|
ARCHIVE
|
Nonprofits, Utah Energy, Utah's Uninsured
May 29, 2007
|
Utah Economy, Healthcare, Nonprofits, Immunization, Western Primary
March 28, 2007
|
Utah Economy, Western Primary
February 28, 2007
|
Growth, Charter Schools, Minimum Wage, New Legislation
January 17, 2007
|
State Spending, Healthcare, Ethics
December 21, 2006
|
[MORE]
|
|
|  |
|
|
Make Your Voice Heard on Water Policy
Comment on the Bureau of Reclamation's Draft Environmental Impact Statement
by Janice Houston, CPPA Senior Policy Analyst
Introduction
At a public meeting held April 5, 2007, staff from the
Bureau of Reclamation unveiled a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
This EIS is an attempt to address potential water shortages in the states that
rely on the Colorado River for water. With the spring snowmelt and runoff at
approximately 50% of average in the Colorado River Basin, it appears the region
is headed into its eighth year of drought. Water levels at Lakes Powell and
Mead, the main storage reservoirs along the river, are at their lowest levels
since they were filling, shortly after construction.
This continued drought, along with explosive population
growth in most of the Basin states has led the Department of Interior and the
Bureau of Reclamation to rethink the current operations at the dams as well as
how best to mitigate anticipated water shortages in the future. This article is
a summary of the presentation made by Reclamation staff at three public
meetings this April. The draft EIS is open for public comment until April 30, 2007. This article will
outline the four policy alternatives currently under consideration by the
Bureau so that readers and policymakers understand how new operational
procedures at these sites may impact water use and policy in the West.
Background
When the Colorado River Compact was drawn up in 1922, the
science of hydrology was in its infancy. Additionally, the years leading up to
1922 were those of high flow levels on the river. Consequentially, rights to
the river’s water were over-allocated. 16.5 million acre feet (maf) were
claimed by the seven states that comprise the river Compact (California,
Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming) whereas the average
amount of water in the river during any given year is roughly 15 maf.
This over-allocation, the demands of development and
population growth, as well as seven years of severe drought along the river has
demanded some type of action to address declining water levels. Under the
Colorado River Compact, the Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming) are required to deliver 7.5 maf of water to the Lower Basin each year,
regardless of drought conditions. This requirement has led to the rapid decline
of water levels in Lake Powell, which impacts not only recreation on the lake
but also hydrologic power generation facilities that depend on the reservoir.
Since neither the original Compact nor the operational guidelines written by
the Bureau address what would happen in the event the Upper Basin is no longer
able to deliver the required 7.5 maf, Department of Interior Secretary Gale
Norton gave the task to the Bureau and the Basin states to create a workable
solution to the problem. The draft EIS details four possible solutions, each
created by parties that have a stake in the outcome of this process. All four
alternatives have four key elements. They are:
- Develop
a shortage strategy for Lake Mead and the Lower Basin states
- Coordinate
operations of Lakes Powell & Mead
- Create
a mechanism for the storage and delivery of system and non-system water
conserved in Lake Mead (This
water has to be “wet”—water that physically ends up in Lake Mead, not just water conserved on paper)
- Modify/extend
the existing Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG)
What is interesting about the draft EIS is that no preferred
alternative is identified by Bureau of Reclamation staff and will not be identified
until after the public comment period is closed. This is the reason it is
important for all interested parties to respond to the EIS with their comments
and preferred alternative.
The four possible solutions are as follows:
- Basin States Alternative
- Conservation Before Shortage Alternative
- Water Supply Alternative
- Reservoir Storage Alternative
Within the EIS, these four options are compared against a
“take no action” scenario and the impacts on hydrology, environment and water
storage/delivery are detailed. A key consideration when reviewing this document
is that the “take no action” scenario isn’t the same as a “status quo”
scenario. The analysis done under the “take no action” scenario includes all
proposed development projects each of the Basin states is considering. For
example, Utah’s proposed pipeline to St. George from Lake Powell has been
factored in as if it were already complete. Bureau of Reclamation staff stated
they included all proposed projects so they could simulate the lowest level of
flow into Lake Powell. This “worst case” scenario helped them to realistically
simulate how large the impacts of each alternative would be on the future river
system.
Alternatives
The Basin States Alternative was drawn up by the official
representatives from each of the states party to the Colorado River Compact.
