Unusual Deformation atRitschard Dam

Ritschard Dam Cross Section

THE UPPER COLORADORIVER IN CONTEXT

We are here!

John Currier, P.E., Chief Engineer

Grand County State of the River • Granby, CO • May 26, 2015

Colorado River District

1937 state statute

15 board directors

property tax & water enterprise

1 of 4 CO water conservation districts

Transmountain Diversions

(TMDs): 450,000 to

600,000 acrefeet/yearCover

Salt Lake City Wasatch Front

AlbuquerqueSanta Fe

Las Vegas

VenturaLos Angeles San Diego

MexicaliTijuana

Ft. Collins Greeley BoulderDenver

CO SpringsPueblo

Phoenix Tucson

Cheyenne

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

1.5 MAF to Mexico3_________________________

16.0 MAF Total Allocated ‘on paper’4

1 1922 Colorado River Compact, 1948 Upper Colorado River Compact2 Colorado River Compact, 1929 Black Canyon Project Act, 1964 AZ v. CA

3 Treaty of 19444 1 MAF Lower Basin tributary allocation not shown

Upper Basin uses, incl. reservoir evap. 4.2

Lower Basin mainstem uses 7.5 Lower Basin system losses and evap. 1.2Mexico 1.5Total Lower Basin 10.2

TOTAL 14.4

Current Use EstimatesMAF/ year

Hydrology comparison

• 2000-2014 12.3 MAF @ LF• 1988-2014 13.2 MAF @ LF • Basin Study CC 13.7 MAF @ LF• 1906-2014 GR 14.8 MAF @ LF• 1120-1172 PH 12.7 MAF @ LF

CC = climate change, GR = gage period, PH = paleo-hydrology

Data from Reclamation’s Naturalized Flows database

Monthly Values for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO ) Index

Lee Ferry NF ave. 13.2 MAF/yr when AMO is warm Lee Ferry NF ave. 16.2 MAF/yr when AMO is cool

In 1965 Royce Tipton noted that from 1930-1964 the UB could develop about 4.8MAF/yr (2.5 MAF for Colorado)

975

1,000

1,025

1,050

1,075

1,100

1,125

1,150

1,175

1,200

1,225

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

24 Month

2014

2015

Projected2016

2017

2018

2019

2020Lake Mead Elevation Since 2000

Lake Mead Elevation (EOM) Projected 24 Month 8.23 MAF Releases First Shortage Tier

January 200091% Active Storage

12.52 MAF ReleaseWY 2011

Graph courtesy of CAP

975

1,000

1,025

1,050

1,075

1,100

1,125

1,150

1,175

1,200

1,225

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

24 Month

2014

2015

Projected2016

2017

2018

2019

2020Lake Mead Elevation Since 2000

Lake Mead Elevation (EOM) Projected 24 Month 8.23 MAF Releases First Shortage Tier

January 200091% Active Storage

12.52 MAF ReleaseWY 2011

Hydrology

Structural Deficit

Graph courtesy of CAP

2015 Another DRY year! • System storage will continue to decline• Lake Mead deliveries could see first

shortage in 2016 or more likely 2017• Lake Powell levels will continue to decline

moving us closer to min. power• California is still in an historic drought• Pressure on the states will intensify to

implement contingency plans

CONTINGENCY PLANNING• Challenge from Interior:

– What if the current drought were to continue into the future?

– Have a plan in place by 2015 (MOA or similar)• The Goal:

– Identify actions that can “bend the curve”, i.e., reduce the risk of losing power production or being unable to deliver water

• Possible Solutions:– Extended Operation of CRSP reservoirs– Demand Management– Cloud seeding / other augmentation

Colorado River Storage Project Units (CRSP)

SOURCE: USBR UPPERCOLORADO REGIONLEVELS AS OF5/21/2015

CRSP Acts of 1956 & 1968 authorized

construction of facilities for long-term

regulation & development of Colorado River water resources

fill

Flaming Gorge 3.7MAF active capacity 85% full

fill

fill

Blue Mesa0.84MAF active capacity75% full

fill

Lake Powell 26 MAF active capacity 46% full

Navajo 1.7 MAF active capacity72% full

Lake Powell

Lake Mead

Future of the Colorado River?