New plan could lead to action on Colorado River - ICT
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The public has a deadline later this year to weigh in on three options
- Author: Dalton Walker
- Publish date: Oct 28, 2022
Alyssa Chubbuck, left, and Dan Bennett embrace while watching the sunset at Guano Point overlooking the Colorado River on the Hualapai reservation Monday, Aug. 15, 2022, in northwestern Arizona. In November 1922, seven land-owning white men brokered a deal to allocate water from the Colorado River, which winds through the West and ends in Mexico. During the past two decades, pressure has intensified on the river as the driest 22-year stretch in the past 1,200 years has gripped the southwestern U.S. (AP Photo/John Locher)
The public has a deadline later this year to weigh in on three options
Felicia Fonseca and Kathleen Ronayne
Associated Press
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — The Interior Department announced Friday that it will consider revising a set of guidelines for operating two major dams on the Colorado River in the first sign of what could lead to federal action to protect the once-massive but shrinking reservoirs behind them.
The public has until Dec. 20 to weigh in on three options that seek to keep Lake Mead and Lake Powell from dropping so low they couldn't produce power or provide the water that seven Western states, Mexico and tribes have relied on for decades.
One of the options would allow the Interior Department's U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to take unilateral action, as it threatened this summer when it asked states to come up with ways to significantly reduce their use beyond what they've already volunteered and were mandated to cut.
"The Interior Department continues to pursue a collaborative and consensus-based approach to addressing the drought crisis afflicting the West," Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement. "At the same time, we are committed to taking prompt and decisive action necessary to protect the Colorado River System and all those who depend on it."
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, Laguna Pueblo, at Riverside Indian School in Anadarko, Oklahoma, in July. (Photo by Nick Oxford, The Imprint)
The agency's announcement comes more than four months after Reclamation Commissioner Camille Touton first told Congress that water use must be cut back dramatically as drought and overuse tax the river — an essential supply of water for farmers, cities and tribes in the U.S. West, as well as Mexico.
The seven states that tap the river failed to reach Touton's initial August deadline and have been working ever since to reach a compromise. It now appears unlikely a grand deal will be reached. In the meantime, the bureau has offered up billions in federal money to pay farmers and cities to cut back.
But Interior's new action marks the first time it's taking a clear step toward imposing its own, mandatory cuts. The agency anticipates changes to the conditions at which water shortages are declared in the river's lower basin. Lake Mead and Lake Powell were about half full when the 2007 guidelines were approved and are now about one-quarter full.
Related:
—State of unease: Colorado basin tribes without water rights
—In Arizona, worry about access to Colorado River water
—In Arizona, worry about access to Colorado River water
—Colorado River Basin tribes work to protect their water rights
—Increasing pressures on Colorado River water in New Mexico
The other two options under the Bureau of Reclamation's plan are to let states, tribes, and non-governmental organizations reach consensus, or do nothing, which is a standard alternative in environmental impact statements.
The Bureau of Reclamation expects to produce a draft next spring based on public input. A final decision could come in late summer of 2023 around the time the bureau announces any water cuts for the following year.
The 2007 guidelines and an overlapping drought contingency plan approved in 2019 were meant to give states more certainty in their water supply. For the lower basin states — California, Arizona and Nevada — the agreements set elevation levels at Lake Mead on the Arizona-Nevada border at which they are subjected to mandatory and voluntary reductions. Mexico also shoulders cuts.
Visitors to Las Vegas Boat Harbor stand on the dock on Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2022. Unlike other states of the Colorado River Basin, Nevada has one main river user: Las Vegas. (Jeff Scheid/The Nevada Independent via AP)
Water users have been delayed in renegotiating the agreements that expire in 2026 because the drought and climate change have forced quicker action.
Nevada, Arizona and Mexico will have to cut their water use in 2023 for a second year in a row under existing agreements. California is looped in at lower elevations in Lake Mead. Arizona was forced to give up 21% of its total Colorado River supply. Farmers in central Arizona, tribes and growing cities like Scottsdale are feeling the impacts.
Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, said he's been hoping the bureau would require cuts from water users rather than rely on voluntary action. But he also warned the prospect of mandatory cuts could make it less likely that farms or cities will choose to give up some of their water, calling it a "zero-sum game" of sorts.
Still, anything that results in savings is a worthwhile action, he said.
"The situation in my mind is so dire, we're so close to the edge," he said in a recent interview.
The Bureau of Reclamation also said it would publish a report next year to address ways to account for evaporation, seepage and other loss as water makes its way to states, cities and tribes.
In mid-October, the bureau announced a process for paying farmers and cities in Arizona, California and Nevada to conserve Colorado River water. Under one option, they can be paid up to $400 per acre foot of water (325,850 gallons) left in Lake Mead. So far only the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona has publicly expressed interest in that option, saying it will conserve up to 125,000 acre feet of water (40.7 billion gallons) on its reservation and offer another 125,000 acre feet of water stored underground to cities annually for the next three years.
But farmers in California and Arizona say that's not enough money to account to cover losses if they leave fields unplanted or to pay for things like installing more efficient irrigation systems. Instead, they plan to apply for money through a different option that allows them to name their price — and justify why they deserve it.
The Animas River flows in Farmington, N.M., on July 22, 2020. The river is a tributary of the San Juan River, part of the Colorado River System. (Anthony Jackson/The Albuquerque Journal via AP)
The Imperial Irrigation District, which supplies water to farms in southeast California, has said it can conserve up to 250,000 acre feet of water (81.5 billion gallons). But officials haven't said the price tag they plan to put on those savings. Farmers in Arizona's Yuma County also want more money.
A third pot of money would offer payment for larger projects aimed at achieving long-term water savings, like ripping up decorative grass in urban areas or building small, on-farm storage systems that make it easier for farmers to bank water rather than lose it to runoff.
The bureau says water users who take the $400 payments may be prioritized for that money over users who want more for short-term conservation.
California farmers' commitment is part of a broad offer by the state's water users to conserve up to 9 percent of its river water. That's contingent on adequate payment and help for the Salton Sea, a drying lake bed fed by farm runoff.
Tags
Who is online
429 visitors
The countdown starts.
The countdown starts.
With the amount of land going fallow by farmers the price of food staples will keep rising.
I dont think it helped that they used the wrong numbers of how much water was available for a number of decades .
I agree with that but also they have for quite some time warned the states that they had to re-look at the way the water is divided between states and Mexico.
Nevada has reacted to the problem for many years now with a fair amount of success and the forward-thinking by the head of the water district. If she hadn't pushed for additional deeper outlets in Lake Mead for the water to feed the area they would be in a much bigger mess than they are.
The treaty with mexico has only existed since 1944, and it was based again on those bad numbers they started out with to begin with , it will be interesting to see how things all pan out , i just dont think they can use the initial compacts computation that they have for so long .
They are going to have to change to what actually ends up being available and instead of by acre feet , by percentage .
The compacts are 100 years old based on faulty thinking. In additionthe population of NV and AZ has exploded as has CA.
Agreed, the feds may do it for them.
See no reference to the "Winters vs. U.S." of 1908.
From the viewpoint of the American Indian and his land and water there is no case more significant than Winters v. United States.' The Winters case established the doctrine that the Indian has dominant, supreme rights by reason of prior (aboriginal) appropriation to all waters touching upon or within the boundary lines of established reservations.
Let's hope that DOI doesn't put this in their rear-view mirror.
Winters vs U.S. sure didn't have the power it promised. Indians have been fighting for water rights.