What Does the Future Hold for Western Colorado Agriculture?
description
Transcript of What Does the Future Hold for Western Colorado Agriculture?
What Does the Future Hold for Western Colorado Agriculture?
Making Every Drop Count Western Colorado Food and Farm Forum January 11, 2014 - Montrose, CO
Eric Kuhn, General Manager
Water = Conflicts
80% of the
water
85% of the people
Transmountain diversions (to east) & downstream demands (to west)
450,000 to 600,000 acre-feet/yearto Front Range
6 to 8,000,000 acre-feet/year to
downstream states
Colorado River District Mission: To lead in the protection, conservation, use and development of the water resources of the Colorado River basin for the welfare of the District, and to safeguard for Colorado all waters of the Colorado River to which the state is entitled.
Minding the source for over 75 years: Colorado River Water Conservation District
1937 state statute
15 counties
28% of Colorado board director from
each county mill levy & water
activity enterprise
Colorado
River District
How Does the Colorado River Measure up?
ALL DATA IN ACRE-FEET/YEAR
90% of the water
90% of the people
Colorado River Compact of 1922Colorado, like all Upper Division states, shares obligations to the Lower Division
III (d) the Upper Division shall “not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any ten consecutive years.”
III (c) regarding Mexico…the Upper Division must “deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply one-half of the deficiency so recognized in addition to that provided in paragraph (d).”
Law of the River Allocations • 7.5 MAF to Upper Basin (%’s)1
• 7.5 MAF to Lower Basin (4.4 CA; 2.8 AZ; 0.3 NV)2
• 1.0 MAF additional to Lower Basin3 (i.e., tributary development)
• 1.5 MAF to Mexico4______________________ 17.5 MAF Total Allocated ‘on paper’
1 1922 Colorado River Compact, 1948 Upper Colorado River Compact2 Colorado River Compact, Boulder Canyon Project Act, 1964 AZ v. CA
3 1922 Colorado River Compact 4 Treaty of 1944
We have NO “Delivery Obligation”
The Upper Basin does not have a delivery obligation to the Lower Basin
Important distinction: The States of the Upper Division are required to limit their post-compact development of water so that their actions do not cause the flow at Lee Ferry to drop below the 10-year running average of 75 Million Acre-Feet
Important ImplicationsArticle VIII of the 1922 Compact:“...present perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River System are unimpaired by this compact.”
Article IV(c) of the 1948 Compact: excludes water rights perfected prior to Nov. 24, 1922 from curtailment
NOTE: The 1964 Arizona v. California Supreme Court decree includes a definition of “present perfected rights” that may apply.
Colorado River Basin Today• Seven basin states• Almost 300,000 square miles• 35 million people and growing• Up to 5.5 million irrigated acres• 15 million acre-feet of supply• 10 autonomous / sovereign Tribes• 2 countries
Colorado River Basin Tomorrow• Seven basin states• Almost 300,000 square miles• 35 80 million people (↑ of ~90%) • 5.5 4.6 million irrigated acres (↓ of ~15%) • 15 13.6 million acre-feet of supply (↓ of 9-10%)• 10 autonomous / sovereign Tribes
Water Supply vs. Water Use (Annual Average)
Estimates based upon CO River above Imperial dam
Water Supply vs. Water Use (10-year Running Average)
Estimates based upon CO River above Imperial dam
Observed Water Supply Conditions Warming trend in Upper and Lower Basins since 1970s -
consistent with observed North American and global trends
Decreases in springtime snowpack - losses of snow water equivalent largest at low elevations suggesting a temperature-related effect
Natural inter-annual variability in streamflow tends to be more dominant than observed trends
Recent deficit (difference between the 2-yr running average flow and the long-term mean annual flow) since 2000 is more severe than any other deficit in the observed period (9 yrs. and 28 maf)
Paleo reconstruction (762–2005) contains deficits that are longer in duration and larger (16 yrs. and as much as 35 maf). Deficits of greater severity than the recent deficit are possible (and possibly likely).
Projected Water Supply Conditions Warming is projected to increase across the Basin - largest changes in spring and summer; and in the
Upper more than the Lower Basin
Drying trends projected in regional & temporal - some precipitation ↑ in higher elevations and northern basins - dryer springs and summers - some Lower Basin areas may have slight ↑in precipitation due to monsoonal influence in - Upper Basin precipitation may ↑ in fall & winter
More precipitation falls as rain rather than snow
Warmer temperatures cause an earlier melt
Runoff (both direct and baseflow) is spatially diverse, but is generally projected to decrease, except in the northern Rockies
Projected Water Supply Conditions(con’t)
Comparison of Flow Scenarios20 year mean 1988-2007* 13.2 MAF/year25 year mean 1988-2013* 13.1 MAF/yearBasin Study Climate Change 13.6 MAF/year 60-year mean 1953-2012* 13.9 MAF/year
QUESTION: Which flow Scenario should we use for planning purposes?
