DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Impacts of Alternative Water Allocation Institutions in the Colorado River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE WATER ALLOCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN by James F. Booker and Robert A. Young Completion Report No. 161 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE WATER ALLOCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN by James F. Booker and Robert A Young Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Colorado State University August, 1991 RESEARCH PROJECf TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT Supported by the U.S. Geological Survey Department of the Interior Under Award No. 14-08-0001-G1644 and by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station COLORADO WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Robert C. Ward, Director FOREWORD The contents of this report were developed under a grant from the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. However, those contents do not represent the policyof that agencyand the reader should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. This research was supported bythe U.S. Geological Survey(USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS award number 14-08·0001-Gl644. Support was also provided by the Colorado State University Agricultural Experiment Station. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the views of Colorado State University. The research was aided by the cooperation of numerous people in local, state and federal water agencies who assisted us by providing access to data and experience on the supply and demand for Colorado River water. We particularly wish to acknowledge the assistance of colleagues in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Colorado State University. Garth Taylor and Laurie Walters aided in preparing data and models used in deriving estimates for agricultural and municipal demand relationships. Dr. Edward Sparling helped in formulation of the mathematical models. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .........................................•........................• ii ABS1RACf ••................•...................•••.......................••• viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. .......•................•....••..................•..•. .. IX CHAPlERS: 1 IN1RODUCflON 1 The Colorado River . • . .. 1 The Basin Water Resource 1 Basin Water Users..................................................•..... .• 2 Beneficiaries of Consumptive Uses ......................................•...•.. 2 Beneficiaries of Nonconsumptive Uses......................................... .. 2 Institutions for Allocation of Colorado River Water 3 Objectives ~ . .. 3 Methods 3 Benefit Estimation 4 The River Model . .. 4 Scope of Analysis and Model Assumptions ......................................... .. 4 Institutions, Efficient Allocation, and Models 5 Economic Valuation 5 Level of Analysis and Economic Actors . • • . .. 5 Hydrologic Modeling . .. 6 Model Sensitivity . • • . .. 6 2 THE COLORADO RIVER: DESCRIPTION, ALLOCATION, AND ALlERNATIVE mSTITUTIONS 8 Physical Characteristics 8 The Salinity Problem ...................................................... .. 8 Historical Development ...................... ....................... ........... .. 10 Institutional Setting. ........................................................ .. 10 Water Quantity ......................................................... .. 10 Water Quality: Salinity 11 Instream Values: Hydropower Production 11 Institutional Change and Colorado River Allocation 11 Water Marketing ........................................................ .. 12 Interstate Transfers 12 Economic Justification and Impacts of Water Transfers 13 Research on Colorado River Water Allocation ...........................•.......... 14 Reservoir Management 14 Economic Allocation for Consumptive Uses 14 Economic Allocation and Salinity Control ..................................... .. 15 Contributions of this Research 15 iii 3 IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE: WATER AND SALINI1Y 0 •••• 0 0 0 17 Grand Valley 0 •••• 0 •••••••••••• 0 •••••••••• "0 0 ••••• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••• 0 •••••••• 0 0 •• 17 Model of Water Demand and Salinity Production 0 •••••••••••••••• 0 •• 0 0 o. 17 ~ Data and Model Description 0 • • 0 •••••0••••••••••••••0••0•••00••00 o. 18 Returns to Water and Salinity Production 0 •• 0 •••••••••••• 0•••••••••••••••••••• •• 19 Present and Future Demand 0 •••••••••••••••••••••• 0 • • • • • •• 20 Discussion ............................... 0•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••00 21 Imperial Valley 0 0 • 0 ••• 0 ••••••••••• 0 •••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 •••••••••• 0 • • •• 23 Description ... 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 0 • • • • • •• 23 Demand for Irrigation Water 0 ••••••••• 0 • •• 24 Returns to Water .. 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 ••••••••••••• 0 • 0 • • •• 24 Future Demand Functions ..... 