The purpose of this alternative is to minimize water shortages to the Lower Basin
states of Arizona, California and Nevada while allowing the Upper Basin to
continue to develop their Colorado River water. Any water that ends up in Lake
Mead through conservation measures (intentionally created surplus or ICS) is
returned to the government entity responsible for conservation. For example,
Nevada is proposing a series of dams along the river. If Nevada is willing to
pay for those dams, the water it conserves with them would be an ICS that
Nevada could draw on in the future. The size of the intentionally created
surplus would be 2.1 maf.
The Conservation Before Shortage Alternative was developed by
a consortium of environmental groups. The goal of this consortium was to minimize shortages to the Lower Basin through voluntary conservation measures. Voluntary
conservation would be strongly encouraged through the mechanism of compensation
paid by the federal government to any governmental or non-governmental group
that could prove they put ICS water into Lake Mead. The proposed size of the ICS
would be double that of the Basin States’ proposal—4.2 maf. Also, the elevation
of Lake Mead would absolutely be preserved at 1,000 ft., thus requiring Lake
Powell to send down water (regardless of its own elevation) even if drought
conditions worsen. This is in contrast with the Basin States Alternative which
would have the elevations of Lakes Powell and Mead fluctuate as needed during
times of drought.
The Water Supply Alternative was developed by Bureau of
Reclamation staff after consultation with interested parties. The goal is to
maximize water deliveries at the expense of retaining water in the reservoirs.
This alternative is the closest to the idea of allowing the Colorado River to
flow freely down its course. This alternative is also the “lowest impact” of
the four—meaning that a shortage plan is only implemented when the Upper Basin
cannot deliver the expected 7.5 maf. This contrasts to the above two
alternatives which each create an operational plan for the lakes in periods of
high and average flow as well as during times of drought. In contrast to the
other three alternatives, this proposal does not create a mechanism by which
surplus water can be stored. Again, the purpose of this plan is to mimic as
closely as possible the natural flow of the Colorado River and water storage is
not something the river would do on its own.
The Reservoir Storage Alternative was developed by the
National Park Service and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). Its
purpose is to maximize water storage at the expense of water deliveries to the
Lower Basin. It is the opposite of the alternative above and is meant to ensure
that recreation and power generation interests at Lake Powell and Lake Mead have
adequate water. Water releases from Lake Powell would be determined by the
elevations of both lakes, thus ensuring that hydropower facilities have enough
water to operate. This alternative also creates a mechanism for ICS—limiting
the storage capacity to 3.1 maf.
Each of these alternatives tries to mitigate potential water
shortages that might cripple the region while promoting an agenda of
conservation and cooperation. The approach and goals of each alternative are
different and must be considered carefully before making any decisions. To
further examine the alternatives you can access the draft EIS at the following
URL or visit the Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Regional Office to view
a hard copy of the draft. The URL is http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies.html
and the address of the regional office is 125 S. State St. Rm. 7220, SLC UT.
The deadline for comments is April 30,
2007.
Next Steps
The Bureau of Reclamation will take all comments into
consideration when developing its preferred alternatives, which in all
likelihood will be some hybrid of the four proposals discussed here. Sometime
before the end of June 2007, the Bureau will identify and publish that
alternative. In September, the final EIS will be published and a 30 day comment
period will commence at the date of publication. By December 2007, the Bureau
will publish its “record of decision” and the new plan for managing the
Colorado River will go into effect.
Conclusion
Although Utah is an Upper Basin state, there is much
contained in this EIS that will impact water policy in Utah. First, changes in
the water depth at Lake Powell will certainly impact recreational
opportunities. Additionally, while the pipeline to St. George was factored into
the proposal, any future development of Colorado River water by the state will
have to contend with the new operating procedures. Also, if Utah is willing to
invest the resources, the conservation portion of these proposals may work in
the state’s favor. It would be a way to bank surplus water for use in times of
need. Additionally, it may be a way for St. George to inexpensively build their
water supply. Finally, it may be the impetus the state needs to expand its
current water banking capacity and allow non-governmental entities the
opportunity to participate in conservation and water development. Bottom line,
though, is that policymakers and citizens of the state have a once in a
lifetime opportunity to speak out about the Colorado River’s future. To comment
on the draft EIS—please email your thoughts to strategies@lc.usbr.gov.
| | |
