|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 121
Impact on the Colorado
River Basin en c!
Southwest Water Supply
8
JOHN A. DRACUP
University of California, Los AngeZes
INTRODUCTION
When the Spaniard Francisco de Ulloa first discovered
the mouth of the Colorado River in 1537, a fierce tidal
bore and river flow made him fearful for his ship (see
Watkins et al., 19691:
We perceived the sea to run with so great a rage into the land that
it was a thing much to be marvelled at; and with a fury it returned
back again with the ebb . . . and some Fought . . . Hat some great
river might be the cause thereof.
De Ulloa sailed up the river delta as far as the conflu-
ence with the Gila. Today, Colorado River diversions
have caused the river to disappear before reaching the
Sea of Cortez. Therefore, such a journey is no longer a
possibility.
Considered here are the current and projected
scenarios of one of the major river basins in the United
States the Colorado. Examined are the combined hydro-
logic, legal, and demand constraints and how these con-
straints are affected when accentuated by an additional
adverse climatic future.
121
Thus, the problem to be considered in this paper is one
of prediction, namely, the prediction of the effects of
climatic variability and changes on future water supplies.
The Colorado River Basin is presented as a case study. It
is hoped that the estimates and predictions concluded
here will strike the mark closer than those of I. C. Ives, an
early explorer of the Southwest, who wrote:
Ours has been the first, and will doubtless be Be last party of
whites to visit this profitless locality. It seems intended by nature
that the Colorado River, along the greater portion of its lonely
and majestic way, shall be forever unvisited and undisturbed.
The National Park Service reports that the forty-
millionth visitor will enter Grand Canyon National Park
sometime during the 1970's (Dolan et al., 1974~. Thus,
we are confronted with an environmental impact of man
on the river and an economic impact of the river on man.
The water resources of the southwest United States are
dominated by the Colorado River Basin. This 243,000-
square-mile basin can be thought to be analogous to a cat
who has given birth to too many kittens there just isn't
enough "milk" to go around. With the exception of the
OCR for page 122
lo
~ -
~;
l ~ W
! o ~ _
1 1
i ~ i
.~ , ~ i
—
~ ~ !~--~ ~ 'I
~ i ,
,
i
I . ,,
· A,
L: o
!
, = Ad. ~ , I, ~ my_ _ _ _ _. :~._. <,/~ I
~ I ad! ~-: fez: to' 14-;
-it- ~
~ ·) j,j ·'?
~ ,
i at, 'a, ~
~.:
L
!
!
At'
. ~
\, °
q
C,,
~ ~ -
122
-7r ~ -r-- a- W-;~ ~ ~ W!
~ 1 1 ~
At:
,..
.,
~,5=~
D
Z
,' O
: ~ ~
r -A _ _ ~> is
~-1 ~1` '!
i I SOL._ 18
! -I
~ - ~ - ~
L ~ i--' f
.,
OCR for page 123
Impact on the Colorado River Basin and Southwest Water Supply
deserts of the Great Basin, the Colorado River Basin has
the greatest water deficiency (average precipitation less
potential evapotranspiration) of any basin in the coter-
minous United States (Piper, 1965~. Yet, more water is
exported from the Colorado River Basin than from any
other river basin in the United States (Committee on
Water, 1968~.
Any consideration of a negative climatic environment
on the southwestern United States and particularly on the
Colorado River Basin would immediately appear even to
the most casual observer as a stress on a system already
under considerable stress. It brings to mind A. A. Milne's
lines from Now We Are Six:
At times like these the bravest knight
May find his armour much too tight.
Looking at the Colorado River system we find a highly
variable and continuously modified hydrologic flow re-
gime. The river is situated in a region whose need for
water when projected 25 years into the future demon-
strates that man's efforts of a half century ago to apportion
the limited supply to the expected needs were in-
adequate to compensate for the vast difference between
potential need and potential available supply.
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
The 243,000-square-mile basin drainage involves areas in
seven states and was arbitrarily divided by the Colorado
River Compact at Lee Ferry, Arizona, into the Upper
Colorado Basin and the Lower Colorado Basin for pur-
poses of interstate administration.
The Upper Basin drainage includes those areas of
Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah that
drain into the Colorado River above Lee Ferry, Arizona.
It is bounded on the east and north by mountains forming
the Continental Divide, and on the south it opens to the
Lower Colorado region at Lee Ferry in northern Arizona.
The Colorado River rises in north-central Colorado in
mountains more than 14,000 feet high. Then it travels 640
river miles through the Upper Basin to Lee Ferry at an
elevation of 3000 feet. The major tributary is the Green
River, which begins in Wyoming and discharges into the
Colorado River in southeastern Utah, 730 miles from its
origin and 220 river miles upstream from Lee Ferry.
The Lower Basin drainage includes most of Arizona,
parts of southeastern Nevada, southeastern Utah, south-
eastern California, and western New Mexico (Figure 8.1~.
A wide range of climate occurs because of differences
in altitude, latitude, and topographic features. In the
north, summers are short and warm, winters are long and
cold. In the southern part, the summers are longer and the
winters are moderate at low altitudes, but colder tempera-
tures occur in the mountains.
From October to May, the precipitable moisture is
transported by maritime air masses from the Pacific
123
Ocean. During the summer months, most of the precipita-
tion is brought from the Gulf of Mexico. A winter snow-
pack accumulates in the higher mountain regions and
provides most of the surface runoff during the spring
melting season.
The evaporation rates vary from approximately 30
inches in the northern, higher areas to approximately 86
inches in the southern part of the basin.
CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The laws governing the Colorado River have been pre-
sented in detail by Meyers (1966) and Weatherford and
.Jacoby (1975~. Only a brief summary of the major treaties,
laws, and compacts will be presented here.
