Colorado river cutbacks in Arizona

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like JFR's framework for renegotiation. I'm wondering if the 1922 Compact has an expiration date, or if it is open-ended.

I have a couple of counterpoints to JFR...

The installed generating capacity at Glen Canyon Dam is 1,320 MW, but actual generation is much lower, due to lower water levels and flows. Just pulling up the numbers from the BoR, they were generating in the 6,365 MWH per day range in mid-November, or 265 MW. By contrast, the Navajo Generating Plant near Page had a nameplate capacity of 2,250 MW, and the Intermountain Power Plant (thermal plant near Delta UT) has a nameplate capacity of 1,900 MW. The U.S. installed 5.7 gigawatts (GWdc) of solar PV capacity in Q2 2021. I don't see as big of a hit to the southwestern power grid if the Glen Canyon generating capacity goes away. In a different world (like with an equalizing reservoir below Lake Powell) Glen Canyon could have been used for peaking power, but we as a society decided not to, so as to help the ecosystem in the Grand Canyon.

Utah is not a real heavy user of Colorado basin water. One diversion with potential to divert a lot of water from the basin involves tunneling from the Flaming Gorge area, and then sending the water along the south slope of the Uinta Mountains and through/under the Wasatch Range to the Wasatch Front. If the users had to pay the capitol cost of that project the water would be too expensive to use.

The Wasatch Front water consumption (residential) is excessive, but could be cut by a very large fraction (80%) if we chose to stop residential irrigation. There would still be plenty of water available for culinary / flushing uses.

So I don't see Utah as being in a world of hurt even with only one third of their 1922 Compact water share.

Glen Canyon Dam has been described as the "cash register" for the Colorado River Storage Project (or whatever you want to call the whole system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and so forth). They sold electricity at market rates, well above the cost of generation (unknown if they included the amortized capitol cost of building the dam and generating station), and then used those funds to pay for the water delivery projects. What would the Southwest look like if they had sold the power at cost, and charged the water users the full cost of delivery for BoR water projects? I imagine that there would be a lot less desert farming, and perhaps a lot less population in the Southwest. On the other hand, there might be more industry heavily dependent on cheap power such as aluminum production. Food prices would most likely be higher, and less fresh food would be available in the Southwest.
 
I like JFR's framework for renegotiation. I'm wondering if the 1922 Compact has an expiration date, or if it is open-ended.

I have a couple of counterpoints to JFR...

The installed generating capacity at Glen Canyon Dam is 1,320 MW, but actual generation is much lower, due to lower water levels and flows. Just pulling up the numbers from the BoR, they were generating in the 6,365 MWH per day range in mid-November, or 265 MW. By contrast, the Navajo Generating Plant near Page had a nameplate capacity of 2,250 MW, and the Intermountain Power Plant (thermal plant near Delta UT) has a nameplate capacity of 1,900 MW. The U.S. installed 5.7 gigawatts (GWdc) of solar PV capacity in Q2 2021. I don't see as big of a hit to the southwestern power grid if the Glen Canyon generating capacity goes away. In a different world (like with an equalizing reservoir below Lake Powell) Glen Canyon could have been used for peaking power, but we as a society decided not to, so as to help the ecosystem in the Grand Canyon.

Utah is not a real heavy user of Colorado basin water. One diversion with potential to divert a lot of water from the basin involves tunneling from the Flaming Gorge area, and then sending the water along the south slope of the Uinta Mountains and through/under the Wasatch Range to the Wasatch Front. If the users had to pay the capitol cost of that project the water would be too expensive to use.

The Wasatch Front water consumption (residential) is excessive, but could be cut by a very large fraction (80%) if we chose to stop residential irrigation. There would still be plenty of water available for culinary / flushing uses.

So I don't see Utah as being in a world of hurt even with only one third of their 1922 Compact water share.

Glen Canyon Dam has been described as the "cash register" for the Colorado River Storage Project (or whatever you want to call the whole system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and so forth). They sold electricity at market rates, well above the cost of generation (unknown if they included the amortized capitol cost of building the dam and generating station), and then used those funds to pay for the water delivery projects. What would the Southwest look like if they had sold the power at cost, and charged the water users the full cost of delivery for BoR water projects? I imagine that there would be a lot less desert farming, and perhaps a lot less population in the Southwest. On the other hand, there might be more industry heavily dependent on cheap power such as aluminum production. Food prices would most likely be higher, and less fresh food would be available in the Southwest.
Good thoughts from drewsxmi, well-articulated...

I agree that Glen Canyon Dam is becoming a less critical piece of the overall electricity grid in the southwest, so yes, that becomes a less important function to maintain in the long-term, especially with solar grids popping up all over the place....

