Upload
phamminh
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Looking Upstream: Analysis of Low Water Levels in Lake Powell and the Impacts on Water
Supply, Hydropower, Recreation, and the Environment
A Companion Report to
The Bathtub Ring: Implications of Low Water Levels in Lake Mead on Water Supply, Hydropower, Recreation, and the Environment
Michael Johnson | Lindsey Ratcliff | Rebecca Shively| Leanne Weiss Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Faculty Advisor Brad Gentry, Associate Dean
Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
External Advisors Eric Kuhn | Season Martin
Client
Douglas Kenney | Western Water Policy Program
i|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Disclaimer This report was prepared on behalf of theWesternWater Policy Program of the Getches-Wilkinson
CenterattheUniversityofColoradoLawSchoolbyfourmaster'sstudentsattheYaleSchoolofForestry
&EnvironmentalStudies.Allresearch,analysis,views,opinionsandrecommendationsarethosesolelyof
theauthorsanddonotstateorreflectthoseofanyoftheentitiesconsultedincluding:
ColoradoRiverConservationDistrict
GlenCanyonNationalRecreationArea
InterstateStreamsDivision,WyomingStateEngineer’sOffice
NationalParkServiceIntermountainRegionalOffice
TheNatureConservancy
NewMexicoOfficeoftheStateEngineer,InterstateStreamCommission
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation
UtahDivisionofWaterResources
WesternAreaPowerAdministration
All photos, illustrations, figures and tables are those of the authors or in the public domain unless
otherwisecited.
ii|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Acknowledgements This projectwould not have been possiblewithout the generous assistance ofmany individuals. Our
gratefulrecognitiongoestoourclientDougKenneyforagreementtoworkwithus,hisknowledgeofthe
Colorado River Basin and guidance on this project. Additionally, our faculty advisor Brad Gentry lent
wisdomandsupportthathelpedpushthisprojectforward.EricKuhngavecriticalguidanceaswebegan
tounderstandthecomplexityoftheColoradoRiversystem.SeasonMartinprovidedfirsthandknowledge
asaco-authortoTheBathtubRingtohelpusproducethiscompanionstudy.LeahMichaelsensharedher
masterfulgraphicdesignskillsinthecreationoftheexecutivesummary.Inadditiontoouradvisors,we
hadsignificantassistancefrommanyprofessionalsacrosstheColoradoRiverBasin.We’dliketothankthe
followingindividualsfortheirtime,patience,expertise,andfeedbackonouranalysis:
ColoradoRiverDistrict EricKuhn
ColoradoRiverEnergy
DistributersAssociationLeslieJames
GlenCanyonNationalRecreationArea
ChrisCook
CarlElleard
RosemarySucec
TeriTucker
NationalParkService
IntermountainRegion
RobBillerbeck
JenniferRebenack
TheNatureConservancySeasonMartin
RobertWigington
NewMexicoOfficeoftheState
Engineer,InterstateStreamCommission
KristinGreen
KevinFlanigan
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation KenNowak
UniversityofMontana ChristopherNeher
UtahDivisionofWaterResources EricMills
WesternAreaPowerAdministration
PublicUtilities
Specialistsfromthe
CRSPOffice
WyomingStateEngineersOffice,
InterstateStreamsDivision
BethRoss
SteveWolff
YaleSchoolofForestryand
EnvironmentalStudiesMathewShultz
YaleSchoolofManagement KolinLoveless
YaleStatisticsLab HenryGlick
iii|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table of Contents
Disclaimer.............................................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................ii
TableofContents................................................................................................................................iii
ListofTables........................................................................................................................................v
ListofFigures.....................................................................................................................................vii
ProjectSignificance..............................................................................................................................1
ProjectObjectives................................................................................................................................5WaterSupply....................................................................................................................................5Hydropower.....................................................................................................................................5Recreation........................................................................................................................................6Environment.....................................................................................................................................6
BackgroundInformation.......................................................................................................................7UpperColoradoRiverBasinGovernance..........................................................................................7
Long-RangeOperatingCriteria.............................................................................................................9
ColoradoRiverInterimGuidelinesforLowerBasinShortages............................................................9
WaterSupply.....................................................................................................................................13Introduction...................................................................................................................................13Methods.........................................................................................................................................15HydrologicFactors..........................................................................................................................15UpperBasinWaterUse...................................................................................................................19
HistoricalWaterDemands.................................................................................................................19
StateProfiles..................................................................................................................................24Colorado.............................................................................................................................................24
Wyoming............................................................................................................................................27
Utah....................................................................................................................................................30
NewMexico........................................................................................................................................33
FutureWaterDemands..................................................................................................................36LegalFactors...................................................................................................................................40Conclusion......................................................................................................................................42
Hydropower.......................................................................................................................................43Introduction...................................................................................................................................43BackgroundInformation.................................................................................................................44
GlenCanyonHydropowerTechnicalSpecifications...........................................................................44
ColoradoRiverStorageProject..........................................................................................................45
MarketingHydropower..................................................................................................................47Methods.............................................................................................................................................47
WesternAreaPowerAdministration.................................................................................................48
CRSPPower........................................................................................................................................49
QuantitativeAnalysisofCostChanges............................................................................................52ObjectivesandChallenges..................................................................................................................52
Methods.............................................................................................................................................53
iv|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
ModelComponents............................................................................................................................54
Results................................................................................................................................................58
Discussion...........................................................................................................................................62
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................63
Recreation..........................................................................................................................................65Introduction...................................................................................................................................65Methods.........................................................................................................................................65
LakePowellElevationandRecreationalVisitationCorrelation.........................................................65
KeyPublicAccessPointsandLakePowellElevation..........................................................................68
Results............................................................................................................................................68Discussion......................................................................................................................................69
LakePowellElevationandRecreationalVisitationCorrelation.........................................................69
KeyAccessPointsandLakePowellElevation.....................................................................................70
ModelLimitations..............................................................................................................................74
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................74
EnvironmentalConsiderations............................................................................................................76Introduction...................................................................................................................................76FundingEnvironmentalPrograms...................................................................................................77ManagingSediment........................................................................................................................78
HighFlowExperiments.......................................................................................................................79
Impactoflowerreservoirlevels.........................................................................................................82
Salinity...........................................................................................................................................82Impactoflowerreservoirlevels.........................................................................................................84
FishRecoveryPrograms..................................................................................................................85Impactoflowerreservoirlevels.........................................................................................................86
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................86
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................88
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................90
AppendixA:FulllistofCRSPCustomers...........................................................................................107
v|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
List of Tables Table1.LakePowell’syearlyupperleveltargetspromulgatedintheInterimGuidelines(USBR2007b).12Table2.WaterbudgetatLakeMeaddescribingthestructuraldeficit(Fleck2014).................................14Table3.UpperColoradoRiverBasinAmericanIndianTribeswithquantifiedrightstoColoradoRiverwater
(USBR2012e)......................................................................................................................................24Table4.2008wateruseinthehydrologicColoradoRiverBasinareaofColorado(Colorado
ConservationBoard2010)..................................................................................................................27Table 5. 2008 water use in areas of Colorado that receive exported Colorado River water (Colorado
ConservationBoard2010)..................................................................................................................27Table6.2010wateruseinthehydrologicColoradoRiverBasinareaofWyoming(WWCEngineering2010).
............................................................................................................................................................30Table7.AveragewaterdivertedinthehydrologicUpperColoradoRiverBasinareaofUtahbetween1989
and2014(Millis2016)........................................................................................................................32Table8.WaterprovidedbyCentralUtahProjectbysector(CentralUtahCompletionActOfficen.d.)...32Table9.TotaldiversionsintheSanJuanBasinWaterPlanningRegionin2010(NMOSE2016)...............35Table10.Definitionofdemandcategoriesandtheirassociatedparameters(USBR2012e)....................36Table11.Changeinprojectedusebetween2015-2060(USBR2012g,2012h,2012i,2012j)...................37Table12.DefinitionsofCRSPacronyms.InformationobtainedfromWestern2016................................52Table13.Elevationforanalysisandsignificance.......................................................................................54Table14.Monthlymaximumandminimumgenerationvaluesforeachkeyelevation.ValuesareinMWh.
TablecreatedbasedondatageneratedbyUSBRfromCRSS.)..........................................................56Table15.TotalSLCA/IPSHPenergyallocationandtheproportionlikelytobegeneratedbyGlenCanyon
Dam(shownhereas75percentoftotalandcalculatedat70,72.5,75,77.5,and80percentinthe
model).ValuesareinMWh.(DataprovidedbyWestern.)...............................................................57Table16.Tenyearaveragecostoffirmingpurchasesforthe2004/05-2014/15wateryeartimeperiod.
Allcostswereadjustedinto2015dollars.(RawdataobtainedfromWesternn.d.c).......................58Table 17. Number ofmonths requiring firming purchases for each of the elevations. Shown for both
maximumandminimumgenerationscenariosassumingGlenCanyoncontributesvaryingamounts
ofSHPbetween70and80percent)...................................................................................................59Table 18. Percent of SHP comprised of firming purchases for maximum and minimum hydropower
scenariosatallfourelevationsassumingGlenCanyoncontributestheaverageamountof75percent
ofSLCA/IP’sSHP.................................................................................................................................60Table19.Elevationconvertedtoavolumelivecapacityequivalent(USBR2007d)..................................68
vi|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table20.PredictedyearlyLakePowellvisitationforeachelevationscenario..........................................68Table21.LakePowellestimatedrecreationalvisitationmodelusingdatafromJanuary1996through..69Table22.Resultsofpairedt-testsconductedtocomparethedifferencebetweenthemeansofobserved
(actual)visitationandmodel-predictedvisitation.............................................................................70Table 23. Accessibility of Lake Powell boat ramps and the Castle Rock Cut (Cook 2016), and their
operabilityateachofthefourelevationscenarios............................................................................71
vii|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
List of Figures Figure1.ColoradoRiverBasinMap(USBR2015a)......................................................................................1Figure2.AnnualflowvolumeovertimebelowYumaMainCanalatYuma,Arizona,(station09521100),
foryears1904–2003(Melisetal.2008)...............................................................................................2Figure3.HistoricalandfutureprojectionsofsupplyanduseintheColoradoRiverBasin(USBR2012a)..3Figure4.LakePowellOperationalTiersintheInterimGuidelinesthatestablishtheGlenCanyonDamwater
releasesnecessarytoachievecoordinatedmanagementofLakesPowellandMead(USBR2007b).
............................................................................................................................................................11Figure5.HistoricdailyreservoirelevationsatLakePowellfrom1963-2016(USBR2015c).....................13Figure6.AveragetemperatureincreasesabovenormalintheSouthwesternUnitedStates, 2000-2013
versuslong-termaverage(EPA2014)................................................................................................16Figure7.DroughtseverityintheSouthwesternUnitedStates1895-2013(EPA2014).............................16Figure8.ProjectedtemperatureincreasesintheSouthwesternUnitedStates(Garfinetal.2014)........18Figure9.ProjectedsnowwaterequivalentintheWesternUnitedStates(Garfinetal.2014).................18Figure 10. Historical Colorado River water consumptive use and loss by state, Mexico, reservoir
evaporation,andotherlosses,1971-2010(USBR2012e)..................................................................19Figure 11. Historical Colorado River water consumptive use and loss by state, Mexico, reservoir
evaporation,andotherlosses,1971-2010(USBR2012e)..................................................................20Figure12.Reservoirevaporativelosses(USBR2012e)..............................................................................21Figure13.HistoricalColoradoconsumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterbysector(USBR2012f)...........22Figure14.HistoricalWyomingconsumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterbysector(USBR2012f)..........22Figure15.HistoricalUtahconsumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterbysector(USBR2012f)..................23Figure16.HistoricalNewMexicoconsumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterbysector(USBR2012f).....23Figure17.MapoftheColoradoRiverBasininColorado(USBR2012g)....................................................25Figure18.Colorado’spopulation,irrigatedacres,andriverflowsin2010(ColoradoWaterConservation
Board2010)........................................................................................................................................26Figure19.MapofColoradoRiverBasininWyoming(USBR2012h)..........................................................28Figure20.MapofColoradoRiverBasininUtah(Millis2016)...................................................................31Figure21.MapofColoradoRiverBasininNewMexico(USBR2012j)......................................................34Figure22.PhotographofGlenCanyonDamandPowerPlant(USBR2009).............................................43
viii|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure23.DiagramofGlenCanyonDamidentifyingthethreemethodsforwaterreleases(powerplant,
riveroutletworks,andthespillway)(ImageatrightfromUSBR2016a)...........................................45Figure24.MapofinitialfourCRSPunits(inred)andadditionalparticipatingprojects(USBR2016).......47Figure25.MapofSLCA/IPmarketingarea,showninblue(Westernn.d.b)..............................................48Figure26.MonthlyCRODandSHPobligationsforCRSP.DataobtainedfromWestern...........................50Figure27.DiagramdepictingkeyCRSPconcepts.InformationforfigureobtainedfromWestern2016..51Figure28.ConceptualdiagramofmodelusedtocalculatecostoffirmingpurchasesneededtomeetSHP
obligations..........................................................................................................................................53Figure29.Annualamountofhydropowergenerationformaximumandminimumgenerationscenariosat
allfourelevations,assumingGlenCanyoncontributestheaverageamountof75percentofSLCA/IP’s
SHP.....................................................................................................................................................59Figure30.Distributionofpredictedfirmingpurchasecostsbasedon25modeliterationsforeachofthe
fourelevationsassumingmaximumgenerationscenarios................................................................60Figure31.Distributionofpredictedfirmingpurchasecostsbasedon25modeliterationsforeachofthe
fourelevationsassumingminimumgenerationscenarios.................................................................61Figure32.Meancostoffirmingpurchasesformaximumandminimumscenariosatallfourelevations.62Figure33.AseasonalhorizontalbandingpatternisevidentinascatterplotofLakePowellwatervolume
andcorrespondingvisitation..............................................................................................................66Figure34.LakePowellelevationscenariosfromJanuarythroughDecember..........................................67Figure35.PredictedyearlyLakePowellvisitationforeachelevationscenario........................................69Figure36.ObservedandpredictedvisitationatLakePowellduringstudytimeframe.TherevisedNeheret
al.modelcorrelatedLakePowellvolumetovisitationfromJanuary1996-December2011(leftof
blackdashline).ThemodelwasextendedthroughJanuary2016withadditionalvisitationandlake
volumedata(rightofdashline).........................................................................................................70Figure37.MapofLakePowellrecreationaccesspoints(NPS2015).........................................................72Figure38.WahweapBay(left)andCastleRockCut(Elleard2016)..........................................................73Figure39.LakePowellvolumeandrecreationalvisitation,January1996-January2016.Between2011and
2016,historicalvisitationremainshighdespitedeclinesinlakevolume..........................................74Figure40.ViewsfrombelowGlenCanyonDam,lookingupstream(top)andfromthetopofGlenCanyon
Damofjettubesduring2008HFE(bottom).BottomPhoto:T.RossReeveviaUSBR.......................81Figure41.Thisfigureillustrateshowsalinityconcentrationsincreasemovingdownriver.Valuesarebased
onthe2011calendaryear.(ColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlForum2014)..............................83
1|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Project Significance TheColoradoRiver,aniconoftheAmericanWest,isoneofthemostsignificantandimportantnatural
resourcestotheregion.TheriveroriginatesintheRockyMountains,cascadingdown14,000feetbefore
traversing1,450milesthroughtheSouthwestandMexico,towardstheGulfofCalifornia(CWA2015).It
isthelargestbodyofsurfacewaterineachofthesevenstatesitpassesthrough(Getches1997)anddrains
a 246,000 squaremile basin, roughly the size of France (EDF 2015). As shown in Figure 1 below, the
ColoradoRiverBasinencompassespartsofsevenUSstatesandtwoMexicanstates.
Figure1.ColoradoRiverBasinMap(USBR2015a).
Throughthecourseofitsjourney,theColoradoRiverprovideswatertoapproximately40millionpeople
andirrigatesnearly4.5millionacresoffarmland.Itsustains22federallyrecognizedtribes,passesthrough
sevennationalwildliferefuges,fournationalrecreationareas,andelevennationalparks,providingthe
settingforarecreationaleconomycrucialtotheregion.HydroelectricdamsontheRiverhavethecapacity
2|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
toproducemorethan4,200megawattsofelectricity(USBR2015a),enoughtopowerbetweenthreeand
fourmillionaverageU.S.homes(Harrison2008)ifthedamswereproducingatfullcapacity.Reservoirsin
boththeUpperandLowerBasinsprovideatotalstoragecapacityof60millionacrefeet(MAF)(USBR
2012a).Approximately29MAF(USBR2012b)canbestoredinLakeMeadaboveHooverDamandjust
over26MAFaboveGlenCanyonDam in LakePowell (USBR2014a),making these two reservoirs the
largestinthenation.
TheColoradoRiver reliesheavilyonsnowmelt fromtheRockyMountains.Warmseasonprecipitation
providesonlylimitedwatertothesystematthetimeofyearwhenitisinhighestdemand.Theannual
volumeofflowcanbeseeninFigure2below.Currentflowsareafractionoftheiroriginalvolumeand
littlewaterislefttoreachtheriver’straditionaloutflowintheGulfofCalifornia(NRC2007).
LakeMeadandLakePowellhavenotbeenfullforquitesometime.In2000,LakeMeadwas90percent
full,butnowonlyholds40percentofitstotalcapacity.Similarly,LakePowellcurrentlyonlyfills45percent
ofitsavailablestorage(USBR2016a).Thedecliningreservoirlevelshighlighttheuncertaintyofwhether
theColoradoRiverwillcontinuetomeetfutureneeds.