00•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 26 Extrapolation to Additional Agricultural Sectors 0 •• 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 •• 27 4 WATER FOR USE IN ENERGY PRODUCTION. 0 0 ••••••••••••• 0 ••••• 0 •• 0 0 0 0 • • • • •• 30 Hydropower Valuation and Production ... 0 •••••• 0 ••••••••••• 0 ••• 000••••••••••••• •• 30 Economic Value of Hydropower Production ... 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 • • •• ••• •• 30 Hydropower Production 0 •• 00••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 33 Water Use in Thermal Energy Production ' .. 34 Steam Electric Generation 0 •••••••••• 0 0 •• 0 • 0 0 0 •••••• 0•••••••••••••••• •• 34 Synthetic Fuels and Oil Shale 0 0 ••• 0 0 ••• 0 •••• 0 • • •• 34 Water Treatment and Salinity Impacts 0••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 35 Water Demand Functions for Energy Production ................................ .. 36 Future Demand 0 •••••••••••••••••••• 0 • 0 •••••••••••• 0 o. 36 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL WATER DEMAND 0 • • •• 39 Household Water Demand Estimation ........................................... .. 39 Water Demand Models 0 ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 39 The Role of Income Effects . .. 39 Review of Previous Work 0•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 40 The Data Set 0 • • • • •• 41 Water Demand Models 0 • • • • • • • •• •••••• •• 42 Model Estimation .. 0 0 •••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••• 0 • • •• 43 Application of Household Demand Functions to Municipal Demand 0 •• 0 44 Municipal demand for Colorado River water ................................... .. 47 Conveyance Costs . 0 ••••••••••••••••••• 0••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 47 Treatment Costs 0•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 48 Present and Future Demand for Colorado River Water 0 ••••••••••• 0•••••••••••••• •• 48 6 MUNICIPAL SALINITY DAMAGES FROM COLORADO RIVER WATER. 0 •• •••••••• •• 50 Previous Work .. 0 0 ••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 0 •• 0 • • • •• 50 Calculation of Annual Damages .. 0 •••••••••••••• 0' •••••••••••••••••••• 0 • • • • • •• 50 Household Damage Estimates 0 • •• 52 Total Damages from Colorado River Water 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 52 Discussion of Salinity Damage Estimates 0. 0 • • • • • • • • •• 52 Future Salinity Damages 0••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 52 Damage Estimates in Perspective 0••••••••••• •• 54 7 THE COLORADO RIVER INSTITUTIONAL MODEL 55 General Model Specification 55 Physical Constraints 0 ••••••••••••••••••••• 0•••••••••••••••••••• •• 57 General Objective Function ................................................ .. 59 iv Modeling of Institutional Scenarios 59 Group 1: Allocation in Compliance with Compact Priorities . • . .. 60 Group 2: Interstate Transfers for Consumptive Uses . • . .. 61 Group 3:Scenarios Incorporating Nonconsumptive Use Values 61 Discounting of Salinity Damages •................................•............... 61 Consumptive Use Requests ..............................................•...... 62 Flow .Assumptions .................................................•........ .. 62 Reservoir Releases ............................................•......•....... 62 8 MODEL RESULTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL SCENARIOS. ...•..... .. 65 Base Model Results: 1990 Demand, Lower Decile Flow •• ~ .......................... .. 65 Group 1: Allocation in Compliance with Compact Priorities . • . .. 65 Group 2: Interstate Transfers for Consumptive Uses . • . .. 70 Group 3: Scenarios Incorporating Nonconsumptive Use Values 71 Summary. ......................................................•...... .• 73 Additional Model Definitions 74 Group 1: Allocation in Compliance with Compact Priorities . .. 74 Group 2: Interstate Transfers for Consumptive Uses . .. 86 Group 3: Scenarios Incorporating Nonconsumptive Use Values 86 Sensitivity of Model Results . • . .. 86 Southern California Municipal Demand for Colorado River Water 86 Flow Levels . .. 87 Agricultural Consumptive Use Values 87 Hydropower Production and Salinity Dilution Values 88 Limitations of the Model Specification . .. 89 9 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 90 Institutional Change and Allocative Efficiency ................ .. 90 Markets, Planning, and Models 90 Within-State Water Allocation 90 Interstate Water Allocation in the Colorado River Basin . .. 91 Water Allocation and Nonconsumptive Uses .................. .. 91 Public Goods and Colorado River Water Resources 92 Colorado River Users under Existing Institutions . .. 92 Consumptive Users 92 Nonconsumptive Users 92 Other Users 93 Winners and Losers under Institutional Change . .. 93 Impacts of Intrastate Water Transfers 93 Impacts of Interstate Water Transfers 94 Equity. ............................................................... .. 94 Concluding Remarks .... ................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Colorado River Aqueduct