The allocation of the Colorado River is based on the
concept of beneficial consumptive use. The allocation
system operates at four levels: international, interre-
gional, interstate, and intrastate (Weatherford and Jacoby,
1975~.
The international allocation was accomplished by the
Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. Mexico was guaranteed an
annual amount of 1.5 million acre-feet (maf) except in
times of extreme shortage. However, this treaty contained
no provision for water quality. Thus, joint agreements in
1965 and 1973 called for a temporary agricultural drain-
age water bypass and eventually a desalting plant to
improve the quality of water crossing the border.
The interregional allocation was achieved when Con-
gress approved the Colorado River Compact, which be-
came effective in tune 1929. Sectional rivalry has caused
the states included in the drainage basin to agree to an
equal apportionment of the Colorado River waters be-
tween the states of the Upper Basin (composed of the
states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and
a portion of Arizona) and the states of the Lower Basin
(composed of the states of Arizona, California, and
Nevada) [Colorado River Compact, 1922, Article III(b)
and Article III(d)~.
Traditionally, the fertile lowland valleys, i.e., the states
of the Lower Division (Arizona, California, and Nevada),
develop more rapidly than the mountainous headwater
regions called the "areas of origin," i.e., the states of the
Upper Division (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming). Thus the Upper Basin states insisted that an
equitable apportionment of the river be made prior to the
expenditure of large federal sums of money, which might
result in a modification of equities adverse to the Upper
Basin states. This is in essence what was achieved in the
1922 Colorado River Compact.
The intent of this landmark document was to give each
basin the perpetual right to the "exclusive beneficial use
of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum...." However,
the Lower Basin was assured that depletion in the Upper
Basin would allow at least a 75 mat flow to the Lower
Basin at Lee Ferry in each successive ten-year period.
Thus, the Lower Basin received a guaranteed ten-year,
OCR for page 124
124
not annual, minimum flow, and the Upper Basin assumed
the burden of any deficiency caused by a hydrologic dry
cycle. However, there are differing viewpoints concern-
ing this allocation. For example, Saunders (1976) states:
The intent of the Colorado River Compact is clearly expressed in
Article III(a) to make an equal division of water between the
Upper and Lower Basins. Substantial analysis of the remainder
of the Compact indicates this clear intent. Paragraph III(d) is not
an apportionment at all, but an attempt to implement paragraph
III(a) on the basis of a mutual mistake of facts as to how much
water was available for apportionment. This being the case, the
actual shortage of the water which has been discovered since Me
making of the Colorado River Compact must fall equally on the
Upper and Lower Basins.
The allocation of the 1.5 mat to Mexico is also in
disagreement. Holburt (1976) states that
There is no agreement among the basin states of the interpreta-
tion of Me Colorado River Compact with respect to the Mexican
Water Treaty obligation of the Upper Basin states. The apparent
position of representatives from the four Upper Basin states is
Mat Weir obligation is zero. Representatives from the three
Lower Basin states take the position diet the obligation is
75O,OOO acre-feet a year plus losses, which could be as much as
150,000 af/yr, giving a total obligation of 900,000 acre-feet a year.
These differences have not yet been adjudicated be-
cause the development of water uses in the river has not
yet brought the matter into sufficient focus to bring about
a legal determination.
The interstate apportionment for the Lower Basin
states was accomplished through the Boulder Canyon
Project Act of 1928. Congress decided that a fair division
of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of the mainstream water
would give 4,400,000 to California, 2,800,000 to Arizona,
and 300,000 to Nevada; Arizona and California would
each divide any surplus. The decree in Arizona v.
California (1963) divides the surplus as Nevada, 4 per-
cent; Arizona, 46 percent; and California, 50 percent.
The Upper Basin states reached agreement on a for-
mula for further dividing their apportionment under the
Colorado River Compact when they executed the Upper
Colorado River Basin Compact. The Upper Colorado
River Basin Compact of 1948 (1949) allots to Arizona
50,000 acre-feet per annum. The balance is apportioned
to Colorado, 51.75 percent; New Mexico, 11.25 percent;
Utah, 23.00 percent; and Wyoming, 14.00 percent.
Indian tribes were not parties to either the interre-
gional allocation of the 1922 Compact or the interstate
allocation of the 1948 Compact. Tribal water claims are
based on the Winters Doctrine (Winters v. United States,
1908), which holds that the rights are not lost by nonuse
but can persist indefinitely in an unquantified state. The
reserved rights of five tribes in the Lower Basin have
been adjudicated and quantified. The current maximum
diversion quantity is 1 maf per annum. The consumptive
use, which is a measure of the river depletion, is esti-
mated to be approximately 615,000 acre-feet per year
(Holburt, 1976~.
JOHN A. DRACUP
It is anticipated that any further allocations to the In-
dian reservations will come out of the allocation of the
state that contains the reservation.
The intrastate allocation is based on the doctrine of
property ownership in water. This doctrine was de-
veloped to meet the needs of the area on a basis entirely
foreign to the riparian doctrine of the English common
law from which the United States derives its general
system of law. The appropriation doctrine of the West is
based on the proposition that whoever will invest the
energy necessary to apply water of natural streams to
beneficial use shall be protected in his right to use as
against any later water developers. This right is limited to
divert only what is needed for beneficial use. The title to
the water is perpetually reserved in the people of the
various states. This is subject to the right of the individual
appropriator to take what he needs for beneficial use on
the basis of "prior in time is prior in right."