*SOURCE: UCRC ANNUAL REPORTS (2012 ESTIMATE) FOR NATURAL FLOWS AT LEE FERRY, AZ
Upper Basin uses incl. reservoir evap. 4.0 - 4.5 Lower Basin mainsteam uses 7.5 - 7.5Lower Basin reservoir evap. 1.0 - 1.5Lower Basin tributaries 2.0 - 2.5Total Lower Basin 10.5 - 11.5
Subtotal 14.5 - 16.0Add Mexico 1.5 1.5
TOTAL 16.0 - 17.5 MAF
Current Use Estimates MAF/ year
Projected Future Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand
• By 2060 ave. supply-demand imbalances are approx. 3.2 MAF
• Imbalances have occurred in the past and deliveries have been met due to reservoir storage
Colorado River UseHistorical Consumptive Use Agricultural Municipal and Industrial Energy
Minerals Fish and Wildlife and Recreation Tribal
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
MAF
Upper Basin
2015 2035 20600
2
4
6
8
10
12
MAF
Lower Basin
2015 2035 2060
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
MAF
Utah
2015 2035 2060
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
MAF
Nevada
2015 2035 2060
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
MAF
California
2015 2035 2060
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
MAF
Arizona
2015 2035 2060
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
MAF
New Mexico
2015 2035 2060
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
MAF
Colorado
2015 2035 2060
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
MAF
Wyoming
2015 2035 2060
Agricultural Municipal and Industrial
Energy Minerals
Fish and Wildlife and Recreation Tribal
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Mill
ion
Acre-Fe
et (M
AF)
Colorado River Demand
2015 2035 2060
Trib
alTr
ibal
Trib
al
Mun
icip
al a
nd In
dust
rial
Mun
icip
al a
nd In
dust
rial
Mun
icip
al a
nd In
dust
rial
Agric
ultu
ral
Agric
ultu
ral
Agric
ultu
ral
2015
2035
2060
Six columns per time period represent six scenarios. From left to right: A, B, C1, C2, D1, D2
UPPER BASIN
LOWER BASIN
Water Demand Quantification Results (by water use sector)
Why Do We Care:• Solutions to these ‘imbalances’ can and will
directly affect the Upper Colorado River Basin (& CRD)
• Mitigation actions (increased development) can increase risk to historical (and future) users
Ergo:
others’ reward is our potential risk
Colorado River Storage Project Units (CRSP)
SOURCE: USBR UPPER COLORADO REGION STORAGE LEVELS AS OF 1/06/14
CRSP Acts of 1956 and 1968
authorized construction of
facilities for long-term
regulation and development of Colorado River water resources
fill
Flaming Gorge 3.7MAF active capacity 76% full
fill
Fontenell
3.7MAF capacity
Currently: 75%
full
fill
fill Blue Mesa
0.84MAF active capacity 46% full
Navajo 1.7 MAF active capacity57% fullfill
Lake Powell 26 MAF active capacity 42% full
fill
Aspinall Unit: Blue Mesa, Morrow Point & Crystal Res.
Graph: USBR
Southwest’s Dwindling Water SupplyLake Mead below 1,000’ above sea level affects millions
Indicators of Vulnerability Vulnerability – performance below desired
level• Indicators
- “Lee Ferry Deficit” (aka Compact curtailment) if flows into Lake Powell are less than 75 MAF
over 10 years then
Vulnerable Condition = Potential Curtailment
Vulnerability: Lee Ferry Deficit
Mitigation Actions• Utilize different strategic actions
– No Action: • Status Quo
– Action Alternatives: • Decrease uses (demand mgmt.
approach) in Upper and Lower Basins• Re-operate Upper Basin reservoirs
Stress Testing the Colorado River System
Lake Powell
Lake Mead
Lake Powell - Demand Mgmt & Reservoir Re-Operation (single trace 2000-2007; 1988-1999)
Lake Mead - Demand Mgmt & Reservoir Re-Operation (single trace 2000-2007; 1988-1999)
What is a Water Bank?Conservation with transfer mechanism
Irrigators paid to reduce consumptive uses (e.g., deficit irrigation, rotational fallowing)
Savings “banked” in a reservoir
Two Basic Water Bank Strategies1. to avoid a curtailment2. to survive a curtailment
Many, Many Questions1. Economics – are there sufficient willing
buyers and sellers?2. How are secondary economic &
environmental impacts addressed?3. How do we address the water rights
implications?4. Colorado shares the Lee Ferry obligations
with three other states
West Slope Message• Long term, Basin math does not add up• Increase in demand vs. potential long term
decrease in supplies• Climate change will decrease runoff
(even though precipitation may increase, more ET)
• Compact curtailment is punitive to historical users
• Risk of curtailment requires careful development of remaining entitlement
Messages Ignored at Our Peril• The future risk of a curtailment is real and
will continue to increase
• The future is very uncertain – compact obligations, demands and hydrology
• New development will increase the curtailment risk to existing uses
• Without planning and foresight, the West Slope’s agricultural industries at risk
Policy Questions / Implications 1. Do new, broader market –based solutions represent our
future? (i.e., conservation with transfers between sectors? Between states? Between basins?)
2. Can the Law of the River be enhanced to enable new conservation transfers mechanisms and still survive?
3. How do we mitigate risks of future development on existing uses / economies in the future? Risk Management through:
Upper Basin Water Bank? New classes of water rights? Different administration schema? All parties will need to be engaged, informed,
creative and flexible as we travel this path.
Augmentation • Cloud seeding (aka weather modification)• Non-native plant eradication / management• Dust management / mitigation
• Smaller scale desalinization (coastal cities & brackish groundwater)
• Larger efforts on water re-use / recycling• Imports from other basins (Mississippi & Snake)
• Large scale desalinization
Uncertain Future:
“Past performance does not guarantee future results”
www.ColoradoRiverDistrict.org
Uncertain Times Require Certain Actions