Given the apparently unproductive state-to-state negotiations over post-2026 management of the Colorado River, it’s worth examining, in our search for a path forward, some of the other proposals submitted to the Department of the Interior. (If you need some bedtime reading….)

One of the most interesting comes from the Gila River Indian Community. (Their March 29 letter to Reclamation lays it out.) Spanning the Gila River along the southern edge of Phoenix, the Gila River Indian Community has long done a masterful job of leveraging water in defense of its sovereignty – or maybe sovereignty in defense of its water?

This 2021 piece by Sharon Udasin does a great job of explaining the GRIC’s success:

A riverbed that has been parched since the end of the 19^th century — a portion of the historic lifeblood of the Gila River Indian Community — is now coursing again with water, luring things like cattails and birds back to its shores.

“You add water and stuff just immediately starts coming back naturally. Birds have returned and it’s just such a different experience,” says Jason Hauter, an attorney and a Community member. “It’s amazing how much has returned.”

The water, the cattails, and the birds, are part of a complex legal tangle that led to the 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act, which ensured Central Arizona Project water – Colorado River imports, pumped up into the Gila River Valley from the river’s main stem – to replace water stolen from the Gila River Indian Community by settlers a century before.

Access to that water has made the Community a power player in central Arizona water politics. But that water is now at risk as a result of efforts to cope with declining flows on the Colorado River. In particular, the Community views the Lower Basin States’ proposal for post-2026 river management as (my words, not theirs) an assault on their sovereignty. Here’s how they put it in their March letter to Reclamation:

Our initial analysis of the LB Alternative indicates that under their static reduction proposals, at a minimum, the Community’s Colorado River supplies that we are currently using would likely be reduced by 130,000 acre-feet, 42% of our entire Colorado River supply, even after Arizona’s firming obligations are met. These cuts
would become more draconian under both the LB Alternative and the UB Alternative when additional reductions beyond 1.5 million acre-feet are needed, which would be often based on our review of the various models we have seen.

Allocation of CAP water is crazy complicated, and I’m still trying to get my head around these details. But the Gila River Indian Community is essentially arguing that in the current proposal, which calls for cuts deep enough to eliminate the “structural deficit,” Arizona is essentially bargaining away the Community’s water.

So the Community has concerns with the Lower Basin proposal. But it has even greater concerns about the Upper Basin proposal, which argues that if even deeper cuts are needed, they should all fall on the Lower Basin.

The UB Alternative does not appear to us to present a reasonable or balanced approach at all, shifting all of the burden for addressing the current drought crisis onto the Lower Basin States.

The footnote to that paragraph is wonderful:

Reclamation has indicated that it will model any reasonable set of assumptions presented for consideration. The Community, for its part, does not view the UB Alternative as a reasonable set of assumptions, so the Community would understand and support Reclamation if it determined not to model the UB Alternative.

The Gila River Indian Community offers an alternative suggestion for managing Lower Basin cuts that’s super interesting. Rather than what the Lower Basin Proposal offers – essentially a negotiated who-cuts-what set of numbers based on talks among the three states – the Community suggests cuts across the Lower Basin proportionally, based on the calculation of evaporation and system losses (which we’re now supposed to shorten, apparently, as ESL):

We believe the United States has the authority to apply ESL to consumptive use in the Lower Basin in a proportional manner. It is our understanding that United States believes it has the authority to apply ESL to consumptive use in the Lower Basin on a proportional basis and, as such, we believe this should be modeled.

The Community’s letter includes a strong emphasis on the federal government’s trust responsibility to the basin’s 30 Tribal Sovereigns. The letter makes clear that the federal government has a legal obligation “to find alternative water supplies for tribes that will be negatively affected by the Post-2026 Operations.” As Gila River Indian Community Gov. Stephen Roe Lewis put it at this month’s Getches-Wilkinson conference in Boulder, “First peoples of this land should be the last to be cut.”

Rio Grande, Alamosa Colorado, June 2024

ALAMOSA, COLORADO – Meandering toward Boulder for this week’s Getches-Wilkinson Center Colorado River conference, I stopped this evening in Alamosa, Colorado, in the San Luis Valley. I love the drive up the back way, through the San Luis Valley and into the heart of the Rockies, and I split it up into a couple of days this year to get some bike riding in.

Long western drives have always been a part of my process, quality thinking time, and the San Luis Valley is a great writing prompt. It’s broad, high, pan flat, and a really good place to grow alfalfa and potatoes. (There’s a flatbed of alfalfa in the Walmart parking lot next to my motel, headed for a dairy somewhere – future burgers and pizza cheese.)

When the railroad and the Mormons arrived in the 1800s, they starting growing a lot of stuff to export, reducing the flow in the Rio Grande which, through a series of knock-on effects, led us in central New Mexico to import Colorado River water via the San Juan-Chama Project, which is why I’m headed to Boulder. For want of a nail….