I also agree Utah isn't a heavy user of Colorado River water right now, but they desperately want to be, mainly so they maintain whatever rights they might have. And yes, with any kind of water conservation program in place, they wouldn't need anywhere near their theoretical share of the river. For example, the stated purpose of the Lake Powell pipeline to St George is to help serve a theoretical buildout of something like 500,000. But if you look at the numbers, and if they conserved water to the point where per capita household use was similar to California, they already have enough water now to serve 500,000 people without that pipeline. That project is a total waste of money, resources, and effort, all in the name of showing a consumptive use for Utah. It should never be built. It's unnecessary.

As for the 1922 Compact, a few things of note:

1. There is no sunset date. The only date mentioned in that Compact is October 1, 1963, after which time the states are allowed to apportion any excess river water not accounted for in the original Compact, assuming there would be an excess, which there isn't. So that date is moot.

2. More interestingly, the Lower Basin in that Compact was defined to not only include CA, NV and AZ, but also portions of Utah and New Mexico whose waters flowed into the Colorado below Lees Ferry (Article II(g)). That may be an interesting negotiation point for those two states, which were completely left out of the 1928 Boulder Canyon Act, where the three main lower basin states defined their shares of the 7.5 maf, leaving none for UT and NM.

3. The Compact prioritized consumptive water use over power generation, so if push comes to shove in a negotiation, and you're looking for original intent, that's the main purpose of any reservoirs in the system.

The 1948 Upper Colorado Compact is also relevant, defining the Upper Basin shares not by absolute amount, but by percentage. That was done to recognize they might not always get a full share, and that's an important point of the 1922 Compact, which clearly prioritized Lower Basin needs at the expense of the Upper Basin. To drewsxmi's point about Utah's water needs (or lack thereof), Utah's slice of the Upper Basin pie is currently 23%. So if a renegotiation ends up with, say, 4.6 maf going to the Upper Basin, the most Utah could squeeze out of that using the current proportional allocation would be 4.6 x 0.23 = 1.38 maf. Now on the other hand, Utah could also try to negotiate a share of the Lower Basin total based on how the two basins were originally defined in the 1922 Compact...and of course, the reality is that St George (Virgin River) is hydrologically in the Lower Basin, not the Upper Basin...

...more food for thought...
 
Last edited:
A side note worth mention in all this LA water chat is Mulholland… An amazing visionary & problem solver and self proclaimed engineer and head Zanjero. He was the Elon of his era. On another side note he called the tractor that arrived one day to dig a tunnel a “Caterpillar” and a brand was born.


In regards to water law, there was lots of ******** in the room on that day in 1922. Fast forward to today and everyone got screwed except California… California outsmarted everyone.


There is a nice summary of the 1922 water law in a paper back book penned by Pete and Tiff, a wild redhead tamed… This same book discusses many names along the river.


The original ramp that has recently been resurrected and recently nicknamed Gustafson, was originally called Hero Beach in recognition of the service men who frequented the lake and congregated in that area. At the end of the day, it is possible that Pete may have been the first one to call that ramp Hero Beach. It would have been after Ted and the other guy and the singing girl floated by down by sentenial...

Either way, it is time to fix the 1922 mess.
 
I also agree Utah isn't a heavy user of Colorado River water right now, but they desperately want to be, mainly so they maintain whatever rights they might have. And yes, with any kind of water conservation program in place, they wouldn't need anywhere near their theoretical share of the river. For example, the stated purpose of the Lake Powell pipeline to St George is to help serve a theoretical buildout of something like 500,000. But if you look at the numbers, and if they conserved water to the point where per capita household use was similar to California, they already have enough water now to serve 500,000 people without that pipeline. That project is a total waste of money, resources, and effort, all in the name of showing a consumptive use for Utah. It should never be built. It's unnecessary.
"That project is a total waste of money, resources, and effort, all in the name of showing a consumptive use for Utah. It should never be built. It's unnecessary." - Agree 1,000%!

As a Utah resident, I see the project mainly as a way of funneling taxpayer money to the real estate developers who really run the state. Read up on a proposed golf course near Kanab, and a certain former BLM employee and state legislator for an example of how the taxpayer money flows.

In the overall picture it's not a whole lot of water, about 85,000 af/year.
 
Wyoming is in the process of building several small reservoirs in the Green River drainage that have very little functional use (especially if there is a cost benefit analysis). The sole reason is to back it up and call it a "beneficial use" that can be used in the future as leverage to keep the water. Hard to believe that sh#t still is going on!!!
 
