Lower states lawsuit Oct 16, LP water levels?

Trix

Trix

Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Phx local news ran a segment on the latest lawsuit to avoid AZ cuts to its Colorado River allocation. I have no idea on the substance or likely success of this go around. But I scratch my chin and wonder, if upper basin states are forced to take a haircut on their allotments and lower basin states claw back some of their cutbacks, is there a clear, or foggy, directional result on LP water levels?
As I generally recall, JFR explained that the USBR 2027-2028 stop gap plan really establishes a floor of 3500, target of 3510, so I’m guessing any result wouldn’t impact the floor. But might it result in higher lake levels if the lawsuit forces upper state reductions? Or just a flow through with little water level changes?
Maybe impossible to answer without specifics, but maybe more of a hypothetical analysis.
 
Look at the history. River overallocated but because the Upper Basin never has used their entire allocation a lot of extra water was allowed to go south to the Lower Basin and to Mexico.

For some years CAP was able to take extra water to bank in the acquifer and that wasn't dumb of them to do, but now during this extended dry spell they're not getting anything extra and facing cuts.

Arizona has Junior Water rights, they'll have a hard time getting that changed without doing something major.

The question needs to be answered though and science can provide more information. At present my hunch is that the Upper Basin does take cuts when there are drier years and they shouldn't be required to add even more cuts unless the Lower Basin is also digging really deep and by that I mean when CAP is shut down and CA is forced to take cuts because the water isn't there. We are getting close to this already. CAP may have to buy water via exchanges with other Colorado River water users or go out and buy Senoir water rights. Very expensive water for sure - but that is what smart people are saying, the era of cheap water is over until we either get some significant storms for a long enough period of time to refill Lake Powell and Lake Mead. To refill even part way is going to be tough given how dry it has been and pent up demand - the first time we get a good year everone will want to go back to overallocated draining again.
 
I’m not an expert, not a water guru of any kind. I think what everyone is missing though is the difference to what has been referred to historically inside the compact as paper water vs wet water. To me overallocation on paper is a fantasy, in my mind these suits are posturing over preserving your paper water right. (Productive? IDK) You can’t get liquid water from a stone.

I think the ace in the hole for BOR and upper basin interests could be the theory of what flows in flows out, paper water aside. And the BOR seems to have decided that they can do that best above power pool at GCD. So irregardless IDT Powell drops below power pool ever even when lower states prevail in court. The Supremacy Clause is on the side of the Feds, they can declare an emergency if they have to. Thats just my hunch, I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before.
 
Last edited:
Trix said:
MB, you’re sure sounding like a water guru!😉
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard or read the stuff our Water Gurus put out? They have facts and figures, documentations. I’m just a guy with hunches who was born in dry old Arizona and still resides there so I think about water. To me the whole history of water in the SW is very interesting, I’ve been directly effected by it.
 
Last edited:
Marina Bum said:
Have you ever heard or read the stuff our Water Gurus put out? They have facts and figures, documentations. I’m just a guy with hunches who was born in dry old Arizona and still resides there so I think about water. To me the whole history of water in the SW is very interesting, I’ve been directly effected by it.
Click to expand...

I find it really interesting too and have relatives that live out that ways who are all going to be facing down this issue for years to come. I'm not sure if I'll see it resolved in my own lifetime but it sure would be nice if they could come up with something that avoids years of litigation and more wasted time, however the legal system does not work that way.

For some reason as a kid I found water projects facinating and of course the many forms of rocks, mud and sand are also very entertaining to a child. :)
 
Marina Bum said:
...
I think the ace in the hole for BOR and upper basin interests could be the theory of what flows in flows out, paper water aside. And the BOR seems to have decided that they can do that best above power pool at GCD. So irregardless IDT Powell drops below power pool ever even when lower states prevail. The Supremacy Clause is on the side of the feds, they can declare an emergency if they have to. Thats just my hunch, I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before.
Click to expand...

These are good points. We'll see how the cards land... :)
 
This is all very interesting, but no surprise that the lawsuits are starting to fly. Of course they're gonna fly--it's a game of musical chairs, and nobody wants to be the one without the chair. I think Marina Bum alluded to the important reality that no matter what the paper says anybody is supposed to have, we can only deal with the water there actually is.

The Upper Basin is in an interesting position. The consistent narrative from them is something like "we've never come close to using our 7.5 maf entitlement, so let the Lower Basin take the pain." But that conveniently ignores the language of the 1922 Compact. Once the Upper Basin makes the required delivery to the Lower Basin and Mexico (8.23 maf in the aggregate on average, really 82.3 maf over any ten-year period), they are entitled only to the leftovers, up to 7.5 maf if there is that much. In a river system that only produces 13 maf or so on average, once the downstream delivery is made (plus loss through evaporation and seepage), there's no way the Upper Basin is (or ever was) entitled to the nominal 7.5 maf claim. They are lucky to get the 4.5 maf that they do.

So you start there.

And then you ask, among the many problems we're trying to solve, which takes priority? Water deliveries to the Lower Basin and Mexico under the Compact? Power generation through Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam? Avoiding damage to GCD's infrastructure? Fair distribution of water supplies between the states? An honest assessment of what the states really need, not what they want? Maintenance of boating recreation and access on Lake Powell? Preservation and enhancement of natural resources within the system? Continued agricultural production? Spreading the pain of economic impacts of a dwindling river water supply?

There are other questions and sub-questions, all of which are related, and many of which conflict. The courts will have a hard time sorting this out in a way that addresses everything in a way that satisfies all parties. But you start with the existing legal framework (water rights, the Compact, the state and federal governments' mandate to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens), then start unraveling the spaghetti by prioritizing the issues. Then you're left with an outcome that may be unsatisfying, but makes the most sense. I'm not sure what that outcome is yet.

I'll dive deeper into the "fairness" and "wants vs. needs" issues in a future post, which is the direction I'd head in developing a solution...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top