Foundations of the Law of the River: Shaky

It’s the San Juan-Chama linkage – critical to Albuquerque’s water supply – that got me started working on Colorado River issues nearly 20 years ago, which led to a couple of books (Water is For Fighting Over, Science be Dammed) a growing list of academic publications, and this crazy blog, which I’m happy to report Emily Guerin called “influential”! The second book was a collaboration with Eric Kuhn, and during the years working at it we more than once met up at the Holiday Inn Express in Alamosa, midway between his home in Glenwood Springs and mine in Albuquerque, holed up in the breakfast area working through chapters. Is it possible to have fond memories of a Holiday Inn Express breakfast area? I do.

The collaboration continues, joined by my Utton Center colleague Rin Tara, with a couple of new papers digging into the history of the development of the Upper Colorado River Compact and its implications for 21st century river management. A preprint of the first of the two papers, a deep dive into the negotiation history, went up over the weekend and I already blogged about it.

A preprint of the second paper, Unfinished Business: 21st Century Questions Posed by Ambiguities in the Upper Colorado River Compact and the Law of the River, went up this morning. It’s our attempt to work through the modern implications of that history for 21st century river management:

The Law of the River, particularly those components relating to Upper Colorado River water allocation, usage, and measurement, is rife with ambiguities and uncertainties. In the 21st Century, facing a future with less water, these ambiguities pose serious problems. The ongoing process for the development of the Post-2026 Colorado River Operating Guidelines presents an ideal opportunity to address these issues. This article gives a brief history of the Law of the River, with an eye towards the origins of the Stream Depletion Theory, beneficial consumptive use, and Tribal water allocations. The authors then discuss potential resolutions to these three problems. The article concludes by urging water leaders in the Upper Colorado River Basin to consider these solutions in their development of Post-2026 guidelines

All three of us will be in Boulder for Getches Wilkinson, say hi, we’d love to talk about this stuff!

There was deep tension in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in September 1947 as the negotiators for the Upper Colorado River Basin states gathered to try to hammer out a deal to divvy up their share of the Colorado’s water.

The 1922 Compact had split the river in two at Lee Ferry, and left for later the question of how to divide up the upper and lower divisions’ shares of the river among the respective regions’ states. By September 1947, the Upper Division states had been meeting off and on for more than a year, but progress was slow, stymied by a lack of the detailed water supply and use data some negotiators had hoped for.

Wyoming wanted to move quickly. As Eric Kuhn, my Utton Center colleague Rin Tara, and I write in a new paper:

Alluding to comments made by Utah’s Governor Maw earlier in the day, (federal commissioner Harry) Bashore suggested “the Commission attempt to negotiate this compact on the basis of percentage without attempting a lot of fine-haired calculations as to what the water is because it will change from year to year.” Adding that he was putting it to them plainly and “was not pulling any punches,” Bashore noted he would like “you folks on the Commission to do the same thing.”

Wyoming’s L. C. Bishop immediately responded that there was no need to wait for the report of the Engineering Committee. It was now time “to go ahead and negotiate the compact with the information we have.” He further noted that there are more lands than there is water, so it was time for the horse trading. Colorado’s Stone objected, noting “maybe in the end there will be an element of horse-trading in it, but Colorado feels we shouldn’t trade horses in the dark,” but added “there is an end and a limit to engineering studies and adding that there was much that could be done while the engineering work was being completed.”

The paper builds on Eric’s exhaustive review of the Upper Basin Compact negotiations, something which strangely we couldn’t find that any Colorado River Basin scholar had done in at the level of detail we felt was needed to understand the roots of today’s conflicts over questions still shrouded in ambiguity:

• How do we quantify consumptive use in the Colorado River Basin?
• How much water must the Upper Basin send down past Lee Ferry to users in the Lower Basin?

A Horse Named the Stream Depletion Theory

Stone’s argument against horse trading held for a time, and it was not until the marathon seventh negotiating meeting the following July that the horse trading finally began. The results have profound implications for modern Colorado River management.

To get to a final agreement, at the urging of Wyoming’s Wehrli, Bashore suggested the Commission break for a series of states only and state-to-state caucuses. It was also now time for Bashore to conduct some shuttle diplomacy. Stone, who up until this point had resisted any “horse trading,” realized he now needed to make some trades. He needed a horse named “The Stream Depletion Theory.” It appears that to get that horse, he gave Wyoming a horse named “A 14% Apportionment.”

The meaning of that language – “stream depletion theory” – is arcane, but the implications today are profound. Colorado pushed hard to argue that Upper Basin use should be measured not be diversions less return flows at each point along the river, but rather by the total impact of each state’s actions on the river’s flow at Lee Ferry. To win Wyoming’s backing, Stone offered Wyoming a juicy entitlement.

