2027-28 Operational Guidelines are Released - Big Picture... What Does It Mean?

[JFRCalifornia]

The BOR released the long-anticipated 2027-28 operational guidelines for the Colorado River today. You can read a summary here:

Interior Department Finalizes Plans for 2027-2028 Colorado River Operations | U.S. Department of the Interior

The Department of the Interior issued the 2027-2028 Operating Guidelines and the Record of Decision for the Post-2026 Colorado River Operations Final EIS, establishing a 10-year Decision Framework with a broad operational range that will be used to develop future operational guidelines for Lake...

www.doi.gov

I went through the whole thing, it's not a long document, 16 pages in all. But it is complicated and confusing. By all means, read the summary and the document for yourself, but I'll give you my take on what it boils down to:

1. This is a short-term stop gap measure. Because there was no long-term agreement among the states, the feds are making a 2-year operational plan, to be updated every 2 years to respond to changing conditions. They'll keep doing this until 2036.

2. The feds are going to do everything possible including the kitchen sink to make sure Lake Powell stays over 3500, and ideally, 3510. Releases from GCD can be as low as 6.0 maf, and under critical conditions when It looks like we're slipping toward 3500, they can drop outflows as low as 5.0 maf for the year to keep things up. They can also release extra from the upper reservoirs to feed Lake Powell. And if all that means to hell with the deliveries to the lower basin under the Compact, so be it. [This is the first lawsuit waiting to happen.]

3. The plan calls for reductions to the lower basin states and not to the upper basin when water is low, as it is right now. At first blush, the required 1.25 maf cut to the lower basin (plus 700,000 af in additional voluntary conservation through 2028) seems like a big deal, until you realize they're already pretty much doing that. Lower basin use in 2025 was 5.76 af. The required cut is based on their total Compact allocation of 7.5 maf, so the cut only reduces them to 6.25 maf. The additional 0.7 maf conservation more or less brings them into line with what they are doing now. What this does is codify what they are already doing, nothing more. As for the upper basin, the plan requires nothing from them. [This is the second lawsuit waiting to happen.]

4. Just for the record, the plan would reduce the use limits to the lower basin in low water conditions (like now) as follows:

CA - 3.96 maf (from 4.4)
AZ - 2.04 maf (from 2.8)
NV - 0.25 maf (from 0.3)

This compares to the actual 2025 use, which was:

CA - 3.65 maf
AZ - 1.91 maf
NV - 0.20 maf

So no real reduction.

5. As for Mexico, they still have to work that out with them.

Bottom line is that the feds are talking with a lot of smoke and mirrors, but the plan doesn't really do much. They aren't really requiring any reductions beyond what is already happening, and we know that's not enough as it is. They can manage releases with more flexibility under this plan to buy some time, but if the water isn't there, it won't matter much in the long run. And for all that, we're likely to see at least two lawsuits from the lower basin: 1) failure to deliver water under the 1922 compact; and 2) failure to spread the burden to the upper basin states.

Setting the legal issues aside, I think the plan doesn't go far enough. There need to be deeper cuts beyond what are happening now, and those cuts have to be spread fairly among all seven states. As it is, this is a complicated plan that doesn't really move the needle much, except in courtrooms.

 

[BJL]

Thanks JFR for another great summary of a confusing but important document. It appears the Bureau is forgoing consideration of any resource other than infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam. It's a framework for years of legal battles from many different interest groups, and frankly disappointing that they are not using this as an opportunity to acknowledge that it's time for change throughout the entire basin.

 

[ndscott50]

Agree with you that this is essentially more kicking the can down the road. On the lawsuit front I have a lot of doubt that anything will be resolved through the legal system. Even if there is eventually some legal resolution I suspect it will take years, if not a decade to resolve.

It’s highly unlikely that a judge will issue any type of injunction against the current plan. BOR is going to raise the issue of safety, along with operational risk if they are not able to implement their plan. A judge is not going to want to overrule that. The strong preference from the legal system will be to push all parties to work out a deal.

On the compact, I would note, “The States of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years…”

That language has not been tested in court. It does not say the upper basin shall deliver, it says will not cause. The upper basin is going to argue that they have not caused the flow to decrease, the climate has. They will point out that their use has been flat to slightly declining over the 25 year period where water storage fell. The compact case is not an automatic win for the Lower basin states.

Arizona is probably most screwed in this case. In the 60’s Arizona cut a deal to get the CAP approved where they agreed to have 1.5 million acre feet junior to California’s and other water rights in the basin. It’s going to be very difficult for them to protect that water in court due to that agreement.

 

[BJL]

Understanding that we are all our own "special interest group", I frankly worry the most about the fragile environment in the Grand Canyon. Originally altered by the building of the dam some of the recent science and management has at least tried to address some of these issues. Beach building HFE's, cool mix to mitigate Small Mouth Bass invasion, protection of native fish, at least marginal input from the 11 native tribes that have called the Grand Canyon home since long before we were on the Plateau. All of that (and the multi, multi millions spent for these issues) has been marginalized. And I agree it will take years when/if this all goes to court.

 

[A man called horse]

A bit off topic, but related to all the basins drought. Federal involvement has accelerated the exposure of our problem.
Mega drought disaster movie, fiction or not would draw huge huge audience now. Tough to call who would play the lead as Charlton Heston is no longer available. I’m in for the bit part of the fishermen caught in the sucking whirlpool caused by GCD failure.

 

[flowerbug]

My WAGs of the day:

I wouldn't expect the AZ failure to gain any more than what they have already negotiated as junior rights.

I expect an effort to start reducing diversions (to the eastern front in CO and UT) by some percentage when droughts are declared, but after some rounds of litigation - resolved in about 20yrs.