SURFACE-WATER RUNOFF
About 83 percent of the water that flows in the Colorado
River Basin comes from the Upper Basin. The average
annual precipitation throughout the entire Upper Basin is
about 16 inches, which amounts to 93,440,000 acre-feet
per year. Thus, approximately 15 percent runs off as most
of the precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration in the
Upper Basin.
One of Me most famous and controversial hydrologic
records in the United States is that of the virgin flow of
We Colorado River at Lee Ferry, Colorado. Lee Ferry is
defined as a point on the Colorado River, one mile below
the mouth of the Paria River. Estimates of the virgin flow
have been made for the Upper Basin since 1896; how-
ever, the runoff has actually been recorded since the first
gauging station was established at Lee Ferry during Me
summer of 1921. The importance of this flow is accen-
tuated by the Colorado River Compact, which anticipates
that the Upper Basin can deliver 75 maf at Lee Ferry each
10 years. Estimates of the long-term annual average flow
vary from 11.8 to 16.8 maf depending on the time period
selected (see Table 8.1~. Others estimate the long-term
average to vary from 13.09 to 15.09 mar, again depending
on Me time period selected (see Table 8.21. Recent tree-
ring analysis dating back to 1512 has indicated the long-
term mean to be approximately 13.5 maf (Stockton, 1976~.
Using his tree-ring indicator study of the Upper Col-
orado River Basin, Stockton (1976) states Mat
The early part of the 20th Century was characterized by a period
of anomalously high sustained flow, the longest in the entire 450
year reconstruction.
He goes on to say:
Based on the foregoing evidence, it is apparent that within
Southwestern United States, climatic change has occurred over a
fairly short time span and it appears to have been reflected in the
annual runoff, at least for the Upper Colorado River Basin.
OCR for page 125
Impact on the Colorado River Basin and Southwest Water Supply
TABLE 8.1 Colorado River at Lee Ferry, Arizona,
Estimated Average Annual Virgin Flowa
Period
Average Annual
Virgin Flow
(million
acre-feet)
Remarks
1896-1968
1896-1929
1930-1968
192~1966
191~1923
1931-1940
Total Flow
1917
1934
14.8
16.8
13.0
13.8
18.8
11.8
24.0
5.6
73-year period of measured
flow and estimates by fed-
eral agencies
34-year "wet period"
38-year "dry period"
45-year period of measured
flow
10-year wettest period
10-year driest period
Maximum single year
Minimum single year
Quantities are for water years October 1-September 30, inclusive. Gauging station
established in 1921. Prior to 1922 estimates are based on measurements at upstream
stations. (Colorado River Board of California, 1969.)
TABLE 8.2 Estimates of Average Virgin Flow for the
Upper Colorado River Basina
Period
Million Acre-Feet per Year
1896-1968
1906-1965
1914-1965
1922-1965
1931-1965
14.82
15.09
14.64
13.87
13.09
aWater Resources Council (1970), p. v-12.
TABLE 8.3 Colorado River at Lee Ferry, Arizona,
Average Five-Year Reconstructed Flow, 151~1961a
125
The resulting reconstructed flow from tree-ring anal-
ysis indicates that the lowest five-year flow at Lee
Ferry was 8.8 maf per year, which occurred during 159~
1594 (see Table 8.3~. The lowest ten-year reconstructed
flow was 9.7 maf per year, which occurred during 158~
1593 (see Table 8.4~. This 9.7 maf per year flow is not
appreciably lower than the 11.8 maf per year 10-year flow
that was recorded during 1931-1940 (see Table 8.1~.
The current estimates of available surface-water supply
within the Upper Basin are less than those at the time the
Colorado River Compact was negotiated. This is because
of the abnormally wet period that occurred during the
early part of this century. The range of annual flow at Lee
Ferry has varied from a low of 5.6 maf in 1934 to a high of
24.0 maf in 1917. Some argue that the average flow of 13.1
maf per year that has occurred since 1931 is closer to the
long-term mean ~ Jacoby, 1975a, 1975b).
A Bureau of Reclamation hypothesis indicates that 5.8
maf per year should be used as a conservative amount of
water available for consumptive use in the Upper Basin
(U.S. Depa~l~ent of the Interior, 1974~. Other studies
have used different basic assumptions and have applied
other factors that have resulted in both higher and lower
annual estimates. However, there are undoubtedly those
who make different assumptions on the basis of differing
interpretations of the impact of the Colorado River Com-
pact.
The amount of water currently being consumptively
used in the Upper Basin is approximately 3.7 maf per
year. Therefore, 2.1 mat of Me conservative 5.8 maf is
presently not being utilized (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1974~.
The groundwater utilization in the Lower Basin is
currently greater Man its annual safe yield (Water Re-
sources Council, 19701. Over 60 percent of all withdraw-
als in the Lower Basin come from groundwater. Annual
groundwater pumpage has increased from less than 1
million acre-feet in the early 1930's to currently over 5
million acre-feet. The present annual overdraft is about
TABLE 8.4 Colorado River at Lee Ferry, Arizona,
Average Ten-Year Reconstructed Flow, 151~1961a
Years Meansb Years Meansb
1531-1535 9.6 154~1557 17.5
1553-1557 17.9 1583-1592 9.9
1552-1556 17.9 158~1593 9.7
1583-1587 9.0 1585-1594 10.3
1589-1593 9.9 166~1672 10.5
159~1594 8.8
1773-1782 10.5
1667-1671 9.2 1908-1917 17.6
1912-1916 18.0 1912-1921 17.8
1913-1917 19.0 1913-1922 17.8
1914-1918 18.4 191~1923 17.9
am W. Stockton, personal communication (1976).
All mean flows are given in million acr~feet per year.
ac. W. Stockton, personal communication (1976).
All mean flows are given in million acre-feet per year.