They are presently borrowing water from the run off of next spring because they are releasing at a lower rate than is proportional to the required 7.5 maf. If in fact they release 7.5 this water year they will have to increase the release later in the year. So even if there is decent run off (looking less likely) they will have to send it on down to Mead. I would not bet that they will be generating power at Glen Canyon this time next year.
 
within the state of California the Owens Valley has become a large money sink for LA water to the tune of billions to mitigate the dust, the Salton Sea might be heading that way, but we'll see what happens there. Mono Lake fought of the draining that was going on there and is trying desperately to get the lake level brought back up but still has a ways to go (far short of the planned restoration date). Walker is a more current drying event that will be interesting to see how it plays out.

right now the biggest issue for the SW will be what happens with the Great Salt Lake. they have recently decided that yes it needs more water but they are also trying to divert more water so the forces there are going to be in opposition until someone figures out that yes indeed if you keep drying GSL you're going to make Owens Lake look like a picnic.

there are some real obvious water savings that can be done for industry (concentrate the brine currently being pumped out for drying in the flats for mining minerals and instead of letting all that water evaporate you could put more fresh water back into the GSL - with solar power being plentiful out there and desalt technology being pretty well developed now this could be a very easy thing to do if the state and industry could work together) and for residential uses (grass lawns in the dessert, that's just nuts). water recycling however is a tough issue in rocky terrain. it costs a lot of $ to run new pipelines.
 
What we really need is a good ol' fashioned planet-killer, extinction-level, meteor impact v-e-r-y soon :coffee: I just hope it's a direct hit on my house when it happens...lol

Short of that, we are certainly in times of ever increasing challenges with population:(
 

Attachments

  • ADWR-CAP-FactSheet-CoRiverShortage-081321.pdf
    793.3 KB · Views: 12
Thanks again. Well worth the time to read and Cadillac Desert is a must read. And I am still very impressed with everybody on this site.
I concur with your entire statement. Cadillac Desert was also a PBS video documentary I caught a few years ago... really eye-opening. Bill Mulholland was a true visionary...problem was people took advantage of his skills and used them in misdirected ways he never intended. Then, of course, Mona Lake (et al) sure paid the price...I enjoy (in a pseudo-depressing way) driving by it every couple of years on a passsage through Yosemite (where EVERYBODY on Earth seems to be...lol).
 
within the state of California the Owens Valley has become a large money sink for LA water to the tune of billions to mitigate the dust, the Salton Sea might be heading that way, but we'll see what happens there. Mono Lake fought of the draining that was going on there and is trying desperately to get the lake level brought back up but still has a ways to go (far short of the planned restoration date). Walker is a more current drying event that will be interesting to see how it plays out.

right now the biggest issue for the SW will be what happens with the Great Salt Lake. they have recently decided that yes it needs more water but they are also trying to divert more water so the forces there are going to be in opposition until someone figures out that yes indeed if you keep drying GSL you're going to make Owens Lake look like a picnic.

there are some real obvious water savings that can be done for industry (concentrate the brine currently being pumped out for drying in the flats for mining minerals and instead of letting all that water evaporate you could put more fresh water back into the GSL - with solar power being plentiful out there and desalt technology being pretty well developed now this could be a very easy thing to do if the state and industry could work together) and for residential uses (grass lawns in the dessert, that's just nuts). water recycling however is a tough issue in rocky terrain. it costs a lot of $ to run new pipelines.
There is currently a lot of disincentive for water rights owners to allow water to go down to the GSL. Under current water law, they have to use it or lose it. The state is now getting aggressive about purchase of some of these senior water rights in order to establish a minimum inflow for the GSL. I think they are too late though.

The mineral groups don't have a more cost effective way of concentrating up the brines they need to extract the potash, metals, etc. they are pulling out of the GSL. They insist that they need to evaporate brine in their ponds for recovery of the solutions. They are probably right, but the question becomes whether or not the GSL is more valuable to us as a natural body of water or a source of minerals.

Desalination of GSL water is not feasible. Once you get over 4% salinity, the pressure gradient becomes too high for reverse osmosis and you have to move toward evaporative technologies, which are an order of magnitude more expensive and energy intensive. Very rarely do you find a reason to deploy evaporative technology for recovery. The only time I have used it is when there is no good place to put the brine.
 
BoR doesn't spend money on ramps. That would be the NPS's responsibility. They also received a lot of money last year or the year before though, but I think it was intended to start getting through the massive deferred maintenance backlog.
 
