Colorado River Compacts and Current Issues
Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources/Select Water Committees June 14, 2018
Wyoming State Engineer’s Office
Flaming Gorge Reservoir from Red Canyon Overlook 1 CO River Basin drains nearly 250,000 Square Miles.
Provides water to 40 million people and 5.5 million acres of irrigated lands.
Served area has economic value of approx. $1.4 trillion annually.
2 In Wyoming, the Colorado River Basin covers about 17,000 square miles, inclusive of the areas drained by the Green and Little Snake Rivers.
3 Law of the River
Law of the River: Some Important Components: Colorado River Compact, 1922 Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) The Big Mexican Water Treaty, 1944 Three The Upper Colorado River Compact, 1948 Colorado River Storage Project Act (1956) Arizona v. California (1963) Colorado River Basin Project Act (1968) Long-Range Operating Criteria (1970) Interim Surplus Guidelines (2001) Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Reservoir Operations (2007) Minute 323 to the Treaty with Mexico
4 1922 Compact Apportions the River
UpperUpper Division Basin States Lee Ferry
LowerLower Division Basin States
Harvard University Water Federalism Conference, 2012 5 1922 Compact Apportions the River Annual apportionments to each Basin: The Compact does not apportion water, it apportions the “exclusive beneficial consumptive use” of water.
Upper Basin 7.5 MAF
Total Aggregate Apportionment: 16 MAF Lower Basin 7.5 MAF + 1 MAF 8.5 MAF
Harvard University Water Federalism Conference, 2012 6 Colorado River Basin: Includes areas outside of the Basin beneficially served by System water.
7 Year Progressive Ten-Year Notes/rank Total
2017 91.67 MAF Middle of the road 2010 84.78 MAF At 82.5 MAF, differences in interpretation of Law of River implicated 1987 131.75 MAF Highest – following flooding in mid-80s 1972 75.31 MAF Lowest – during filling of Lake Powell after construction 8 Treaty with Mexico, 1944
Upper Basin 7.5 MAF
Total Apportionments Lower Basin U.S. and MX: 8.5 MAF 17.5 MAF
Mexico Harvard University Water Federalism Conference, 2012 1.5 MAF 9 10 Upper Basin Apportionment
Wyoming: 14% Full: 1,043,000 Current: 546,000
Utah: 23% Colorado: 51.75% Full: 1,713,500 Full: 3,855,375 Current: 865,000 Current: 2,595,000
Arizona 50,000 AF
Total UB New Mexico: 11.25% Full: 838,125 Full: 7.5 MAF Current: 530,000 Current: 5,056,000 (includes 520,000 AF CRSP evaporation)
Harvard University Water Federalism Conference, 2012 11 12 13 Coordinated Reservoir Operations Lake Powell and Lake Mead
Equalize
8.23 or balance if Mead low
7.48 or 8.23 if Mead low
Balance
14 Lower Basin Apportionments 1922 Compact; Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928); AZ V. CA Decree, 1964.
Total LB Full Apportionment: 8.5 MAF Nevada Mainstream Current Use: 9.7 to 10.7 MAF 300,000 (2017: 243,425) (assumes 1 to 2 MAF tributary use and includes system losses)
California Mainstream Arizona 4,400,000 Mainstream (2017: 4,026,515) 2,800,000 (2017: 2,509,503)
Harvard University Water Federalism Conference, 2012 15 Structural Deficit
16 Current Issue: Drought
Basin Hydrology--How Bad Is It? Water Year 2018: Est. 51% of normal unregulated inflow into Lake Powell. 6 of last 18 years of inflows into Lake Powell were less than 5 million acre-feet. Above-average inflows into Lake Powell have occurred only 4 years since 2000. 3 of the 4 lowest years on record have occurred during the 18-year drought, with 2012 and 2013 being the driest consecutive two-year period in recorded history. Current predictions are for increasing demand and decreasing supply. CoordinatedCoordinated OperationsOperations
Slide from BOR 18 Begins with forecasted Jan. 2019 elevation at Lake Powell: About 45% full Three recent droughts superimposed on Jan. 2019 conditions (drawdowns based on historical record) No Drought Contingency Plans in place
3490’ is the minimum power pool elevation: Impacts to power generation occur at higher elevations.
Hydros Consulting Inc.
19 Elevation ~3,490 feet at Lake Powell, but negative impacts to power generation occur at higher elevations. Loss of power generation impacts: Lose large clean power supply. Lose funds for: . Repaying for construction of projects. . Operating and maintaining Glen Canyon, Aspinall, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, etc. reservoirs. . Implementing compliance with Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and Grand Canyon protection legislation. . Salinity mitigation. . Basin Fund MOA: Projects within each UB State. Increased risk of not meeting Compact obligations.
20 Drought Contingency Planning – General
Why are we doing it? If critical elevations are breached, the system faces threats to ability to control own destiny – Compact compliance, irrigation, drinking water supply, power production, environmental resource preservation, and overall sustainability.
Low probability but High Risk. Sensible to plan for the worst case scenarios to avoid potential controversy, conflict, litigation and uncertainty both within the Upper Basin and between Basins. Preparation for but not predicting need for implementation.
21 Drought Operations of CRSP Initial Units Conserve water in Lake Powell through operational adjustments or move water available from upper CRSP facilities (Aspinall, Flaming Gorge, Navajo).
Demand Management Explore feasibility and evaluate alternatives to facilitate temporary, voluntary reductions in consumptive use through willing participant arrangements. Any program must not impair the right to exercise existing water rights. Voluntary and compensated as opposed to mandatory and uncompensated. System conservation pilot program.
Weather Modification Snowpack augmentation through cloud seeding. For use in the Upper Basin and additional system water to mitigate decreasing Upper Basin storage.
22 LB Drought Contingency Planning Voluntary reductions in water use beyond those required by the 2017 Interim Guidelines (a total of 1.1 maf). . Includes a commitment by the U.S. to work to create or conserve Colorado River system water. . Includes voluntary reductions from California which does not take mandatory reductions. Permits recovery of additional conservation volumes under certain conditions. . Incentivizes ICS creation/storage. Sustainability planning Recognizing need for longer-term mechanisms for addressing “Structural Deficit” in the Lower Basin.
23 CoordinatedCoordinated OperationsOperations
BOR Slide from BOR 24