A “little bit more nebulous” is look- ing at managing demand during those times when reservoirs are projected to fall to critically low elevations. “It’s a very different problem to solve


in the Upper Basin than the Lower Basin in considering demand reduc- tions because in the Lower Basin water is retained in Lake Mead,” Ostler said. “In the Upper Basin, water has to be conserved to flow into Lake Powell. It’s a different problem shepherding that water down the river.” Funds from the Pilot System Conser-


vation Program are available to compen- sate water users that voluntarily want to conserve their water on a temporary basis. Launched in 2014 with contribu- tions from CAP, Denver Water, Metro- politan, SNWA and Reclamation, the program has awarded $11 million for water use efficiency projects in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Wyo- ming. Reclamation in 2016 announced the allocation of as much as $5 million to the program, with $1.5 million going to projects in the Upper Basin and $3.5 million to the Lower Basin. “Tere are question marks about how demand conservation can contribute but we are optimistic that it would be the third leg of the stool,” Ostler said, add- ing the Upper Basin states “are interested in demonstrating conservation in all sectors of water use.” Ostler said he believes the combined


efforts of drought operations and water conservation can prevent CRSP reser- voirs from hitting low elevation trigger levels, noting “we think we can get the risk down to near zero.”


Now or Never?


Regardless of the outcome of the Drought Contingency Proposal discussions, Colo- rado River water users know that being complacent is not an option. “Whatever we do, there’s always the next thing we have to do,” CAP’s Cooke said. “We can’t wait until the next thing is needed; we have to start right away once we get today’s thing finished.” He noted that “we are not going to


“We are seeing extreme variability in the system. It’s always been variable but we are seeing even more variability so I think this sort of stepped-in incremental management


approach is warranted.” – John Entsminger, SNWA


conserve our way out of the structural deficit but certainly continuing to im- prove upon the consumption per person is part of the equation.” “Te goal of the Drought Contingen-


cy Proposal is not to solve the structural deficit,” Cooke said. “If we adopt the program and we reach the point where we are approaching level 1,025 in Lake Mead, we’ll find ourselves at the point where we are collectively conserving over 1 million acre-feet every year at those levels which is right about where we need to be to offset the structural deficit. It’s not a forever program. It does un- wind if the lake improves but it will have moved us closer to learning to conserve at those levels that we need to solve the structural deficit on a more permanent basis.”


Tere is an impetus to getting some- thing done before the end of the Obama Administration but it will take compro- mise. Te “main driver” for Metropoli- tan, Hasencamp said, is the proposal to give up a little water in exchange for dry year reliability. “We would take less out than we put in but if we could take it in a dry year, that might be enough for us,” he said, adding “we could not have survived the drought” without the steady supply of water from the Colorado River Aque- duct. Shields with IID said she believes the right incentives can be created to help create a more robust water supply but not at the district’s expense. “I think that our growers have been


10 • Colorado River Project • River Report • Summer 2016


pretty adamant, and our board, that IID is in the business of delivering water for farming,” she said. “Te conservation [requirements] we’ve taken on as a chal- lenge to ourselves in order to provide assistance and to the extent that we can ramp up efforts and provide near-term benefits that others can benefit from but help ourselves out as well in the longer run with these storage opportunities - that benefits the river indirectly.” Time is an important factor for the


Drought Contingency Proposal and for negotiations with the Mexican govern- ment to craft another shortage sharing/ intentionally created surplus agreement that would extend the elements in Min- ute 319. “It’s either going to happen in this administration or not for a while,” Hasencamp said. “Te next adminis- tration has to be up to speed and who knows if they even want to do it.” Shields said the situation “is not a crisis that has to be addressed this year.” “It’ll be nice to have a conceptual


agreement to work from but any- thing that we do is going to take a lot more time to get the final agreements in place,” she said. “I think all the California parties share a similar inter- est in having to address our near-term problems first which are the Salton Sea and the California drought.” One certainty is the river’s hydrology will continue to be volatile. “Look at 2011 through 2013, you had the fourth-wettest year on record followed by the driest back-to-back years,” Entsminger with SNWA said. “We are seeing extreme variability in the system. It’s always been variable but we are seeing even more variability so I think this sort of stepped-in incremental management approach is warranted.” He said he does not believe the challenges facing water users require a drastic response. “I know a lot of people advocate for an overarching solution and a nut-to-bolt revamping of the gover- nance structure but the states have been very successful in applying new mitiga- tion as needed and these negotiations


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