The Colorado River Basin states continue to meet in an effort to reach an agreement by the November deadline set by the Bureau of Reclamation. Bill Hasencamp, Colorado River Resources Manager, said that Reclamation is “all in” and dedicating significant effort to bring the seven states to a consensus. However, as of now, the states remain far apart in their negotiations.
Looking ahead to 2027, Metropolitan Water District (Metropolitan) anticipates reduced water supplies from the Colorado River. Hasencamp noted that while the exact reductions are still unknown, Metropolitan has faced similar challenges in the past. In 2003, the district experienced a loss of 700,000 to 800,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, prompting major operational changes and a reevaluation of system management. This history underscores Metropolitan’s ability to adapt to significant shifts in water availability.
During the September meeting of Metropolitan’s One Water and Stewardship Committee and Imported Water Subcommittee, Laura Lamdin, interim team manager in the water resource management group, reflected on California’s and Metropolitan’s previous experiences with substantial reductions in Colorado River supplies. “By understanding the past, we can take lessons learned and apply that to the future, and also going through this framework will kind of give you an idea of the structure that we have to work with and need to work around,” she explained.
Lamdin acknowledged the challenges of navigating these reductions, noting that not everything has gone according to plan. Adaptive management has been essential as circumstances evolved, and it will remain critical moving forward. “Things will still not go according to plan,” she said, emphasizing the need for flexibility and resilience in the face of uncertainty.
Adapting to Change: Metropolitan’s Journey to filling the Colorado River Aqueduct
During the 20th century, California regularly exceeded its 4.4 million acre-feet (MAF) apportionment of Colorado River water. This was possible because Nevada and Arizona were not yet using their full allocations, and reservoir levels were high enough to allow for surplus releases. Under the seven-party agreement that established California’s priority system, Metropolitan was the primary beneficiary of this excess water.
Metropolitan’s share within California’s 4.4 MAF apportionment is just 550,000 acre-feet. However, it also holds a fifth priority for 662,000 acre-feet and a contract for surplus supplies. For years, Metropolitan relied on these additional sources to fill its aqueduct. But as Nevada and Arizona grew into their allocations, California had to adjust to living within its 4.4 MAF limit. The Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) became the cornerstone of this transition, reducing California’s use from 5.2 MAF to 4.4 MAF annually.
The QSA was not a single solution but a complex framework of approximately 30 interlocking agreements among water agencies, irrigation districts, and state and federal entities. These agreements quantified water allocations for the Coachella Valley Water District and Imperial Irrigation District (IID), lined the All-American and Coachella Canals to save over 90,000 acre-feet annually, and facilitated water transfers between IID, Coachella, San Diego County Water Authority, and Metropolitan. The QSA also addressed Salton Sea mitigation and ensured that reductions were shared across sectors in California.
Quantifying IID and Coachella’s allocations provided Metropolitan with a stable foundation to pursue transfers and adapt to changing conditions. However, the QSA alone wasn’t enough to fill Metropolitan’s aqueduct. Transfers were designed to ramp up over time, but surplus water was expected to bridge the gap. Unfortunately, a critically dry period from 2000 to 2004 depleted Lake Mead, making surplus water unavailable just as the QSA was signed.
This scarcity forced Metropolitan to innovate and adapt. With IID and Coachella’s allocations now quantified, new programs were developed to secure additional water supplies:
- 2004: A water-sharing agreement with the Southern Nevada Water Authority allowed Metropolitan to borrow extra water for later return.
- 2005: The Palo Verde Irrigation District fallowing program and Quechan forbearance program were introduced.
- 2007: The Lower Colorado Water Supply Project and interim guidelines enabled water storage in Lake Mead.
- 2008: Metropolitan funded Brock Reservoir construction, gaining conserved water in return.
- 2010: A pilot run of the Yuma desalting plant improved system efficiency, with Metropolitan receiving storage benefits.
- 2012: Minute 319 initiated conservation efforts in Mexico, with conserved water stored in Lake Mead.
- 2014: Metropolitan began managing excess conserved water from IID.
- 2016: The Bard seasonal fallowing pilot program launched, later evolving into a long-term initiative.
- 2017: Minute 323 extended conservation efforts in Mexico, securing additional storage.
- 2019: The Drought Contingency Plan guaranteed access to stored water when Lake Mead’s levels dropped between 1,075 and 1,025 feet, enabling Metropolitan to fill its aqueduct in 2022.
- 2022: The Quechan seasonal fallowing pilot was added.