Figure2.AnnualflowvolumeovertimebelowYumaMainCanalatYuma,Arizona,(station09521100),foryears
1904–2003(Melisetal.2008).
Exacerbatingthesechallengesaretheimmensedemandsplacedontheriverbyhumanuse.Oneofthe
mostregulatedriversintheworld,theColoradoRiverBasinisover-allocated(Christensenetal.2004).
Currently,theamountofwaterdistributedamongusersthroughoutthebasinexceedstheaveragelong-
term historical natural flow of the river. These pressures are expected to increase as population
projections indicatecontinuedgrowthintheregion(USCB2010).Asmajorcities intheColoradoRiver
Basingrow,theagriculturalandmunicipalwaterdemandsarealsoprojectedtoincrease,threateningthe
wateravailablefornonconsumptiveusessuchasrecreation,environmentalprotection,andhydropower
generation(USBR2015a).Theproblemiscompoundedbyanticipatedclimatechangeimpacts.Studies
show that the Southwest could witness extended and drastic dry (and wet) conditions that have
implications for the hydrologic cycle driving Colorado River supplies (Garfin et al. 2014). Water
sustainabilitychallengescharacterizedbyhighdemandandlowsupplywilllikelylastintothefuture.
3|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Theextentoftheseimbalanceswerehighlightedbyananalysispublishedin2012bytheUnitedStates
BureauofReclamation(USBR)entitledTheColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy(The
Basin Study) (USBR 2012a). The Basin Study reported that between 1999 and 2007, Colorado River
reservoirsfellfrom55.8MAFto29.7MAF(USBR2012a).ShortagesintheBasinstemfromadeficitwhere
overalldemandoftheColoradoRiveroutweighswatersupply.TheBasinStudyalsodescribestherange
ofsupplyanddemandimbalancesprojectedforthefuture.Estimatesoftheimbalancebetweendemand
andsupplyvaryfrom0to6.8MAF,withamedianprojectionofunmetdemandbeing3.2MAFin2060
(Figure3)(USBR2012a).Thiscomprehensiveanalysishasprovidedsignificantmomentumforbasin-wide
planningefforts.
Figure3.HistoricalandfutureprojectionsofsupplyanduseintheColoradoRiverBasin(USBR2012a).
EvenwiththesignificantamountofstudyfocusedontheColoradoRiver,theneedfortransparentand
integratedcross-sectorinformationabouttheimpactsofshortagesremains.Whileitisdifficulttopredict
exactlywhatwouldhappeniftheriverreachescriticallylowlevels,itisimportanttoconsiderwhatthis
mightlooklikeinordertobetterprepareforthefuture.Towardthiseffort,areportwaspublishedin2015
entitledTheBathtubRing:ImplicationsofLowWaterLevelsinLakeMeadonWaterSupply,Hydropower,
RecreationandtheEnvironment(TheBathtubRing)(Jiangetal.2015).Thisanalysiswasconfinedtothe
LowerBasin,and therefore tailored to thespecificpoliciesandgeographic considerations that impact
waterdelivery,recreation,andhydropowerassociatedwithLakeMeadandHooverDam.
A companion study to The Bathtub Ring report is needed to understand the implications of chronic
shortagesinLakePowellandtocomprehensivelyconsiderimpactsacrosstheentireColoradoRiverBasin.
Looking Upstream similarly considers impacts associatedwith drought, while taking into account the
inherentdifferencesbetweentheUpperandLowerBasins.Althoughmanagementandoperationofthese
reservoirsarecoordinated,theirfunctionsandphysicallocationsdiffer,andthereforeeachregionofthe
basinisimpacteddifferentlyduringtimesofshortage.
AsignificantdifferencebetweenLakeMeadandLakePowellisthelocationofeachwithintheirrespective
basins.SituatedatthetopoftheLowerBasinsystem,shortagesandreleasesatLakeMeaddirectlyimpact
usersbelowHooverDam.LakePowell,however,isadownstreamcollectionpointofColoradoRiverwater
4|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
thathasfullytraversedandservedtheUpperBasinbeforearrivingatGlenCanyonDam.Inadditionto
hydroelectricpowergeneration,GlenCanyonDamexistslargelytostoreandsystematicallyreleasewater
toMead,andensuretheUpperBasinmeetsits1922ColoradoRiverCompactobligationstorelease75
MAFofwatertotheLowerBasinoverthecourseofanyten-yearperiod.
ShouldstorageinPowellbeinsufficienttomeetthisobligation(pursuanttotheColoradoRiverInterim
GuidelinesforLowerBasinShortagesandCoordinatedOperationsforLakePowellandLakeMead),the
body of laws dictating management provides some certainty as to how curtailments would be
implementedamongtheUpperBasinstates.Suchcurtailmentswouldbelegallycomplicatedanddifficult
toenact,and thus,decision-makershave focused theireffortsonavoidancestrategies toprevent the
needforcurtailmentsaltogether.
Tothisend,manycollaborativeeffortsareunderway.TheUpperColoradoRiverCommissionandthefour
UpperBasin statesare jointlyactive increatingcontingencyplans tokeepLakePowell fromdropping
belowthelevelnecessarytoproducehydropower.Thecontingencyplans,currentlyindraftphase,include
efforts tomovewater from upstream reservoirs in the Upper Basin to sustain levels at Lake Powell,
augment the hydrologic system such as through cloud seeding and the removal of highly water
consumptivevegetation,andemploydemandmanagementstrategiesfocusingonstoring“saved”water
inLakePowell(ColoradoRiverDistrictn.d.).WhileactionisunderwaytohelppreventLakePowellfrom
droppingbelowminimumpowerpool, there is a lackofunderstanding regardingwhat these impacts
wouldactuallyentail.
Thegoalofthisreportistoprovideclearandintegratedcross-sectorinformationonpotentialimpactsto
LakePowellifthereservoiristobeoperatedatlowwaterlevels.Itisourhopethatabetterunderstanding
of these impactswill strengthencurrenteffortsand trigger fruitfuldialoguebetweendecision-makers
whoarecraftingsolutionstobasin-wideimbalancesanddroughtcontingencies.Specifically,thisreport
synthesizesexistinginformationontheimpactsofdecliningreservoirlevelsinLakePowellandconducts
additionalanalysesofdatawherepossibletobetterunderstandpotentialimpacts.
5|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Project Objectives SimilartoTheBathtubRing,thisreportfocusesonfourprimaryareaslikelytobeimpactedbydeclining
reservoir levels: water supply, hydropower, the environment, and recreation.Where appropriate we
chosetomimictheanalysescompletedforLakeMeadinthefirstreport.Wealsoconsideredimportant
differencesbetweentheUpperandLowerBasinstoinformamodifiedapproach.Similarly,wetailored
scope and methods that were relevant to each individual section of this report. We found that the
availability of information and data differed across subject areas and therefore some sections of this
reportareentirelyqualitativewhileothersincorporatequantitativeanalyses.
Below are brief summaries and objectives of the individual sections that follow. Specific background,
methods,andresultscanbefoundwithineachindividualsection.
Water Supply TofullyunderstandtheimpactsofoperatingLakePowellatlowlevels,wemustassesshowdoingsomay
affecttheUpperBasin.DecliningwatersuppliesatLakePowellimpactwaterusersupstreamintheUpper
BasinduetodeliveryobligationstotheLowerBasin.ThemainobjectiveoftheWaterSupplysectionisto
describe the factors contributing to the Upper Basin’s vulnerability towater shortages.We begin by
providinganoverviewofthehydrologicfactorsaffectingwateravailabilityintheregion.Next,weassess
UpperBasinwaterusebyexploringhistoricaltrendsofwaterdemand.Stateprofilesareusedtoreview
recentwaterdemandbysectorineachstatetohighlightstatespecificconcerns.Futurewaterdemand
forecastsfortheUpperBasinarealsosummarizedtounderstandhowwaterusemaychangeovertime.
Lastly,weanalyzelegalfactorstoprovidecontextforambiguitiesandmanagementuncertaintyshould
reservoirlevelsdroplowenoughtorequireUpperBasincurtailmentstomeetdownstreamobligations.
Literaturereviewandexpertconsultationswereusedtoaddresstheseareasofinquiry.
HydropowerChangesinreservoirelevationsatLakePowellcouldimpacttheabilityofGlenCanyonDamtoproduce
electricity(USBR2007c).Ouranalysisfocusesonthepotentialeconomicconsequencesofsuchimpacts.
Specifically,weconsiderhowthecostofpowerpurchasedbyutilitiesintheregionmightchange.Dams
alongtheColoradoRiverareoperatedandpowerismarketedaccordingtovarietyoffederalregulations.
Some of these regulations are consistent across the basin, but many vary. Our first objective is to
determinehowGlenCanyonDampowerismarketed.Thisisanessentialcomponentofdetermininghow
customerscouldbeimpactedifpowergenerationdecreases.Forouranalysis,wereliedheavilyonpublicly
available agency information and personal communications. Personnel at the Western Area Power
AdministrationwhoaredirectlyresponsibleforcoordinatingthesaleofpowergeneratedatGlenCanyon
DamandotherregionaldamswereinstrumentalinexplainingindetailhowpowerfromGlenCanyonis
marketed.
Our second objective is to predict the range of potential cost increases if certain key elevations are
reachedinthereservoir.WedevelopamodelusinginformationfromtheUSBRonthepowergeneration
capacityofGlenCanyonDamand informationonthecostofpower.Detaileddescriptionsof the final
model,calculations,datasources,results,andlimitationsareincludedinthesection.
6|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Recreation LakePowell is a popular hub for diverse land andwater-based activities in theGlenCanyonNational
RecreationArea.Becauserecreationiscloselytiedtoenjoymentofthewaterandtheuseofshoreline
infrastructure,droughtanddeclininglakelevelsmayimpactfuturevisitationandtheregionaleconomies
thatdependonit.Ourreportassessespotentialimpactsofdeclininglakelevelsonrecreationalactivity
throughastatisticalanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenLakePowellvisitationandlakeelevation,using
a model designed by Neher et al. in a 2013 study.We also assess the absolute minimum elevation
thresholdsofdifferentpublicaccesspoints,suchasboatrampsandtheCastleRockCut,relativetokey
lakeelevations.
Environment
Stewardshipofenvironmental resourcesreliesontheabilityofmanagers tomanagepeopleandtheir
interactionswiththenaturalworld.TheconstructionofGlenCanyonDam,andthedevelopmentofthe
entireColoradoRiverStorageProject,hasimpactedthehealthoftheenvironmentcomparedtopre-dam
conditions.Managers who create and enforce programs and policies are taskedwith reconciling the
multipleandsometimescompetingdemandsofdiversestakeholdergroups.Understandingtheecological
impactof thosemanagementdecisions is the focusof this section.Byanalyzing the impactonnative
speciesaswellasthechallengesofdealingwithsedimentandsalinity,webegintoseethecompounding
environmental issues that developed as a result of dam construction. We also assess how a more
uncertain water supply future and lower reservoir levelsmay complicate the efforts of managers to
adequatelyaddresstheseissues.
7|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Background Information
Upper Colorado River Basin Governance TheColoradoRiverBasin,inadditiontowaterlawsdictatedbyindividualstates,ismanagedinaccordance
withtheLawoftheRiver.TheLawoftheRiverincludesinterstatecompacts,congressionalacts,binational
treaties,courtdecisionsandcontractsaffectinghowtheColoradoRiverisallocatedandoperated(Adler
2008). This section introduces the prior appropriation doctrine governing the allocation of water
throughoutmostofthewesternUnitedStates,thecomponentsoftheLawoftheRivermostimportant
tothegovernanceoftheUpperColoradoRiverBasin,andthehistoryofcoordinatedoperationsofLakes
PowellandMeadthroughtheCriteriaforCoordinatedLong-RangeOperationofColoradoRiverReservoirs
andtheColoradoRiverInterimGuidelinesforLowerBasinShortagesandCoordinatedOperationsforLake
PowellandLakeMead.
TheUpperBasinstatesregulatetheallocationanduseoftheirwatersthroughalegalframeworkknown
asthepriorappropriationdoctrine.Thislegalsystemischaracterizedbypriority;duringtimesofshortage,
seniorwaterrightsholdersreceivetheirfullallocationbeforejuniorholders.Seniorityisestablishedbased
onthedateeachwateruserdivertsandusestheresource.Eachuserthatdivertedwaterafterthefirst
historical appropriationbecomes junior to thatuser.Additionally,water rightsholdersmustput their
waterto“beneficialuse,”orelselosetheirrightstoaccess.Beneficialusereferstoalistofspecifieduses
thatthelawhasdictatedasappropriate,andmaybedefineddifferentlybyeachstate.Together,prior
appropriation,beneficialuse,and“useitorloseit”policiescreatecertaintyaroundwhoreceiveswater
during times of drought while preventing water users from hoarding unused water so that water is
availabletoasmanywaterrightsholdersaspossible(Wilkinson1989).Generallyspeaking,seniorwater
rights holders in the American West are apportioned to agricultural uses, reflecting the agricultural
livelihoodsofhomesteaders in the1800’s.Referred toaspresentperfectedwater rights, thesewater
rightswereobtainedbeforethesigningofthe1922ColoradoRiverCompactandhavebeengivenhighest
priority.Todaythepriorappropriationsystemensuresthatmanyofthemorerecenturbanusersinthe
Upper Basin are junior to agricultural users, effectively increasing their legal vulnerability to water
shortages.
ThefirstmajorLawoftheRivercomponentisthe1922ColoradoRiverCompact(USCongress67).The
CompactdividedtheColoradoRiverregionintoanUpperBasinandaLowerBasinwithLee’sFerry,Arizona
asthepointofdivision(Figure1).1ArticleIII(a)allocates7.5MAFperyearofconsumptiveusetoeach
basinwhileArticle III(b) allows the LowerBasin to increase its consumptive use by an additional one
MAF/YRassuppliesallow.The1922CompactalsoleftroomforalaterallocationdefinedintheMexican
WaterTreatyof1944 calling for thedeliveryof1.5MAFtoMexico.Moreover,Article III(d) requiresa
minimumflowvolumeatLee’sFerryof75MAFforanyperiodof10consecutiveyears.Altogether,the
totalamountofColoradoRiverwaterallocatedonpaper isbetween16.5and17.5MAF(inperiodsof
surplus).Theinitialtotalannualflowdesignationusedforthebasisoftheseallocations,however,relied
onhydrologicdatacompiledduringthe10wettestofthepast100years(NRC2007).TheColoradoRiver
1Animportantdistinctionmustbemadebetweenthelegalphrasesof“StatesoftheUpperDivision”andthe
“UpperBasin”.The“StatesoftheUpperDivision”includeWyoming,Colorado,Utah,andNewMexico,whereas
the“UpperBasin”alsoincludesasmallportionofArizonathattechnicallyreceivesColoradoRiverwaterabove
Lee’sFerry.Forthepurposesofthisreport,whenweusethetermUpperBasinwearereferringtothestatesof
Wyoming,Colorado,NewMexico,andUtah(inessence,the“StatesoftheUpperDivision”definition)unless
otherwisenoted.
8|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Basin’s average flow is actually significantly less at approximately 15MAF (NRC 2007), resulting in a
potentialallocationshortfallbetween1.5and2.5MAF.
Three additional agreements are especially important tounderstanding themanagementof Colorado
RiverwaterintheUpperBasin:
− TheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompactof1948outlineseachstate’spercentallocationofthe
UpperBasin’sfull7.5MAFapportionmentandcreatedtheUpperColoradoRiverCommissionas
the administrative agency to manage the interstate apportionment in the Upper Basin (US
Congress80).TheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompactof1948alsoprovidessomecertaintyas
tohowacompactcallwouldbeimplementedamongtheUpperBasinstates.AnyUpperBasin
state thatusedmorewater than theyareentitledunder the1922Compact andUpperBasin
CompactmustdeliverthatamounttoLee’sFerrybeforeanyotherUpperBasinstateiscurtailed.
If noUpper Basin state has exceeded their compact apportionment, thenUpper Basin states
eitherfacecurtailmentsproportionaltotheirconsumptiveusesintheprioryear,orcurtailments
mirror the apportionment percentages outlined in the Upper Basin Compact. Which theory
appliesremainsacontestedissue.SpecificcurtailmentsineachindividualUpperBasinstateisin
accordancetothatstate’swaterlaw(Kenneyetal.2011).
− TheColoradoRiverStorageProjectActof1956allowstheSecretaryoftheInteriortoconstruct
andmanagewaterstorageprojectsandhydropowerfacilitiesintheUpperBasin.Specifically,four
major storagedamson theupperColoradoRiverand its tributarieswereauthorized: (1)Glen
CanyononthemainstemoftheColoradoRiverontheborderbetweenArizonaandUtah; (2)
FlamingGorgeontheGreenRiverontheborderbetweenUtahandWyoming;(3)Navajoonthe
SanJuanRiverinNewMexico,and(4)theWayneN.AspinallUnit,whichconsistsofthreedams
andreservoirs,BlueMesa,MorrowPointandCrystal,ontheGunnisonRiverinColorado.Priorto
thisact,theUpperBasinwasunabletosecurefundingforwaterstorageprojects,limitingUpper
Basin states’ ability todevelop their full 7.5MAFapportionment. These storageprojectshold
surpluswater captured duringwetwinters for use in dry yearswhen supplies are low.Most
notably,GlenCanyonDamwasauthorized“asan insurancemeasure tomakesure theUpper
BasincouldmeettheirdeliveryobligationtotheLowerBasin”(Hecoxetal.2012).
− TheColoradoRiverBasinProjectActof1968authorizesfurtherdevelopmentofwaterstorage
projectsinboththeUpperandLowerBasins.Forthepurposesofthisreport,itisimportantto
notethatthisactrequiredtheSecretaryoftheInteriortoworkwithbasinstatestocreatethe
firsteverlong-rangeoperatingcriteriaforreservoirsintheColoradoRiversystem(USCongress
90).
