<< Back

The Colorado River Basin covers seven states and parts of Mexico, a drainage area of 246,000 square miles. Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico take their water from the rivers and streams that feed the mammoth Lake Powell. Water from Powell is released into the equally mammoth Lake Mead, and California, Arizona and Nevada take their supplies from its southern end.

The 1922 Compact, forged by the states and stamped by the U.S. Congress, remains the foundation for the river’s operations. It divides the use of the waters of the river on a 50-50 basis between the upper four and the lower three basin states, allotting 7.5 million acre-feet to each basin. There would be enough surplus, the Compact envisioned, to cover supplies to Mexico.

It’s turned out not to be the case, says Bill Hasencamp, Metropolitan Water District’s Colorado River program manager. “Whether it’s a trend or new average, all we know is over the last 30 to 40 years, the reality doesn’t support the Compact analysis, and in May 2007, the Lake Mead water line was at its lowest in the last 40 years.”

But rather than dwell on Lake Mead’s current low levels, he’d rather share his high hopes for the new agreement.

“It’s huge,” says Hasencamp. “It’s much more than just shortage criteria (though low Lake Mead levels do trigger a series of stepped water delivery reductions). The plan looks at better ways to operate Powell and Mead, operating them to move up and down together so the risk of shortages is spread equally. It opens the door for many new programs and allows the states to better manage their own supplies using the Colorado River.”

The result, according to Hasencamp, is that all seven states have a plan that benefits them. For the Upper Basin states, it’s a near-certain guarantee of no cutbacks for at least the next 20 years. The plan also keeps Lake Powell at higher levels, which protects power generation and recreation interests.

In the Lower Basin, Nevada will have the opportunity to divert more than its annual 300,000 acre-foot allotment on a regular basis. This will be partially accomplished by allowing Nevada to route Virgin and Muddy river waters through Lake Mead.
“The seven states agreement is the only way the Lower Basin will make it through this period of shortages,” says Pat Mulroy, Southern Nevada Water Authority’s general manager. “And when this agreement’s in place, we’ll have the necessary tools to create a reliable supply for southern Nevada.”

	“The plan looks at better ways to operate Powell and Mead . . . and allows the states to better manage their own supplies using the Colorado River." Bill Hasencamp Metropolitan Water District

For Arizona, the proposal means a road map intended to avoid unmanageable shortages. Under current operations, due to central Arizona’s low priority of river water, it is vulnerable to a 1.5 million acre-feet curtailment should Lake Mead fall to critical levels. Under the seven-states proposal, Arizona would expect smaller shortages, and under prescribed conditions, Nevada and Mexico would also share in the shortage.

In California, key provisions of the agreement include: a 10-year extension of the interim surplus guidelines, which allows Metropolitan to fill its aqueduct—1.25 million acre-feet a year—as long as Lake Mead is more than about two-thirds full; and the ability to store “intentionally created surplus” water in Lake Mead.

Like routing water through the lake, storing the intentionally created surplus is a revolutionary step that will benefit the lake’s level while avoiding user shortfalls.

“For California, this is the key to be able to fill our aqueduct in dry years,” says Hasencamp. “In theory, the plan allows Metropolitan to store in excess of a million acre-feet in Lake Mead and take up to 400,000 in any one year.”

Last year, Metropolitan and the federal Bureau of Reclamation entered into a pilot agreement to test the potential of this theory. In 2006, Metropolitan intentionally created 50,000 acre-feet of surplus water for storage in Lake Mead, and in 2007, MWD has the option to up the dose by another 50,000 acre-feet. This is water currently being conserved through a farmland-fallowing program with the Palo Verde Irrigation District. In addition to the benefits to Metropolitan and the lake itself, the program returns 5 percent of the saved water to the river, an added benefit for the other Lower Basin users.
“I think ICS (Intentionally Created Surplus) is great,” says Jennifer Pitt, a senior policy analyst with Environmental Defense. “My hope is that it could be opened up to include other users, such as environmental needs and Mexico.”

The Seven States Agreement was one of five alternatives on the desk of the Interior Secretary. Others focused on the respective interests of the environment, power generation and recreation.

Pitt was key author for the “Conservation Before Shortage” alternative. In this plan, lowered Lake Mead levels trigger federally funded forbearance programs (such as land fallowing) rather than water reductions to the states.

“The basin states plan doesn’t preclude anything in ours,” she says. “It’s not that big a leap of faith between the two alternatives.”

	“The basin states plan doesn’t preclude anything in [the environmental alternative]. It’s not that big a leap of faith between the two alternatives.” Jennifer Pitt Environmental Defense

After review, a draft Environmental Impact Statement was released in February. The document did not contain a preferred alternative, but in June, Reclamation officials shared the plan that the Bureau would ultimately seek to implement in the final EIS. They said that the preferred alternative would be similar to the Basin States Agreement, with one modification that increases the amount of intentionally created storage space in Lake Mead to provide the potential for future storage programs with Mexico or other groups. A final environmental statement was issued in November. A Record of Decision was expected at the end of 2007, and implementation at the beginning of 2008.

Tim Henley, a consultant with the Arizona Water Bank and the Arizona Department of Water Resources, agrees that after the initial excitement of signing the agreement, the states realized that there’s still a lot of work to do.

“The devil’s in the details,” he says, “and it can be like a roller coaster. But it’s not all doom and gloom. We’ll get it figured out.”

Henley is confident that the basin states will be well represented.

“After such an historic agreement,” he says, “it’s likely that much of it will be incorporated into the final piece.”
Hasencamp cautions, though, that it’s merely a step in a long process.

“This agreement is a very significant milestone in a long process. It’s a step toward a cooperative relationship that will continue on even after this agreement is implemented. There will still be issues. There will still be new ideas.
“But this is big. And it’s a new day on the Colorado River.”

Garry Hofer is director of communications with the Southwest Water Company Utility Group.