    The Colorado River Aqueduct

    Fact Sheet: Our Water Lifeline__ The Colorado River Aqueduct. Photo: Aerial photo of CRA Investment in Reliability The Colorado River Aqueduct is considered one of the nation’s Many innovations came from this period in time, including the top civil engineering marvels. It was originally conceived by creation of a medical system for contract workers that would William Mulholland and designed by Metropolitan’s first Chief become the forerunner for the prepaid healthcare plan offered Engineer Frank Weymouth after consideration of more than by Kaiser Permanente. 50 routes. The 242-mile CRA carries water from Lake Havasu to the system’s terminal reservoir at Lake Mathews in Riverside. This reservoir’s location was selected because it is situated at the upper end of Metropolitan’s service area and its elevation of nearly 1,400 feet allows water to flow by gravity to the majority of our service area The CRA was the largest public works project built in Southern California during the Great Depression. Overwhelming voter approval in 1929 for a $220 million bond – equivalent to a $3.75 billion investment today – brought jobs to 35,000 people. Miners, engineers, surveyors, cooks and more came to build Colorado River the aqueduct, living in the harshest of desert conditions and Aqueduct ultimately constructing 150 miles of canals, siphons, conduits and pipelines. They added five pumping plants to lift water over mountains so deliveries could then flow west by gravity. And they blasted 90-plus miles of tunnels, including a waterway under Mount San Jacinto. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA // // JULY 2021 FACT SHEET: THE COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT // // OUR WATER LIFELINE The Vision Despite the city of Los Angeles’ investment in its aqueduct, by the early 1920s, Southern Californians understood the region did not have enough local supplies to meet growing demands.
  • The Future of the Salton Sea with No Restoration Project

    The Future of the Salton Sea with No Restoration Project

    HAZARD The Future of the Salton Sea With No Restoration Project MAY 2006 © Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved ISBN No. 1-893790-12-6 ISBN-13: 978-1-893790-12-4 Pacific Institute 654 13th Street, Preservation Park Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone (510) 251-1600 Facsimile (510) 251-2203 [email protected] www.pacinst.org HAZARD The Future of the Salton Sea With No Restoration Project Michael J. Cohen and Karen H. Hyun A report of the MAY 2006 Prepared with the support of The Salton Sea Coalition & Imperial Visions The U.S. Geological Survey Salton Sea Science Office and the Compton Foundation About the Authors Michael Cohen is a Senior Associate at the Pacific Institute. He is the lead author of the Institute’s 1999 report entitled Haven or Hazard: The Ecology and Future of the Salton Sea, and of the 2001 report entitled Missing Water: The Uses and Flows of Water in the Colorado River Delta Region. He is also the co-author of several journal articles on water and the environment in the border region. He is a member of the California Resources Agency’s Salton Sea Advisory Committee. Karen Hyun is a Ph.D. candidate in the Marine Affairs Program at the University of Rhode Island. Her research interests include ecosystem-based management and governance, especially in the Colorado River Delta. She also has interests in transboundary water issues, authoring Solutions Lie Between the Extremes: The Evolution of International Watercourse Law on the Colorado River. In addition, she has examined watershed to coast issues in Transboundary Solutions to Environmental Problems in the Gulf of California Large Marine Ecosystem.
  • Natural Capital in the Colorado River Basin