OCR for page 126
126
2.5 mat, most of which occurs in central Arizona. Whether
or not groundwater withdrawal and recharge affect Col-
orado River Compact commitments is yet to be resolved;
however, it does bear on the demand for Colorado River
water.
The total water uses that can be derived from these flow
estimates vary widely. The Committee on Water (1968)
states:
. . . use of the 13.8 maf estimate . . . would introduce serious
doubts of the feasibility of the Central Arizona Project or of an
expansion of Upper Basin uses beyond those existing or au-
~orized, or both.
Steiner (1975) claims that if the Upper Basin dedicates
this surplus
. . . to high economic return uses of municipal, industrial and
energy development rather than to low economic return agricul-
ture, the remaining entitlement is more than sufficient to meet
the needs for energy development in the Upper Basin.
Furthermore, Steiner (1975) argues that the minimum
annual release to the Lower Basin at Lee Ferry should be
8.4 maf constituted as follows: 7.5 maf under the Compact
agreement, plus 750,000 af as one half of the Mexican
Treaty requirements plus 150,000 af as one half of the
losses associated with delivery of the Mexican agreement.
He contends the latter amount of 150,000 af is arguable,
but the remaining 8.25 maf is "crystal clear and inescapa-
ble." This position is supported by California, Nevada,
and Arizona (Holburt, 1976~.
Since the Upper Basin has a low consumptive use and
inability to store water (see Table 8.5), more water has
been historically available to the Lower Basin than the
law requires. Nevada has a relatively small demand on
TABLE 8.5 Major Reservoirs in Colorado River Basin
JOHN A. DRACUP
the water, and Arizona is not using as much of the Col-
orado River as is its legal allocation. This is because of
delays in the construction of the Central Arizona Project.
California has facilities to divert more than its legal appor-
tionment and has been doing so (State of California,
1972~. However, these diversions are allowed by the
documents that make up the "Law of the River."
WATER AND ENERGY IN THE COLORADO
RIVER BASIN
The future key factor in the consumption of water in the
Colorado River Basin is the planned and projected energy
development, particularly in the Upper Basin.
This proposed energy development in the Basin in-
cludes steam-electric nuclear, steam-electric coal, geo-
thermal, natural gas, crude oil, refineries, oil shale, coal
mining, coal gasification, coal liquifaction, and coal slurry
pipelines. Each of these energy forms requires a con-
sumptive use of water,~as indicated in Table 8.6.
This new energy resource development will seek to
purchase and convert existing water rights that long have
been appropriated for other beneficial purposes. The
availability of such rights and the costs of acquisition,
development, or both, and the legal constraints will have a
major effect on the actual process that will be used in the
energy development (Western States Water Council,
1974~. An important aspect of this problem is the eco-
nomic multiplier effects that will be lost to a region if
water that is currently being utilized for agricultural de-
velopment is converted to energy production usage. A
summary of pending energy developments in the Upper
Basin is shown in Table 8.7. Based on these data, it is
Capacity
(million-acre-feet)
Reservoir Dam Stream Gross Usablea
Upstream of Lee Ferry, Arizona (Upper Basin)
Fontenelle Fontenelle
Blue Mesa Blue Mesa
Morrow Point Morrow Point
Flaming Gorge Flaming Gorge
Navajo
Lake Powell
Total in Upper Basin
Navajo
Glen Canyon
Downstream of Lee Ferry, Arizona (Lower Basin)
Green River
Gunnison River
Gunnison River
Green River
San Juan River
Colorado River
0.35
0.94
0.12
3.79
1.71
27.00b
33.91
0.34
0.83
0.12
3.75
1.70
25.00
31.74
Lake Mead Hoover Colorado River 28.54 26.16
Lake Mohave Davis Colorado River 1.82 1.81
Lake Havasu Parker Colorado River 0.65 0.62
Total in Lower Basin 31.01 28.59
TOTAL IN UPPER AND
LOWER BASINS 64.92 60.33
Capacity above dead storage.
Although the capacity of Lake Powell is 27 mar, this quantity has not as yet been realized since filling of the reservoir was initiated in 1963 (Lord, 1976).
OCR for page 127
Impact on the Colorado River Basin and Southwest Water Supply
TABLE 8.6 Unit Water Consumption Rates for Energy
Resourcesa
Energy System
Steam-electric nuclear
Evaporative cooling
Pond
River
Wet-dry radiator
Steam-electric coal
Evaporative cooling
Pond
River
Dry radiator
Geothermal
Natural gas
Crude oil
Refineries
Oil shale
Coal gasification
Coal liquif~cation
Coal slurry pipeline
Coal mining
Vegetation
re-establishment
aWestern States Water Council (1974).
Water Needs
17,000 acre-ft/yr/1000 mW unit
12,000 acre-ftlyr/1000 mW unit
4,000 acre-ft/yr/1000 mW unit
2,000 acre-ft/yr/1000 mW unit
15,000 acre-ft/yr/1000 mW unit
10,000 acre-fVyr/1000 mW unit
3,600 acre-ft/yr/1000 mW unit
2,000 acre-ft/yr/1000 mW unit
48,000 acre-ft/yr/1000 mW unit
50,000 acre-fVyr throughout the West
50,000 acre-Pc/yr throughout the West
39 gal/bbl/crude
7,600 to 18,900 acre-ft/yr/100,00 bar-
rels per day plant
10,000 to 45,000 acre-ft/yr/250 million
scf per day plant
20,000 to 130,000 acre-ft/yr/100,000
barrels per day plant
20,000 acre-ft/25 million tons coal (1
cfs will transport about 1,000,000
tons per year)
0.5 to 4 acre-ft/acre/yr (some areas may
require two years)
TABLE 8.7 Summary of Pending Energy Develop-
ment, Upper Colorado Basina
Coal-Fired
Electric Oil Coal ~ 4
Generation Shale Gasification
State (MOO) (KBCD) (MCFD) O
Wyoming 5,360 125 250 ~ 3
Colorado 8,970 1,090
Utah 10,630 300 864
New Mexico 6,850 - 1,788
Arizona 2,310 2
34,120 1,515 2,902
acre-ft/yr acre-fI/yr
Wyoming 79,500
Colorado 134,600
Utah 144,950
New Mexico 82,000
Arizona 34,100
22,000
191,000
46,000 52,500
72,000
475,150 259,000 139,500
aU.S. Department of the Interior (1974).
