
S
E
R
C
A
150,000
N
I
,
L
L Equalization
E
W
O
P
E
K 100,000 Fill Mead First -
A
L
Phase I
F
O
A
E
R
A
LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD TOTAL RESERVOIR STORAGE,
E
C 50,000 IN ACRE FEET
A
F 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000
R
U 200,000
S Fill Mead First - Phase II Fill Mead First - Phase II 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 S
E
PROPORTION OF TOTAL LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD LIVE STORAGE R C 150,000
A
N
I
,
D
A
E
M
E
K
A 100,000
L
F
O
A
E
R
A
E
C
Surface area of each A 50,000
F
R Fill Mead First - Equalization
U Phase I
reservoir under different S management schemes
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
PROPORTION OF TOTAL LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD LIVE STORAGE LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD TOTAL RESERVOIR STORAGE, IN ACRE FEET 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 350,000
S
E
R
C
A
N
I 300,000
, Implementation of
D
A FMF would reduce
E
M the surface area of E 250,000 Equalization
K
A reservoir storage
L
D
N
A 200,000
L
L
E
W
O 150,000
P
E Fill Mead First -
K
A Phase I
L
F 100,000
O Fill Mead First -
A
E Phase II
R
A
E 50,000
C
A
F
R
U
S 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
PROPORTION OF TOTAL LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD LIVE STORAGE LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD TOTAL RESERVOIR STORAGE, IN ACRE FEET 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000
,
D
A
E Equalization
M 1,400,000
E
K
A
L
D
N
A
L 1,200,000
R
L
A
E
E
W Y
O
R
P
E
P
E
K
T
A 1,000,000
E
L
E
F
M
E
O
R
R
F
C
A
N
N
O
I I 800,000 T Fill Mead First - Phase I
A
R
O
P
A
V
E
L 600,000 Fill Mead First - Phase II
A
T
O
T 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
PROPORTION OF TOTAL LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD LIVE STORAGE Evaporation losses might be reduced if water is preferentially stored in Lake Mead rather than distributing the water in both reservoirs, but uncertainty is very high Jacoby et al., 1977 Movement of reservoir water into ground-water storage is inevitable Ground-water flow patterns surrounding Lake Powell
Blanchard, 1986
Thomas, 1986 Thomas, 1986
A B
Estimated perturbations of ground-water flow patterns near Glen Canyon Dam
,
N
O
I
T 1
A
L
U Jacoby et al., 1977
M
U Estimated water
R
C
A C savings associated
E A Myers, 2013
Y
E with lowering or
R
G
E
A
P ? draining Lake Powell
R
T
O
E
T are based on assuming
E
S
F
R that past rates of
E
E Thomas, 1986
R T 0.1 ground-water storage
C
A
A
W
- will continue in the
F
D
O
N future.
S
U
N
O
O
I
R
L
G
L This is unlikely.
I
F
M
O
N
E
I T Future ground-water
A
R
L movement estimated
A 0.01
U 50,000 af/yr,
N 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 N decreasing to 30,000 A af/yr after mid-century. What is ground- water storage like surrounding Lake Mead?
No modern studies of movement patterns
Wiele et al., 2009 Findings:
Implementation of Phase I or Phase II of FMF is unlikely to re-establish a natural flow regime of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon
Water released from a partially drained Lake Powell in Phase I or Phase II would be devoid of fine sediment. Impacts to the aquatic and riparian ecosystem, including to the existing population of endangered humpback chub, are potentially significant and would have to be monitored and managed adaptively.
For purposes of public policy discussion at this time, there would be no change in evaporation losses if FMF was implemented.
Based on the best estimates of the most recent USGS study, the long-term future rate of movement of ground water into the bedrock surrounding Lake Powell is likely to be less than ~50,000 af/yr. Now is the time to initiate new measurement programs of losses at Lake Powell and Lake Mead so that future policy discussions have access to less uncertain data regarding evaporation and ground-water storage
• initiation of a new measurement program of evaporation at Lake Powell
• continuation of the present evaporation measurement program at Lake Mead
• initiation of a new phase of ground-water monitoring and modeling at Lake Powell and perhaps at Lake Mead, including establishment of new observation wells further from and to the south of Lake Powell, coupled by development of modern, state-of-the-science numerical models of ground- water flow
• establishment of a new gaging station to reduce uncertainty in estimating the amount of unmeasured inflow to Lake Powell
• implementation of FMF would have to be preceded by predictive modeling of fine-sediment redistribution within a partially drained Lake Powell so that reservoir releases would not further degrade the Grand Canyon ecosystem. Is the role of river science to dash the hopes for innovation in river and water policy?
Good ideas often start out as crazy ideas Pulse flow release from Morelos Dam into the Delta in March 2014.
The intellectual roots of the delta pulse flow One role of science is to flesh out conceptual ideas and refine them
The intellectual roots of controlled floods Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary’s designee
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP)
Hopi Adaptive Hualapai Arizona Navajo Management California Southern Paiute Work Group Colorado Zuni New Mexico Nevada Utah Colorado River Energy Distributors Association Wyoming Federation of Fly Fishermen Grand Canyon River Guides Grand Canyon Wildlands Council National Parks Conservation Association Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems Technical Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Reclamation Work Group National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service Western Area Power Administration
Arizona Department of Game and Fish An organizational framework for agency Secretary of the science (the past) Interior
Secretary’s Designee
Adaptive Management Work Group USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
Individual stakeholders
Bureau of Indian Affairs Technical Bureau of Reclamation Work Group National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Department of Game and Fish
Western Area Power Administration An organizational framework for agency Secretary of the science (the present) Interior
Secretary’s Designee
Adaptive Management Work Group USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
Individual stakeholders
Bureau of Indian Affairs Technical Bureau of Reclamation Work Group National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Department of Game and Fish
Western Area Power Administration Responsive to the immediate information needs of present decisions
Identifying the questions relevant to the future
Adaptive Management NGOs (enviros, programs resource users, recreation)
Federal/ state/ university science
Federal agencies
A framework for State wildlife and water Colorado River resource agencies Science science There is hope, because there is water
Science-based strategies are being implemented to improve ecosystem conditions in some parts of the river system
Today, we primarily implement changes in hydroelectricity generation but we may eventually need to consider changing water-supply strategies
Good ideas sometimes don’t start out that way. Even the Fill Mead First proposal has some merit.
Some applied science is in direct support of agency and adaptive management information needs. Other applied science work is needed to identify the next generation of questions that society will someday ask.