    Natural Capital in the Colorado River Basin

    NATURE’S VALUE IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN NATURE’S VALUE IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN JULY, 2014 AUTHORS David Batker, Zachary Christin, Corinne Cooley, Dr. William Graf, Dr. Kenneth Bruce Jones, Dr. John Loomis, James Pittman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was commissioned by The Walton Family Foundation. Earth Economics would like to thank our project advisors for their invaluable contributions and expertise: Dr. Kenneth Bagstad of the United States Geological Survey, Dr. William Graf of the University of South Carolina, Dr. Kenneth Bruce Jones of the Desert Research Institute, and Dr. John Loomis of Colorado State University. We would like to thank our team of reviewers, which included Dr. Kenneth Bagstad, Jeff Mitchell, and Leah Mitchell. We would also like to thank our Board of Directors for their continued support and guidance: David Cosman, Josh Farley, and Ingrid Rasch. Earth Economics research team for this study included Cameron Otsuka, Jacob Gellman, Greg Schundler, Erica Stemple, Brianna Trafton, Martha Johnson, Johnny Mojica, and Neil Wagner. Cover and layout design by Angela Fletcher. The authors are responsible for the content of this report. PREPARED BY 107 N. Tacoma Ave Tacoma, WA 98403 253-539-4801 www.eartheconomics.org [email protected] ©2014 by Earth Economics. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. FUNDED BY EARTH ECONOMICS i ABSTRACT This study presents an economic characterization of the value of ecosystem services in the Colorado River Basin, a 249,000 square mile region spanning across mountains, plateaus, and low-lying valleys of the American Southwest.
  • Law of the River the Colorado River Compact

    Law of the River the Colorado River Compact

    Colorado River Water Users Association: Law of the River . The Colorado River Compact . As the 20th century dawned, the The Colorado River Compact vast domain of the Colorado River lay almost entirely Boulder Canyon Project Act untouched. Though there had been a few early filings for Treaty with Mexico diversion and a "grand ditch" conveying water some 16 miles across the Continental Divide Upper Colorado River Basin into eastern Colorado in the late Compact of 1948 1800s, California's Imperial Valley was among the first areas to tap the river's true potential. In early 1901, the 60 mile long Alamo Canal, Colorado River Storage Project developed by private concerns, was completed to deliver Colorado Act River water for irrigation, and a wasteland was transformed. But the Imperial Valley did not move ahead without problems. About 50 miles Grand Canyon Protection Act of the canal coursed through Mexico, leaving the valley farmers at the mercy of a foreign government. And in 1905, the river, raging with Arizona vs. California floods, eroded the opening to the canal, roared through and created the Salton Sea before the river was pushed back into its normal channel. Future of Western Water With the constant threat of flood looming along the lower Colorado, demands grew for some sort of permanent flood control work -a storage reservoir and dam on the river. And Imperial Valley farmers called for a canal totally within the United States, free of Mexican interference. By 1919, Imperial Irrigation District had won the support of the federal Bureau of Reclamation. A bureau engineering board recommended favorably on the canal and added the government "should undertake the early construction of a storage reservoir on the drainage basin of the Colorado." While this report was greeted with enthusiasm by people along the river's lower stretches, it was viewed with alarm by those in upper reaches.
  • Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP, Arizona and Utah

    Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP, Arizona and Utah

    Contents Glen Canyon Unit ............................................................................................................................2 Project Location...................................................................................................................3 Historic Setting ....................................................................................................................4 Project Authorization .........................................................................................................8 Pre-Construction ................................................................................................................14 Construction.......................................................................................................................21 Project Benefits and Uses of Project Water.......................................................................31 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................36 Notes ..................................................................................................................................39 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................46 Index ..................................................................................................................................52 Glen Canyon Unit The Glen Canyon Unit, located along the Colorado River in north central
  • Colorado River Slideshow Title TK

