Continued from front page F E A T U R E


presented by CAP and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) in Phoenix. Colorado River water users are acutely aware of the precarious situation, having spent the last several years gird- ing themselves for the likelihood of Lake Mead dropping low enough to trigger the shortage declaration in the Lower Basin – the official process by which the first round of reduced water deliveries would occur for Arizona and Nevada. Major water suppliers in the Lower


Basin from Arizona, California and Nevada are working on what’s being called a Drought Contingency Proposal that would overlie the existing Interim Shortage Guidelines of 2007. Te 2007 Guidelines were enacted to determine who gets what level of shortages based on elevations in Lake Mead. Te first shortage trigger occurs when Lake Mead falls below 1,075 feet above sea level by the end of any year. Te lake dropped to a new record low of 1,072 feet this June and July – some- thing not seen since Hoover Dam was completed. Despite falling so low, it’s expected Lake Mead will finish 2016 at about 1,078 feet above sea level, averting a shortage declaration for at least one more year. If adopted, the Drought Contin-


gency Proposal would ensure the states are enrolled in what they agree is a shortage-sharing platform to avoid the undesirable aspects of Lake Mead fall- ing to 1,025 feet above sea level – the lowest shortage trigger level contem- plated in the 2007 Guidelines. If the reservoir falls below that level, there is uncertainty how the secretary of the Interior, who serves as water master for the Lower Basin, would administer additional shortages. Te conditions of the proposal would be supplemental to the 2007 Guidelines and do not re-open or modify the terms of that agreement. “We basically take the situation into our hands,” Clint Chandler, assistant director with ADWR’s water planning


“The system has reached a tipping point we knew would come one day. It signals the need for Colorado River water users … to work more quickly and diligently to address the ongoing imbalances between


supply and demand.” – Lisa Atkins,


Central Arizona Project


and permitting division, said at the May 18 drought briefing. “We manage the situation and minimize the unknown. In water management, certainty is much more preferable.” Te Drought Contingency Proposal


is further recognition of the severity of a shrinking Lake Mead. “Te lower the lake gets the higher the reductions each state would face, compared to the 2007 Guidelines,” said Bill Hasencamp, Colorado River resources manager with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). “By doing that, the water agencies and the federal government are comfortable that by 2026, the system won’t crash. So basi- cally this deal would give us 10 of years certainty on the river that yes, there would likely be cutbacks but nothing that’s not manageable.” In an interview, John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), said the Drought Contingency Proposal is recognition that the 2007 guidelines are not enough to protect critical elevations in Lake Mead. “We knew at the time we entered


[the shortage agreement] that it wouldn’t protect us in all circumstances but as we have seen the continuation of poor hydrology, except 2011, the recognition of that risk is becoming more wide- spread and acute,” he said.


Nevada, which receives 300,000 acre-


feet from the Colorado River each year, begins to take cuts under the shortage guidelines once Lake Mead drops to the 1,075 elevation. Under the Drought Contingency Proposal, a reduction of 8,000 acre-feet begins at elevation 1,090 and moves to a combined 30,000 feet between the shortage guidelines and DCP should the lake drop below 1,025 feet. Entsminger said Nevada is “in a


pretty good place,” and that with “the additional voluntary reductions that have been discussed – we would be able to absorb those without any interference with our operations.” He noted that the Drought Contingency Proposal “is still an ‘if’ and not a ‘when,’” and that “whether it gets done is an open ques- tion and what it looks like at the end is circumspect.” Nonetheless, a plan agreed to by


the Lower Basin states is preferable to a top-down federal mandate. “Tere are far more tools available if the states and water users do this voluntarily,” Entsminger said. “I don’t think there are a lot of nuances available and not near as many tools available to [Interior] that the states and water users have.” Te river serves 43 million people


in seven U.S. states and Mexico, with about 70 percent of its water sent to more than 3 million acres of farmland. Te river is vital to Southern California, with Metropolitan having the capacity to take more than 1 million acre-feet of water annually via its 242-mile Colorado River Aqueduct.


California is entitled to the largest


share of the river in the Lower Basin and its waters fuel the agricultural economy in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and, as such, there is a pragmatic aspect toward how water users there want to proceed. “It’s a challenging aspect to us to try to be a partner and want to collaborate with the other basin states who are look- ing ahead towards what might happen to Lake Mead in the future, but what we are struggling with today and tomorrow


Summer 2016 • River Report • Colorado River Project • 3


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