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