1 / 44

Colorado River Settlement and Impacts of Drought

Colorado River Settlement and Impacts of Drought. WSWC. Herb Guenther. ADWR. November 16, 2007. Water Supply of Arizona. Colorado River 2.8 MAF. Salt River 1 MAF. Groundwater 2.9 MAF. Gila River 0.4 MAF. Arizona Water Supply Annual Water Budget. 8.1 maf. Consumption.

fionn
Télécharger la présentation

Colorado River Settlement and Impacts of Drought

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Colorado RiverSettlement and Impacts of Drought WSWC Herb Guenther ADWR November 16, 2007

  2. Water Supply of Arizona Colorado River 2.8 MAF Salt River 1 MAF Groundwater 2.9 MAF Gila River 0.4 MAF

  3. Arizona Water SupplyAnnual Water Budget 8.1 maf

  4. Consumption Sources: ADWR, UofA, USGS

  5. Arizona Population Growth

  6. Reservoir Status

  7. El Nino – La NinaSouthern Oscillation

  8. Pacific Ocean El Nino La Nina

  9. Pacific Ocean Q```

  10. La Nina Impacts

  11. Colorado River BasinPrecipitation Comparison Water Year 2005 Water Year 2006

  12. Colorado River BasinPrecipitation Comparison Water Year 2006 Water Year 2007

  13. Precipitation Outlook Feb 08 thru Apr 08 Nov 07 thru Jan 08

  14. Arizona Water SupplyAnnual Water Budget 8.1 maf

  15. LAKE MEAD Capacity - 25.88 maf 15 Nov 07 - 48% fullContents – 12.51 maf Elevation - 1,111’

  16. LAKE POWELL Capacity – 24.32 maf 15 Nov 07 – 48% full Contents – 11.74 maf Elevation – 3,600’

  17. Colorado River Compact & Treaty Allocations Upper Basin (7.5 maf) Lee Ferry Lower Basin (7.5 maf) CA – 4.4 maf AZ – 2.8 maf NV – 0.3 maf Arizona Upper Basin – 50 kaf Mexico 1.5 maf

  18. Colorado River Flows Legally allocated16.5 maf Tree rings, Upper Basin (1512-1961)13.5 maf Lowest 20-year average(1579-1598) 10.95 maf Tree rings, Upper Basin (1512-2000) 14.7 maf Isotopes, Delta clams (1500-1950) 12.5 maf

  19. Depending on which study you subscribe to, the Colorado River is over-appropriated by 1.8 to 4.0 maf

  20. At The End of the Day…Upper Division Issues • Colorado River over-appropriated • Upper Basin unable to develop full use of apportionment • Compact requires Upper Basin to release 75 maf ten-year average • Leads to potential for a Lower Basin “Compact Call”

  21. “Compact Call”: If Upper Division states do not meet 1922 Compact requirement to provide75 maf every 10 years, the Lower Division States could demand that the Upper Division States cut off their junior water right holders and send their water to the Lower Division States.

  22. At The End of the Day…Lower Division Issues • Colorado River over-appropriated • Upper Basin will develop ability to use more of apportionment • Increased chance of Lower Basin shortages • Unpredictable outcome of “Compact Issue” litigation

  23. Working with all the Basin States to minimize the possibility of LowerDivision shortages and a “Compact Call” on the Upper Division by exploring: Augmenting the water in the Colorado River Conjunctively managing Lakes Mead and Powell Reducing the delivery of Colorado River water in excess of treaty requirements

  24. The 7 Basin States letter to the Secretary of Interior, dated February 3, 2006, referred a Basin States preferred alternative for consideration in the ongoing NEPA process.

  25. Lake Mead Step Shortage

  26. Shortage Sharing • Nevada 4% - 8% • California 0% • Mexico 17% • Arizona 79% - 75%

  27. Augmentation • All states will pursue augmentation projects including but not limited to: • Weather modification (cloud seeding) • Desalination • Vegetation management • States have hired a consultant for long-term augmentation feasibility studies

  28. Long Term Augmentation • DESALINATION • California potential for exchange • Mexico potential for exchange • Costs (U.S. Desalination Association): • $2,000/af (1992) • $600/af (2007) • Worldwide: • 11,000 plants in 120 countries • Saudi Arabia – 70% of country’s water supply • Global capacity – 4 billion gals/day • Future benefits: • Reduce/eliminate need to bring water from interior (Colorado River) to coast (Southern California)

  29. The World’s Oceans Coverage: 71% of Earth’s surface Volume: 1.11 quadrillion acre-feet, or A column of water 1 mile square & 300 million miles high

  30. Final 7 States Agreement • Conjunctive management of Lakes Mead and Powell • Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) • Wheeling other water in Colorado River System • System Augmentation • Staged shortages for the Lower Division States

  31. Forbearance 7 Basin States Agreement • Forbearance:Authorizes ADWR Director to forbear ordering these special types of water created & owned by other Basin states under specific circumstances • Need • Surplus is intentionally created by another state (Nevada or California) • “Law of the River” does not recognize these types of water • Augments supply on the River • Achieves comity with our neighbors on the Colorado River • Reduces interim surplus available to other states under the Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG) • Reduces the frequency and magnitude of Arizona’s shortages

  32. Final 7 States Agreement • Agreement with Nevada on shortage sharing • Agreement with 7 Basin States signed on April 23, 2007 • 7 States letter to the Secretary commenting on DEIS and transmitting all signed documents dated April 30,2007 • Secretary selected the 7 Basin States alternative as the preferred alternative in June 2007

  33. Next • Final EIS - November 2, 2007 • Proposed Guidelines – November 16, 2007 • Record of Decision – December 2007

  34. First Time In 85 Years All 7 Basin States Agree On Major Colorado River Issues

  35. NOT YET! The Devil Is Definitely In The Details

  36. Conjunctive Management – Different Interpretations • New guidelines require the balancing of reservoir contents (Lakes Mead and Powell) when the elevation of Lake Powell exceeds the equalization line (old 602a line) • Upper Basin interpretation– balancing only back to the equalization line • Lower Basin interpretation– balancing the total contents of both reservoirs

  37. Conjunctive Management – Different Interpretations We will continue to pursue a mutually acceptable compromise with the Upper Basin States but the final word will reside with the Secretary of Interior in his Record of Decision

  38. Arizona Navy Lake Havasu Command LONDON BRIDGE ADWR

  39. Arizona Navy v. California - 1934 Stop Parker Dam! ISSUE: - California had wealth to build huge water delivery systems to farmers and Los Angeles - Arizona feared it would never get its full Colorado River entitlement ACTION:- Moeur dispatched 60 fully armed Arizona National Guardsmen- Guardsmen commandeered the “Julia B” paddle wheeler from Parker RESULT:- Work on Parker Dam was halted until the issue was settled Arizona Governor B. B. Moeur

  40. Arizona Navy Lake Mead Command “Securing Arizona’s Water Future” ADWR mission ADWR

  41. Arizona Navy Glen CanyonDam Special OPS Training 2007 ADWR

  42. Arizona Navy Lower Basin No - Fly Zone ADWR

More Related