and is being leaned on heavily during California’s drought. “Of course, here in Southern California, our focus right now is getting through this current drought,” said Bill Hasencamp, MWD’s Colorado River program manager. “We recognize that having a reliable Colorado River supply is a part of that mix and part of our portfolio includes propping up Lake Mead. We are looking at the low hang- ing fruit – there are things that can be done that are not that expensive.” MWD has invested more than $800 million on conservation projects since 1990. Even so, urban and industrial water


use reductions have to be kept in per- spective.


“Te urban demand on the Colorado


River is relatively small so decreasing a small demand, there’s not a whole lot that’s going to have a huge impact,” Hasencamp said. “It has to be looked at, it has to be done, we have to continue to get better but it’s not going to solve the Basin’s problems.” Tere are differences in the scope of urban conservation measures achieved or underway.


“I would be cautious about saying


every municipality needs to do more because some have already done a substantial amount of conservation,” Cullom said. “Others have not.”


“The urban demand on the Colorado River is relatively small so decreasing a small demand, there’s not a whole lot that’s going to have a huge impact.”


– Bill Hasencamp, MWD of Southern California No Silver Bullet


At the conclusion of the Basin Study in December 2012 all the participants and parties recognized the need to make the Basin study effort “more than just a big thick book on the shelf” deciding to work collaboratively on the “immediate and long term imbalance” in the Colorado River system, said Cullom. Te 452-page Moving Forward report


said “there are no Basin-wide, silver bullet solutions for water use efficiency or protecting environmental and recre- ational resources,” and that “in many regions, it is difficult to attribute all of the water savings to water use efficiency or reuse efforts.” According to the report, the “ultimate goal is identifying and implementing actionable steps to address projected


water supply and demand imbalances that have broad-based support and pro- vide a wide-range of benefits.” Upon release of the study, three


workgroups were formed in May 2013. Te Moving Forward work groups identified 25 opportunities worthy of further consideration and action. Similar components resulting from each work- group’s individual set of findings include opportunities related to funding and incentives, data and tools, outreach and partnerships, coordination and integra- tion, infrastructure improvements, and flexible water management. “Tis process relates back to the planning efforts started in the 1990s, and additional efforts prior to that,” said Tanya Trujillo, executive director of the Colorado River Board of California. “Te prior efforts were designed toward enabling California to live within its basic 4.4 million acre-feet allocation, and the Quantification Settlement Agreement and the additional fallow- ing agreements have been successfully implemented to accomplish that goal. In addition, we had the process to develop the 2007 Interim Guidelines for coor-


Lake Mead in March 2015


Summer 2015 • River Report • Colorado River Project • 5


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11