Drawing from the bank

S

Skip

Well-Known Member
Flaming Gorge, according to Wyoming water officials, will release extra water beginning on or before May 1 to ensure legally obligated deliveries to downstream states.
Without this release, according to last weeks releases at Lake Powell, by June 28 the elevation will be 3519' or lower. Drawing from Flaming Gorge is like drawing from a bank account that has no way of replenishing the account. Flaming Gorge is 82% full now and with the draw down will fall well below that.
With that being said the north ramp at Lake Powell may be usable well into the summer if present releases are maintained.
 
upthecreek said:
Kicking the can up the road.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what else they're supposed to do. It's triage time right now and recreation (generally) is low on the totem pole. And when it is considered, the money it brings in and economies it affects are the drivers (good for powell, bad for smaller reservoirs). I have to think protecting electricity generation is the top priority but even that will shift once it comes to water for the cities. These priorities will become more and more clear this year and next if we have another low snow year. Hopefully we can get a reasonable Colorado River plan moving forward but, honestly, I'm not optimistic. I don't think the cuts will be deep enough to create enough of a buffer to protect against the low snowpack years. I have no idea what the ultimate answer is but we could be just a couple more years like this one away from finding out.
 
CATD8RII said:
Thats what its there for,,, it's in the design,,,,
Click to expand...
It has becoming increasingly obvious that "the design" was flawed from the outset. Kind of the whole point of most of these discussions is what to do about it. Telling the upper basin to just shut up and send the water down isn't gonna last much longer. I have irrigation water rights that are about as far upstream as you can get. When our water is gone, it's gone. Nobody to complain to to get more. That only works if you are downstream of someone you can put the squeeze on. By design.
 
upthecreek said:
It has becoming increasingly obvious that "the design" was flawed from the outset. Kind of the whole point of most of these discussions is what to do about it. Telling the upper basin to just shut up and send the water down isn't gonna last much longer. I have irrigation water rights that are about as far upstream as you can get. When our water is gone, it's gone. Nobody to complain to to get more. That only works if you are downstream of someone you can put the squeeze on. By design.
Click to expand...
Still in the design, none the less. Just like Powell is.

An extra release from Flaming Gorge, which will begin on or before May 1, is a certainty, according to Wyoming water officials. That’s because the reservoir was specifically built to serve as a sort of water bank to ensure legally obliged deliveries to downstream states Nevada, Arizona and California. Among four storage reservoirs in the upper basin, Flaming Gorge has the most — and the most legally unrestricted – water to send downstream to Lake Powell.

“It’s the low-hanging fruit,” Brown said. “It’s the biggest, by far, and it’s got the most available water.”
 
Last edited:
upthecreek said:
It has becoming increasingly obvious that "the design" was flawed from the outset. Kind of the whole point of most of these discussions is what to do about it. Telling the upper basin to just shut up and send the water down isn't gonna last much longer. I have irrigation water rights that are about as far upstream as you can get. When our water is gone, it's gone. Nobody to complain to to get more. That only works if you are downstream of someone you can put the squeeze on. By design.
Click to expand...
What prevents those with upstream water rights from taking most of the water in the special release from Flaming Gorge? My understanding is that the BOR does not have the same control over the Upper Basin users that it has over the Lower Basin users. Can anyone with a straw in the river in Utah and Colorado take the amount their water rights entitle them to when this "extra" water is released? If so, are we about to see the first major confrontations of the drought in the Colorado River Basin. Are the big legal battles about to start? Will it get physical?
 
airford1 said:
All this being said, "What has the lower states done to help solve the problem"? I live in California and we don't see any urgency to save water, or eat less beef.
Click to expand...
A very small portion of Colorado river water goes to California residential use. Asking Californians to "save water" will do nothing to preserve the lakes. The reservoirs that DO serve California residential are mostly all above historical averages: Major Water Supply Reservoirs

Asking just Californians to eat less beef would have very little impact. (And that doesn't even include the part where telling people to eat less beef will do almost nothing to get them to actually eat less beef. Most people aren't going to voluntarily eat fewer steaks in order to serve the common good.) Most of the water that California gets is used to grow crops for livestock. A lot of it goes to dairies. A lot gets exported to other countries. Some gets sold to Arizona and Texas ranchers.
 
