Tuesday July 24, 2007
A Fork in the River: Coping with Change on the Colorado

by: Patricia Mulroy, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Source: Water Strategist - May 2007

We are, depending upon one’s perspective, entering a time of either tremendous hardship or unparalleled opportunity. The drought that descended upon the Colorado River at the beginning of this millennium has shattered our illusion of resource security and forced each of us who depend on this 1,000-mile-long liquid ribbon to face a stark new reality. Carefully crafted plans have evaporated like the wind-whipped snow from the slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Reservoirs that were literally brimming with water less than a decade ago shrink by the day, a vivid white chalk line marking richer times.

Yet I do not despair. Sixteenth-century English statesman and author Sir Francis Bacon observed that, “Prosperity is not without many fears and distastes; and adversity is not without comforts and hopes.” These words have proven true in recent days when, in an unprecedented display of unanimity and compromise, the seven Colorado River Basin states submitted an operations plan to the Secretary of the Interior designed to address the uncertainties and challenges posed by the drought. Some might look upon this proposal as merely another bureaucratic exercise, a document destined to join countless others in the archives. To view it in that manner, however, would be to dismiss one of the greatest accomplishments of the Colorado River Compact era—one that has the potential to redefine how water is viewed in the West. We have reached the place in time where the river diverges; which path we choose to follow will define our legacy as water managers and environmental stewards.

To fully grasp the magnitude of the Basin States proposal, submitted as part of a package of comments in response to the Bureau of Reclamation’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding Colorado River operations, one must roll back the hands of time more than 80 years and consider the original Colorado River Compact of 1922. The original compact was created as a means to impose structure on what was at that point unregulated use of the Colorado River. It was intentionally rigid, and reflected the realities of the day. While some have derided its seeming rigidity, I have said many times that the Colorado River Compact is as flexible as the states choose to be. Recent events have demonstrated remarkable foresight and compromise on the part of the current corps of water managers tending to our river.

Although times of plenty usually provide little incentive for change, the current progressive movement within the Colorado River Basin actually began in the high-flow years of the 1990s, when the Interim Surplus Guidelines were crafted and adopted. Water banking—a concept that until then had not been considered viable by many—actually became a reality. The thaw in interstate relationships was as plain as a spring day in Colorado. It was not so much an alignment of the stars as an alignment of personalities—forward-thinking and intelligent, the Basin States’ representatives were more receptive than ever before to innovation and change. The results were dramatic and, for a time, seemed to chart the river’s immediate future.

Then came the drought no one could have predicted. Water managers have been criticized by armchair quarterbacks for not being more prepared for the Colorado River drought, but in fact there was no way to predict the weather pattern that has dominated the decade to date. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation employs talented professionals with access to sophisticated modeling technology to predict elevations in the Colorado’s primary reservoirs. At the time the Quantification Settlement Agreement was being finalized at the turn of the century, the statistical probability that Lake Mead would plummet to its current level was zero. It was literally beyond comprehension. In retrospect, of course, we recognize from tree ring studies that extended droughts are part of life in this region, just as water planners realized decades after the fact that the Colorado River was allocated following a series of unusually high-flow years.

There are, however, a number of positives that have emerged from the drought. It is these opportunities that give me cause for optimism. The first is an ethic of water efficiency that would have been nearly impossible to engender without a crisis as severe as the Colorado River drought. Agriculture uses the majority of the Colorado River’s water; as the dominant land use in the early 20th century, this was as it was intended. The Southwest was built upon the culture of farming, and it remains critical to our region and country. Yet, with the migration of people from the Eastern Seaboard and Midwest to the Southwest, agricultural users suddenly found municipal water users next to them at the trough—and in rapidly growing numbers. Even though the Southwest’s population boom during the past several decades has made scarcely a dent in the percentage of Colorado River water dedicated to agriculture, some farmers became concerned that municipalities would soon target their water rights, while municipalities recognized that there was little to no chance of acquiring additional supplies from the Colorado. The only response that could alleviate the concerns of the agricultural community and at the same time meet the demands of growing cities was improved water efficiency.

