Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead – Draft Environmental Impact Statement

[JFRCalifornia]

This one seems to be open and I believe same article: With the deadline missed, Bureau of Reclamation plans to move forward on Colorado River operations

Thanks for posting. Not a lot of new info in that article, but it does affirm the feds' commitment to power production, and reiterates the deadlocked status of the interstate negotiations. Short version--lower basin states say they've already done a lot of cutting back in recent years, and the upper basin states have done nothing. Upper basin says they have never come close to using their "share" of the river, and will not cut back from their already lower baseline use. Both sides have entrenched positions. FWIW, Hickenlooper from Colorado says there's a general desire to avoid litigation to resolve the issues. We'll see.

As is often the case in articles like this, the concepts of "dead pool" and "minimum power pool" are not explained well and will likely cause confusion, and in some readers, Advil-inducing headaches. That confusion comes in part because the article bases its discussion of those two simple concepts on a blog post from a University of New Mexico economics professor who specializes in water policy.

But as far as moving the ball forward goes, there's not much in the article to hang your hat on. Unless you don't wear a hat, in which case you can hang it anywhere.

 

[ndscott50]

For all the politicians saying they don't want litigation, it feels like the negotiators are behaving like they are OK with litigation. It seems like the lower basin thinks they can win in court on the merits and the upper basin thinks that even if they don't win the case it will take many years to resolve in which case they can still avoid major cuts for the foreseeable future. I'm not really a fan of heavy handed federal intervention but in this case it could be needed to push both sides to compromise. Something along the lines of you must have an agreement by X date or we will declare a national emergency and order a 30% cut to both upper and lower basin current usage. Cuts will increase by an additional 10% annually until an agreement is reached or Powell/Mead reach 80% of capacity.

Just a crazy example of what they could do, but the point being doing something to make the cost of no agreement unacceptable to all sides. It also provides some political cover to state leaders. Make a compromise that inflicts some pain on your state significantly less painful than continuing to fight.

 

[Jr B]

Thanks for posting. Not a lot of new info in that article, but it does affirm the feds' commitment to power production, and reiterates the deadlocked status of the interstate negotiations. Short version--lower basin states say they've already done a lot of cutting back in recent years, and the upper basin states have done nothing. Upper basin says they have never come close to using their "share" of the river, and will not cut back from their already lower baseline use. Both sides have entrenched positions. FWIW, Hickenlooper from Colorado says there's a general desire to avoid litigation to resolve the issues. We'll see.

As is often the case in articles like this, the concepts of "dead pool" and "minimum power pool" are not explained well and will likely cause confusion, and in some readers, Advil-inducing headaches. That confusion comes in part because the article bases its discussion of those two simple concepts on a blog post from a University of New Mexico economics professor who specializes in water policy.

But as far as moving the ball forward goes, there's not much in the article to hang your hat on. Unless you don't wear a hat, in which case you can hang it anywhere.

Agreed, I think this December things get interesting is the key takeaway as they get to the protected limit water level. We'll be doing a few trips this year and see what next year brings as we keep praying for snow in Colorado..

 

[RobertGosselin]

This one seems to be open and I believe same article: With the deadline missed, Bureau of Reclamation plans to move forward on Colorado River operations

Thanks, that one works. There is not really any new information in the article and their explanation of dead pool vs power pool is somewhat confusing.

 

[JFRCalifornia]

I'm not really a fan of heavy handed federal intervention but in this case it could be needed to push both sides to compromise. Something along the lines of you must have an agreement by X date or we will declare a national emergency and order a 30% cut to both upper and lower basin current usage. Cuts will increase by an additional 10% annually until an agreement is reached or Powell/Mead reach 80% of capacity.

Just a crazy example of what they could do, but the point being doing something to make the cost of no agreement unacceptable to all sides. It also provides some political cover to state leaders. Make a compromise that inflicts some pain on your state significantly less painful than continuing to fight.

