uncomfortable with the possibility that we could reach such critical levels that the Secretary may render some sort of unilateral action.” In the complicated and politicized world of water, it is a far distance from concept to implementation. Add the complexity of the Colorado River water issues and the daunting task of crafting a shortage sharing plan is apparent. It took seven years for the California parties that share the Colorado River to develop their own Quantification Settlement Agreement. IID, which has rights to as much as 3.1 million acre-feet annually of Colorado River water, wants the discus- sion centered on boosting Lake Mead levels in a creative manner. “We can do a lot, particularly with


opportunities to create conserved water for storage in Lake Mead,” Shields said. “We think we can do a lot of good; we are certainly not in favor of reducing supplies. Tat is not what California signed up for, that’s not what the water rights and obligations say.” “Tere is an open question about


how these additional amounts from the DCP will be done,” Cooke said. “Tere needs to be a pretty intense intra-state discussion to answer those specific ques- tions.” Ultimately, ADWR “will not go to the Legislature [for approval] unless we have a cohesive coalition on what to do within Arizona.” He said he expects there will be system water created under the Drought Contingency Proposal but also an ICS- type surplus mechanism that will be recoverable under certain conditions. “Tose rules and guidelines will be part of the agreement,” he said. Metropolitan’s reliance on the


river for its water supply means it is ap- proaching the possibility of a Lake Mead shortage and its possible participation in the Drought Contingency Proposal with a sense of perspective. Arizona “may be asserting a sense of urgency that perhaps isn’t there, but nonetheless we do agree that avoiding critical low levels, which are maybe a decade away, is important and we might


“California might be willing to figure out a way to share in the cuts and slow the decline of Lake Mead but there is a lot that has to happen before an agreement is finalized.”


– Bill Hasencamp, MWD of Southern California


be willing to help contribute water along with everyone else to stave off those low levels,” Hasencamp said. From California’s perspective, “a lot of conditions” would have to be met before its water agencies sign on to any agreement, said Hasencamp with Met- ropolitan. “California might be willing to figure out a way to share in the cuts and slow the decline of Lake Mead but there is a lot that has to happen before an agreement is finalized.” Hasencamp noted Metropolitan’s actions to help slow the decline of Lake Mead, such as its financial assis- tance with Brock Reservoir in Imperial County and the operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant. Metropolitan “might be willing to help contribute water” under a Drought Contingency Proposal but in exchange wants some flexibility in accessing water. Te ICS guidelines do not address whether water stored under the ICS program can be delivered in a shortage and it is an issue Arizona and California would like to resolve. “In exchange for helping prop up the system, Metropolitan wants the ability fill our aqueduct in dry years,” Hasen- camp said. “Having a full aqueduct was so important in this last drought and the way we filled it was storing water in wet years and pulling out in dry. Tat’s a carrot for us.”


IID would like to see greater credit


being given for its water conservation activities, Shields said.


“On-farm conservation is tricky; it


varies from year to year based on the crops that are planted and the weather and the markets,” she said. “It’s not like you are building a treatment plant and you get a fixed volume by just show- ing up every day and turning a switch. Tings are very variable and we need some implementing flexibility.”


Avoiding Extremely High Consequences


Attenuating the effects of the drought extends into the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. “Te secretary of the Interior chal- lenged both the Upper and the Lower Basin to develop drought contingency plans,” said Ostler with the Upper Colorado River Commission. “Both ba- sins have been working cooperatively – jointly and separately. Te Upper Basin certainly has been doing a lot of work among the states identifying possible measures that improve our response to the conditions at Lake Powell.” Geography plays a key role. “In


the Lower Basin, all the storage of the Colorado River sits above the users,” Ostler said. “It’s different in the Upper Basin. Te bulk of the storage is in Lake Powell; it sits below our users. It helps meet the [Colorado River] Compact but it doesn’t help supply users, so we have shortages routinely on the order of sev- eral hundred thousand acre-feet per year where people divert water from streams without storage and where the water runs out before the growing season ends. Tat’s somewhat a fact of life and would grow much worse as the drought contin- ues.” (Te 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSP) authorized construc- tion of reservoirs and other water facili- ties in the Upper Basin states so they could utilize their share of the river’s wa- ters. In addition to Glen Canyon Dam, the initial projects were the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit in Colorado (Blue Mesa, Crystal, and Morrow Point Dams), the Flaming Gorge Unit in Utah, and the Navajo Unit in New Mexico.)


Summer 2016 • River Report • Colorado River Project • 7


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