acre-ft/yr Total
15,000 116,500
325,600
243,450
154,000
34,100
-
873,650
127
estimated that approximately 870,000 acre-feet of water
will be needed annually for energy development in
the Upper Basin by the year 2000. Subsequent events,
however, reveal that ~ese projections for water may be
overly optimistic. For example, the Kaiparowits Project in
Utah, which was assigned 102,000 af, has been canceled
by the Sou~em Califomia Edison Company. Further-
more, all major oil-shale developments currently have
been stopped by private companies pending the resolu-
tion of federal loan guarantees and significant environ-
mental problems. All of these rapidly changing factors
make any projections of water requirements in the Upper
Basin difficult at best. Also, in addition to energy uses,
~ere are o~er water needs that must be considered.
These include municipal, industrial, agricultural, and en-
vironmental water needs.
Given that projected water requirements in the Upper
Basin will occur, the total depletions in relation to water
supply in ~e year 2000 could be essentially as indicated
in Figure 8.2. The individual Upper Basin state deple-
tions and supplies as of 2000 are shown in Figures 8.~
8.6. Using these projections, there could be significant
shortages occurring in all ~e Upper Basin states except
Wyoming by the year 2000.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
7
6
1
ASSUMED AVAI LARLF 6 5 MAF
CONSFRVATIVE HYPOTHESIS 5.8 MAF
~D FOOD & F I BE R
- ~/G=C=~=
- ~ ~ EXPORTS
ENERGY
STORAGE PROJECT RESERVOIR EVAPORATION
—M & 1, MINERALS, FISH-WILDLIFE, RECREATION, PUBLIC LANDS
EXPORTS
1 980
YEAR
1qqn
2000
FIGURE 8.2 Upper Colorado River Basin water for energy
1974 to 2000. (After U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974.)
,
u~
z
0
_
2
Z
Ul
CO
LU
OCR for page 128
128
(1975) has made projections on the basis of low, medium.
and high rates of water use. These are summarized in
Table 8.8. A comparison of these values with Figure 8.2
indicates only a difference of 3 percent between the two
projections at the high rates in Me year 1990.
Major energy facilities also are being planned for con-
struction in the Lower Basin. It has been estimated that
141,050 acre-feet/year of Lower Basin water will be re-
quired for new electrical power generation facilities by
1984 (.Tacoby, 1975a, 1975b). However, the fossil-fi~el re-
sources of the Lower Basin are nowhere near as great as
they are in the Upper Basin; therefore, the stress for in
situ power production is greater in the Upper Basin.
Dreyfus and Cooper (1974) in their study of "Water and
Energy Self-Sufficiency" state that
Upon closer inspection, however, regional water shortage, even
in the Colorado Basin, is more prospective than real. The Col-
1.5
~ .0
0.5
o
UTAH'S SHARE OF
7.5 MAF COMPACT = 1.714 MAF
WATER FOR ENERGY
FUTURE USE—UTAH
1974 TO 2000
UTAH'S SHARE OF
_ 6.5 MAF ASSUMED AVAILABLE = 1.483 MAF
UTAH'S SHAR E O F
5.8 MAF = 1.322 MAF ~
PROJECTED ENERGY DEV.
/
~ BLOOD & FIBER
ENERGY DEV. ~ ~
IN PROGRESS, it_
~ '~ ~ M& I, MINERALS, F,W&
Get REC, LVSK, PUBLIC LANDS
EXPORTS
RESERVOI R
EVAPORATI ON
PRESENT
DEPLETIONS
1 1
1974 1980
YEAR
1990
2000
FIGURE 8.3 Water for energy future use. Utah, 1974 to 2000.
(After U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974.)
JOHN A. DRACUP
WATER FOR ENERGY
FUTURE USE—NEW MEXICO
1974 TO 20
1.0
NEW MEXICO'S SHARE OF
7.5 MAF COMPACT = 0.838 MAF
NEW MEXICO'S SHARE OF
/ 6.5 MAF ASSUMED AVAI LADLE z 0.726 MAF
/
5.8 MAF + 0.100 (S.J. RES 123) /
NEW MEXICO'S SHARE OF
5.8 MAF = 0.647 MAF
PROJECTED ENERGY DEV.
_ ...... - a
FOOD & FIBER
M & I, MINERALS, F. W & REC,
LVSK, & PUBLIC LANDS
=
~ _
974 1980
o
1!
RESERVOIR EVAPC)RATION
PRESENT DEPLETIONS
1 990
YEAR
2000
FIGURE 8.4 Water for energy future use. New Mexico, 1974 to
2000. (After U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974.)
orado River system, through a complexity of compacts and water
rights, is indeed over-committed in a legal sense. Furthermore,
each new consumptive use or degraded return flow adds to the
spectre of an ultimate moratorium on any new uses in order to
preserve a usable quality for furthest downstream existing rights.
The severity of the water resource planning and management
problems of the region are undeniable, but the problem is not yet
one of physical limitation.