Theseprimaryagreements,andotherprovisionsoutlinedintheLawoftheRiver,dictateUSBR’s
operationoftheColoradoRiversystem’smajorreservoirsanddiversions.Ineachstate,waterdeliveries
aremanagedbythestateengineerwhoadministerstheappropriationofthatstate'swaterresources.
Asoftoday,thereisnocoordinationamongtheUpperBasinstatesastotheamountofwatersentto
LakePowelltomeetwaterdeliveryobligationstotheLowerBasin(Kuhn2016).2
2TheCRSPreservoirsupstreamofLakePowelloperatepursuanttotheirRecordsofDecisionsandFlow
Recommendationsinordertopromoterecoveryofendangeredfishspecies.Thiswillbediscussedmoredepthina
latersection.
9|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Long-RangeOperatingCriteria
TheCriteriaforCoordinatedLong-RangeOperationofColoradoRiverReservoirs(LROC),pursuanttothe
ColoradoRiverBasinProjectActof1968,wasfirstpreparedandadoptedin1970.TheLROCallowsforan
annualreleaseratenolessthan8.23MAFofwaterfromLakePowelltoLakeMeadinordertomaintain
equallevelsbetweenthetworeservoirs.IfwaterlevelsintheUpperBasinstorageunitsdroplowenough
thatareleaseof8.23MAFtoLakeMeadwouldcompromiseannualconsumptiveusesintheUpperBasin,
releasespromulgatedintheLROCwillnotbemade(SecretaryoftheInterior1970).
TheLROCrequirestheSecretaryoftheInterior,inconsultationwithgovernor-designatedrepresentatives
ofthesevenbasinstates,toreviewatleasteveryfiveyearstheefficacyofcurrentoperatingguidelines
andmakeappropriatechangesnecessarytoachievestorageprojectgoals.Additionally,everyJanuarythe
Secretary of the Interior is required to present a report, called theAnnual Operating Plan (AOP), to
CongressandtheGovernorsofthesevenbasinstatesdetailingthecurrenthydrologicconditionsofthe
ColoradoRiverBasin,thereleasesmadefromreservoirsoverthepastoperatingyear,andtheprojected
operations for the forthcoming year. AOPs detail a range of potential operations and issue
recommendationsforthreedifferentcategoriesofprojectedhydrologicconditions:(1)mostprobable,(2)
probablemaximum,and(3)probableminimum(SecretaryoftheInterior,1970).
Duetosomeofthelargestinflowsonrecord,LakePowellandLakeMeadremainednearlyfullduringthe
periodoftimeaftertheadoptionofLROCandthroughoutthe1990’s.LROCprotocols forcoordinated
operationofLakesPowellandMeadprovedsufficientduringthistimeofplenty.Althoughitcontinuedto
increase, the water demand throughout the Colorado River Basin remained below the amount
apportionedbythe1922Compact.Shiftinghydrologicconditionsandevenhigherdemandsinthelate
1990s,however,renderedtheLROCframeworkinadequateandadditionalstrategiesbecamenecessary
tocoordinateoperationsbetweenPowellandMead.Oneofthesestrategies,theColoradoRiverInterim
GuidelinesforLowerBasinShortagesandCoordinatedOperationsforLakePowellandLakeMead isof
particularimportancetothisreportasitdictatesimprovedcoordinatedmanagementofreservoirsinthe
ColoradoRiversystemasreservoirlevelscontinuetodecline(USBR2007b).
ColoradoRiverInterimGuidelinesforLowerBasinShortages
Increasingdemand,multipleyearsofdrought,anddwindlingreservoirsuppliespromptedtheSecretary
of the Interior in May 2005 to call upon the USBR to construct a coordinated management plan of
ColoradoRiverBasinreservoirsduringtimesoflowreservoirconditions.Inresponse,theUSBRlaunched
apublicprocesstodevelopandadopttheColoradoRiverInterimGuidelinesforLowerBasinShortages
andCoordinatedOperationsforLakePowellandLakeMead(InterimGuidelines).TheInterimGuidelines
identifycoordinatedoperationsofLakesPowellandMead,criteriaforshortageandsurplusdeclarations,
andrulesallowingwaterusersintheLowerBasintodevelopandstoreconservedwaterinLakeMead.
TheInterimGuidelinesseektoensureequityintimesofsurplus,sharedburdenduringtimesofshortage,
andcertaintyforColoradoRiverBasinmanagersandusersbyexplainingwhen,andbyhowmuch,water
releasesfromreservoirswillbereducedtocompensateforlowwaterlevels.TheInterimGuidelinesare
settoexpireattheendofDecember2025andarevisedoperatingplanwillbeproposedforadoptionin
January2026.Ifanewplanisnotadopted,operationswillrevertbacktotheFinalEnvironmentalImpact
StatementfortheInterimSurplusGuidelines,whichwereeffectivebeginning inDecember2000(USBR
2007b).
10|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
The first key management guideline promulgated in the Interim Guidelines contains thresholds for
shortage,normal,andsurplusconditionsatLakeMead.3Thesecondkeymanagementguideline is the
coordinatedoperationofLakesPowellandMead.Themaingoalsofcoordinatedoperationareto:
1. avoidUpperBasincurtailments,
2. avoidLowerBasinshortage,and
3. ensurebothbasinssharetheburdenduringdroughtyearsandthebenefitsduringtimesof
surplus.
TheInterimGuidelinesdetailequalizationelevationsandcorrespondingoperationaltiersthatdictatethe
annualreleasefortheupcomingwateryearfromGlenCanyonDamtoLakeMead(Figure4).Eachmonth,
theUSBRreleasesoperational24-MonthStudiesthatforecasttheamountofwaterexpectedtobestored
inthereservoirsforthefollowingwateryearbasedonprojectedinflows.The24-MonthStudyreleased
everyAugust isofspecial importancebecause itprojectsreservoirstorage levels for January1forthe
followingwater year (the accounting for thewater year is October 1-September 30). This projection
dictatestherelevantoperationaltierandtheconsequentreleaseguidelinestoensurethatLakePowell
and LakeMead reservoir levels are equal (Figure 4). Eachmonth theUSBR alters releases fromGlen
CanyonDam that are representativeof thatmonth’s projected reservoir inflow. The goal is for Lakes
PowellandMeadtobeequalattheendofeachwateryear.
3TheLakeMeadDroughtThresholdsareoutofthescopeofthisanalysis,butaredetailedinTheBathtubRing:
ImplicationsofLowWaterLevelsinLakeMeadonWaterSupply,Hydropower,RecreationandtheEnvironment
(Jiangetal.2015).
11|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure4. LakePowellOperationalTiersintheInterimGuidelinesthatestablishtheGlenCanyonDamwater
releasesnecessarytoachievecoordinatedmanagementofLakesPowellandMead(USBR2007b).
Table1representsthetargetwaterelevationforeachwateryearthatwillcreateequalizationbetweenPowellandMead.ThesetargetelevationsareusedtodeterminetheoperatingtierforLakeMeadduring
theupcomingwateryear.ThelevelsincreaseeachyeartoallowforadditionalstorageatLakePowellfor
UpperBasinuse anddevelopment (USBR2007b). Releases promulgatedunder the InterimGuidelines
mustalsoadheretotherequirementsdictatedintheColoradoRiverBasinProjectAct,theGlenCanyon
DamFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatementandtheGlenCanyonOperatingCriteria(USBR2007b).The
currentoperatingtier(wateryear2016)atLakePowellistheUpperElevationTier,whichcallsforaninitial
releasevolumeof8.23MAF(USBR2016a).
12|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table1.LakePowell’syearlyupperleveltargetspromulgatedintheInterimGuidelines(USBR2007b).
Lakes Powell andMead are operated in concert through the Interim Guidelines: “If the Lower Basin
reducesitsuseofColoradoRiverwater,lesswaterneedstobereleasedfromLakeMead,andunderthe
InterimGuidelines,LakePowellreleaseswillaverageless,”(ColoradoRiverDistrictn.d.).Forthisreason
thesevenbasinstatesandtheUSBRregarddroughtcontingencyplanningasasystem-wideendeavor.
13|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Water Supply
Introduction Upper Basin tributaries, such as the Gunnison, Dolores, and Green, flow into the main stem of the
ColoradobeforeenteringLakePowellinSouthernUtah.Totheeast,theSanJuanRiverjoinsLakePowell
atwhat’sreferredtoasthe“SanJuanArm”.Alongtheway,waterusersthroughouttheUpperBasindivert
and use Colorado River water for a variety of purposes. Somewater is used non-consumptively and
eventuallyrejoinsthesystemasreturnflowtotheColoradoRiver;examplesofnon-consumptiveusesin
thebasinarehousehold,municipal,oragriculturaluses,whereoncethewaterisused,itflowsbackinto
surfaceorgroundwaterandcanbewithdrawnagainbyotherusersdownstream.Onthecontrary,some
waterintheColoradoRiverBasinisusedconsumptivelyandisremovedfromthesystem.Examplesof
consumptiveuseintheColoradoRiverBasinareevapotranspirationandtransbasindiversionswherethe
waterisunabletocyclebackintotheColoradoRiversystem.OnceinLakePowell,thestoredwaterhelps
Upper Basin states fulfill compact obligations to the Lower Basin, generate hydroelectric power, and
createrecreationalopportunities.Currently,thewaterlevelatLakePowellisapproximately3,591feet,
about 108 feet below full capacity (as of April 20, 2016 USBR 2015b).
Figure5portraysLakePowell’shistoricwaterelevationssinceGlenCanyonDambeganimpoundingwater
inMarch1963relativetothereservoir’smaximumactivestoragelevel(USBR2015c).
Figure5.HistoricdailyreservoirelevationsatLakePowellfrom1963-2016(USBR2015c).
While the1922Compact roughlyallocatedtheriverevenlybetweentheUpperandLowerBasins, the
UpperBasinhasnotfullydevelopedtheirapportionment.TheLowerBasinstates,however,usecloseto
theirdecreedentitlementduetotraditionallyhigherdemandsposedbyaregionwithhigherirrigation
needs for agricultural production and bigger urban centers such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, Los
Angeles, and San Diego (Hecox et al. 2012). If Glen Canyon Dam delivers 8.23MAF and intervening
14|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
tributaries(orsideinflows)addabout800thousandacrefeet(KAF),theaverageshortfallperyearisabout
1.2MAF(CentralArizonaProject2015),resultinginwhat’sknownasthe“structuraldeficit”(GivenBasic
apportionmentsintheLowerBasin,theallotmenttoMexico,andan8.23MAFreleasefromLakePowell,
LakeMeadstoragedeclines:).CombinedwiththeunallocatedevaporationlossesfromMead,Meadwill
continuetosufferdeclinesifnoactionistaken.Duetothereservoirbalancingrulesdefinedbythe2007
InterimGuidelines,anddependingonthecurrentmonth’sinflows,whenLakeMeaddrops,sowillLake
Powell.Inrecentyears,inflowstoLakePowellhavebeengenerallylessthanreleasedoutflows,causing
Powell’swaterleveltodrop.
GivenBasicapportionmentsintheLowerBasin,theallotmenttoMexico,andan8.23MAFreleasefrom
LakePowell,LakeMeadstoragedeclines:
Table2.WaterbudgetatLakeMeaddescribingthestructuraldeficit(Fleck2014).
Inflow(releasefromPowell+sideinflows) 9.0MAF
Outflow(AZ,CA,NV,andMexicodelivery+
downstreamregulationandgains/losses)-9.6MAF
Meadevaporationloss -0.6MAF
Balance -1.2MAF
*Databasedonlong-termaverages
DeclininglevelsatLakePowelldirectlyimpactUpperBasinwaterusersthroughdeliveryobligationstothe
LowerBasin. Inorder toensureenoughwater is in LakePowell,USBRand the sevenbasin statesare
engagedindroughtcontingencyplanning.AnelementoftheseplansthatwilldirectlyimpactUpperBasin
water supplies is “drought operations,” which involve additional water releases from Colorado River
StorageProjectdamsupstreamfromLakePowell.Itisimportanttomaintainhydropowerproductionat
GlenCanyonDamwhilesimultaneouslyworkingtopreventwaterlevelsatPowellfrombecomingsohigh
that damoperations transition to a different operational tier pursuant to the InterimGuidelines that
consequently“bumpsup”releasesfromPowelltoMead(ColoradoRiverDistrictn.d.).Ashifttoahigher
operationaltierwouldmeanthatmorewaterwouldbereleasedtoLakeMead
Three separate but interrelated factors influencewater shortage challenges in theUpperBasin. First,
hydrologicfactors,suchasclimatechangeimpactstonaturalflowsfromtheheadwatersoftheColorado
River,limitlocallyavailablewatersupplyinUpperBasinstatesaswellasinflowtoLakePowell.Second,
social factors contribute to increaseddemandof theColoradoRiver suchaspopulation increasesand
shiftsinsectorialwateruse.Lastly,theLawoftheRiverpromisesmorewatertorightsholdersthanhas
actuallyeverbeenavailable(Kenneyetal.2011).GivenafixedobligationtotheLowerBasin,UpperBasin
states essentially have the lowest priority under the1922 Compact and are effectively limited to the
amountofwateravailableafterobligationstotheLowerBasinhavebeenmet(Culpetal.2015).Allthree
ofthesefactorschallengetheabilityoftheColoradoRivertoequitabilitymeetthewaterneedsofthe
UpperBasinaswellasthoseofusersdownstream
15|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Methods ThemainobjectiveoftheWaterSupplysectionistodescribethefactorscontributingtotheUpperBasin’s
vulnerabilitytowatershortages.Weperformedaliteraturereviewandconsultedwithexpertstoaddress:
1. hydrologicfactorsaffectingwateravailability;
2. historicalwaterdemandtrends;
3. recentwaterdemandbysectortohighlightstatespecificconcerns;
4. futurewaterdemandforecasts;and
5. legalfactorscreatingmanagementuncertainty.
Thehydrologicfactorssectionincorporatesregionalclimatestudiesaswellasstudiesfocusingspecifically
ontheColoradoRiverBasin.Historicalandfutureprojectionsofwaterdemandsaresynthesizedfromthe
USBR’sBasinStudywhilerecentwaterdemanddatasetsaresourcedfromthemostcurrentwateruse
assessmentstudiesthatareavailablefromeachstate.
Hydrologic Factors NinetypercentoftheColoradoRiver’sfloworiginatesasheadwatersinColorado,Utah,andWyomingas
snowmeltrunoff(Jacobs2011).Since2000,theColoradoRiverBasinhasexperiencedalong-termdrought
where theyearsbetween2000and2015were thedriest16years in thepast100years (OWDIn.d.).
Persistentdroughtconditionsandclimatevariabilitycouldcontinueto impactfuturerunoffandwater
supplies in theUpperBasinaswell as flowsdraining intoLakePowell. This sectionevaluates regional
climatestudies,aswellasstudiesanalyzingtheColoradoRiverBasinmorespecifically,tounderstandhow
physicalfactorscontributetowatersupplyvulnerabilitiesintheUpperBasin.
RegionalclimatestudiesalsohelpillustratehowclimatechangecanaffectwatersuppliesintheColorado
RiverBasin.Figure6belowshowsamapfromtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency’sClimateChange
IndicatorsintheUnitedStates(2014)comparingaverageSouthwesterntemperaturesfrom2000-2013to
long-termaverages(temperaturerecordkeepingfortheregionbeganin1895).AllareasintheSouthwest
haveexperiencedhigher-than-averagetemperaturesthanwhat’sconsiderednormal(EPA2014).
Figure7belowdepictstheannualvaluesofdroughtseverityintheSouthwestsincethe1890’sandshows
that the last ten years have experienced consistent “drier-than-average conditions”. This estimate is
basedoffthePalmerDroughtSeverityIndexthatconsidersprecipitationandtemperaturefluctuations.
AnimportantconclusiondrawnfromthisanalysisisthatthemostpersistentSouthwesterndroughtshave
occurredinthelasttenyears(EPA2014).
16|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure6.AveragetemperatureincreasesabovenormalintheSouthwesternUnitedStates,
2000-2013versuslong-termaverage(EPA2014).
Figure7.DroughtseverityintheSouthwesternUnitedStates1895-2013(EPA2014).
TheThirdNationalClimateAssessmentpredictsthatregardlessofwhetherfutureglobalgreenhousegas
emissions are reduced or continue to rise, the Southwestwill experience an increase in temperature
(Garfin et al. 2014) (Figure8). The studyestimates thatover the last fivedecades the Southwesthas
experienceddecreasesinspringsnowfallandearlierrunoffeventsthatresultinearliercontributionsto
17|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
surfacewaterflows,therebydecreasingdependabilityandconsistencyofsurfacewatersuppliesforthe
remainderoftheyear.
Figure9showsadecreaseintheamountofwaterheldwithinfutureSouthwesternsnowpackifglobal
emissionscontinuetoincrease(Garfinetal.2014).
TheNationalResearchCouncilin2007issuedareportevaluatingclimateandhydrologyoftheColorado
River Basin. An analysis of temperature data throughout the basin concluded that the basin has
experiencedthemostwarmingoutofanyotherregionintheUnitedStates,andthat“warmerconditions
acrosstheregionarelikelytocontributetoreductionsinsnowpack,earlierpeaksinspringsnowmelt,
higherratesofevapotranspiration,reducedlatespringandsummerflows,andreductionsinannualrunoff
and streamflow” (NRC 2007). Furthermore, a recent study by Woodhouse et al. examined the
temperature, winter precipitation and streamflow for the years 1906 to 2012 and found that
temperaturesduringspringrunoffgreatlyinfluencestreamflowlevels,exacerbatingtheeffectsofwhat
otherwisewouldbemodestprecipitationdeficit(2016).