 

[eddy.price]

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next years, assuming that the precipitation is similar to the past few and the lake continues to be under threat from reduced runoff. As Lake Powell boater as well as a river runner, both on rivers above and below the damn, a lot could change for me as well as everyone else who uses the lake and rivers for recreation, as well of course counting on it to meet all our basic human needs.

Best case would be that the flow coming into Lake Powell are increased from releases from reservoirs above the lake, which would allow for increased River use. And maintaining lake level where we are able to access it with powerboats, and releases from the dam that allow continued boating through the Grand Canyon. But that’s a dream scenario. Reality may be much different. Time will tell and we will see. As I said, it will be interesting times!

 

[Colorado Expat]

On the compact, I would note, “The States of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years…”

That language has not been tested in court. It does not say the upper basin shall deliver, it says will not cause. The upper basin is going to argue that they have not caused the flow to decrease, the climate has. They will point out that their use has been flat to slightly declining over the 25 year period where water storage fell. The compact case is not an automatic win for the Lower basin states.

One aspect of this that will be interesting, if it goes to litigation, is how the courts will deal with the significant number of trans-basin diversions that have been constructed in the Upper Basin subsequent to the Compact (Colorado-Big Thompson, Arkansas-Frying Pan, Roberts Tunnel, Central Utah Project, to name a few). Arizona (and the other Lower Basin states) might argue that these diversions have caused the river to deliver less water past Lees Ferry than the Compact specifies, since water has been removed from the Colorado River basin altogether by junior rights holders. Granted, some of these projects were built by the US government, not the states themselves, but in many cases there were state cost-shares or permitting involved (mandatory with any project involving the Army Corps), making the states a party to the action. And while it seems unlikely that the courts would force existing trans-basin diversions to cease and desist, given the social consequences, any new ones being built, such as the current major expansion of Gross Reservoir by Denver Water, or the large new project by Front Range Water around Fort Collins, could conceivably be restricted from diverting and storing additional water until such time as Compact obligations are met.

Such an outcome is not out of the question, since a similar litigation brought by Wyoming against Colorado in 1922 over apportionment of the Laramie River established our present prior appropriation doctrine after going all the way to the Supreme Court. The outcome of that case limited Colorado’s upstream diversions to protect senior water rights downstream in Wyoming. A case involving Lower Basin deliveries under the Compact would have strong similarities, and could well go against the Upper Basin states. That would put a serious crimp in future growth prospects for the Upper Basin metropolitan areas, particularly along Colorado's Front Range and Utah’s Wasatch Front, since many of the post-Compact diversions they rely on were constructed by their water departments, and have junior rights. Given such risks, it is not clear why Colorado in particular has taken such a rigid stance in the current negotiations, insisting that it is all the Lower Basin’s problem to solve. They may be in for a nasty shock if the courts may tell them otherwise. Stay tuned.

 

[JFRCalifornia]

One aspect of this that will be interesting, if it goes to litigation, is how the courts will deal with the significant number of trans-basin diversions that have been constructed in the Upper Basin subsequent to the Compact (Colorado-Big Thompson, Arkansas-Frying Pan, Roberts Tunnel, Central Utah Project, to name a few). Arizona (and the other Lower Basin states) might argue that these diversions have caused the river to deliver less water past Lees Ferry than the Compact specifies, since water has been removed from the Colorado River basin altogether by junior rights holders. Granted, some of these projects were built by the US government, not the states themselves, but in many cases there were state cost-shares or permitting involved (mandatory with any project involving the Army Corps), making the states a party to the action. And while it seems unlikely that the courts would force existing trans-basin diversions to cease and desist, given the social consequences, any new ones being built, such as the current major expansion of Gross Reservoir by Denver Water, or the large new project by Front Range Water around Fort Collins, could conceivably be restricted from diverting and storing additional water until such time as Compact obligations are met.

Such an outcome is not out of the question, since a similar litigation brought by Wyoming against Colorado in 1922 over apportionment of the Laramie River established our present prior appropriation doctrine after going all the way to the Supreme Court. The outcome of that case limited Colorado’s upstream diversions to protect senior water rights downstream in Wyoming. A case involving Lower Basin deliveries under the Compact would have strong similarities, and could well go against the Upper Basin states. That would put a serious crimp in future growth prospects for the Upper Basin metropolitan areas, particularly along Colorado's Front Range and Utah’s Wasatch Front, since many of the post-Compact diversions they rely on were constructed by their water departments, and have junior rights. Given such risks, it is not clear why Colorado in particular has taken such a rigid stance in the current negotiations, insisting that it is all the Lower Basin’s problem to solve. They may be in for a nasty shock if the courts may tell them otherwise. Stay tuned.

I think your analysis is spot on, and the Wyoming v. Colorado case is relevant. I’d argue that case is a primary reason why the Compact came together so quickly in 1922, and why Colorado in particular realized they had a poor hand to play in the negotiations… at the time, they probably felt the Compact was as good a deal as they could get, even though it favored the lower basin.

Those trans-basin diversions do indeed provide a wedge for the lower basin in a lawsuit…

 

[ndscott50]

That would put a serious crimp in future growth prospects for the Upper Basin metropolitan areas, particularly along Colorado's Front Range and Utah’s Wasatch Front, since many of the post-Compact diversions they rely on were constructed by their

I would push back on the idea that this would limit upper basin population growth significantly. The population has nearly doubled over the last 30 years while trans-basin diversions have remained flat (down a little bit actually) Overall consumptive water use in Colorado is flat to slightly down over the same period.

Population growth is not driving increased water use. It’s shifting water from agricultural use to municipal use. If Colorado were to lose a lawsuit and have diversions reduced - the overwhelming result will be less agriculture.