. . . In the Colorado Basin, about 90 percent of all existing water
uses are for agriculture, much of it inefficiently applied and
producing low value crops. Water for new energy uses quite
probably will come, in part, from purchases by energy industries
of existing agricultural water rights rather than the development
of new supplies. There also exist in the Basin aquifers of con-
siderable size, particularly saline aquifers with little current
utility. In some energy applications, such as materials handling,
saline groundwater could be used if runoff to surface streams can
be prevented.
In their conclusions Hey go on to say
There should be a strengthening of Federal activities in river
basin planning with a new emphasis on the emerging energy
outlook. A national assessment of water for energy, such as has
been described, should be initiated immediately and given
adequate funding and the highest priority.
OCR for page 129
Impact on the Colorado River Basin and Southwest Water Supply
FLOW AUGMENTATION
Flow augmentation to the Colorado River Basin is a
distinctive technical and perhaps an economic possibil-
ity. However, it is fraught with legal, political, social,
institutional, financial, and environmental problems and
thus may never occur. Nevertheless, some individuals
and institutions in the Colorado River Basin support the
concept that someday there will be flow augmentation
and more water will be economically available to the
Colorado River Basin. Four such concepts will be briefly
discussed here: (1) water importation, (2) cloud seeding,
(3) vegetation management, and (4) sea and brackish
water desalination.
Several schemes have been proposed for interbasin
diversions to the Colorado River Basin. Diversions from
the Snake River Basin are proposed by some individuals
and agencies as being a plausible alternative (Dunn,
1964; Nelson, 1964; Bureau of Reclamation and U.S.
Corps of Engineers, 1961~. However, the Colorado River
4.0
3.0
1.0 _
o
— COLORADO'S SHARE OF
7.5 MAF COMPACT = 3.855 MAF
WATER FOR ENERGY
FUTURE USE—COLORADO
1974 TO 2000
COLORADO'S SHAR E OF
6.5 MAF ASSUMED AVAI LABLE = 3.338 MAF
PROJECTED ENERGY DEV.
PLANNED ENERGY DEV. ,_~
\
COLORADO'S SHARE OF
5.8 MAF = 2.976 MAF
ENERGY DEV. IN PROGRESS ~ ~ ~
FOOD & FIBER
EXPORTS
\ RESERVOIR EVAPORATION
\%
\ M & I, LVSK, MINERALS, F & W
& REC, & PUBLIC LANDS
PRESENT HOPI FTION~
1 ,. ... _ . .. _.
1974 1 980
YEAR
1 990 2000
FIGURE 8.5 Water for energy future use. Colorado, 1974 to
2000. (After U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974.)
129
WATER FOR ENERGY
FUTURE USE—WYOMING
1974 TO 2000
WYOMING'S SHARE OF
7.5 MAF COMPACT = 1.043 MAF
1.0
UJ
US
C'
~ 0.5
o
1
-
o
WYOMING'S SHARE OF
6.5 MAF ASSUMED AVAI LABLE = 0.903 MAF
WYOMING'S SHARE OF
5.8 MAF'0.805 MAF
PROJECTED ENERGY DEV.
PLANNED FNFR~Y nF\J _
ENERGY DEV. IN PROGRESS ~ ~ ~
FOOD& FIBER
& I, DIN it
RESERVOIR EVAPORATION ~ EXPORT
PRESENT DEPLETIONS
1 974 1 980
YEAR
1 990 2000
FIGURE 8.6 Water for energy future use. Wyoming, 1974 to
2000. (After U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974.)
Basin Project Act of 1968, which authorized the Central
Arizona Project, included a 10-year moratorium on
''. . . reconnaissance studies of any plan for the importa-
tion of water into the Colorado River Basin . . ." (Colorado
River Basin Project Act, 1968~.
The purpose of this moratorium was that the represen-
tatives from the Pacific Northwest wished to protect their
water resources for local use and to provide a period
during which the extent of local requirements could be
accurately determined. Therefore, it is yet to be deter-
mined whether the importation of water from the Colum-
bia River Basin is a viable alternative for the management
of the Colorado River Basin.
Cloud seeding has the distinct advantages of low capi-
tal investment, a short response time, and a brief required
time for implementation (Redul et al., 1973~.
Weisbecker (1974a, 1974b) and Hurley (1967) propose
that cloud seeding is a viable method to increase signifi-
cantly snow storage and the resulting snowmelt runoff in
the Colorado River Basin.
However, problems concerning the resulting down-
wind effects, the increased probabilities of avalanches,
and the increased probabilities of flooding are all im-
portant disadvantages. Meteorologists are still uncertain
concerning the total effectiveness of cloud seeding
(Committee on Atmospheric Sciences, 19661.
The Bureau of Reclamation's July 1974 Project Skywa-
OCR for page 130
130
TABLE 8.8 Summary of Estimated Water Use in Colorado River Basina b (1000 acre-feet)
JOHN A. DRACUP
1973 Assumption
Base as to Rate
Condition of Use 1980 1985 1990
Upper BasinC 2976 Low 3,426 3,686 4,111
Moderate 3,576 4,176 4,594
High 4,021 4,589 5,464
Lower Basins 6143 Low 5,813 6,238 7,461
Moderate 5,953 6,838 7,476
High 6,203 8,168 7,500
TOTAL 9119 Low 9,239 9,9~ 11,572
Moderate 9,529 11,014 12,070
High 10,224 12,757 12,964
aColorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (1975).
Does not include deliveries to Mexico.
CDoes not include CRSP reservoir evaporation estimated by the USER to average 520,000 acre-feet per year.