The result, eventually enshrined in the Upper Basin Compact, has profound effects on today’s arguments over Colorado River water.

A guest post by Jack Schmidt, director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University

By Jack Schmidt | May 22, 2024

Opportunities to rebuild basin-wide reservoir storage have been rare in the 21^st century.

On April 3 2024, the snow accumulation season in the Colorado River watershed ended and the snow water equivalent of the snowpack of the Upper Basin peaked. Two weeks later on April 17, the watershed’s reservoirs¹ dipped to their lowest level of the year. Now runoff is underway, and the watershed’s reservoirs are beginning to refill. This is a good time to assess how well water managers did during the past nine months to retain the bounty of 2023’s excellent runoff season, an essential part of rebuilding reservoir storage and regaining basin-wide water supply security.

The good news is that water managers did quite well, and reservoirs lost only 26% of the total amount accumulated during the 2023 runoff season. This was the smallest loss of any year in the last decade. Most of the decrease in storage that followed last year’s snowmelt inflow occurred in Upper Basin reservoirs, and Lake Mead and Lake Powell lost only 5% of the storage that accumulated in those two reservoirs. It is imperative that water managers continue to work to reduce consumptive uses, reduce losses, and retain the bounty of the few unusually wet years of the 21st century, as they did following the 2023 snowmelt.

Opportunities to rebuild basin-wide reservoir storage have been rare in the 21st century, and there have been many years in which there is significant risk of basin-wide reservoir storage depletion. Hydrologic and reservoir storage data between 2014 and 2023 indicate that annual snowmelt-derived gains in reservoir storage exceeded losses when natural flow at Lees Ferry exceeded 13.7 million acre feet per year (af/yr). Annual flows less than this amount occurred in 16 years of the 21st century. Opportunities to significantly rebuild basin-wide reservoir storage existed when natural flow exceeded 15.8 million af/yr, which only occurred six times in the 21st century. Development of a sustainable policy for managing Colorado River reservoir storage must focus on reducing consumptive uses and losses in both wet and dry years.

To recap, the natural flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry in 2023 was the third highest of the 21st century and was exceeded only in 2011 and 2019 (Table 1). Unregulated inflow to Lake Powell in Water Year (WY) 2023 was ~13.4 million af².

In response to this large runoff, the basin’s reservoirs recovered a significant amount of storage. The watershed’s reservoirs reached their maximum in mid-July (13 July 2023) when total storage was 29.7 million af. The increase in basin storage between mid-April and mid-July was 8.38 million af and was the largest single-year increase in storage in the last decade, and approximately 1 million af more than the increase in storage that had resulted from the inflows of 2019 (Table 2).

However, the runoff in 2023 did not eliminate critically low reservoir storage conditions. The increased reservoir storage that peaked in mid-July 2023 recovered storage to the amount it had been in mid-February 2021 in the early stages of the 2020-2022 water crisis (Fig. 1). Based on average annual water consumption³ 2023’s runoff would need to be repeated five more times to refill the reservoir system. Good runoff years rarely occur consecutively. The projected unregulated inflow to Lake Powell in 2024 is estimated to be only 81% of average.

Figure 1. Graph showing reservoir storage in the Colorado River basin between 1 January 1999 and 1 May 2024. Note that at the peak of storage in mid-July 2023, the total stored water supply was the same as it had been in mid-February 2021.

When we entered mid-summer 2023, I expressed concern about water managers’ ability to conserve the benefit of 2023’s runoff season, because we had not done so in previous years of good runoff. In those years, the benefit of reservoir storage recovery was not retained for more than two years (see blog post from October 2023). The benefit of 2011, the largest runoff of the 21st century, had been completely consumed in 19 months, and the benefit of large runoff in 2019 had been consumed in 24 months. I suggested that public understanding about the status of reservoir storage and the need to conserve the bounty of good years would be improved if water managers regularly reported how much of the previous year’s inflow benefit was retained. Such a metric could highlight success in rebuilding water storage or could be used to sound a warning of the need for additional conservation.

Throughout winter and early spring 2023 and 2024, I reported on the status of reservoir storage and showed that water managers were successfully conserving reservoir storage. Between mid-July (13 July 2023) and mid-April (17 April 2024), total basin-wide reservoir storage lost only 2.2 million af (Fig. 2) which was 26% of the total “gains” of the 2023 snowmelt season. Most of this decrease in storage occurred upstream from Lake Powell, where reservoirs lost 1.4 million af. In contrast, storage in the Lake Powell-Lake Mead reservoir system decreased by only 0.83 million af.

Figure 2. Graph showing reservoir storage in the Colorado River basin between 1 January 2023 and 1 May 2024.