Tucson, of course, was far ahead of the other Southwestern cities. It had two natural advantages: First, because it is located within one of the most scenic deserts in the world, the natural landscape is inherently palatable to residents. Second, it was water-efficient from its inception. As the drought’s impact began to be felt, however, other cities began to make the painful transition from excess to efficiency. No place was this more challenging than Las Vegas, where prior to the creation of the Southern Nevada Water Authority in 1991 municipal water agencies operated on a “use it or lose it” basis. Low water rates based on delivery costs did nothing to promote conservation, and the vast majority of new residents hailed from greener climes and wanted to bring their landscaping with them.

While the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s efforts to encourage voluntary conservation date back nearly to its inception, the drought elevated the issue of water scarcity in the public consciousness. In fact, most residents at first assumed that we had unlimited access to Lake Mead and couldn’t understand why we would send “our water” downstream to California and Arizona. The drought provided a platform from which we could increase residents’ understanding of how the Colorado River is shared and why water efficiency is so important to our community’s continued prosperity. A citizens advisory committee convened to consider the Authority’s drought plan also was overwhelmingly supportive of mandatory conservation measures such as those severe limiting the use of grass in the landscapes of new homes and commercial properties, a mandatory watering schedule for all customer classes, golf course water budgets and other restrictions. The end result is that, despite an influx of more than 330,000 people between 2002 and 2006, our community’s consumptive use of Colorado River water actually decreased by approximately 18 billion gallons annually during that span. And the ethic is spreading. Water industry publications report community after community implementing stringent water efficiency measures, in essence coming to terms with the reality we all ignored for so long.

Some have suggested that Southwestern communities—particularly Las Vegas—should simply pull up the drawbridge and stop allowing people to settle there. Looking at it from that perspective, the broader question is not whether we should stop, but rather where people should go. Given increased life spans and low birth mortality rates, there are simply more people than ever before. Should New York City have been girdled by its indigenous water supply, or Los Angeles?

For that matter, if natural barriers to development such as proximity to water resources or susceptibility to climatic events are to dictate land use, perhaps cities should not be allowed in flood plains, tornado alleys or earthquake zones. Rather than building levees or earthquake-resistant structures, would it not be more prudent to simply abandon coastal Florida, the Gulf Coast states, a sizeable portion of the Midwest, and California? While that seems farcical, it is not far afield from the argument being made by critics of Southwestern development.

I believe the real question is not whether the Southwest grows, but rather how it grows. We are a nation of innovators, fueled by possibilities and undaunted by challenges. As poet George Crabbe wrote 200 years ago this year, “Be there a will, and wisdom finds a way.”

As encouraging as our region’s strides toward water efficiency have been, they pale in significance compared with the Seven Basin States Colorado River operating plan, which was encased in comments submitted as part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Environmental Impact Statement related to river operations. The details of the proposal, while of tremendous importance because of the certainty and flexibility they provide water users, aren’t what truly make it momentous. The proposal’s significance is the fact that seven states with competing interests were able to set aside their differences and work together to find solutions that allow everyone to emerge intact. This accord was only possible because of the representatives’ ability to consider the broader consequences of their decisions. I am optimistic that the Secretary of the Interior will recognize the relevance of the states’ unanimity and incorporate the proposal into the record of decision later this year. And while the work of the Basin States representatives will probably never be fully recognized outside the water industry, its importance to the 30-plus million people who rely upon the Colorado River cannot be overstated.

I believe that the full impact of this accord will not be felt until long after the drought has abated. We are in the midst of a fundamental metamorphosis, a profound change in how we who rely upon the Colorado River view both the resource and one another. The Old West—represented by intransigence and independence—is evolving into a New West marked by flexibility and interdependence. At the same time, people from both ends of the philosophical spectrum are recognizing that the future rests somewhere in the middle. It is a transformation that transcends individuals and goes to the heart of Western culture.