    Colorado River Slideshow Title TK

    The Colorado River: Lifeline of the Southwest { The Headwaters The Colorado River begins in the Rocky Mountains at elevation 10,000 feet, about 60 miles northwest of Denver in Colorado. The Path Snow melts into water, flows into the river and moves downstream. In Utah, the river meets primary tributaries, the Green River and the San Juan River, before flowing into Lake Powell and beyond. Source: Bureau of Reclamation The Path In total, the Colorado River cuts through 1,450 miles of mountains, plains and deserts to Mexico and the Gulf of California. Source: George Eastman House It was almost 1,500 years ago when humans first tapped the river. Since then, the water has been claimed, reclaimed, divided and subdivided many times. The river is the life source for seven states – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – as well as the Republic of Mexico. River Water Uses There are many demands for Colorado River water: • Agriculture and Livestock • Municipal and Industrial • Recreation • Fish/Wildlife and Habitat • Hydroelectricity • Tribes • Mexico Source: USGS Agriculture The Colorado River provides irrigation water to about 3.5 million acres of farmland – about 80 percent of its flows. Municipal Phoenix Denver About 15 percent of Colorado River flows provide drinking and household water to more than 30 million people. These cities include: Las Vegas and Phoenix, and cities outside the Basin – Denver, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Recreation Source: Utah Office of Tourism Source: Emma Williams Recreation includes fishing, boating, waterskiing, camping and whitewater rafting in 22 National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and National Recreation Areas along river.
  • Sunland-Tujunga, Lake View Terrace and Shadow Hills 07.14.2020 GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT REGION

    Sunland-Tujunga, Lake View Terrace and Shadow Hills 07.14.2020 GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT REGION

    Sunland-Tujunga, Lake View Terrace and Shadow Hills 07.14.2020 GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT REGION Sylmar Uninc. Sylmar San Fernando «¬118 Arleta - Pacoima Sunland-Tujunga-Lake View Terrace-Shadow Hills Mission Hills - Panorama City Sun Valley - ¨¦§210 - North Hills La Tuna Canyon La Canada Flintridge ¨¦§5 «¬170 Glendale Burbank North Hollywood - Valley Village City of LA Valley Glen - North 0 0.5 1 2 «¬2 Sherman Oaks ° City of LA Hollywood Miles Community Boundary Funded by California Department of Water Resources and Prop 1 It’s our water. TOOLKIT TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT BACKGROUND What is WaterTalks? IRWM Regions- How do we plan for water in California? Project Overview- How is WaterTalks funded? Funding- What sources of funding are available for water-related projects? WATER IN OUR ENVIRONMENT Surface Water and Groundwater- Where does my rainwater go? How do contaminants get into our water? Watershed- What is a watershed? Groundwater- Where does my groundwater come from? Flooding- Am I at risk of flooding? (optional) Access to Parks and Local Waterways- How clean are our lakes, streams, rivers, and beaches? Where can I find parks and local waterways? Existing Land Use- How does land use affect our water? Capturing and Storing Water- How can we catch and store rainwater? OUR TAP WATER Water Sources- Where does my tap water come from? Water Consumption- How much water does one person drink? How much water do we use at home? Tap Water Quality- How clean is my drinking water? Water Service Provider-
  • Fl()Y ) C)F The

    Fl()Y ) C)F The

    NEWSLETTJ-1.'R FROM DR. BEN YELLEN hrawley,, Calif. August 15, 1967 FL()Y _) C)F THE 1~N L/-\\A/ If' ~ C.hi af of Police of a big city went around making speeohes anc't ~tateme:rc,~ th~t- the ~aw about closj_ng houses of prostitution and clos­ J.ng g Q . D}.UJ.g. Jotr.t~. is antiquat;ed and should not be enforced because people like t.o gcimn .!.e a~1d fornicate, it would seem quite peculiar to rou. If you wt-1r s not a trusting soul, you would even have the suspic- ion that the Chief of Police was taking the payoff. · The Chlef ( Co'lliil.;.ssianer )of the Bureau of Recla!!2atio.n eif the u.s. Interior Dept., wb.one sworn duty is to enforce the U.S. P..eclarn. ation Law of 1902 aotually goes about making statements to sabotage the eni'orce- ment of this~~SWo . In the Irs Angeles Times of July 23, 19.;7 in an article entitlec. "16e-ACRE LIMIT: IS IT HORSE &, BUGGY LAW?, is written, "Fl~yd E. Domi~y th~ ~u.reau' ~ ccmmission.e:r, says tb.at while he's sympathetic to the · ' spiri~ of tne laN-it was des:i.gned. to make sure that the benefits of fe8.­ eral invest:nents be as vridely dispersed as possible- he's convinoec!. 160 a cres now <tonsti·Gutes too small a farm in most oases". AnJ. theJ.1 tho repor~;er makes a direot qu~tati ..-,n from Dcminy whiah is typical ~f thl3 ste:i;c-;m.
  • Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area

    Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area

    Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area, By BURDGE IRELAN, WATER RESOURCES OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER-SALTON SEA AREA pl. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E . i V ) 116) P, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract El Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Introduction 2 Imperial Dam, 1961-65-Continued General chemical characteristics of Colorado River Tapeats Creek E26 water from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam 2 Havasu Creek -26 Lees Ferry . 4 Virgin River - 26 Grand Canyon 6 Unmeasured inflow between Grand Canyon and Hoover Dam 8 Hoover Dam 26 Lake Havasu 11 Chemical changes in Lake Mead --- ---- - 26 Imperial Dam ---- - 12 Bill Williams River 27 Mineral burden of the lower Colorado River, 1926-65 - 12 Chemical changes in Lakes Mohave and Havasu ___ 27 Analysis of dissolved-solids loads 13 Diversion to Colorado River aqueduct 27 Analysis of ionic loads ____ - 15 Parker Dam to Imperial Dam 28 Average annual ionic burden of the Colorado River 20 Ionic accounting of principal irrigation areas above Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam - __ -------- 28 Imperial Dam, 1961-65 ____- ___ 22 General characteristics of Colorado River water below Lees Ferry 23 Imperial Dam Paria River 23 Ionic budgets for the Colorado River below Imperial Little Colorado River 24 Blue Springs --- 25 Dam and Gila River - 34 Unmeasured inflow from Lees Ferry to Grand Quality of surface water in the Salton Sea basin in Canyon 25 California Grand Canyon 25 Summary of conclusions 39 Bright Angel Creek 25 References ILLUSTRATIONS Page FIGURE 1 .
  • Hidden Passage the Journal of Glen Canyon Institute Issue XXII, Fall 2016 Reflecting on 20 Years of Glen Canyon Institute

    Hidden Passage the Journal of Glen Canyon Institute Issue XXII, Fall 2016 Reflecting on 20 Years of Glen Canyon Institute

    Hidden Passage the journal of glen canyon institute Issue XXII, Fall 2016 Reflecting on 20 Years of Glen Canyon Institute Glen Canyon Institute by Rich Ingebretsen President Richard Ingebretsen Board of Trustees Scott Christensen Ed Dobson David Wegner Wade Graham Tyler Coles Lea Rudee Mike Sargetakis It was on January 21, 1963, that a little known event occurred that would change Executive Director the environmental world forever. It was a normal day of construction at the dam site Eric Balken in Glen Canyon. The weather was cold and ice was everywhere. For several days, Special Projects Coordinator crews had been chipping ice away from the right bypass tunnel that had been chan- neling the Colorado River around the now 200-foot-high dam. Quietly, and with no Michael Kellett fanfare to alert potential protestors, the project manager ordered the closing of the Office Manager tunnel. In doing so the Colorado River, which had flowed freely for millions of years Keir Lee-Barber in Glen Canyon, would for the first time be stopped by a man-made object. God help us all, the reservoir called Lake Powell was born. Advisory Committee Dan Beard At this time, Glen Canyon seemed lost. In the spring of 1968, a scout trip from Salt Roy Webb Lake City visited what was left of Glen Canyon and hiked up Bridge Canyon to see Katie Lee Rainbow Bridge. I was in that scout troop. We hiked up the deep narrow canyons that Bruce Mouro led to Rainbow Bridge. All the way we were accompanied by waterfalls, slides, huge Tom Myers Carla Scheidlinger rocks, warm pools.
  • QUAGGA and ZEBRA MUSSEL SIGHTINGS DISTRIBUTION in the WESTERN UNITED STATES 2007 - 2009 ") Indicates Presence of Quagga Mussels ") Indicates Presence of Zebra Mussels