The percentage of the accumulated snowmelt in 2023 that was consumed or otherwise lost from reservoirs in the subsequent months was less than in any other year of the past decade and was less than following the 2019 runoff season and significantly less than the years between 2014 and 2017 when runoff was moderately good (Table 2). I compared the rate and magnitude of decrease of reservoir storage in 2023-2024 with similar data for the previous nine years. The results are presented in a complicated Figure 3. Each line on this graph is the loss in storage in each year, plotted as the cumulative decrease in storage from the peak that had occurred in early summer. Lines that plot higher on this graph reflect smaller decreases in basin storage. The decrease in storage was notably large after the 2020 snowmelt season; total basin storage was nearly 7 million af less in spring 2021 than it had been in summer 2020. There were also large reductions after the snowmelt inflows of 2018 and 2021. In contrast, the reduction in storage after the 2023 runoff season (the thick blue line) was smaller than in the other years; this pattern is reflected by the thick blue line that plots higher on Figure 3 than in most other years.

Figure 3. Graph showing the decrease in reservoir storage during late summer, fall, winter, and early spring following each year’s snowmelt season.

Although the combined storage contents of Lake Mead and Lake Powell reflect the balance (or imbalance) between basin water supply and consumptive use, the trajectories of individual reservoirs also result from reservoir operational rules specific to each facility. Lake Powell reached its peak storage of the year in early July (8 July 2023; 9.67 million af) and subsequently lost 2 million af by mid-April, because water was transferred downstream (Fig. 4). Storage began to accumulate again in Lake Powell in mid-April (18 April 2024). In contrast, storage in Lake Mead steadily increased between August 2022 and early March (4 March 2024), gaining 2.7 million af of storage. Lake Mead has been losing storage since early March.

Figure 4. Graph showing the distribution of reservoir storage in different parts of the Colorado River basin between 1 January 2021 and 1 May 2024.

The trajectory of storage in Upper Basin reservoirs differed between those facilities authorized or linked to the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)⁴ in contrast to other facilities (Fig. 4). Peak storage upstream from Lake Powell peaked in early (facilities unrelated to the CRSP peaked on 5 July 2023 at 3.69 million af ) to mid-July (CRSP related facilities peaked on 15 July 2023 at 5.79 million af). Storage in facilities unrelated to the CRSP was quickly reduced to approximately 3 million af by mid-September, and storage was maintained at that quantity until the beginning of the 2024 snowmelt season. In contrast, storage in CRSP related facilities progressively lost storage of approximately 0.8 million af until mid-February 2024 when storage stabilized at approximately 5 million af. The longer period of declining storage in CRSP-related facilities was caused by policies related to transferring water to Lake Powell.

Insights about the Future

The data and analyses presented above provide insight about the likely trajectory of future Colorado Basin reservoir storage if no changes are made in policies concerning consumptive use and reservoir operations. During the past decade, the increase in basin-wide reservoir storage is well predicted by a power function based on the natural flow at Lees Ferry⁵ (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Graph showing the relationship between annual natural flow at Lees Ferry and increase to basin-wide total storage during the snowmelt inflow season between 2014 and 2023.

The proportion of snowmelt-derived gain in storage subsequently lost during the following nine months is well predicted as an inverse power function⁶ of the increase in storage. The greater the increase in storage, the smaller the proportion of that increase subsequently lost. In years when there is little increase in storage, basin-wide consumptive uses and losses far exceeded the annual increase in storage (Fig. 6). Such was the case in 2018 and between 2020 and 2022.

Figure 6. Graph showing the proportion of the annual accumulated reservoir storage consumed or lost during the following nine months prior to the beginning of the next runoff season.

These correlations indicate that annual consumption and losses in excess of annual storage gains occurred when gains were less than approximately 3.2 million af. Between 2014 and 2023, storage gains were less than this amount when natural flows were less than approximately 13.7 million af, which occurred in 16 years of the Millennium Drought. Significant retention of reservoir storage, defined as retention of at least 50% of the annual accumulation, occurred when storage increased by at least 5.7 million af. Such an increase of storage only occurred when natural runoff exceeded 15.8 million af (Fig. 5), which only occurred six times between 2000 and 2023.

Take-Home Messages

The essential purpose of negotiating new reservoir operational guidelines for the Colorado River basin is to maintain sufficient reservoir storage to provide a reliable and secure water supply. At the beginning of the 2024 snowmelt season, basin-wide reservoir storage is comparable to what it was in late spring 2021, demonstrating that the Millennium Drought water crisis persists. The opportunity for significant retention of the benefits of significant increases in reservoir storage exist when natural flow exceeds approximately 15.8 million af, a situation that has rarely occurred since 2000. When natural flow is less than approximately 13.7 million af, there is significant risk of depletion of basin-wide storage. Development of a sustainable policy for managing Colorado River reservoir storage must focus on reducing consumptive uses and losses in both wet and dry years.