FuturetemperaturesthroughouttheColoradoRiverBasinarepredictedtoincreasebetween2-2.5°C±
1°Cwhile changes in precipitation could rangebetween−4percent ± 12percent to −2.5 percent ± 6
percent by mid-twenty-first century depending on the level of future greenhouse gas emissions.
Decreased streamflows (five percent to 35 percent) projected for Lee’s Ferry (the point of division
betweentheUpperandLowerBasins)arelikelyduetoincreasedtemperaturesintheregionandchanges
inprecipitation(afivepercentdeclineinprecipitationwillyielda10to15percentdeclineinstreamflow).
Thecouplingofthebasin'snaturalsusceptibilitytoprolongeddryperiodswithclimatechangerelated
reductionsinstreamflowcouldleadtosomeoftheloweststreamflowsonrecord(Vanoetal.2014).
ChangesinwinterprecipitationandtemperaturepatternsintheheadwatersoftheUpperBasinhavefar
reachingimplicationsforwatersuppliesinstatesthroughouttheSouthwest,whichrelyontheColorado
River tomeet theirwaterneeds.Because theUpperBasin statesdonotdirectlywithdraw fromLake
Powell,watershortagesaffectingriversandstreamsinlocalcommunitiesareofthegreatestconcern.In
fact,UpperBasinstatesandareasoutsidethehydrologicbasinthatuseColoradoRiverwaterhavealready
experiencedperiodicshortages(USBR2015a).
18|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure8. ProjectedtemperatureincreasesintheSouthwesternUnitedStates(Garfinetal.2014).
Figure9.ProjectedsnowwaterequivalentintheWesternUnitedStates(Garfinetal.2014).
19|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Upper Basin Water Use Upper Colorado River Basin water supplies provide water for agricultural, municipal, industrial,
recreational,andenvironmentalpurposesinColorado,Wyoming,Utah,andNewMexico.Inadditionto
hydrologicandlegalfactors,specificwaterdemandsineachoftheUpperBasinstatescreatewatersupply
vulnerabilities. The following sectionwill outlinehistoricalwaterdemand in theUpperBasin, provide
recentwaterdemandprofilesforeachstate,andconcludebyoutliningtheUSBR’sforecastsforUpper
Basinwaterdemandin2060.
HistoricalWaterDemands
Estimatesofhistoricalwaterdemandhelpusunderstandkeytrendsinwateruseovertime.TheBasin
StudydepictsColoradoRiverwaterconsumptiveuseandlossbrokendownbyeachColoradoRiverBasin
state,Mexico,evaporationloss,andotherlossesbetween1971and2010(Figure10).Thehighesttotal
consumptiveusesandlossesintheUpperBasinareattributedtoColorado(USBR2012e).
Figure10.HistoricalColoradoRiverwaterconsumptiveuseandlossbystate,Mexico,reservoirevaporation,and
otherlosses,1971-2010(USBR2012e).
Figure11fromTheBasinStudyrepresentsthesamedata,butrepresentsitinsuchawaythatcompares
theconsumptiveusesandlossesbetweentheUpperandLowerBasins.ItcanbeconcludedthattheLower
BasinhasconsistentlyhadhigherconsumptiveusesandlossincomparisontotheUpperBasinbetween
1971and2010(USBR2012e).
20|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure11.HistoricalColoradoRiverwaterconsumptiveuseandlossbystate,Mexico,reservoirevaporation,and
otherlosses,1971-2010(USBR2012e).
ItisimportanttonotethatasignificantportionofconsumptiveusesandlossesthroughouttheColorado
RiverBasinisattributedtoreservoirevaporation(Figure10andFigure11).Figure12below,representing
largereservoirsinthebasin,showsthataverageevaporativelossesbetween1971and2010areabout2
MAF/YRand1.8MAF/YRbetween2000and2010.Decliningevaporativelossescanbeattributedtolower
averagereservoirstorage(USBR2012e).TheUpperBasinportionofthisfigureincludesMorrowPoint,
BlueMesa,FlamingGorge,andLakePowell.
21|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure12.Reservoirevaporativelosses(USBR2012e).
Figure13throughFigure16belowprovidetimelines(1971-2010)ofconsumptiveColoradoRiverwater
useinColorado,Wyoming,Utah,andNewMexicobyfoursectors:agriculture,municipalandindustrial
(M&I),energy,andminerals(USBR2012f).Thesegraphsshowagricultureasthelargestwateruserinthe
UpperBasinduringthattimeframe(USBR2012f).
22|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure13.HistoricalColoradoconsumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterbysector(USBR2012f).
Figure14.HistoricalWyomingconsumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterbysector(USBR2012f).
23|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure15.HistoricalUtahconsumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterbysector(USBR2012f).
Figure16.HistoricalNewMexicoconsumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterbysector(USBR2012f).
24|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
TheBasinStudyreportsthatinallfourUpperBasinstates,consumptiveuseofColoradoRiverwaterhas
increased(Colorado:29percent,Wyoming:59percent,Utah:29percent,andNewMexico:122percent)
between1971and2010(USBR2012f).Whileconsumptiveusedistributionacrosssectorshasremained
fairlyconstantinColorado,theotherthreeUpperBasinstateshavewitnessedslightshiftsinrecentyears
(USBR2012f):
− Wyoming:increasesinagriculture,energy,andM&Iuses;decreasesinmineraluse.
− Utah:increasesinM&Iandenergyuses;decreasesinagricultureuse.
− NewMexico:increasesinM&I,agriculture,andenergyuses.
More than two dozenAmerican Indian Tribes live on reservation lands that havewater rights to the
ColoradoRiverBasin(Cozzettoetal.2013)amountingtomorethan2.9MAF(CRWUAN.d.c).Fivetribes,
theJicarillaApacheNation,NavajoNation,SouthernUteIndianTribe,UteIndianTribeoftheUintahand
OurayReservation, and theUteMountainUte Tribe, havequantifiedwater rights in theUpperBasin
(Table3);butwaterrightsremainunsettledinUtahandNewMexicoforboththeNavajoNationandUte
MountainUteTribe(USBR2012e,Nanian.d.).TribalwaterrightsareheldinfederaltrustbytheUnited
Statesgovernment,whomustensurerightsgrantedtotribeswhentheirreservationswerecreated(USBR
2012e).Waterallocatedtotribes intheColoradoRiverBasincountsagainsttheapportionmentofthe
state where the reservation is located. Unsettled tribal water rights in the Colorado River Basin are
substantial.Forinstance,thependingsettlementbetweentheNavajoNationandthestateofUtahwould
providetheNationwith314,851AF/YRofColoradoRiverBasinwater(Nanian.d.).
Table3.UpperColoradoRiverBasinAmericanIndianTribeswithquantifiedrightstoColoradoRiverwater(USBR
2012e).
Tribe Location
JicarillaApacheNation NewMexico
NavajoNation Arizona,NewMexico,andUtah
SouthernUteIndianTribe Colorado
UteIndianTribeoftheUintahandOurayReservation Utah
UteMountainUteTribe Colorado,NewMexico,andUtah
State Profiles
Colorado
ThemainstemoftheColoradoRiveremergesfromtheRockyMountainsofColoradoandapproximately
75percentof thewater in theentireColoradoRiverBasinoriginates from the state (ColoradoWater
ConservationBoard2015a).TheColoradoRiverBasininColoradoincludestheYampa,White,Gunnison,
Dolores, San Juan, and theColoradoRiver subbasinson theWesternSlopeofColorado;water is also
exportedtotheSouthPlatteandArkansassubbasinsintheFrontRangeofColorado(Figure17).4
4TheYampaandWhitesub-basins,aswellastheDoloresandSanJuansubbasins,areoftengroupedtogetherfor
watersupplyanalyses;thefirstmaybereferredtotheYampa-WhiteBasinandthelatterreferredtoasthe
SouthwestBasin.
25|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure17.MapoftheColoradoRiverBasininColorado(USBR2012g).
Colorado’swatermanagementstructure isunique in that therearesevenwatercourts ineachof the
state’s main watersheds that confirm water rights (ColoradoWater Conservation Board 2015b). The
ColoradoDivisionofWaterResources(alsocalledtheStateEngineer’sOffice),withintheDepartmentof
NaturalResources,isresponsibleforadministeringwaterrightsinColoradoandhasfieldofficesineach
ofthesevensubbasins.Commissionershousedinthesefieldofficesmonitorwaterrightsadministration
bygaugingdiversions,completestudiesforwatermanagementplans,andadminister“callsontheriver”
toguaranteethatseniorwaterrightholdersreceivetheirfullamountofwaterduringshortages(Colorado
WaterConservationBoard2015a).
UndertheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompact,Coloradoisallocated51.75percentoftheUpperBasin’s
portionof ColoradoRiverWater (USCongress 80). This translates to between3.9MAF/YRunder the
formal1922Compacthydrologicapportionmentof7.5MAF,and3.1MAF/YRunderahydrologicforecast
of6.0MAF.In2010,estimatesindicatedthatColoradoconsumptivelyusedbetween2.4MAF/YRto2.6
MAF/YR. The StatewideWater Supply Initiative estimated that “about 80 percent [of the renewable
water]isontheWestSlopeand20percentisontheEastSlope.However,about80percentofColorado's
population ison theEastSlopeand20percent ison theWestSlopeandmostofColorado's irrigated
agriculturallandsareontheEastSlope”(Figure18)(ColoradoWaterConservationBoard2010).In2008,
thepopulationlivingintheColoradoRiverBasinareaofColoradowas562,000,while4,438,000people
26|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
lived in areas outside of the hydrologic basin that received exported Colorado Riverwater (Colorado
WaterConservationBoard2010).
Figure18.Colorado’spopulation,irrigatedacres,andriverflowsin2010
(ColoradoWaterConservationBoard2010).
TheStatewideWaterSupplyInitiativeoffersthemostrecentcomprehensiveanalysisofwateruseinthe
stateofColorado(2010).5Table4andTable5summarizethereport’sestimatesofpopulationandwater
demandsin2008.Table4sumsestimatesfromtheColorado,Gunnison,Dolores,SanJuan,Yampa,and
White subbasinson theWest Slope; andTable5 sumsestimates from theArkansas andSouthPlatte
(includingtheDenverMetroarea)subbasinsontheEastSlope.Forbothofthesetables,the irrigation
waterrequirementestimatesdescribethetotalamountofwaterthatwouldbeused if therewereno
limitationscreatedbylegalorphysicalfactors.Watersupply-limitedconsumptiveuseisdefinedasthe
amountofwater actuallyusedby the cropwhen limitedbywater availability.Non-irrigationdemand
includesconsumptiveusesduetolivestockconsumption,stockpondevaporation,andlossesduringwater
deliveries.M&Iincludesresidential,commercial,lightindustrial,non-agriculturalrelatedirrigation,non-
revenuewater,firefighting,andhouseholdsthatself-supplytheirwaterandarethereforenotconnected
to public water supply infrastructure. Lastly, self-supplied industrial includes mining, manufacturing,
brewing, and food processing industries; snowmaking; thermoelectric power generation at coal and
natural gas plants; and the extraction and production of natural gas, coal, uranium, and oil shale.
5ThesenumberswerealsousedintheColorado’sWaterPlanreleasedin2015.
27|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table4.2008wateruseinthehydrologicColoradoRiverBasinareaofColorado(ColoradoConservationBoard2010).
UseCategory Use(AF/YR)
AgricultureIrrigatedAcres 918,000
IrrigationWaterRequirement 2,032,000
WaterSupply-LimitedConsumptiveUse 1,553,000
Non-IrrigationDemand 175,000
TotalAgricultureWaterUse 3,760,000
MunicipalandIndustrial 117,000
Self-SuppliedIndustrial 36,640
TotalWaterUse 3,913,640
Table5.2008wateruseinareasofColoradothatreceiveexportedColoradoRiverwater(ColoradoConservationBoard2010).
UseCategory Use(AF/YR)
AgricultureIrrigatedAcres 428,000
IrrigationWaterRequirement 2,491,000
WaterSupply-LimitedConsumptiveUse 1,659,000
Non-IrrigationDemand 171,000
TotalAgricultureWaterUse 4,321,000
MunicipalandIndustrial 839,000
Self-SuppliedIndustrial 151,120
TotalWaterUse 5,311,120
ItisimportanttonotethatthedemandsexpressedinTable5donotexclusivelyimpactColoradoRiver
Basinwatersupplies.Portionsofthewaterdemandintheseareas,theArkansasandSouthPlatteBasins,
is satisfiedby local supplies.Transmountaindiversions,however,account for fivepercent (or500,000
AF/YR)ofthetotalwatersupplyinColorado(ColoradoWaterConservationBoard2010,ColoradoWater
ConservationBoard2015b)andthesediversionsmostlymovewaterwesttoeasttosatisfyFrontRange
needs.
Wyoming
TheheadwatersoftheGreenRiver,amajortributarytotheColoradoRiver,arelocatedintheWindRiver
MountainsinsouthwestWyoming.ThehydrologicportionoftheColoradoRiverBasininWyomingspans
16percentofthestate(Figure19).
28|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure19.MapofColoradoRiverBasininWyoming(USBR2012h).
Wyominggivesregulationandadministrativepowerofthestate’swaterresourcestotheWyomingState
Engineer’sOffice.ThestateisdividedintofourWaterDivisions(theGreenRiverBasinisDivision4),each
ofwhichisheadedbyasuperintendent.TogethertheStateEngineerandthesuperintendentsmakeup
theWyoming Board of Control, which adjudicatesWyoming water rights (Wyoming State Engineer’s
Office n.d.a). Additionally, the Interstate StreamsDivision aids the State Engineerwith allocation and
administration needs of streams subject to interstate compacts and court decrees (Wyoming State
Engineer’sOfficen.d.b). In2006, the InterstateStreamsdivisioncreatedtheColoradoRiverCompacts
AdministrationProgramtodevelop,implementandoperateaprocesstomonitortheconsumptiveuseof
waterintheColoradoRiverBasinofWyoming.
TheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompactallocates14percentoftheUpperBasin’sportionofColorado
RiverWater toWyoming (1948). Under awater supply of 6.1MAF/YR,Wyoming’s available share is
847,000AF/YR(Carrico2014)6.Estimatesin2010indicatedthatWyomingconsumptivelyused603,878
AF/YRofColoradoRiverwater(WWCEngineering2010).The2010GreenRiverBasinPlanpreparedfor
theWyomingWaterDevelopmentCommissionBasinPlanningProgramisthemostrecentcomprehensive
analysisavailabledescribingWyoming’suseofColoradoRiverBasinwater.7
6Theformal1922Compacthydrologicapportionmentof7.5MAFyields1,050,000AF/YR.
7TheWyomingStateEngineer'sOfficewillsoonreleasethe2016GreenRiverBasinConsumptiveUseReportthat
willprovideupdatedwaterusedata.
29|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table6summarizesthereport’sestimatesofwaterdemandsintheGreenRiverBasinin2010.Inthat
year,67,900people lived in theGreenRiverBasinofWyoming (USCB2010). Irrigation foragricultural
purposes usesmorewater than any of the other economic sectors. Livestock production is themain
agricultural practice in the Green River Basin. Consequently, forage crops like alfalfa and grass hay
attributebetween70and100percentofthecropsgrowninthearea.Locallivestockconsumesmostof
thecrops,butasmallportionofthesecropsareexportedoutoftheGreenRiverBasin(WWCEngineering
2010).
The2010GreenRiverBasinPlandescribesmunicipalwaterusersasentities servedbyapublicwater
supplysystem,ofwhichthereare14cities,towns,andjointpowerwaterboardsthatprovidewaterto
their residents. The largest consumerofmunicipalwater is theCityofCheyenne (Table6),which lies
outsidethehydrologicboundariesoftheGreenRiverBasin.CheyennehaswaterrightsintheLittleSnake
BasinoftheGreenRiverfromwhichthecitydivertsandtransportswateracrossthecontinentaldivideto
theNorthPlatteBasintomeetthegrowingneedsofthecity(WolffandRoss2016).
The2010GreenRiverBasinPlandefinesdomesticwateruseasinclusiveofruralhomesoutsideofurban
areasthatuseindividualgroundwaterwells,publicsupplysystemsthatconveywatertoruralsubdivisions,
andsmallcommercialestablishmentssuchasparksandcampgrounds.Table6showsthatthissectoris
largelysatisfiedbygroundwatersupplies(WWCEngineering2010).
Theindustrialsectorincludes,asdefinedbythe2010GreenRiverBasinPlan,electricpowergeneration
andsodaashproductionthatconsumessurfacewater;andcoalmining,uraniummining,andoilandgas
industries that generally consumegroundwater supplies.Natural gas isWyoming’s largest export and
Sublette County, located in theGreenRiver Basin, produces themost natural gas in the state (WWC
Engineering2010).
Thetworemainingusesdiscussedinthe2010GreenRiverBasinPlan,recreationandenvironmental,are
regardedasnon-consumptiveuses.ActivitiesimportanttoWyoming’seconomysuchasboating,fishing,
hunting, camping, golfing, and skiing, rely on adequatewater levels tomaintain recreational quality.
Environmental water helps to enhance instream flows, minimum pools in reservoirs, wildlife water
consumption,threatenedandendangeredspecies,andwetlands.
Asignificantportionofwaterthatbenefitstheenvironmentdoessoindirectlyasabyproductofother
uses and not as an instream flow water right specifically designated to the environment (WWC
Engineering2010).ItispossibletodesignateinstreamflowasabeneficialuseinthestateofWyoming.