I like the thinking, but I'm not sure what leverage the feds really have in this situation. They have zero control over anything that the upper basin extracts from the Colorado/Green river basin prior to water reaching a federally controlled reservoir. And while they could control releases to the lower basin, they can't really effectively dictate the magnitude of cuts by each state. How to enforce a federal mandate? Hard to say. Unrelated funding threats to each state would be a dangerous route and subject to their own legal challenges. It's a difficult situation.

In historical terms, the current federal/state situation mirrors a different river challenge faced 120 years ago. When the Reclamation Service was formed in 1902 (which because the USBR in 1924), its role was conceived as much more limited. It was there to provide federal assistance to state and local irrigation projects for the purpose of "reclaiming" land for agriculture. As a state, you might apply for federal funding or expertise, and Reclamation would send you the money to do your own project. But the crisis of the Colorado River breach in 1905 that flooded the Imperial Valley was too big for any one state to handle. So the feds asserted a previously untested authority to lead an effort to manage flood issues up and down the Colorado River--only they could deal with interstate (and international) problems. And the states went along with that. That was the impetus to all future management efforts on the river--like it or not, the river flows through many states, and a top-down approach was seen as the way to reign them all in. Over the last century, that approach has only been partially effective, and not always applied fairly. But that's the road that was taken.

We're in the same situation right now. If left just to the states, no agreement or effective management approach would ever occur. So it all depends on a deft hand at the federal level to make things work, at best a sort of Lincoln-esque approach to managing rivals. In 1922, there was at least Herbert Hoover, a pretty smart guy with a fairly balanced outlook. Right now, I'm not sure I see anybody remotely approaching a Hoover (let alone a Lincoln) at the federal level with the authority to come up with a reasonable solution...

 

[MarkFromCOS]

If they can't come to a resolution, one needs to be provided that meets the requirements of available water. Nobody will be happy. Which sounds about right.

 

[FishnFly]

Why can’t they just update the 1922 pact with median numbers over the past 25 years. Maybe subtract an additional 5-10% for future decreases as this drought continues. Adding in some language that a new median will be implemented every 10 years or so.

Everyone keeps their water rights, there’s just less water. What’s the point of having rights over water if that water doesn’t exist.

 

[tt600]

Why can’t they just update the 1922 pact with median numbers over the past 25 years. Maybe subtract an additional 5-10% for future decreases as this drought continues. Adding in some language that a new median will be implemented every 10 years or so.

Everyone keeps their water rights, there’s just less water. What’s the point of having rights over water if that water doesn’t exist.

The people with senior rights think the people with junior right should bear all the cuts.

 

[SeaLegs]

Why can’t they just update the 1922 pact with median numbers over the past 25 years. Maybe subtract an additional 5-10% for future decreases as this drought continues. Adding in some language that a new median will be implemented every 10 years or so.

Everyone keeps their water rights, there’s just less water. What’s the point of having rights over water if that water doesn’t exist.

Bureaucrats and politicians are matter, common sense is antimatter. Can't touch that!

 

[nzaugg]

The people with senior rights think the people with junior right should bear all the cuts.

Unfortunately, that is how western water law works. However, there is a new provision in some states that prioritizes water for drinking water systems above all other uses, though this hasn't been through legal challenges yet.

 

[ndscott50]

Unfortunately, that is how western water law works. However, there is a new provision in some states that prioritizes water for drinking water systems above all other uses, though this hasn't been through legal challenges yet.

From a purely legal perspective senior water rights are senior water rights. That being said no court is going to dewater a municipality to maintain supply to agricultural users. Could they order drastic cutbacks on municipal outdoor use? Sure. No outdoor watering, car washing, filling pools, etc. Indoor water use will be protected. First, its just not that much water. Second, most of its not consumptive - it goes down the drain, is treated and back into the river. An lastly the life, safety and economic issues created by turning off the water to whole towns and cities are to high and would override everything else. Contracts have limits and things like X number of people will die, local GDP will fall by 50%, homes lose much of their value, etc. will win in court vs senior water rights.

I know their is an example of a somewhat remote development in Arizona having its water cut off by the nearby city. That's was more about the developer and lack of firm water supply in their agreement with the city. Its very different then telling Grand Junction to stop drawing water from the river and everyone can either move or figure out how to trunk in water from back east.