regional prosperity, but today, reducing consumption promises a more reliable and cost-effective way to accommodate growth, expand our economy, protect our quality of life, satisfy environ- mental needs, and meet our national obligations to Mexico and the tribes,” according to their paper, “Te Case for Conservation.”


Te paper calls on officials to


“aggressively pursue municipal conserva- tion to minimize or completely offset additional consumptive uses associated with new population growth.” Tey should also implement “incentive- based mechanisms to conserve and shift modest amounts of water out of irrigated agriculture without compro- mising the economic and social viability of rural communities.” “Compared to the alternatives, these


approaches are practical, low-risk, and high-reward, and should form the foun- dation of future management efforts,” according to the paper.


Valuing Resiliency Te challenges facing the Colorado River are wide-ranging. Cullom used the analogy of a motor vehicle in which the “check engine” light is illuminated; calling attention to a problem from within.


Timeline


2010 – Reclamation and seven Colorado River Basin States begin work on the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, which aims to define current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin and the adjacent areas of the Basin States that receive Colorado River water over the next 50 years, and to develop and analyze options and strategies to resolve those imbalances.


2012 – Te study is released. It finds there are likely to be “significant shortfalls” between projected water supplies and demand in the coming decades.


2013 – Federal officials and key stakeholders meet in San Diego to kick off the Moving Forward process.


2015 – Te Moving Forward Phase 1 Report is released. It includes the recommendations from three workgroups focused on water use efficiency (urban and agricultural) and environmental and recreational flows.


8 • Colorado River Project • River Report • Summer 2015


“We don’t see this as a Reclamation-led effort. We see [the stakeholders] as the guiding body about decisions regarding how this plays out and what areas we focus on.”


– Carly Jerla, Bureau of Reclamation


“We have a choice,” he said. “Te car still drives and we need to make the repairs that are recommended or if we keep driving it, it’s going to quit on us. Tere are things we need to repair right away – there are other things we need to do over time. Tere is some prioritiza- tion … identifying and putting those projects, concepts, timing and yield in place so we can string together a portfolio that addresses the risk over the long-term.” Te projected imbalance may seem daunting but should be kept in perspec- tive, said Hasencamp.


“If you asked us 20 or 30 years ago could California get to 4.4 million acre- feet, we would have said, ‘that’s going to be tough, reducing our use by 800,000 acre-feet,’ but we did it and as a Basin we also need to reduce our use.” He acknowledged that the possible 3.2 million acre-feet shortfall “is a big number but that also assumes that we’re not going to get better, which we will. We will be conserving more water in the future than we are today and we will be having more ag to urban partner- ships.” Getting there will take dollars, “some- thing some of the other states aren’t quite used to,” he said. “Te other states have to come to grips with that. It’s not going to be cheap but it’s definitely doable. In some of the other states water is pretty inex- pensive and they are going to have to realize the price is going up.” In March, the Las Vegas Valley Water


District approved a fixed surcharge to water bills to help pay for a new low lake level pumping station at Lake Mead to keep water flowing to the community should the lake’s elevation fall below 1,000 feet. Te $650 million pumping station will bring water from the nearly operational $817 million third intake from the lake. Cullom said the “next increment” of supply lies in seawater and brackish groundwater desalination and recycled water, which in some cases “is signifi- cantly more expensive than continuing to rely on Colorado River water.” Because of that, grants, subsidies and cost sharing plans will have to be honed so that ratepayers do not have to foot the bill alone. Beyond the bricks-and-mortar costs for new infrastructure, there is a price associated with the “strategic man- agement” of water, he said. “How do you value reliability and


resiliency in a water system? Right now we don’t factor in supply resilience as a value. When you are investing almost a billion dollars like San Diego did with the Carlsbad desalination facility you are absolutely putting a value on resiliency.


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