TheWyomingGame&FishDepartmentdeterminesthestreamreachesandthedesiredflowlevels;the
WyomingStateEngineer'sOfficereviewsandissuesthepermit;andtheWyomingWaterDevelopment
Commissionholds thepermit in theirname for theState.Therearecurrentlyover100 instream flow
permitsfordesignatedreachesinthestateofWyoming(WolffandRoss2016).
30|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table6.2010wateruseinthehydrologicColoradoRiverBasinareaofWyoming(WWCEngineering2010).
UseCategory Use(AF/YR)AgricultureIrrigationUse 396,246
Stock 1,755
TotalAgricultureWaterUse 398,001
MunicipalSurfaceWater 6,578
Groundwater 884
CityofCheyenneDiversions 15,281
TotalMunicipalWaterUse 22,743
DomesticSurfaceWater 0
Groundwater 3,047
TotalDomesticUse 3,047
IndustrialSurfaceWater 56,833
Groundwater 1,954
TotalIndustrialUse 58,787
Recreation Nonconsumptive
Environmental Nonconsumptive
TotalWaterUse 482,578
InadditiontotheCityofCheyennediversionthatwasmentionedearlierinthissection,therearethree
smallagriculturaldiversionsthatcarrywateroutsideoftheGreenRiverBasinandonesmallagricultural
diversionthatmoveswaterfromtheNorthPlattebasinintotheGreenRiverBasin.Importantly,thereare
nowaterimportstotheGreenRiverBasinthatcanbeusedtoaugmentthewatersupplyshouldalocalized
watershortageoccur(WolffandRoss2016).
Utah
With regard to the ColoradoRiver Basin,Utah is a state of confluences. TheGreenRiver crosses the
Wyoming-Utah state line in northeastern Utah just before the Flaming Gorge Dam. Downstream the
Duchesne,WhiteandPriceRiversmergewiththeGreenbeforeitmeetstheColoradoRiverinsoutheast
Utah. The San Juan River, flowing west from Colorado, joins Lake Powell in south-central Utah. The
ColoradoRiverBasininUtahisbrokendownintothreesubbasinsintheeasternportionofthestate:the
Uintah,WestColoradoRiver,andtheSoutheastColoradoRiverBasins(Figure20).Thesouthwestcorner
ofUtah is in theLowerColoradoRiverBasinwherewater isdivertedfromtheVirginRiverandKanab
Creek.
31|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure20.MapofColoradoRiverBasininUtah(Millis2016).
TheUtahDivisionofWaterRightsishousedunderUtah’sStateGovernmentwithintheDepartmentof
NaturalResources.LedbytheStateEngineer,theUtahDivisionofWaterRightsadministersthestate’s
water appropriations andoversees thedistributionof the resource.Additionally, theUtahDivisionof
WaterResourcesdealswithregionalandstate-levelwaterplanning(USBR2012i).
TheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompactallocates23percentoftheUpperBasin’sportionofColorado
RiverWatertoUtah(USCongress80),whichtranslatestoapproximately1.4MAF/YRunderahydrologic
forecastof6,090,000AF/YR(Millis2016)8.CurrentlythestateofUtahisusingapproximately1MAF/YRof
thisallocation(Millis2016).SimilartoColoradoandWyoming,themajorpopulationcentersinUtahare
locatedoutsideoftheColoradoRiverBasin(StateofUtahDivisionofWaterResource2001).Forinstance,
the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget estimate that currently 2.1 million people, or 75
percent of the entire state, reside along the Wasatch Front (Figure 20) (Utah Governor’s Office of
Management&Budgetn.d.).
Betweentheyears1989and2014,anaverageamountofapproximately840KAFofwaterwasdiverted
outofthehydrologicUpperBasinareaofUtah(Table7).Thelargestconsumerofwaterisagriculture(601
KAF).Agriculturaluseincludeswaterforpasturing,grazing,andwateringoflivestockandthecropping,
cultivation, and harvesting of plants.Municipal use refers to residential, commercial and institutional
8Theformal1922Compacthydrologicapportionmentof7.5MAFyields1,700,000AF/YR.
32|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
water use, but excludes uses by large industrial operations.Water used for residential purposes and
irrigation of residential vegetation is accounted for in the domestic use category. The power sector
incorporateswater used to generate hydroelectric and thermoelectric power. Industrial use refers to
waterassociatedwithmanufacturingandcommercialbusinesses.Finally,importsincludewaterdiverted
intoariversystemfromanotherhydrologicbasinbyatransbasindiversion;exportsservetheopposite
purpose.Therefore,netexport/importiscalculatedbysubtractingimportedflowfromexportedflowto
establishanetflow(ifthevalueispositive,thereisanetexport.Anegativevalueindicatesanetimported
flow).Currently,170KAFisexportedoutofthesystem(Millis2016).
Table7.AveragewaterdivertedinthehydrologicUpperColoradoRiverBasinareaofUtahbetween1989and2014
(Millis2016).
UseCategory Diversion(AF/YR)
Agriculture 601,000
Municipal/Domestic 32,000
Power/Industrial 40,000
NetExport/Import 170,000
TotalWaterDiverted 843,000
TheCentralUtahProject,authorizedbytheColoradoRiverStorageProjectActof1956,conveyswater
from the Uintah Basin to theWasatch Front (Figure 20) and has the ability to deliver approximately
251,750AF/YR.Table8belowshowshowthiswaterisusedbysector.Theenvironmentalsectorincludes
protectionandmaintenanceofriparianecosystemsfortheprimarypurposeofsportfishingintheUinta
Basin(CentralUtahCompletionActOfficen.d.a).TheCentralUtahProjectisyettobefullycompleteddue
tocontinuouslychangingpoliticalclimates,fundingavailability,andenvironmentalconcernsthatalterthe
designandfunctioningoftheproject(CentralUtahCompletionActOfficen.d.b).UsesofUtah’sremaining
allocationoftheColoradoRiverincludetwoAmericanIndianTribesreservedwaterrightsettlements,and
futuremunicipal,industrial,energydevelopmentandagriculturalwateruses(Millis2016).
Table8.WaterprovidedbyCentralUtahProjectbysector(CentralUtahCompletionActOfficen.d.).
UseCategory Use(AF/YR)
Agriculture 112,600
MunicipalandIndustrial 94,750
Environmental 44,400
TotalWaterUse 251,750
Additionally, in 2006 the Utah State Legislature passed the Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act
authorizingtheUtahBoardofWaterResourcetoconstructtheLakePowellPipeline.Theintentionisfor
the pipeline to extend over 139 miles and transport up to 86,000 AF of water from Lake Powell to
Washington and Kane Counties in southwest Utah as part of the state’sUpper Colorado River Basin
Compact allocation. Recent cost estimates from last November 2015 anticipate that the pipelinewill
requirebetween$1.1billionand$1.8billion in funding.The finalprice tagwillbecomemoreclearas
additionalinformationbecomesavailable,includingtheroutethatisdeemedfavorablebythepending
Environmental Impact Statement (Utah Division of Water Resources n.d.). In January 2016 a state
legislative committee voted in favor of a bill that would funnel $35 million from a transportation
33|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
investment fund to finance the Lake Powell Pipeline. In the meantime, the federal government is
reviewinganapplicationsubmittedbytheUtahDivisionofWaterResourcesandwilldeliveradecision
withintwotothreeyears(Tory2016).
TheabilityofUtahwaterusersreliantonColoradoRiverwatertoswitchtosupplementalsourcesvaries
throughoutthestate.TheColoradoRiveristheprimarywatersourceinmanyareaswithinthestate.For
areasinUtahlocatedoutsideofthehydrologicColoradoRiverBasin,importedColoradoRiverwateris
viewedasasupplementalwatersourcetotheiravailablein-basinsuppliesandisimportanttomeeting
localneeds(Millis2016).
NewMexico
ThenorthwestportionofNewMexicolieswithintheColoradoRiverBasin.TheSanJuanRiverentersNew
MexicosouthoftheColoradostatelinebeforeitentersNavajoReservoir.Downstream,theAnimasand
La Plata Riversmergewith the San Juan before exiting NewMexico near the Four Corners where it
eventuallymeetsthemainstemoftheColoradoRiverinLakePowell.TheareaoverwhichtheColorado
RiverBasinspansNewMexicoisconsideredtheSanJuanRiverBasin.TheSanJuanRiverBasin9isalso
sharedwithColorado,Utah,andArizona(Figure21).10
9TheSanJuanRiverBasininNewMexicoisoftenreferredtoastheUpperColoradoRiverBasininNewMexico
(Longsworthetal.2010)10ItisimportanttonotethatNorthwestandSouthwestBasinpicturedinFigure23areincludedintheLowerBasin
analysisandarethereforenotwithinthescopeofthisreport.
34|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure21.MapofColoradoRiverBasininNewMexico(USBR2012j).
TheOfficeoftheStateEngineerisgivenauthorityoveradministeringthestate’swaterrightsaswellas
measurementanddistribution(NMOSEn.d.b).AnadditionalroleoftheStateEngineeristoserveasthe
SecretarytotheInterstateStreamCommission,whichistheagencyresponsibleforoverseeinginterstate
river systems, engaging in interstate settlement negotiations, and ensuring interstate compliance.
Accompanying the State Engineer, eight unsalaried commissioners are appointed by theGovernor to
serveonthecommission.Staffworkingforthecommissionersperformstreammeasurementstudiesto
monitor and develop water supplies in New Mexico “for planning, conservation, protection and
developmentofpublicwaters,”(NMOSEn.d.c).
TheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompactallocates11.25percentoftheUpperBasin’sportionofColorado
RiverWatertoNewMexico(UCRBCompact),aconsumptiveuseamountofnolessthan642,380AF/YR
basedonahydrologicforecastof5.7MAF(NMOSE2016)11.Themostrecentcomprehensiveassessment
ofwateruseintheregionistheNewMexicoWaterUsebyCategoriesissuedin2010bytheOfficeofthe
StateEngineer.(Longsworthetal.2010).Thesenumbersarebeingusedinthe2016SanJuanRegional
Planthatiscurrentlyindraftphase.In2010,NewMexicodivertedapproximately876,200AF/YRwithin
11Theformal1922Compacthydrologicapportionmentof7.5MAFyields843,750AF/YR.
35|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
theSanJuanRiverBasin.Duringthesameyear,approximately149,431people(sevenpercentoftheof
thestate’spopulation)livedinMcKinley,RioArriba,Sandoval,andSanJuancountiesthataresituated
withinthebasin(NMOSE2016).
Table9belowdescribesthetotaldiversionsbysectorintheSanJuanRiverBasinin2010.Adiversionis
definedasthe“thequantityofmeteredwatertakenfromasurfaceorgroundwatersource”(Longsworth
etal.2010).Table9showsthat the largestconsumerofColoradoRiverBasinwater inNewMexico is
irrigationofcropsinfarms,ranches,andwildliferefuges.Irrigationneedsaremainlyservedbysurface
water.Theotheragriculturerelatedwateruseinthisregionislivestockat4,400AF,whichcaninclude
waterforanimalconsumption,facilityneeds,andon-locationmeatanddairyprocessing(NMOSE2016).
Thepublicwater supply/domestic category,diverting27,700AF/YR in2010, includesmunicipalwater
systemsthatdistributewatertoresidential,commercialandindustrialwaterconsumers.Industrialusers
that do not fall under the jurisdiction of a public water system are accounted for in the
industrial/commercialcategorysuchastheprocessingofrawmaterials,manufacturing,andconstruction.
This categorydiverted400AF/YRofwater in2010.Thepowersectordiverted51,300AF/YRofwater
2010,whichincludeswaterforpowergenerationandcoalminingoperations.Waterusedtoextractoil,
naturalgas,gravel,waterandmetal is included intheminingcategory,whichdiverted1,600AF/YR in
2010. The reservoir evaporation category at 29,900 AF/YR in 2010 was calculated by measuring the
amount ofwater evaporated in the San Juan River Basin’s three largest reservoirs: Navajo Reservoir,
FarmingtonLake,andMorganLake.
Lastly,asignificantportionoftotaldiversionsintheSanJuanRiverBasinisattributedtoexportsoutof
thebasin.Themostsignificantofthetwoexportsdiscussedinthe2016SanJuanRegionalPlanistheSan
Juan-ChamaProjectthatdivertsandexportswaterintheSanJuanRiverfromColoradototheRioGrande
BasininNewMexico.TheSanJuan-ChamaProject’slongtermaverageannualdiversionis105,200AF/YR.
Coupled with a 600 AF/YR groundwater diversion by the City of Gallup from the San Juan River for
municipalneeds,exportsatotalof105,800AF/YR(NMOSE2016).
Table9.TotaldiversionsintheSanJuanBasinWaterPlanningRegionin2010(NMOSE2016).
UseCategory Diversion(AF/YR)
PublicWaterSupply/Domestic(Self-supplied) 27,700
IrrigatedAgriculture 655,100
Livestock(Self-supplied) 4,400
TotalAgricultureWaterUse 659,500
Industrial/Commercial(Self-supplied) 400
Mining(self-supplied) 1,600
Power(Self-supplied) 51,300
ReservoirEvaporation 29,900
Exports 105,800
Totalwaterdiverted 876,200
ItisnearlyimpossibleforNewMexicowateruserswhoconsumeColoradoRiverBasinwatertoswitchto
supplemental sources is nearly impossible (Flanigan and Green 2016). Most groundwater resources
throughouttheregionaresalineandarenoteconomicallypracticabletodevelop(NMOSE2016).
36|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Future Water Demands UnderstandinghowwaterdemandsintheUpperColoradoRiverBasinmaychangeinthefutureiscritical
toassessingthepotentialvulnerabilitytheregionmayfacewithrespecttodecliningwaterlevels.This
reportsummarizesTheBasinStudyassessmentsoffuturewaterdemandspecificallyfortheUpperBasin
states(USBR2012a).WhileTheBasinStudyevaluatedvariousgrowthscenarios,thisreportusesScenario
A,thecurrent,business-as-usualgrowthtrend.EachstateintheColoradoRiverBasinprovideddatabased
ontheirownspecificwaterplanningandassessmentprocessestoaidTheBasinStudy incompletinga
comprehensivedemandanalysis.Forconsistencypurposes,Table10belowprovidesdefinitionsofeach
demandcategoryusedinTheBasinStudy.Table11describesTheBasinStudy’sprojectedchangeinwater
usebysectorforColorado,Wyoming,Utah,andNewMexico.Theseforecastsweremadein2012and
considerprojectedchangesbetween2015and2060.
Table10.Definitionofdemandcategoriesandtheirassociatedparameters(USBR2012e).
DemandCategory Definition Parameters
Agriculture
Waterusedtomeetirrigation
requirementsofagriculturalcrops,
maintainstockponds,andsustain
livestock
Irrigatedacreage,irrigation
efficiency
MunicipalandIndustrialWaterusedtomeeturbanandrural
populationneeds,andindustrial
needswithinurbanareas
Population,population
distribution,M&Iwateruse
efficiency,consumptiveuse
factor
Energy Waterusedforenergyservicesand
development
Waterneedsforenergy
generation
Minerals Waterusedformineralextractionnot
relatedtoenergyservices
Waterneedsformineral
extraction
Fish,Wildlife,Recreation
WaterusedtomeetNationalWildlife
Refuge,NationalRecreationArea,
statepark,andoff-streamwetland
habitatneeds
Institutionalandregulatory
conditions,socialvaluesaffecting
wateruse,EndangeredSpecies
Act-listedspeciesneeds,and
ecosystemneeds
TribalWaterusedtomeettribalneedsand
settlementoftribalwaterrights
claims
Tribaluse,settlements,and
claims
37|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table11.Changeinprojectedusebetween2015-2060(USBR2012g,2012h,2012i,2012j).
CategoryColorado(TheBasinStudyAppendixC2)
Wyoming(TheBasinStudyAppendixC5)
Utah(TheBasinStudyAppendixC4)
NewMexico(TheBasinStudyAppendixC3)
PopulationIncrease5.7millionto9.9million Increase310,000to410,000 Increase2.4millionto4.9
millionIncrease1.5millionto2.6million
Changeinpercapitawateruse
Decrease9%duetomoreefficientwaterusebythegrowingmunicipalpopulation
Increase3%becausetheincreaseinmunicipalpopulationacrosstheentireCRBinWYispredictedtobelessefficient
Decrease14%duetomoreefficientwaterusebythegrowingmunicipalpopulation
Decrease11%duetomoreefficientwaterusebythegrowingmunicipalpopulation
M&IDemand
Increase455KAFto732KAFThemajorityofthisincrease(between60-75%)isduetopopulationgrowthintheSouthPlattebasin.
Increase30KAFto67KAF Increase236KAFto324KAF Increase138-141KAFto230KAF
AgricultureDemand
Nochange(1,875KAF) Increase398KAFto406KAF Increase457KAFto493KAF Nochange(111KAF)
IrrigatedacresDecrease2.17millionsofacresto2.13millionsofacresduetoincreasedurbanization
Remainrelativelyconstant(95,000KAFto94,000KAF)
Decrease860,000acresto800,000acres Nochange(140,000acres)
Changeinperacrewaterdelivery
0%decrease 1%increase 3%decrease 0%increase
38|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
CategoryColorado(TheBasinStudyAppendixC2)
Wyoming(TheBasinStudyAppendixC5)
Utah(TheBasinStudyAppendixC4)
NewMexico(TheBasinStudyAppendixC3)
EnergyDemand
Increase30KAFto118KAFDuetoincreasingneedforenergysourcesfromcoal,solar,andoilshale.TheseincreasesrootmostlyfromenergydemandsintheColoradoRiverandWhitebasins.(Thesereductionsinirrigatedacreageareoffsettosomeextentbyincreasesinwaterdeliveryperacreasaresultofmoreintensecultivationorfullirrigationofremainingacreage)
Increase42-52KAFto65KAF.Duetoincreasingneedforelectricitygeneratedbycoalandsolar
Increase47KAFto60KAFDuetogrowingneedforelectricitygeneration
Increase40.0KAFto41.5KAFDuetoincreasingneedforelectricitygeneratedbycoalandsolar
MineralDemand
Increase32KAFto60KAFThemineralextractionindustryinallbasinswillincrease(exceptintheDoloreswheredemandsaresmallandtheSouthPlatteandArkansasbasinswheredemandsarenotidentified)
Increase20-34KAFto59KAFThisincrease,primarilyduetosodaaskproduction,isexpectedtoincreaseintheFontenelleandGreenRiverareas
0Noprojections
0ThereisnoreportedmineralextractioninNewMexicothatusesColoradoRiverwater
Fish,Wildlife,andRecreation
0Waterforfish,wildlife,andrecreationisnotconsideredconsumptive.