    QUAGGA and ZEBRA MUSSEL SIGHTINGS DISTRIBUTION in the WESTERN UNITED STATES 2007 - 2009 ") Indicates Presence of Quagga Mussels ") Indicates Presence of Zebra Mussels

    QUAGGA AND ZEBRA MUSSEL SIGHTINGS DISTRIBUTION IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 2007 - 2009 ") indicates presence of quagga mussels ") indicates presence of zebra mussels NEVADA Lake Mead - January 2007 Lake Mohave - January 2007 CALIFORNIA Parker Dam - January 2007 Colorado River Aqueduct - March 2007 Washington Colorado RA at Hayfield - July 2007 Lake Matthews - August 2007 Lake Skinner - August 2007 Dixon Reservoir - August 2007 Lower Otay Reservoir - August 2007 Montana San Vicente Reservoir - August 2007 North Dakota ") Murray Reservoir - September 2007 ") ")") ")") Lake Miramar - December 2007 Oregon ")") Sweetwater Reservoir - December 2007 ") San Justo Lake - January 2008 ") El Capitan Reservoir - January 2008 Idaho ") ")")")") Lake Jennings - April 2008 ")")")")") Olivenhain Reservoir - March 2008 South Dakota ")") Irvine Lake - April 2008 ") Rattlesnake Reservoir - May 2008 Lake Ramona - March 2009 Wyoming ")") Walnut Canyon Reservoir - July 2009 ") Kraemer Basin - September 2009 ") Anaheim Lake - September 2009 ") Nebraska ARIZONA ") Lake Havasu - January 2007 Nevada ") ") Central Arizona Project Canal - August 2007 ") Lake Pleasant - December 2007 ") ")") Imperial Dam - February 2008 Utah Salt River - October 2008 ") ") ") ")") COLORADO Colorado Kansas Pueblo Reservoir - January 2008 ") ") ")")") Lake Granby - July 2008 California ")")")")")") ") ")") Grand Lake - September 2008 ")")")")")")") ")") Willow Creek Reservoir - September 2008 ")")")")")") ") Shadow Mountain Reservoir - September 2008 ") ") ") ")")") Jumbo Lake - October
  • Kayaking from Source to Sea on the Colorado River: the Basin Up-Close and Personal by Zak Podmore with Photos from Will Stauffer-Norris

    Kayaking from Source to Sea on the Colorado River: the Basin Up-Close and Personal by Zak Podmore with Photos from Will Stauffer-Norris

    Kayaking from Source to Sea on the Colorado River: The Basin Up-Close and Personal By Zak Podmore with photos from Will Stauffer-Norris The 2012 Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card The Colorado River Basin: Agenda for Use, Restoration, and Sustainability for the Next Generation About the Authors: Zak Podmore (Colorado College class of ‘11) is a 2011-12 Field Researcher for the State of the Rockies Project. Will Stauffer-Norris (Colorado College class of ‘11) is a 2011-12 Field Researcher for the State of the Rockies Project. Will Stauffer-Norris The 2012 State of the Rockies Report Card Source to Sea 13 First day of kayaking! So much faster... ? Dam portage was easy ? in the sheri's car Will and Zak near the “source” of the Green River in Wyoming’s Wind River Range Upper Basin Bighorn sheep in Desolation Canyon Finished Powell, THE CONFLUENCE surrounded by houseboats ? e End of the Grand ? ? ? ? Survived Vegas, back to the river North rim attempt thwarted Lower Basin by snow & dark Dry river bed; about ? to try the canals Will water go to LA, Zak paddles through an irrigation canal Phoenix, or Mexico? Floating in the ? remnants of the Delta ? USA MEXICO ? El Golfo, el n. - The gulf of California The messages on this map were transmitted from Will and Zak via GPS while they were on the river. Between Mountains and Mexico By mid-January, the Colorado River had become a High in the Wind River Mountains of Wyoming, joke. Will Stauffer-Norris and I climbed out of a concrete Mexico was a joke.