If there is a word that encapsulates the good evoked by the drought, it is “flexibility.” The historic agreements and court decisions that underpin the Law of the River are bedrock-solid from a legal perspective, but crumble like sandstone in the face of political and economic reality. Consider, for instance, the idea of a “call” on the Upper Basin. What happens in Denver matters in Phoenix, and vice versa. The Colorado River Basin needs to be managed as one watershed; one community cannot survive at another’s expense. The Seven Basin States proposal encourages water efficiency and augmentation projects and reduces the level of uncertainty faced by water planners.

It also utilizes an impermanent approach to operational decisions and solutions, which is precisely what is needed to deal with increasing climatic uncertainty. Had the framers of the Colorado River Compact realized they were basing allocations on high-flow years, the results would have certainly been different. Had Nevada’s representative at the 1928 negotiations realized that Las Vegas would someday be a major metropolitan city, they most certainly would have argued for a larger share of the Colorado’s flows. Permanent arrangements are difficult to amend in the face of changing conditions. The Seven States proposal is a critical step toward a common future that respects the needs of the agricultural community, municipal uses and the environment.

Along this journey, we should continue to increase our collective understanding of who the stakeholders are and what needs they have. Non-governmental organizations, too often cast in the role of adversary, should be engaged so that we can strive for mutually acceptable solutions. Some of the issues—such as the effect of water temperature variations on species such as the razorback sucker and humpback chub—have less to do with how much water is released than they do with the manner in which it is released. Just as environmental stakeholders must recognize the importance of hydroelectric operations to Western power users, system operators must respect the needs of the environment and seek ways to accommodate both uses. Similarly, we are at a key point in the efforts to address sediment within the Colorado River channel for sandbars and recreation by changing flow regimens. The experiments conducted to date have been promising, but need to be advanced and expanded. Other issues, such as the limitrophe at the international boundary with Mexico, are even more complex and will require international cooperation. For that to happen, Mexico needs to be invited to the discussions and afforded access to programs that will enable conservation measures within that country.

The pie is shrinking, while the hunger is growing among all of the users. However, there are significant opportunities to improve efficiency, not only in the cities but within agricultural delivery and irrigation systems. This is not to suggest that agriculture subordinate itself to municipal use. We recognize the importance of food crops to the regional economy and our country’s independence. There are dangers associated with becoming overly reliant upon imported produce. However, there are opportunities to invest in system efficiencies that could generate substantial water savings while ensuring that everyone remains whole. Similarly, it may under certain circumstances benefit farmers to take a small portion of their fields out of production for a limited term on a rotating basis and lease that water to municipalities. This would generate significant revenue for agricultural interests without requiring them to relinquish the rights to that water.

Recovering the Colorado River’s primary reservoirs has become a top priority for all users. One of the most important elements in many of the individual projects proposed through the Seven Basin States proposal was the idea that any conserved water would be shared between the participating entity or entities and the river system itself. For instance, through the proposed Drop 2 Reservoir project, Nevada would receive a portion—but not the majority, by any means—of the water conserved over the life of the project. This equitable formula provides Nevada a critical bridge supply but also helps maintain reservoir levels upstream, to the benefit of all. Similarly, the concept that would allow states to “bank” water in Lake Mead reserves a portion of that water for system health. There is an opportunity with the Yuma Desalting Plant to benefit both the Basin States and the Colorado River system.

Now that we as Colorado River users have shifted our focus to view the system more holistically, unprecedented opportunities abound that can benefit Southwestern residents for generations to come. The drought did more than simply send a wake-up call through the region; it opened a window of opportunity to change the way the river is managed. Fortunately for all of us, the Basin States representatives had the wisdom and fortitude to capitalize upon our good fortune.

 Copyright ©1999-2007 Stratecon Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  | Privacy Policy  | Disclaimer