I concur with your entire statement. Cadillac Desert was also a PBS video documentary I caught a few years ago... really eye-opening. Bill Mulholland was a true visionary...problem was people took advantage of his skills and used them in misdirected ways he never intended. Then, of course, Mona Lake (et al) sure paid the price...I enjoy (in a pseudo-depressing way) driving by it every couple of years on a passsage through Yosemite (where EVERYBODY on Earth seems to be...lol).
I watched that docu-series early last year. Excellent! Its on YouTube now. Another great film is "China Town" with Jack Nicholson. Fictional drama based on those events. I had a place in Mammoth Lakes for several years and would go up and see Mono Lake frequently. It is strange to see the result of all that history up close and personal. That is the truth about all the National Parks now! I went to Zion and Grand Canyon Sept. of 2020 with my kids and grand kid and I could not believe how many people were there from literally 'all over the world'. You were NEVER alone. In the spring of 1978 I sas going to school in Gunnison, CO. My girl friend and I took a road trip (mostly dirt) too Arches, Canyonlands, Zion, Bryce, and the Escalante drainage area, which is N.P. I can't think of the name right now. I'm di'in if I'm li'in, we did not see a soul inside any of those parks except for N.P. personnel and road crews blowing up boulders in the roads. Had all of it to ourselves.
 
Last edited:
BoR doesn't spend money on ramps. That would be the NPS's responsibility. They also received a lot of money last year or the year before though, but I think it was intended to start getting through the massive deferred maintenance backlog.
Ah, that makes sense. I hope some of the backlog will finally start to be addressed.

Tiff
 
There is currently a lot of disincentive for water rights owners to allow water to go down to the GSL. Under current water law, they have to use it or lose it. The state is now getting aggressive about purchase of some of these senior water rights in order to establish a minimum inflow for the GSL. I think they are too late though.

The mineral groups don't have a more cost effective way of concentrating up the brines they need to extract the potash, metals, etc. they are pulling out of the GSL. They insist that they need to evaporate brine in their ponds for recovery of the solutions. They are probably right, but the question becomes whether or not the GSL is more valuable to us as a natural body of water or a source of minerals.

Desalination of GSL water is not feasible. Once you get over 4% salinity, the pressure gradient becomes too high for reverse osmosis and you have to move toward evaporative technologies, which are an order of magnitude more expensive and energy intensive. Very rarely do you find a reason to deploy evaporative technology for recovery. The only time I have used it is when there is no good place to put the brine.

thanks for the reply, but i'm pretty sure that they do get fresh water from the ocean so that even if it might seem to be unfeasible that it may become more feasible if solar and wind energy do become cheap enough. it is good to note that currently in the middle of the day in California they have plenty of cheap energy. so how much is fresh water worth in the middle of a harsh desert climate like Utah, especially when you have limited suppy otherwise during drought years? to me this seems kinda obvious that if they can return fresh water to the lake but also have some extra for people to use then they've done two good things in an otherwise tight spot. conservation and use reduction will also help, but every drop is going to count out there too, there's a lot of acre feet of water being evaporated away that could otherwise be used. how many acre feet are actually recoverable and shareable is of course a big question but i think there's a lot of potential there and worth being more serious about.

and even if desal is not really feasible in the end, using the sun's rays to heat up the water and then collecting the vapor may work. there can be more than one way to skin this, er, cat...
 
thanks for the reply, but i'm pretty sure that they do get fresh water from the ocean so that even if it might seem to be unfeasible that it may become more feasible if solar and wind energy do become cheap enough. it is good to note that currently in the middle of the day in California they have plenty of cheap energy. so how much is fresh water worth in the middle of a harsh desert climate like Utah, especially when you have limited suppy otherwise during drought years? to me this seems kinda obvious that if they can return fresh water to the lake but also have some extra for people to use then they've done two good things in an otherwise tight spot. conservation and use reduction will also help, but every drop is going to count out there too, there's a lot of acre feet of water being evaporated away that could otherwise be used. how many acre feet are actually recoverable and shareable is of course a big question but i think there's a lot of potential there and worth being more serious about.

and even if desal is not really feasible in the end, using the sun's rays to heat up the water and then collecting the vapor may work. there can be more than one way to skin this, er, cat...
They can desalinate ocean water since it is at around 4% salinity. That is really the practical limit and even then it is very expensive. Singapore has whole university research groups attempting to do it more economically but at this point, 2-5% increases in recovery rate become a very big deal. The GSL ranges from 4% to 20% (saturation). You really have no shot at making it work at that point using anything other than distillation, because the rejection rate from the membranes becomes too high, the pressures too extreme, etc.

The best way to recover additional water is to take lower salinity resources (wastewater, irrigation water, Jordan River water), but then you are exacerbating one of the biggest problems facing the Salt Lake Valley, namely the extinction of the Great Salt Lake. We need to stop losing so much water to evaporation/transpiration by changing irrigation practices, change some of the vegetation to less thirsty plants, stop using big thirsty water cooling systems for industrial sites, and reduce the practices associated with evaporative mineral recovery. The only other way to fix the Salt Lake Valley issues are from water transfers coming from outside the area and there just isn't any left anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top