Increase2KAFto10KAF
0Waterforfish,wildlife,andrecreationisnotconsideredconsumptive
0Waterforfish,wildlife,andrecreationisnotconsideredconsumptive
39|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
CategoryColorado(TheBasinStudyAppendixC2)
Wyoming(TheBasinStudyAppendixC5)
Utah(TheBasinStudyAppendixC4)
NewMexico(TheBasinStudyAppendixC3)
TribalDemand
0Tribalwaterneedsareconsideredintheothercategories,attherequestoftheSouthernUteIndianandUteMountainUtetribes.(ThetribalreservedwaterrightsaretheseniorrightsintheSanJuanbasininColorado;therefore,intimeswhenfullbasindemandscannotbemet,thefirstwaterdivertedinthebasinisessentiallyfortribalwaterrightdiversions.)
0TherearenofederallyrecognizedtribesinWyomingwithrightstoColoradoRiverwater
Increase170-272KAFto259KAF
Increase303-309KAFto367KAF
TotalColoradoRiverDemand
Increase2,391KAFto2,784KAF Increase511KAFto606KAF Increase911-1,012KAFto
1,154KAF Increase598KAFto606KAF
40|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Someimportantconclusionscanbedrawnfromthisanalysis:
− OverallwateruseintheUpperBasinstatesisexpectedtoincrease.− Populationislikelytoincreaseineachstate.− M&Iandenergysectorsarealsoexpectedtoincreaseineachstate.− WhileUtah’sirrigatedacresandperacrewaterdeliveriesareexpectedtodecreaseovertime,
thestatewillstilllikelyseeanincreaseinagriculturaldemandduetoanincreaseinappliedwateruse.
− Colorado,Utah,andNewMexicoexpecttoseeadecreaseinpercapitawateruseby2060duetomoreefficientwaterusebymunicipalpopulations.
Legal Factors Asmentionedearlier in this report, theUpperBasinhasanobligationunder the1922ColoradoRiverCompacttomakeavailable75MAFinany10yearrunningaverageofColoradoRiverwatertotheLowerBasin (NRC2007)and in someyearsanadditional1.5MAF/YR toMexico (MexicanWaterTreatyandProtocol 1944). TheUpper ColoradoRiver Basin Compact of 1948 dictates how this apportionment isallocatedbetweentheUpperBasinstates(eachstateisgivenapercentageofavailableColoradoRiverwater),whichiselaborateduponintheabovestateprofiles.EachUpperBasinstatehastheauthoritytoallocatetheirindividualsharesofColoradoRiverwater(Hecoxetal.2012).FailureoftheUpperBasintodelivertherequiredamountofwatertotheLowerBasin,however,couldresultinacompactcall,withUpper Basin junior water rights holders required to temporarily forego water use and diversions.Specifying which states are curtailed in the event of a compact call, and by how much, remainscontentious.
Theprimarylegal issueofcontentionisconflictinglegalterminologyinthe1922Compactthatdefineshow water is shared between the Upper and Lower Basins. One interpretation is that the phrase“obligationtodeliver75MAFeverytenyears”usedinArticleIII(a)requirestheUpperBasintodeliverthefullapportionmenttotheLowerBasinbeforesatisfyingUpperBasinneeds.Thesecond interpretationconcernsthephrase“anobligationnottodeplete”theflowoftheriverbelow75MAFinany10yearrunningaverageinArticleIII(d).AUSBRreportdefinesthisphraseasreductionsresultingfrom“manmadeimprovements”, effectively stating that the Upper Basin is not required to bear the full burden ofshortagesaslongasthereducedstreamflowisnotthedirectconsequenceofhuman-builtinfrastructure.Debateremainsovertheprevailinginterpretationbasedontheactualtextofthedocumentandtheintentofthelegislatorswhencreatingthe1922Compact(ColoradoRiverGovernanceInitiative2012a).
TheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompactof1948providesonlyslightcertaintyastohowacompactcallwouldwork;waterlevelsintheColoradoRiverBasin,todate,haveneverdroppedsolowtotriggersucha requirement. Due to differences between how each Upper Basin state manages their water rightsystemsanddisagreementabouthowcurtailmentrulesworkintheeventofacompactcall,curtailmentscould be legally complicated. In the event of a compact call, pre-compactwater rightswould not becurtailed due to the Doctrine of Prior Appropriations under which each Upper Basin state operates.However,“therearetechnicalandadministrativedifferencesamongthestates,”thatleaveoperationalquestionsunansweredabouthowacompactcallwouldlookontheground(Kuhn2012).
Lastly,muchuncertaintyremainsastotheexactproportionofMexico’s1.5MAF/YRtreatyentitlementthat isrequiredoftheUpperandLowerBasins.Whilethere isconsensusthatanobligationtoMexicoexists,howmuchfalls toeachbasinremainsa legallycontested issuethatpitstheUpperBasinstatesagainstthoseintheLowerBasin.Thecurrentmajoritypositionisthateachbasinmustprovidehalfof
41|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Mexico’sentitlement;requiringeachbasintodeliver0.75MAF/YRoutoftheirannualallocation(ColoradoRiverGovernanceInitiative2012b).
ThereareimportantlegaldifferencesbetweentheUpperandLowerBasinthatimplicateassociatedrisksandvulnerabilitiestotheregionsintheeventofwatershortages:
1. The1922Compactstates,“TheStatesoftheUpperDivisionwillnotcausetheflowoftheriveratLeeFerrytobedepletedbelowanaggregateof75MAFforanyperiodof10consecutiveyears,”(USCongress67)effectivelyplacingtheLowerBasinstatesathigherprioritycomparedtotheUpperBasin.ThiscreatesvulnerabilityfortheUpperBasinshouldwaterlevelsdeclinebecausethesestateswillultimately“beartheprimaryriskofreductionsinbasinyieldinthefuture -- whether those reductions result from drought, climate change, or other criticallandscape-scalechangesthatareimpactingwateryields"(Culpetal.2015).It’simportanttonote,however,thatunderArticleVIII,the1922CompactmakesthedistinctionthatPresentPerfectedRightsare“unimpaired”bycurtailments(USCongress67).
2. TheLowerBasinisnotsubjecttothesamecompactdeliveryobligationsaffectingtheUpperBasin.TheUSBRundertheInterimGuidelinesestablishedLakeMeadstoragethresholdsthattrigger shortages to water deliveries in the Lower Basin. Due to coordinated operationsdescribed in the Interim Guidelines, however, localized shortages in one basin may alteroperationalguidelinesintheother.
3. Asbeneficiariesofanupstreamreservoir, LowerBasinwaterusersare required tohaveacontract with USBR that describes accounting records for use on the main stem of theColoradoRiverbelowandinLakeMead.ThesearegroupedtogetherintheLowerColoradoRiverWaterDeliveryContractsEntitlementListing.Thesecontractshelpdescribethetypesofsectorsfromwhicheachwaterrightsholdercomesaswellastheirprioritydate(Jiangetal.2015).DocumentationofthiskindisnotavailablefortheUpperBasin.Instead,waterintheUpper Basin is not generally diverted under contracts, but through statewater rights (ordecrees)(Kuhn2016).EachStateEngineerisresponsibleforwaterrightsaccounting,makingitdifficulttocomprehensivelyanalyze,fortheentireUpperBasin,thepre-andpost-compactwaterrights,thesectorsfromwhichtheycome,andtheproportionofallocatedwaterrightscurrentlyinuse.ThislevelofuncertaintycreatessubstantialriskfortheUpperBasinshouldwatermanagersbegincurtailment.
42|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Conclusion Water originating in the headwaters of the Upper Colorado River Basin passes through Colorado,Wyoming,UtahandNewMexicobeforemergingupstreamfromLakePowell.StoredwaterhelpsUpperBasinstatesfulfillannualcompactdeliveriestotheLowerBasin,generatehydroelectricpower,andcreaterecreationalopportunities.Abovethispoint,however,thiswaterisusedtomeettheneedsofagriculture,municipalities,industry,recreationandtheenvironment.Decliningwaterlevelsduetohydrologicfactors,highwaterdemand,andlegalambiguitycreateriskfortheseUpperBasinwaterusers.TofullyunderstandtheimpactsofoperatingLakePowellatlowlevels,weassessed:
− hydrologicfactorsaffectingwateravailability;− historicalwaterdemandtrends;− recentwaterdemandbysectortohighlightstatespecificconcerns;− futurewaterdemandforecasts;− legalfactorscreatingmanagementuncertainty.
Eachstatehastheirownsetofvulnerabilitieswhenitcomestodecliningwaterlevels;however,afewbroadconclusionscanbedrawn:
− Regional and localized models show increases in regional temperature, reductions insnowpack,andreductionsinannualrunoffandstreamflow.
− Discrepancies exist between the locationof largepopulation centers andwhereColoradoRiversuppliesarenaturallocated.
− ManyusersreliantonColoradoRiverwaterhavelimitedaccesstosubstitutablewatersourcesintheeventoflocalizedshortages.
− OverallwateruseintheUpperBasinisexpectedtoincrease.− PopulationintheUpperBasinisexpectedtogrow.− M&Iandenergysectorsareexpectedtoincreasinglyusemorewaterinthefuture.
The Upper and Lower Basins differ in large part to varying legal factors that are fraught with muchambiguity.Debatesovertheintentionsof1922Compactremaintodayandcontributetogreatuncertaintyastohowcompactcurtailmentswouldbeimplementedintheeventofsubstantialwatershortages.OnepieceofthecontentionisoverwhethertheUpperBasinisinfactjuniortotheLowerBasin.Thisbecomesincreasinglycomplicatedwhenconsideringtheprioritysystemofwaterrights ineach individualstate,whichofthejunioruserswouldbecurtailedfirstandbyhowmuch,andhowthiswouldallplayoutacrosstheentireUpperBasin.
Concurrently,theLowerBasinisnotsubjecttothesamecompactdeliveryobligationaffectingtheUpperBasinandisinsteadsubjecttoLakeMeadshortagethresholdsdictatedbytheInterimGuidelines.ThesethresholdsdefinewhentheLowerBasinwillexperienceashortageandthesizeofthatshortage.Thisisnotthecaseupstream.WhiletheUpperBasinandLakePowellareoperationallyandlegallylinkedtoLakeMeadthroughthecoordinatedoperationsoutlinedintheInterimGuidelines,theoperationaltiers(Figure4)affectingLakePowelldonotdirectlytriggerquantifiablecurtailmentsintheUpperBasin.UpperBasinvulnerabilitytodecliningreservoirlevelsatPowellareinsteadincremental,withlocalizedshortagesmoredirectlyinfluencedbyon-goinghydrologicandsocialtrendsthatareillustratedintheabovestateprofiles.
43|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Hydropower
Introduction GlenCanyonDamisthesecondlargesthydroelectricpowerproducingfacilityintheColoradoRiverBasinafterHooverDam(Figure22).ItislocatedinnorthernArizona,neartheCityofPage,inCoconinoCounty.Thedamis710feettallandspans1,560feetfromwalltowallacrossGlenCanyon(USBR2009b).Thedamwascongressionallyauthorizedin1956bytheColoradoRiverStorageProjectActandconstructionwascompletedin1963,creatingLakePowell(USBR2008a).Duetothemassivesizeofthereservoir,ittook17 years for its full capacity of over 26MAF to be reached,making it the second largestman-madereservoirintheUnitedStates(FriendsofLakePowelln.d)(again,secondonlytoLakeMead,aboveHooverDam). Lake Powell stretches 186 miles behind Glen Canyon Dam and has 1,960 miles of shorelinedispersedthroughoutits96canyons.
Figure22.PhotographofGlenCanyonDamandPowerPlant(USBR2009).
DespitethemagnitudeofLakePowell,itremainsvulnerabletoachangingenvironmentandmanagementpriorities.RecentanalysesshowthatdryingtrendsintheSouthwestwillcontinuetomanifestaslowercold-seasonprecipitationandincreasedevapotranspiration.ThesefactorsworkingintandemwilllowersoilmoistureandreduceoverallwateravailabilitywithintheColoradoBasin(Cooketal.2015).Waterisalso lost from the system via evaporation and seepage into the porous sandstone (Myers2013). InadditiontothesehydrologicalfactorsthereareseveralmanagementchallengesthatmayconstrainGlenCanyonDam’sabilitytoproducehydropower.ThecoordinatedactionofGlenCanyonDamandHooverDam,drivenby theInterimGuidelines,andenvironmental constraints imposedby the1996RecordofDecision(ROD)ontheOperationofGlenCanyonDamaddtothechallengeofkeepingLakePowellfull.
44|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
TheoverarchinggoalofthissectionistobetterunderstandtheoperationalandfinancialimplicationsofreducedreservoirlevelsonhydropowergenerationatGlenCanyonDam.Adetailedknowledgeofdamoperations,hydropowergeneration,andhydropowermarketingisessential inordertoinvestigatethisquestion.Becausedamoperationsandhydroelectricpowermarketingaremanagedbydifferententitiesandaresubject toavarietyof regulations, therearemanyvariables thatcould influencehydropowergenerationanditsassociatedcostintheeventofdrought.Whilemuchofthisinformationisknownandconveyed indifferentplaces, fewresourcesexist thatbring togetherallof thesecomponentswithanexplanationofthesystemasawhole.
Additionally,fewstudieshavesoughttoquantifythefinancialimpactthatcouldoccurasreservoirlevelsdecreaseinLakePowell.A2004analysisestimatedthatifGlenCanyonweretostopproducingpowerentirely,itwouldcost$180milliondollarstomeetcontractualenergyobligations(Ostler2004).However,the complete elimination of power generation at Glen Canyon is unlikely and estimates at variousreservoirlevelsbeforedeadpoolwouldprovideinformationregardingmorelikelyscenarios.
The2007EnvironmentalImpactStudy(EIS)fortheInterimGuidelinesprovidesanindepthlookatlikelychangesinpowerproductionassociatedwiththealternativesbeingconsideredatthetime,howeverasimilaranalysispostimplementationoftheInterimGuidelinesdoesnotexist.Additionally,whiletheEISprovidesinformationassociatedwiththealternatives,itdoesnotprovideinformationregardingenergyproductionassociatedwithdiscretereservoirelevations.Ourfinalobjectiveistoquantifytheadditionalcostofpoweratdiscreteelevationintervalsasreservoirlevelsdecline.
Background Information
GlenCanyonHydropowerTechnicalSpecifications
The Glen Canyon Power Plant began generating power in 1964, and by 1966, all eight of the dam’sgenerators were operational (USBR 2008a). Each generator has a capacity of 165 MW for a totaloperationalcapacityof1,320MWwhichproducesanaverageoffivemillionMWhannually,servingtheneedsofover5.8millionpowercustomers(USBR2014a).Itwouldtakeanestimated2.5milliontonsofcoalor11millionbarrelsofoileachyeartoproducethesameamountofpowergeneratedonayearlybasisatGlenCanyonDam(baseduponanapproximateconversionrateof580kilowatt-hoursperbarrelofoiland1,822kilowatt-hourspertonofcoal)(USBR2008).Additionally,replacingGlenCanyonDam’spowerwithnaturalgasorcoalwouldresultinthereleaseofoverfourbillionandeightbillionpoundsofCO2,respectively,intotheatmosphere(CREDA2015).
Watercanbereleasedfromthedaminthreeways:throughthepowerplant,throughriveroutletworks,orbypassedthroughspillways(Figure23).Spillwayreleasesonlyoccurduringinstancesofcriticalhighwatertoavoidovertoppingthedam.Althoughthecombinedcapacityofspillwayreleases,riveroutletworks,andpowerplantreleasefacilitiesis256,000cfs,themaximumcombinedreleasefromGlenCanyonDamundercurrentoperatingcriteriashouldnotsurpass25,000cfs,asoutlinedinthe1996GlenCanyonROD(USBR1995a).Exceptions to this limitaremade foroperatingemergencies,habitatmaintenanceflowsandhighflowexperiments.
Whenwaterisreleasedthroughthepowerplantthekineticenergyofthefallingwatercanbeharnessedandconvertedtomechanicalenergyviaaturbine(WVIC2015).AtGlenCanyonDam,waterstoredinLakePowellisdirectedthroughanintakestructuretowardseightpenstocks,whichdirectswatertowardseightturbines(Figure23)(USBR2009).Asthewaterpushesagainsttheturbineblades,thegenerators,whichareconnectedtotheturbinesbyashaft,alsospin,creatingelectricalenergy.Sevenoftheeightgenerators
45|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
wereupgradedtotheirpresentcapacityof165MWbetween1984and1987andtheeighthandfinalupgradewasmadein1997(USBR2007a).
Figure23.DiagramofGlenCanyonDamidentifyingthethreemethodsforwaterreleases(powerplant,riveroutletworks,andthespillway)(ImageatrightfromUSBR2016a).