“Almost every year, there was something new,” said Laura Lamdin, interim team manager in the water resource management group. “All of these were new programs and pieces that we didn’t necessarily envision back when developing the QSA. It was adaptive management in action. Some of these programs expire at the end of 2026, while others extend into the 2030s or 2040s. We’ll need to weave future agreements into the existing framework.”
The graphic illustrates how these programs collectively increased Colorado River supplies for urban Southern California. The green bars represent the IID-Metropolitan conservation program and the blue bars show QSA programs like canal lining and transfers. The warmer colors at the top highlight additional transfer programs developed post-QSA, many of which have been scaled back in recent years as water needs decreased, with some programs transitioned to federal agencies to help support Lake Mead.
“The graph doesn’t include the storage component, but you can see how, over time, we were able to build back supplies,” Lamdin noted. “It didn’t happen immediately. There was a long period where we couldn’t easily fill the aqueduct.”
2007 Interim Guidelines: A Critical Milestone
In 2007, the record of decision for the interim guidelines marked a pivotal moment in managing the Colorado River. These guidelines established surplus and shortage triggers for the Lower Basin, coordinated the operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and introduced the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) program. The ICS program allowed agencies, including Metropolitan, to store surplus water in Lake Mead and withdraw it when needed. “This component has been critical to completely closing that gap and facilitating a full aqueduct when we needed it,” noted Ms. Lamdin.
The implementation of the 2007 interim guidelines required several key agreements approved by Metropolitan’s board of directors, including:
- A forbearance agreement for the development and storage of ICS;
- A delivery agreement with the Secretary of the Interior for accessing stored water; and
- A California ICS agreement outlining how Lake Mead’s storage space would be shared among California entities.
At the time, the QSA was still in its early stages, and storing water was a challenge. Transfer programs had not yet ramped up significantly, and local supply and conservation efforts were still developing. Despite these hurdles, Metropolitan was able to store water in Lake Mead during certain periods, which proved invaluable during subsequent droughts.
During the 2013–2015 drought, Metropolitan withdrew stored water from Lake Mead to meet demand. As the drought ended, they replenished storage as transfer programs expanded and conservation efforts gained momentum. “We had more supplies and lower demands,” said Ms. Lamdin. “We were able to store water in Lake Mead, and that was again critical to pull from in the 2020–2022 drought. While we didn’t need quite the same volume, that storage allowed us to go up to eight-pump flow in the summer when the State Water Project allocation was in human health and safety mode. So, while it was a smaller volume, it was still really important and a key piece in providing reliability to our service area.”
Looking ahead, Ms. Lamdin highlighted the need to integrate the new guidelines with the existing QSA framework. “All of the agreements that expire beyond 2026 will need to be integrated into the new framework in some way, and all of the agreements that expire at the end of next year will need to be reimagined to work with the new guidelines,” she explained.
While changes are on the horizon, and an adjustment period is inevitable, Metropolitan’s existing ICS provides more certainty than was available in 2003. However, challenges remain, and adaptive strategies will be essential as the next set of guidelines takes shape.
Underwhelming Runoff This Year: Challenges Ahead
This year’s runoff on the Colorado River has been dismal. Despite Lake Powell releases of 7.48 MAF and conservation efforts funded by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), current demand levels are still driving Lake Mead’s forecasted decline. Under minimum probable conditions, Lake Mead is projected to fall below elevation 1025 sometime in 2027, which could render ICS (Intentionally Created Surplus) inaccessible by 2028.
The outlook for Lake Powell is equally concerning. The minimum probable study indicates that Lake Powell could drop below elevation 3500 within the next 12 months. This threshold triggers consultations about potentially reducing releases from Powell to protect its minimum power pool. Metropolitan recently received an official letter notifying them that these consultations are imminent. If next year is dry and Reclamation reduces releases from Lake Powell to safeguard the 3500 level, Lake Mead’s decline would accelerate.
“That could result in ICS being limited a year earlier, putting us in a similar situation to 2003, where the surplus we thought we could rely on as a buffer is not available during that important transition time,” said Ms. Lamdin.
She also referenced a recent academic study affirming the findings of the 24-month study, which highlights the severe impacts of dry conditions and reduced storage levels under minimum probable scenarios.
Metropolitan’s High-Level Priorities
In response to these challenges, Metropolitan staff have been focusing on several high-level priorities to navigate the uncertain future:
- Predictability for Water Supply Planning: While the future remains uncertain, the goal is to achieve as much predictability as possible to support water supply planning, even with unpredictable hydrology.