Diversions from the main stem less returns. Does not include main stem reservoir evaporation and steam losses estimated by the Forum to average 1,400,000
acre-feet per year.
ter Newsletter reported on the Colorado River Basin Pilot
Project. The results indicated the doubtful reliability of
weather modification to increase runoff. Furthermore,
Weisbecker (1976) reported that the five-year San loan
cloud-seeding program by the Bureau of Reclamation in
the Upper Colorado River Basin provided "no signif~-
cant added precipitation." In spite of these results, many
people strongly believe that weather modification is the
panacea for solving the water-supply problems in the
Upper Basin. However, certainly in the short run, cloud
seeding does not appear to be a viable alternative for
significantly increasing the runoff in the Colorado River
Basin.
The removal of phreatophytes and the management of
vegetation in the southwestern United States can result in
substantial increases in streamflow (Ffolliott and Thorud,
1974~. However, this methodology also can cause in-
creases in salinity, sedimentation, and associated ecologi-
cal disturbance (Hibbert et al., 1974; Brown et al., 1974~.
This entire approach can only be implemented when all
the land and water resources in the region are considered
as a complete ecological system. It would appear that
vegetation management could only have limited effect on
the Colorado River Basin at the present time.
The desalination of sea and brackish waters also have
been considered as a possibility for increased water sup-
ply to the Colorado River Basin. However, recent in-
creases in energy costs have resulted in substantial in-
creases in the cost of desalinated water. Therefore, this
alternative only is viable in a local context such as the
Colorado River International Salinity Control Project
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973~.
It appears from, these alternatives that no significant
flow augmentation is available in the immediate future.
EFFECTS OF A DROUGHT ON THE
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
The picture here has been painted of a limited resource
stressed by a myriad of demands and with limited if any
sources for augmentation and relief. What happens then if
the climatic stress of drought is further added? To answer
this question one must include one more important con-
sideration in the analysis. That is, the storage capacities in
the entire Basin (see Table 8.5~.* Lake Mead behind
Hoover Dam in the Lower Basin contains approximately
27 maf of storage capacity. Lake Powell behind Glen
Canyon Dam is located just upstream of Lee Ferry. It
contains about 80 percent of the total Upper Basin active
storage capacity of 33.8 mat (Upper Colorado River
Commission, 1970). These are He two main storage res-
ervoirs in the Colorado River Basin, and Hey have stor-
age capacity in excess of four tinges the annual flow of the
river. Since there is limited storage capacity upstream in
the Upper Basin, the current storage capacity configura-
tion obviously favors the Lower Basin.
With this background one can now summarize the fol-
lowing situation in the Colorado River Basin:
1. A system with strong institutional division between
the Upper and the Lower Basins.
2. Legal constraints that require certain releases from
the Upper to the Lower Basin.
3. A storage configuration that favors the Lower Basin.
4. Extensive energy development projected for the
Upper Basin.
*It should be noted that there is a difference between the storage
capacity available and the actual water in storage at any one time.
OCR for page 131
Impact on the Colorado River Basin and Southwest Water Supply
It would appear, therefore, that any major basinwide
drought could have significant and damaging effects on
the Upper Basin.
To envisage Me extent of damage to Me Upper Basin
that might occur from such a drought, one should study
Figure 8.2. Suppose, for example, the 10-year 1584~1593
drought, which resulted in an average annual flow of 9.7
mat at Lee Ferry, occurred once again. Furthermore,
suppose that the maximum available 31 maf of water was
stored in the Upper Basin at Me onset of the drought.
Potentially, a total of 82.5 maf may be legally required to
be delivered to the Lower Basin during any 10-year
period.* A 10-year drought flow of 97.0 maf would leave
the Upper Basin with 14.5 maf plus a potential 31 maf in
storage. Thus 45.5 maf would be available to the Upper
Basin during this 10-year period, or an average annual
amount of approximately 4.6 maf.
From Figure 8.2 it is immediately obvious that such a
drought would affect the projected water demands of the
Upper Basin if it occurred after 1982.
A myriad of similar scenarios could be considered. For
example, during 1931-1940 the average annual flow was
11.8 maf (see Table 8.1~. The active storage in the Upper
Basin available September 30, 1974, was 23.6 mat
(Colorado River Board of California, 19741. Assuming this
storage value at the beginning of a 11.8 maf total 10-year
flow and an 82.5 maf 10-year delivery to the Lower Basin
leaves the Upper Basin with 59.1 maf available during
this 10-year period, or an average annual amount of
approximately 5.9 maf. Again from Figure 8.2, it is
obvious that such a drought would affect the projected
water demands of the Upper Basin if it occurred after
1992.
Much of this water is projected to meet the needs of
expanding food, fiber, and energy development. The
energy demand for water is not seasonal, as irrigation and
municipal water supply demands, but requires a rela-
tively constant year-round supply. Since those energy
projects are such capital-intensive developments, it seems
foolhardy to continue with these projects without a
guaranteed annual water supply in the face of a severe
drought.
Mitigating circumstances are considerations of specific
locations of each of the energy projects in the Upper
Basin and Weir adjacent water supplies. That is, the
macroview of the Upper Basin distinctively indicates
significant future shortages under a drought condition.
However, the microview of each project may be less
severe in some cases. This analysis remains to be com-
pleted elsewhere.
Further work that needs to be accomplished includes
*Ten-year totals of 75 maf under the compact agreement plus 7.5
maf as one half of the Mexican agreement. (Note: The Lower
Basin states contend that 84 maf would be required during this
period, and the Upper Basin states contend that 75 maf would be
required.)
131
the consideration of scenarios of 3-, 5-, 7-, and 10-year
droughts in the Upper Basin and an evaluation of their
macroeconomic and microeconomic effects on the region
and the nation.