Theeight turbineshave the ability todischarge31,500CFS, but asmentionedearlier, releases above25,000CFSaretypicallynotallowedduetoenvironmentalconstraintsidentifiedinthe1996EIS.Higherreleasesareallowedforemergencyorextremehydrologicconditions.Theseoperatingconstraints,aswellaslimitsontherateofincreasingflow,areinplacetopreventrapidfluctuationsdownstream.Thus,theGlenCanyonPowerPlant is limitedtoanoperationalcapacityof1,000MW,whenthereservoir is full(USBR2007c).Ifadditionalreleasesareneededbeyondthecapacityoftheturbines,theriveroutletworksareutilized.Theelevationofwaterwhenthereservoirisfullis3,700feet.Thisisknownasthefullpoolelevation.Theeightpenstocks,whichdivertwatertowardsthepowergeneratingturbines,arelocatedatacenterlineelevationof3,470feetandare15feetindiameter(Figure23).
TheUSBRhassettheminimumpoweroperationlevel(minimumpowerpool)at3,490feettoavoidvortexproblemsonthesurfaceofthereservoir(wateratthesurfaceswirlingasitispulledintothepenstocksbelow), and to avoid cavitation problems12 with the generating turbines (Ostler 2004). Below thiselevation,releasesfromthedamcanbemadethroughtheriverbypasstubesandwaterwillnotbedrawninto the penstock and power production will cease (1995a). Discharge through the turbines is thepreferredmethodofwaterreleasebecauseelectricity,anditsassociatedeconomicvalueareproducedthroughthisprocess(Ostler2004).RecentreservoirelevationsatLakePowellhavehoveredaround3,591feetabovesealevel(asofApril20,2016),about43percentofcapacity,orabout6.6MAFofusablepowerpool(USBR2016b).
ColoradoRiverStorageProject
GlenCanyonDamwasauthorizedandconstructedpursuanttotheColoradoRiverStorageProjectActof1956,whichcongresspassedtoallowfor thedevelopmentofwaterresources in theUpperBasin (US
12Cavitationistheformationofbubblesinfluidflowingthroughaturbine,whichgeneratepressurewavesathighfrequenciesandmaydamagetheturbines(Germann2014).
46|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Congress84).ThefourmainwaterstorageunitsdevelopedaspartoftheColoradoRiverStorageProject,or CRSP, store water for consumptive use, provide for flood control and have hydroelectric powerproducingcapabilities.GlenCanyonDamisthelargestofthefourandisthekeystoneunitforcontrollingwaterreleasesfromtheUpperBasintotheLowerBasin.FlamingGorgeDaminnortheastUtahislocatedontheGreenRiverandhasapowergeneratingcapacityof150MW(USBR2014b).NavajoDamislocatedontheSanJuanRiverinnorthwesternNewMexico.Althoughnotinitiallyconstructedasahydroelectricpowerplant,capacitywasaddedtotheunitin1985bytheCityofFarmingtonandtodayhasacapacityof32MW(USBR2008b).Finally,theWayneN.AspinallUnit,locatedinwesternColoradoontheGunnisonRiver,iscomprisedofthreeindividualdams;BlueMesaDam,MorrowPointDam,andCrystalDam.Thosethreedamshaveacombinedpowercapacityof283MW(USBR2008c).Figure24providesamapofallCRSPprojects.GlenCanyonDamanditseightgeneratorsrepresent70to80percentofthetotalCRSPcapacity.13
13Inadditiontothefourunitsinitiallyauthorizedtherearetwenty-twoparticipatingprojects,authorizedbysubsequentlegislation.Onlysixteenoftheseparticipatingprojectsarecomplete,andtheremainingaredeemedinfeasible.Theseparticipatingprojectssupplyanadditional554,000AFofwaterforirrigationandservetheneedsofanadditional1.2millionpeople(USBR2016).
47|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure24. MapofinitialfourCRSPunits(inred)andadditionalparticipatingprojects(USBR2016).
Marketing Hydropower
Methods
AlongtheColoradoRiver,damsareoperatedandpowerismarketedaccordingtolegislativerequirementsandinstitutionalprotocols.Whilesomekeyconceptsaretransferableacrosssystems,manyarenot.InordertodeterminehowpowerfromGlenCanyonDamismarketedwefirstconsideredthefactorsthatgovernpowermarketingasawholewithintheregion.Todothis,weutilizedavarietyoftechnicalpapers,agency websites, historical perspectives, and correspondence with managers in charge of marketing
48|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
operations.Whilethisprovidedabroadoverview,manyquestionsabouthowGlenCanyonDamfitswithintheregionalpowerframeworkremained.ManydetailsspecifictoGlenCanyonarenotreadilyavailableviaonlinesourcesandsoweelicitedtheassistanceofseveralagencypersonnel.Throughaseriesofphoneconferences,weobtainedinformationregardingthespecificmannerinwhichpowerfromGlenCanyonDamismarketedtothepublic.Belowwepresenttheinformationwegatheredfromonlineandagencydocuments.ThisisfollowedbyadescriptionspecifictoGlenCanyonDambasedoninformationfromourseriesofconferencecallswithWesternAreaPowerAdministrationpersonnel.
WesternAreaPowerAdministration
ManylargedamsthroughouttheSouthwest,includingtheCRSPsystem,areoperatedandmaintainedbythe USBR. In 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act created the Western Area PowerAdministration (known as Western) and transferred the responsibility of power marketing and theoperationofthetransmissionsystemsfromtheUSBRtoWestern.WesternconsolidatesCRSPpowerwiththepowergeneratedfromtwootherhydroelectricprojects(theCollbranProjectinColoradoandtheRioGrande Project in New Mexico and Texas) and bundles it into a combined energy product knowncollectivelyastheSaltLakeCityAreaIntegratedProjects,oftenidentifiedasSLCA/IP(USBR2008d).ThesepowergeneratingprojectsmakeuptheSLCA/IPmarketingarea,whichprovidedpowerfortheSLCA/IPservice areas (Figure 25). Currently, 143 customers receive power from SLCA/IP including numerousmunicipalities,irrigationdistricts,andAmericanIndianTribes(Westernn.d.a).AfulllistofcustomersisprovidedinAppendixA.
Figure25.MapofSLCA/IPmarketingarea,showninblue(Westernn.d.b).
Westernsuppliesbothfirmandnon-firmpowertoavarietyofwholesalecustomerswhoprovideretailelectricalservicestocustomersthroughouttheWest.FirmpowerisenergythatWesternguaranteeswillbeavailabletocustomers24hoursadayaccordingtocontractagreements,whilenon-firmpowerissoldwiththeunderstandingthat it isnotguaranteedandthecustomermustbeabletomeet itsownload(customerdemand)inthecasethatitcannotbeprovidedbyWestern(Western2012).
Hydropowerproductionintheregionfollowsfluctuatingelectricaldemandtotheextentwaterreleasesandenvironmentalrestrictionsallow,throughapracticeknownasloadfollowing.Thismeansthatpower
49|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
generationadaptstothedemand,whichisdeterminedbytheamountofelectricitybeingutilizedatagiventime.Oneoftheprimarybenefitsofhydroelectricpoweristhatgenerationcanbeadjustedquicklyand efficiently by varying the amount ofwater being released through the generator turbines (USBR1995b).Thismakeshydropoweragoodsourceforprovidingpeakingpowerwhilethelarger,less-flexiblecoal,naturalgasandnuclearresourcesprovidebaseloadpower(USBR2008f).Baseloadistheconstantandsteadyelectricalpowerdemandthatisrelativelystableoverthecourseoftheyear.Dependingonoperatingrestrictions,additionalpowercanbegeneratedfromGlenCanyonDamataveryrapidratetoaddress daily peak demand. When demand is greater, such as during the afternoon on a hot day,hydropower generation can ramp up quickly tomeet that additional load.Western schedules hourlyreleasesinresponsetomonthlywatervolumesandtomeetcontractualobligationsforthedeliveryofelectricalpower(GCDAMP2013).
Western’smissionistomarketthefederalhydropowerandresourcesinaccordancewiththelawandatthelowestpossiblerateconsistentwithsoundbusinesspractices.WhengeneratinganddeliveringpowerfromGlenCanyonDam,WesternandtheUSBRmustfollowmultiplecriteriasetbyavarietyoflawsandoperatingrequirements,whichmayvaryfromprojecttoproject.CRSPpowermustfirstbeusedtomeetprojectneeds, knownasproject-usepower.Project-usepower includes theenergy required topumpwaterat federal irrigationprojectsasdefinedby theFederalPowerAct.Project-usepowercannotbediminished by sales to other customers and congressional action is required to authorize additionalpurposesforproject-usepower.Onceproject-useobligationshavebeenmet,Westernmaythenprovidepowertopreferencecustomers.
TheReclamationActof1939requiresthatcertainusershavepriorityinaccessingfederalpower.Thesepreferencecustomers include stateand federal agencies,waterand irrigationdistricts,municipalities,publicutilitydistricts,American IndianTribes,andruralelectricalcooperatives.Westernmustsell thispowertopreferencecustomersatthelowestpossibleratewhilealsogeneratingenoughrevenuetocoverits repayment obligations, which include the project’s capital cost plus interest, irrigation assistance(beyondtheabilityofirrigatorstopay),operationandmaintenancecosts,salinitycontrolcosts,aswellfunding for certain environmental programs (Western, 2012). Western conducts power repaymentstudiesinordertodeterminethepowerrateforpreferencecustomersthatwillallowWesterntomeettheir annual revenue requirement (USBR 1995b). Once obligations to preference customers aremet,Westernmay then sell any remainingpower to for-profitutilitiesonanon-firmbasis atmarket rates(CREDA2006).
Basedontheaboveregulations,Westerndevelopsspecificpowermarketingplansforallprojectsthatspecifyhowandwhenpowerwillbesold.Additionally,themarketingplanspecifiescontractterms,thetypesofelectricalservicesofferedandtheamountofservicesoffered(Western2012).SinceWestern’sabilitytogenerateenoughelectricitytomeetitscontractualobligationscanbehinderedbydecreasedhydrologyduringperiodsofdrought,marketingplansmayalsooutlineWestern’sobligationstoprovidesupplementalpowerfromothernon-hydroelectricsources.
CRSPPower
CRSP contracts have a 20-year term and the current contracts extend until September 30th, 2024(Western n.d.d). The power generated by CRSP units is marketed to 143 preference customers at aguaranteedcontractedrateofdeliveryor“CROD.”TheCRODisthemaximumenergyandcapacitythatcustomers are entitled to receive from the CRSP generating units. These long term contracts can bechangedwithafive-yearnoticetocustomers.Thisenergydeliveryisessentiallythetotalallotmentthat
50|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
canbedistributedtocustomers.TheCRODallotmentsareabestcasescenarioandunlikelytobemetbyhydropowergenerationalone(Western2016).
In1996theGlenCanyonRODestablishedthecontractconceptofSustainableHydropower,or“SHP”.TheSHPisWestern’sactualenergyobligationtoitscustomersforthe2004to2024timeframe.SHPis lessthanthefullCRODbecauseittakesintoaccountlimitationssuchaswateravailability.WesternguaranteesCRSPcustomerstheamountofpowerdeterminedbySHP;however,yeartoyearvariationinhydrologyandenvironmentallimitationsoftencreateconditionswherehydropowerfromtheCRSPsystemcannotmeetSHP.CRODandSHPobligationsvaryslightlybymonthandareshownbelowinFigure26.
Figure26.MonthlyCRODandSHPobligationsforCRSP.DataobtainedfromWestern.
InthecasethatCRSPunitsarenotabletogeneratetheenergynecessarytosatisfytheSHPobligation,additionalenergymustbedeliveredbywayoffirmingpurchases.Theamountofhydropowergeneratedcombined with firming purchases makes up the total SHP that Western is obligated to provide itscustomers(Western2016).Thecostoffirmingpurchasesispassedontothecustomers.Insomecases,whenhydrologicconditionsallow,additionalhydropower(AHP)ismadeavailabletocustomersontopofSHP.TheleftsideofFigure27belowillustratestherelationshipbetweenCROD,SHP,AHP,andfirmingpurchasesandTable12providesdefinitionsforeachacronym.
51|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure27.DiagramdepictingkeyCRSPconcepts.InformationforfigureobtainedfromWestern2016.
FirmingPurchasesaremadebyWesternonthewholesaleelectricitymarket.ThecostofthesefirmingpurchasesispassedthroughtoWestern’scustomers.OnemajordifferencebetweenpowerdistributionatGlenCanyonandHooverDamsisthatatHooverDamindividualcustomersmustseekouttheirownfirmingpurchases;atGlenCanyon,WesternmakesthesepurchasesonbehalfofthecustomeruptotheircontractualSHPrequirement.Thesefirmingpurchaseshavebeenacommonoccurrenceinrecentyearswhenwateravailabilityinthereservoirshasbeenrestrictedbynaturalhydrologicconditionsorduetoexperimental flows (Western 2016). For example, in fiscal year 2003, the CRSP management centerpurchasedapproximately2.4millionMWhoffirmingenergytomeetdeliveryrequirements,representing35percentoftotalenergyrequirementsatacostofapproximately$90million(Warren,2004).In2004,asimilarestimatewasmadepredictingCRSPfirmingpurchasesfor2007tobe$80million(Ostler2004).
In order to meet the CROD, CRSP customers may purchase Western Replacement Power (WRP) orCustomerDisplacement Power (CDP).WRP represents additional purchasesmade byWestern on thewholesalemarket on the customer's behalf. If a customer chooses CDP it is required to purchase orgenerateitsownadditionalpowersupplybutmayutilizeCRSPtransmissionuptoitsCRODentitlement(WRPandCDPareshownontherightsideofFigure27anddefinedinTable12).
WRPismostoftenusedbysmallercustomerswhodonothavetheirownin-housemeansofsourcingreplacementpower.Westernmaybeabletoaccesspoweranddeliverittothesecustomersatabettercostthanifasmallcustomerweretoattempttoaccessthatpoweronitsown.Insomecases,Westernisabletoaggregatetherequestsofseveralofitscustomerstoutilizeeconomiesofscaleinthewholesalemarket,asopposedtothecustomersaccessingpowerindividually.LargercustomersmaychoosetouseCDP because they can either increase their own production or have access tomarkets on their own(Western2016).
52|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table12.DefinitionsofCRSPacronyms.InformationobtainedfromWestern2016.
CROD ContractRateofDelivery
TheoriginalCRSPcontractobligationconcept,CRODisthemaximumcapacitythatcustomersareentitledtoreceive,isthebasisforcapacitypaymentandtransmissionrightstoday,andcanbechangedonlywithfiveyearsnoticetocustomers.
SHP SustainableHydropower
Establishedafterthe1996GlenCanyonEISrecordofdecision,SHPistheCRSPcapacityandenergyobligationconceptforthe2004-2024term,andcanbechangedonlywithfiveyearsnoticetocustomers.
AHP AvailableHydropower
AdditionalhydropowermadeavailabletocustomersontopofSHP.Onlyavailableduringtimesoffavorablehydrologicconditions.
FirmingPurchases – FirmingpurchasesaretheadditionalenergyneededbyWAPAto
meetSHPobligations
WRPWestern
ReplacementPower
WRPisthemechanismthatacustomercanusetoseekadditionalgenerationfromWestern,uptoitsCRODentitlement.
CDPCustomer
DisplacementPower
CDPisanoptionthatallowsacustomertoseektheuseofCRSPtransmissiontodeliveritsownnon-CRSPgeneration,uptoitsCRODentitlement.
Quantitative Analysis of Cost Changes
ObjectivesandChallenges
Our final objective is to quantify the potential change in the cost of power associatedwith reducedreservoirlevelsinLakePowell.TheconsolidationofpowerfromGlenCanyonintotheintegratedSLCA/IPenergyproductpresentschallengestothisanalysis.First,ofthe143entitieswhopurchaseSLCA/IPpower,itisimpossibletodeterminewhichreceivepowerthatisactuallygeneratedatGlenCanyonDam.WhilesomemaybemorelikelytoreceiveGlenCanyonpower,theamountandoccurrenceofthisfluctuatesinreal time. Another complication thatmakes it difficult to calculate the cost to individual contractingentitiesisthatonceSHPhasbeenmet,customershavetheoptionofchoosingWRPorCDPtoreachtheirfullCRODallocation.Theseoptionsinvolvethepurchaseorgenerationofadditionalpowerviaamultitudeofdifferentavenues.Additionally,evenentitiesthatchooseCDPoptionsbenefitfromutilizingWesterntransmission up to their CROD allocation. We were unable to find information regarding which ofWestern’sSLCA/IPcustomerschoosetopursueWRPversusCDP.
53|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Duetothesecomplication,wechosetoconsiderthechangeinthecostofpowerasawhole,insteadofthecosttotheindividualcustomer.However,wewerestillfacedwiththechallengeofdisaggregatingthecostofGlenCanyonpowerfromtheentiretyofSLCA/IPpower.Asmentionedearlier,therateWesterncharges for power generated by SLCA/IP units is determined by the revenue requirement (which iscalculatedbythepowerrepaymentstudy).WhileithasbeenstatedwithconfidencethatGlenCanyonDammakesup70to80percentofSLCA/IPpower,itisnotnecessarilytruethatGlenCanyonDammakesup70to80percentoftherevenuerequirement.Further,therevenuecreatedthroughpowergenerationataparticularunitisnotnecessarilyusedtorepaycostsofthatspecificunitwithintheSLCA/IP(Western2016).