- Ensuring Dry-Year Reliability: Metropolitan aims to maximize opportunities during wet State Water Project years and minimize reductions when impacts are least severe. Flexibility in storage within the Colorado River system is critical for managing supplies during low State Water Project allocations.
- Broad Participation in Reductions: Metropolitan is advocating for every state and sector to contribute to reductions. A functioning system requires collective action—this cannot be solved by a few participants alone.
- Enabling Interstate Exchanges: Partnerships and interstate exchanges, such as the collaboration with Arizona and Nevada on Pure Water, are vital for exploring augmentation opportunities and improving system resilience.
- Protecting Energy Resources: Metropolitan receives 28.5% of the hydropower generated by Hoover Dam, making it the single largest recipient. Over 50% of Hoover Dam’s energy—approximately 3 billion kilowatt hours of clean, low-cost hydropower last year—flows to Southern California, with 1.5 billion kilowatt hours directly benefiting Metropolitan’s service area. Protecting this energy resource is a top priority.
- Protecting Water Quality: Metropolitan remains committed to salinity control efforts to improve water quality in the Colorado River. While some of these efforts face pressure, maintaining water quality is essential.
Ms. Lamdin concluded by acknowledging the difficulty of the road ahead. “Whatever the outcome is, it’s going to be a hard transition, but we have done it before, and we can do it again,” she said.
DISCUSSION PERIOD
Subcommittee Chair Mark Gold (Santa Monica) noted that Commissioner Touton in 2022 said that water reductions in the range of 2 to 4 MAF per year were needed, but that seems highly optimistic compared to where we are today. “Yet the updates that we’re still getting seem to be sort of around that 2 to 2.5 million acre feet per year reduction, which just realistically is not enough to do this. … With all the negotiations and the intensity ramping up and leadership from the administration getting a lot more engaged are they taking this into account? or are we still talking about 2 to 2.5 MAF, as opposed to 4 or 5 MAF, which might be more realistic for long term sustainability?
“Last month, Laura presented the hydrologies that Reclamation is looking at, and there are some very dry ones in there,” said Bill Hasencamp. “The middle of the road hydrologies, even with climate change, suggests that 2.5 MAF is probably enough, and most of the hydrologies would show that 90% of the cases, you don’t need to do a whole lot more than 2.5, maybe 3 MAF. Since we’re having a hard enough time agreeing on reductions above 1.5 MAF, there would be consultation off ramps if that wasn’t enough. So the states have said, ‘we’re not going to solve all the problems; we’re not going to solve every possibility. We’re going to solve for the more reasonable cases. And if it’s not enough, then we’ll have to come back to the table. So it’s this is not going to be the perfect solution that covers sustainability for all cases.”
“Regarding storage, the existing rules say storage is not available below 1025, but we are negotiating new rules, and so depending on where we end up, we might come up with a different rule cover, at least be able to use storage to meet our reduction. Maybe we couldn’t take it out to fill the aqueduct, but if we have a cut, we would still try to find a way to use that storage so we don’t have to cut; we would use it in a different way. All that still being negotiated with the other states.”
Director Gold noted that the Department of Energy doesn’t want a reduction in energy generation, which is at elevation 1035, so did they change their minds?
“They have said 1035 is the current limitation, but they are working on trying to fix that,” said Mr. Hasencamp. “It’s viewed as more of a short term issue. It’s not going to be the full 20 years. I don’t know how many years, but they are working to remedy that. We’re told that perhaps the new minimum power pool is maybe elevation 980 depending on temperature requirements, somewhere between 950 and 980. So power generation is certainly an important criteria, but it’s not the be all, end all. It is not that they can never go below minimum power pool. It’s that the rules will be designed to protect power pool. But as I said, they’re still being negotiated. And to get a deal, there’s going to be some hard trade offs made, and those are still being discussed.”
Director Dan Denham (San Diego) said, “We’ve been waiting for this moment for 19 years. We knew it was coming. We’re talking about a divorce between the upper basin and lower basin as a scenario; we’re talking about Compact Calls. Do you think that a tolling agreement at this point is off the table to give all of the parties some more time, or is the hydrology suggesting that we’re well beyond that and that November is the time and the summer of 26 is the deadline?”
“So far, the feds are holding to the deadlines,” said Mr. Hasencamp. “Clearly, they’re trying to keep the people’s feet to the fire and make sure that we’re doing everything we can to not stall what tools they might have and what they might come up with. That’s their prerogative. But what we have heard is they are on track for a record of decision next summer, and to do that, they want a conceptual agreement by November, a more detailed agreement by February, and a record decision this summer.”
