The states want to reach consensus on operations of the depleting Colorado River instead of having the federal government impose one on them with no input.
By Alan Riquelmy, Courthouse News Service
The seven states that rely on the Colorado River for water are racing against time to avoid getting drenched by an operational plan they don’t like.
The latest alarm on the ticking clock sounded Friday with the release of a draft environmental impact statement proposing new guidelines for managing and operating Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
The statement issued by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, called an EIS, would take effect when existing agreements expire at year’s end. It’s an option the states are trying to avoid as they work toward negotiating a new agreement, as opposed to the federal government imposing one on them.
“To provide stability and predictability to [Colorado River] basin water users, the secretary [of the Interior] intends that the interim period extend approximately 20 years,” the bureau said in the report. “However, given the ongoing efforts toward achieving consensus among various basin entities regarding appropriate post-2026 operations, the secretary remains open to a shorter duration or phased implementation as part of a longer-term framework.”
Friday’s release of the document starts a timeline for people to voice their opinion on the plan. Its formal publication is set for Jan. 16. A 45-day comment period will follow, ending on March 2.
A final decision on operations will occur by Oct. 1, the start of the new water year.
“The river and the 40 million people who depend on it cannot wait,” said Andrea Travnicek, assistant secretary for water and science with the U.S. Interior Department, in a statement. “In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option.”
The seven-basin states have forged agreements on reservoir operations since 1970. The department said that approach has been critical to long-term success. It intends to keep working toward an agreement with the states. If one is reached, the department anticipates including portions of it in the final EIS.
A key aspect of any operating plan is what water wonks refer to as hydrology. The department said many paths exist to balance the states’ needs if conditions — meaning how much water is in the basin — improve. If they don’t, “large and unprecedented reductions” might not be enough to ensure proper water storage.
The EIS offers various options to address water management. The Interior Department said it has no official preference, as no consensus among the states has been reached.
Options include a basic operation, which would dictate when water would be released. Certain triggers would exist to protect critical infrastructure.
Another path relies on ideas from tribes in the basin, federal agencies and other stakeholders to protect that infrastructure while helping key resources. That would be done by distributing water between Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
Still another alternative influenced by conservation organizations would include innovative and flexible tools to deal with expected hydrological conditions.
“The full extent of Reclamation’s operational authority has not been tested to date — either operationally or through legislative or judicial review,” the EIS’ author said. “The primary reason for this is that management of the river has been based on agreements among basin water users.”
While the states all prefer consensus instead of federal fiat, that agreement has so far proved elusive.
Each basin state has a commissioner tasked with working toward an agreement. All seven commissioners appeared last month at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association’s conference. They confirmed their commitment to achieving an agreement while protecting their own state’s interests.
Several officials, including representatives of the department, repeatedly urged the basin states at the conference to reach consensus and avoid litigation.
