Key Colorado River conservation deadline arrives, with no consensus on the horizon

Monday marked a key deadline for Colorado River states to propose consensual plants for long-term water conservation in overtaxed systems.

However, such an agreement was not on the table once the deadline set by the Home Office’s Bureau of Reclamation arrived. Instead, his two main branches of the river system, the upper and lower reaches, submitted their own competing plans.

This proposal was related to future rule updates. 2007 Interim Guidelines on Downstream Deficits It dictates where, when, and how much water the seven basin states must conserve from the 1,450-mile river.

Although these rules apply only to domestic actors, the Colorado River serves as a lifeline for approximately 40 million people in the United States and Mexico, and both countries are currently simultaneously renegotiating international conservation commitments. .

The history of water consumption in the Colorado River system is complex, with century-old agreements allocating more water to the parties than is currently reasonably available.

that 1922 compact It allocated 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year to each of the two U.S. watersheds. 1944 Convention He later gave an additional 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico. For reference, households in suburban America tend to use about 1 acre-foot each year.

Domestic issues are becoming increasingly complex as the rules governing the river are subject to renegotiation, with upstream states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico) facing similar challenges to downstream states (Arizona, California). have a completely different perspective. and Nevada.

The differences between the two parties revolve around several key issues, including the Upper Basin claim. Future Plans It should reflect real-time hydrology and recognize that water supply to each state depends on annual snow cover conditions.

Meanwhile, the Lower Basin draws water from the Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoirs, while retaining some of the most senior “water rights,” a historical relic of a first-come, first-served priority system. are doing.

The two units sent separate submissions Wednesday to the Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees updating guidelines under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the NEPA process, the agency must analyze proposed alternatives within an environmental impact statement (EIS).

The agency had warned the parties that if they did not submit agreed-upon alternatives by Monday, federal authorities could proceed on their own. intention We plan to issue an EIS by December.

After a year of disagreement, the seven states were able to reach an agreement on short-term measures to keep the system in place until 2026, which the department announced last Tuesday.

As far as last week’s long-term submission is concerned, one of the key differences between the basin’s competing plans has to do with exactly which reservoirs in the system contribute to the basin-wide water storage potential calculation.

lower basin proposed to include In addition to Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the largest reservoirs and the only ones involved in the 2007 guidelines, five other smaller reservoirs are also subject to storage assessments. Three of these five reservoirs are located in the upper basin.

According to the downstream plan, the seven reservoirs could collectively provide more than 58 million acre-feet of system storage.

Upper Basin has offered to consider new storage plans in some of these reservoirs, but as part of possible “parallel activities” and not through the formal NEPA process.

Another point of tension between opponents relates to the release of water from Lake Powell into Lake Mead. The former is an Upper Basin water storage facility that supplies Lake Mead via Glen Canyon Dam, from which Lower Basin states draw water.

Downstream officials proposed that releases from Lake Powell to Lake Mead should be based on their total amount, with lower amounts being released.

However, upstream Parties called for determining releases for each reservoir individually, that the amount released or withheld from each reservoir varies depending on individual water levels, and that demand and supply imbalances be taken into account.

Although the two basins are currently at an impasse, failing to meet federally mandated deadlines, there is still a chance an agreement can be reached and the Bureau of Reclamation may accept the agreement despite the deadline.

Jennifer Pitt, director of the Audubon Society’s Colorado River Program, emphasized that states initially lacked consensus in developing the short-term conservation plan approved by the Bureau of Reclamation last week.

“I’m disappointed that there are no proposals from seven states, but I don’t think this is the last chance to get there,” Pitt told The Hill in an interview ahead of the filing.

“I believe we have time, but time is not infinite,” she added.

At a press conference the day before the individual submissions, Laura Daniel Davies, the Home Office’s undersecretary for action, stressed that the Home Office “does not expect every issue between upstream and downstream to be resolved tomorrow.” did.

“We will continue to work with all parties throughout the spring and summer to reach as much agreement as possible,” she said. “We are committed to this process because failure is not an option.”