RobertGosselin said:
What prevents those with upstream water rights from taking most of the water in the special release from Flaming Gorge? My understanding is that the BOR does not have the same control over the Upper Basin users that it has over the Lower Basin users. Can anyone with a straw in the river in Utah and Colorado take the amount their water rights entitle them to when this "extra" water is released? If so, are we about to see the first major confrontations of the drought in the Colorado River Basin. Are the big legal battles about to start? Will it get physical?
Click to expand...
Thats not correct. Theres two types of water, ones with water shares and ones with water rights. Both are monitored and controlled. They are already talking about limiting shares of water to 40%.... could be less for our area on the western slope.

Now for water rights, that can still be limited however there is a priority number assigned to them. This is because they predate the water agreements of the colorado river. For example my water rights are dated 1891 and I have priority numbers of 241 and 492. These are measured in CFS rates rather than acre feet of water like shares are.

When i use water its all measured. I have a measuring weir and the local ditch rider records all water used and monitors it. He also increases flows as water is ordered.
 
Last edited:
RobertGosselin said:
If so, are we about to see the first major confrontations of the drought in the Colorado River Basin. Are the big legal battles about to start? Will it get physical?
Click to expand...
I would suppose so. From the courtrooms on down to the ditch bank beside the headgate. When the pickup with government plates pulls up and says you can't use this water, it has to go to California.
 
svivian said:
Thats not correct. Theres two types of water, ones with water shares and ones with water rights. Both are monitored and controlled. They are already talking about limiting shares of water to 40%.... could be less for our area on the western slope.

Now for water rights, that can still be limited however there is a priority number assigned to them. This is because they predate the water agreements of the colorado river. For example my water rights are dated 1891 and I have priority numbers of 241 and 492. These are measured in CFS rates rather than acre feet of water like shares our.

When i use water its all measured. I have a measuring weir and the local ditch rider records all water used and monitors it. He also increases flows as water is ordered.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to figure out what i said that was not correct in your eyes. Was it the statement that I thought that BOR has less control over the Upper Basin than the Lower Basin? Otherwise, most of the rest of my statement was a series of questions.
 
tt600 said:
I’m sure they did but it’s not nearly enough. They cut 10% when they needed to cut 80%.
Click to expand...

The allocated flow from the Colorado is at most 16.5 MAF/year (7.5 MAF for the Upper Basin, 7.5 MAF for the Lower Basin, 1.5 MAF for Mexico). The actual average flow is, we all now know, less than that. But even if the actual average flow is only 11 MAF, allocations would only need to be cut by 1/3 to balance actual flows with allocations. One third is a lot, but it's not 80%. California does not need to cut consumption by 80%, and neither does any other state or Mexico.
 
tt600 said:
I’m sure they did but it’s not nearly enough. They cut 10% when they needed to cut 80%. This is like people who didn’t have any kids saying they aren’t getting enough from social security even though they paid in for 40 years.
Click to expand...
Or like the upper seven states saying they are not going to cut their allotment because they arent even using their total allotment.????
Where do you get the figure of " they need to cut 80%" ????
 
tt600 said:
I’m sure they did but it’s not nearly enough. They cut 10% when they needed to cut 80%. This is like people who didn’t have any kids saying they aren’t getting enough from social security even though they paid in for 40 years.
Click to expand...
What does social security have to do with this???
 
tt600 said:
I’m sure they did but it’s not nearly enough. They cut 10% when they needed to cut 80%. This is like people who didn’t have any kids saying they aren’t getting enough from social security even though they paid in for 40 years.
Click to expand...
What seven states above can say they have conserved 800,000 acre feet of water this year???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top