I heard about two lawyers that argued for over an hour. Finally, one said, “That’s my final word on the subject.” To which the other replied, “Oh, good. Now we can begin.”
In politics, contentious agreements are a bit like that, too. There is really no such thing as a “final” agreement, only the agreement that’s in effect until the next meeting.
The Bureau of Reclamation just released its “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.” It represents the government’s “final decision” on how it will manage the Colorado River over the next ten years.
The first draft of the document was published in January, followed by months of public comments and meetings, and ongoing negotiations between the seven Colorado River basin states. When Upper Basin (CO, UT, WY, NM) and Lower Basin (CA, AZ, NV) states were unable to reach an agreement, the Bureau had to proceed with its process, leading to the current document.
Open to revision
But “Final EIS” is a federal process term, it is by no means the last word.
That is by design. The document simply explains the government’s selection of the alternative it thinks advances the ball for now, but it assumes the interstate negotiations will continue, and if there is a better agreement later it is flexible enough to accommodate any consensus.
It calls that an “adaptive decision framework,” the basis for managing Lake Powell and Lake Mead (and other federal reservoirs) for the next decade, but it can be revised every two years if a consensus emerges.
In brief, the new guidelines will lower the minimum releases from Lake Powell, from 6 million acre-feet a year to 5 million. The plan will cut Lower Basin use up to 3 million acre-feet and provide for additional future “conserved water” storage in Lake Powell (up to 3 million acre-feet) and Lake Mead (up to 8 million acre-feet). It also includes a goal of voluntary water conservation in the Upper Basin, up to 200,000 acre-feet a year.
The government says that will preserve the ability to generate power at both dams. Both have fallen to their lowest-ever storage level, Powell at 23 percent of capacity and Mead at 27 percent. Predictably, there is criticism and skepticism up and down the river.
One Wyoming activist says Lower Basin states got everything they wanted – not sure what he is drinking, but it’s not Colorado River water.
Arizona’s Department of Water Resources called the potential cuts “unacceptable,” adding that “Such reductions would devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy.” Its leaders do not attempt to explain what other choice the Bureau had.
California is slower to react, but earlier criticized the first draft for not guaranteeing the same water deliveries it has relied upon for decades, and continued blaming the Upper Basin. They may not speak for the entire Lower Basin, though.
Nevada called the decision reasonable. The new plan will drop Nevada’s share of the River from 300,000 acre-feet to 250,000 over the next couple years, but the Southern Nevada Water Authority says its customers won’t even notice because conservation measures have already reduced their water use below 200,000 acre-feet.
Upper Basin dodges a bullet
Upper Basin reaction is mostly favorable, and all four states remain committed to negotiations.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox correctly called the plan a “short-term roadmap… that does not settle the question.” But all four Upper Basin governors signed a letter saying, “We are encouraged that new operating guidelines will better reflect existing water supply, which must underpin any practicable plan going forward.”
It’s a huge document with lots to argue about, but it contains two critically important acknowledgments on the Bureau’s part.
First, the government at least tacitly admits it lacks authority to mandate Upper Basin reductions. Second and most important, the Lower Basin has overused its allocations and today’s shortages must be shared, in priority, among those states.
So far, they have only agreed to save up to 3.2 million acre-feet through the end of 2028. The Bureau’s plan nearly doubles that reduction by making it every year, not every two. It is the right decision, better reflecting the actual flow of today’s river.
It is not perfect, of course. I wish it assigned higher priority to the recreational importance of Blue Mesa and Flaming Gorge reservoirs, which are not merely tools for supplying Lake Powell.
And I wish it assigned higher priority to water demand and administration (the primary purpose of Lake Powell) than to power generation (i.e. money).
Overall, though, it is more balanced than what many feared, and the Upper Basin, which includes Colorado, dodged another bullet, at least for now.
Absent a permanent agreement, though, it’s the final word – until the next meeting.
Greg Walcher is former director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and a Western Slope resident.