RE FE BE N C E S
Arizona v. California, 1963, 373, U.S. 546; Decree 376 U.S.
340 (1964~.
Brown, H. E., et al. (1974). Opportunities for increasing water
yields and other multiple use values on Ponderosa pine forest
lands, USDA, Forest Service Research Paper RM-129, Ft.
Collins, Colo.
Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Corps of Engineers (1961).
Upper Snake River Basin, Vol. 1, Summary Report.
Colorado River Basin Project Act (1968). Public Law 90-537,
82 Stat. 885.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (1975). Proposed
Water Quality Standards for Salinity I ncluding Numeric
Criteria and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control,
Colorado River System, Table 3, p. 27, June.
Colorado River Board of California (1969). California's stake in
the Colorado River, Los Angeles.
Colorado River Board of California (1974). Annual Report.
Colorado River Compact (1922). 70 Congressional Record 324,
325, 1928; Nov. 24.
Committee on Atmospheric Sciences (1966). Panel on Weather
and Climate Modification, Weather and Climate Modifica-
tion: Problems and Prospects; Vol. 1, Summary and Recom-
mendations; Vol. 11, Research and Development, National
Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Committee on Water (1968). Water and Choice in the Colorado
River Basin, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C., p. 8.
Dolan, R., A. Howard, and A. Gallenson (1974~. Man's impact
on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Am. Sci. 62,
392.
Dreyfus, D. A., and B. S. Cooper (1974~. "Water and Energy
Self-Suff~ciency," Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate, S. Res. 45, The National Fuels and Energy Policy
Study, Washington, D.C.
Dunn, W. G. (1964). Modified Snake-Colorado Project, presented
before the California State Senate Fact Finding Committee
on Water and Assembly Interim Committee on Water, Sacra-
mento.
Ffolliott, P. F., and D. B. Thorud (1974). Vegetation Manage-
ment for Increased Water Yield in Arizona, U. of Arizona
Tech. Bull. 215.
Hibbert, A. R., E. A. Davis, and D. G. School (1974). Chaparral
conversion potential in Arizona, Part I: Water yield response
and effects on other resources, USDA Forest Service Research
Paper RM-126, Ft. Collins, Colo.
Holburt, M. B. (1976). Personal communication, Aug.
Hurley, P. A. (1967~. Augmenting Upper Colorado River Basin
water supply by weather modification, presented to ASCE, Na-
tional Meeting on Water Resources Engineering, New York,
Oct.
Jacoby, G. C., Jr. (1975a). Lake Powell Effect on the Colorado
River Basin Water Supply and Environment, Lake Powell
OCR for page 132
32
Research Project Interim Rep., Institute of Geophysics and
Planetary Physics, UCLA, May.
Jacoby, G. C. (1975b). Overview of water requirements for
electric power generation, Lake Powell Research Project
Interim Report, presented at Symposium on Water Require-
ments for Lower Colorado River Basin Energy Needs, Tucson,
Ariz., May.
Lord, C. R. (1976~. Personal communication, Aug.
Meyers, C. J. (1966~. The Colorado River, Stanford Law Rev. 19,
Jan.
Nelson, S. B. (1964~. Snake-Colorado Project, Los Angeles De-
par~nent of Water and Power.
Piper, A. M. (1965~. Has the United States enough water?
USGS Water-Supply Paper 1797, p. 11.
Redul, R. K., H. J. Stockwell, and R. G. Walsh (1973~.
Weather modification: An economic alternative for augmenting
water supplies, Water Resources Bull., 9, 116.
Saunders, G. G. (1976~. Personal communication, Aug.
State of California (1972~. Hydrologic Data: 1970 Department
of Water Resources Bull. 130-70 V, p. 60.
Steiner, W. E. (1975~. Water for energy as related to water
rights in the Colorado River Basin, in Proceedings of the
Conference on Water Requirements for Lower Colorado
River Basin Energy Needs, U. of Arizona, Tucson, p. 67.
Stockton, C. W. (1976). Interpretation of past climatic variability
from paleoenvironmental indicators, presented at AGU Con-
ference, Washington, D.C.
Upper Colorado River Commission ~ 1970~. Twenty-Second
Annual Report.
Upper Colorado River Basin Compact (1948~. October 11 (ap-
proved by Congress April 6, 1949~.
JOHN A. DRACUP
U.S. Department of the Interior (1973~. Office of Saline Water,
Colorado River Salinity Control Project Special Report,
Executive Summary.
U.S. Department of the Interior (1974~. Report on Water for
Energy in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Water for Energy
Management Team, July.
Water Resources Council (1970~. Lower Colorado Region
Comprehensive Framework Study, App. V, Water Resources.
Watkins, T. H., et al. (1969~. The Grand Colorado, The Story
of a River and Its Canyons, American West Publishing Co.,
Palo Alto, Calif.
Weatherford, G. D., and G. C. Jacoby (19751. Impact of energy
development on the law of the Colorado River, National
Resources J. (the U. of New Mexico, School of Law), pp.
171-213.
Weisbecker, L. W. (1974a). Snowpack Cloud-Seeding, and the
Colorado River A Technology Assessment of Weather Mod-
ification, U. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla.
Weisbecker, L. W. (1974b). The Impacts of Snow Enhance-
ment Technology Assessment of Winter Orographic Snow-
pack Augmentation in the Upper Colorado River Basin,
U. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla.
Weisbecker, L. W. (1976~. Weather modification in the Upper
Colorado River Basin as a source of water for energy develop-
ment, presented at the Conference on Water for Energy
Development, Pacific Grove, Calif., Dec.
Western States Water Council (1974). Western states water
requirements for energy development to 1990.
Winters v. United States, 1908, 207 U.S. 564.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
river basin