Based on the information above, setting a rate for Glen Canyon power based on this 70-80 percentestimatewouldnotbeanaccuraterepresentationandwechosenottoattempttoestimatethecostofpoweroriginatingsolelyfromGlenCanyonDam.However,giventhefactthatitiswelldocumentedthatGlenCanyonmakesup70to80percentofSLCA/IPSHPwecancalculatetheamountoffirmingpurchasesandtheassociatedcostrequiredtomeetSHPashydropowergenerationfluctuatesbasedonreservoirconditions. Therefore, our analysis compares the potential cost increase of firming purchases ashydropowergenerationdecreasesduetodecliningreservoirlevels.
Methods
Many factors, especiallywater releasesand seasonalhydrology,determine theamountand timingofpowerthatcanactuallybegeneratedinagivenyearatGlenCanyonDam.BydeterminingtheamountofhydropoweravailableatgivenelevationswecandeterminethequantityoffirmingpurchasesrequiredtomeetWestern’sSHPobligation.Byapplyingafirmingpurchaseratewecanthendeterminethefinalcostoffirmingpurchasesatvariouselevations(seeFigure28formodeldiagram).
Figure28. Conceptualdiagramofmodelusedtocalculatecostoffirmingpurchasesneededto
meetSHPobligations.
54|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
ThechangeinthecostoffirmingpurchasesisexaminedattheelevationslistedinTable13.ThesenumberswerechosenbasedonoperationaltiersoutlinedintheInterimGuidelineswiththeintentionofutilizingelevationsthatwillberelevanttomanagers.
Table13.Elevationforanalysisandsignificance
Elevation(feet) Significance3525 Transitionfromlowerelevationbalancingtiertomid3575 Transitionfrommidelevationbalancingtiertoupper3625 Withinupperelevationbalancingtier3675 Withinequalizationtier
Themodel relies on two simple calculations. First, the total amount of firming purchases required iscalculatedas:
GCSHP–HPe=FPt
Where;
GCSHP=GlenCanyon’scontributiontoSLCA/IPsustainablehydropowerallocation
HPe=availablehydropoweratelevatione
FPt=Totalamountoffirmingpurchasesrequired
Finally,thetotalcostoftotalfirmingpurchasescanbedeterminedby:
FPtXFPr=FPc
Where;
FPr=Rateoffirmingpurchases
FPc=Totalcostoffirmingpurchases
ThismodeldoesnotconsiderthepotentialbenefitofproducingsurplushydropowergenerationovertheSHPobligation,whichmaybepossibleunderfavorablehydrologicconditions.Insomecaseswhensurplushydropower isgenerated itcanbesoldtocustomers.This istypicallynotdonewithsmallamountsofpowerduetothecostofadministration.Thelasttimethisoccurredwasin2011(Western2016).
ModelComponents
Hydropower(HPe)Therearemanyfactorsthatdeterminehowmuchpowercanbegeneratedatahydroelectricpowerplant.Whilereservoirelevationisacrucialcomponent,otherfactorsalsoplayanimportantrole.TheUSBRhasdeveloped the Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS)which simulates reservoir conditions using avarietyofinputssuchasvariousenvironmentalfactors(likeinflowandevaporation),reservoirconditions,and water releases, all of which impact the amount of hydropower able to be generated. The CRSS
55|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
softwareusesthisinformationtoprojectthefuturestateofvariousoutputs,suchasreservoirelevations,damreleases,theamountofwaterflowingthroughanyparticularpointofthestream,andhydropowergeneration.Essentially,CRSSdescribeshowwaterisreleasedthroughtheturbinesandthesubsequentgenerationofpowerunderavarietyofpossibleconditions(USBR2012d).
UsingCRSSmodeldata,twoscenariosweredevelopedwiththehelpofUSBRstaffforeachkeyelevationin order to account for the importance of climatic conditions and dam operations on hydropowergeneration.Thetwoscenariosprovideboundsfortheextremesinclimaticconditionswithinthebasinanddamoperations.Thescenariosmodelmonthlyhydropowergenerationandreservoirelevationsoverthe course one full water year14.Multiple years of outputs were generated from a variety of variedconditions(includingwaterreleases).WesoughtoutelevationsforthemonthofJanuary15thatwereclosetoourfourelevations(3675,3625,3575,and3525).JanuarywasusedbecauseofthemannerinwhichCRSS operates and because volume predictions for January dictate the relevant operational tier andreleasevolume.Foreachoftheseelevationsweselectedtwofullyearsofdata.Theserunsrepresentthemaximumandminimumamountofpowerthatcouldbegeneratedateachelevation.
Weusedthisapproachtoaccountforthevariabilityinhydropowergeneration.Atanygivenelevationavarietyoffactorswilldeterminehowmuchpowercanbegenerated(asdescribedabove)andourgoalwas to account for this variability, although we do not attempt to quantify or assign cause to thevariability.MonthlygenerationvaluesweredeterminedforonefullwateryearandareshownbelowinTable14.
14AwateryearisdefinedasOctober1toSeptember31.15WeusedOctoberthroughDecemberofoneyearandJanuarythroughAugustofthenext,inordertoobtainafullwateryearinchronologicalmonths.
56|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table14.Monthlymaximumandminimumgenerationvaluesforeachkeyelevation.ValuesareinMWh.TablecreatedbasedondatageneratedbyUSBRfrom
CRSS.)
3525ft 3575ft 3625ft 3675ft
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxOctober 168,188 166,527 238,026 184,442 265,939 262,919 290,345 988,042November 172,915 171,892 236,716 193,487 264,246 262,439 289,718 587,618December 204,295 204,045 311,533 232,748 348,965 348,203 384,465 271,062January 215,465 298,552 285,422 328,154 345,541 346,338 382,944 452,424February 195,358 224,448 211,857 244,904 257,449 280,436 286,822 571,794March 171,140 222,207 210,878 244,735 256,148 280,862 286,528 490,179April 157,100 220,814 175,615 246,603 254,740 261,808 286,465 464,912May 156,646 276,694 211,161 255,772 253,253 291,382 288,141 466,310June 197,056 336,867 212,287 290,549 272,005 372,590 313,573 980,670July 303,600 427,403 281,268 385,268 350,650 474,841 407,945 1,013,337August 281,855 461,641 277,990 402,453 364,600 498,117 427,728 806,791September 135,400 357,929 206,455 278,758 252,409 379,813 297,550 675,614Annual 2,359,018 3,369,019 2,859,208 3,287,873 3,485,945 4,059,748 3,942,224 7,768,753
57|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Sustainablehydropower(GCSHP)
Sustainablehydropower,whichisdeterminedforthe2004to2024contractperiodwasobtainedfrom
Western. These values pertain to the entire SLCA/IP system. On average Glen Canyonmakes up
between70and80percentof thisvalue.To incorporatesensitivityweranthemodelutilizing70,
72.5,75,77.5,and80percentofthetotalSHP.TotalSHPvaluesandthemiddlevalueof75percent
ofSHPareshownbelowforeachmonth.
Table15.TotalSLCA/IPSHPenergyallocationandtheproportionlikelytobegeneratedbyGlenCanyonDam
(shownhereas75percentoftotalandcalculatedat70,72.5,75,77.5,and80percentinthemodel).Values
areinMWh.(DataprovidedbyWestern.)
SLCA/IPSHPEnergy
Allocation(MWh)
GlenCanyonContribution
(MWh)(Calculatedat75%)
October 447,173 335,380
November 446,635 334,976
December 495,044 371,283
January 503,142 377,356
February 446,960 335,220
March 471,247 353,435
April 411,826 308,869
May 425,869 319,402
June 444,032 333,024
July 482,353 361,764
August 485,701 364,276
September 426,699 320,025
Annual 5,486,679 4,115,009
Firmingpurchaserate(FPr)
Westernpublishesfirmingpurchasepricesonlineforbothpeakandnon-peakpower(Westernn.d.c).
SinceWesterns firming purchases are generally made at peaking rates we calculated a ten-year
averageofpeakrates (2004/05 -2014/15wateryears)andusedthatasourbaserate for firming
purchases. All dollar values are adjusted for inflation into 2015 dollars. Because prices on the
wholesalemarketfluctuatebasedonavarietyoffactorsandareverydifficulttopredictwechoseto
incorporatesensitivityintothemodelbycalculatingthestandarddeviationforeachmonthduringthe
ten-year period. We then calculate the percent change from the average required to cover one
standarddeviationfromthemean.Whilenotallmonthlyvaluesfellwithinonestandarddeviationof
themean,mostdid.Thevarianceislikelyduetothesensitivityoftheenergymarketovertime.As
showninTable16themaximumpercentagechangetoonestandarddeviationisjustunder+/-40
percent.Inordertoincorporatetherangeofdataovertheten-yearperiodintothemodelwevaried
thepricesoffirmingpurchasesby-40,-20,0,+20,and+40percent.Thismethodmeansthatrather
thanpredictingspecificcostsoffirmingpoweratourdefinedelevationsweinsteadprovidearange
ofpossiblecosts.Increasingtherangeto40percentcreatesawiderrangeofpossiblecostpredictions,
however,itdoesnotchangetheaverage.
58|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table16.Ten-yearaveragecostoffirmingpurchasesforthe2004/05-2014/15wateryeartimeperiod.All
costswereadjustedinto2015dollars.(RawdataobtainedfromWesternn.d.c)
Averagecost
($/MWH)(2015$)
Standard
deviation
Rangeneededto
incorporate+/-1
standarddeviation
October 49.59 16.87 34%
November 49.44 15.75 32%
December 52.96 20.01 38%
January 58.29 17.53 30%
February 60.17 18.19 30%
March 54.51 17.51 32%
April 53.29 19.83 37%
May 54.31 18.83 35%
June 56.84 20.18 35%
July 68.28 23.92 35%
August 62.68 17.40 28%
September 53.50 16.20 30%
Results
Foreachscenario,weran25modeliterationstoincorporatethefluctuationinthepercentofSLCA/IP
powerthat isproducedbyGlenCanyonDam(70,72.5,75,77.5and80percent)andvariations in
firming power prices (-40, -20, 0, +20, +40). These 25 iterations were used to provide ranges of
potentialcostsformaximumandminimumgenerationateachofthefourelevations.
Again,itshouldbenotedthattherangeofvaluescalculatedinthismodelrepresentthepotentialcost
offirmingpurchasesneededtomeetWestern’sSHPobligation.Itdoesnotincludethepricesofpower
actually produced at the dam. Additionally, to fulfill full CROD allocations customers will have
additional costs associatedwithWRP or CDP. Last, these numbers only representmonthswhere
firmingpurchaseswererequiredtomeetSHP.MonthswherehydropowergenerationwasaboveSHP
arenotincluded,sinceitisunknownwhetherthatpowerwouldbesoldandtherateatwhichitwould
besold.Table17below,showsthenumberofmonthswherefirmingpurchaseswererequiredfor
eachelevationinthecasethatGlenCanyonpowermakesup70,72.5,75,77.5and80percentoftotal
SLCA/IPpower.Asshown,firmingpurchaseswererequiredduringthemajorityofmonthsforeach
scenarioexceptmaximumgenerationatmaximum(3675)elevation.
59|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table17.Numberofmonthsrequiringfirmingpurchasesforeachoftheelevations.Shownforbothmaximum
andminimumgenerationscenariosassumingGlenCanyoncontributesvaryingamountsofSHPbetween70
and80percent).
PercentofSHPmadeupbyGlenCanyonDam
Generation Elevation(ft) 70% 72.5% 75% 77.5% 80%
Max
3675 1 1 1 1 1
3625 7 8 8 8 8
3575 10 10 10 10 11
3525 8 8 8 9 9
Min
3675 6 6 7 8 8
3625 9 10 11 12 12
3575 12 12 12 12 12
3525 12 12 12 12 12
Figure 29 shows the annual amount of hydropower generated in both maximum and minimum
generation scenarios at all four elevations. Firmingpurchases are greater at lower elevations and
underminimumgenerationscenarios.Inthisfigure,theamountoffirmingpurchasesrequiredatGlen
CanyonDamiscalculatedtomeet75percentoftotalSLCA/IPSHP.Undertheminimumgeneration
scenariofirmingpurchasesmakeupto43percentoftotalSHP(Table18).
Figure29.Annualamountofhydropowergenerationformaximumandminimumgenerationscenariosatall
fourelevations,assumingGlenCanyoncontributestheaverageamountof75percentofSLCA/IP’sSHP.
60|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table18.PercentofSHPcomprisedoffirmingpurchasesformaximumandminimumhydropowerscenariosat
allfourelevationsassumingGlenCanyoncontributestheaverageamountof75percentofSLCA/IP’sSHP.
Elevation(ft) Maximum Minimum
3675 2% 7%
3625 10% 15%
3575 22% 31%
3525 23% 43%
Figure30andFigure31depict the full rangeofpotential costsassociatedwitheachelevation for
maximum(Figure30)andminimum(Figure31)scenarios.Rangesexhibitmoreoverlapatmaximum
generationthanatminimum.Thelargerangesarelikelyaresultofsensitivityfactoredintoboththe
percentoftotalSLCA/IPpowerbeinggeneratedatGlenCanyon(70,72.5,75,77.5,and80percent)
andthesensitivityincorporatedintothecostoffirmingpurchases(-40,-20,0,+20,+40),inorderto
incorporateonestandarddeviationaroundthemean).Rangesaremuchwideratlowerelevations,
likely due to the fact thatmore purchases are beingmade in these scenarios, resulting inmore
variabilityduetothe-40to40range.
Figure30.Distributionofpredictedfirmingpurchasecostsbasedon25modeliterationsforeachofthefour
elevationsassumingmaximumgenerationscenarios.
61|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure31.Distributionofpredictedfirmingpurchasecostsbasedon25modeliterationsforeachofthefour
elevationsassumingminimumgenerationscenarios.
Finally, mean values for each of the maximum and minimum hydropower scenarios at all four
elevationsareshownbelow(Figure32).Ascanbeseen,undermaximumhydropowerscenariosthe
cost of firming purchases levels off more quickly than in the minimum hydropower scenario
suggestingthatdecreasedelevationshaveagreatimpactwhencompoundedwithotherfactorsthat
resultinlesshydropowergeneration.
62|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure32.Meancostoffirmingpurchasesformaximumandminimumscenariosatallfourelevations.
Discussion
Themodelwedevelopedpredictspotentialrangesforthecostoffirmingpurchasesatkeyelevations
designatedbytheInterimGuidelines.Westernmakesthesepurchasesfortheircustomersinorderto
fulfillSHPaspertheircontractualobligations.Thecostoffirmingpurchasesisadditionaltothecost
ofthepowerthatisgeneratedbytheGlenCanyonhydroelectricpowerplant.Western’shydropower
salesmustmakeuptherevenuerequirement,andsowhenlesspowerisproduced,thepowerrate
mayincreasetoensurethatobligatorycostsarecovered.Thetotalcostofhydropower,therefore,
staysthesame,regardlessofhowmuchpowerispurchased.Oneimplicationofthisisthatifpower
generation decreases dramatically, the federal power rate become more expensive than the
wholesalemarketprice.Inthiscase,theadditionalcostispassedontothecustomer,whoisobligated
tocontinuepurchasingtheirfullSHPallocationforthe20-yeartermoftheircontract.However,this
model doesnot take into account the rateof hydropower sales and sodoesnot incorporate this
aspectoftotalcost.
PowerfromGlenCanyonDamismarketedasapartofthegreaterSLCA/IPsystem.AlthoughGlen
Canyontypicallymakesup75percentofSLCA/IPpower,thisnumberdoesvary.Operatingdamsin
theUpperBasinasasystem,ratherthanindividually, isbeneficialbecauseproductionatonedam
mayberampedupwhengenerationatanotherdamislow.Beforegoingtothewholesalemarket,
Western considers this possibility. We were unable to directly incorporate this into our model.
Instead,weranthemodelutilizingdifferentproportionsoftotalSLCA/IPSHP(from70to80percent).
Wewanttoemphasizethatthenumberspredictedbyourmodeldonotincorporateotherunitsin
theSLCA/IPsystembesidesGlenCanyonDam.
Althoughothermodelspredictingthecostoffirmingpurchasesatlowelevationsdonotexist,in2003
whenLakePowell’selevationwasapproximately3600feet,firmingpurchasesfortheCRSPsystem
63|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
werereportedly90milliondollarsdueinparttohighwholesaleelectricitypricesthatyear(Warren
2004).GiventhatourestimatesareforGlenCanyonalone,ourrangeofestimatesfor3625and3575
feetarereasonablecomparedtothisvalue.
Onedownfallofthesensitivityincorporatedintothismodel isthewiderangeofvaluesourmodel
predicts.Onewaytoreducethisrangewouldbetogeneratebetterestimatesforthecostoffirming
purchases.However,thevolatilityofthewholesaleenergymarketmakesthisdifficult.Weusedthe
tenyearaverageswitharangethatcoveredonestandarddeviationofthisaverage.Anothermethod
thatcouldreducevariabilitywouldbesimplytousethemostrecentvalues.
Thewiderrangeofpredictedvaluesatlowerelevations,asshowninFigure30andFigure31,suggests
thatwhenreservoirsarelow,manipulatingdamoperations,suchasincreasingwaterreleases,could
increasepowergeneration.However,thesameconditionsthathavecreatedlowreservoirsarelikely
topreventsuchoperationalchanges.Forexample,whenthereislesswaterinthereservoirthereis
lesswateravailableforreleasethroughtheturbines.Restrictionssuchasthislimittheflexibilityof
hydropower and occur because dam operators must balance water supply needs with power
generation.
Conclusions TheWesternAreaPowerAdministrationmarketspowerfromnumerousdamsinboththeUpperand
LowerBasinsoftheColoradoRiver.Despitethis,powermaybemarketeddifferentlythroughoutthe
region.GlenCanyonDamisoperatedaspartofthelargerCRSPprojectandpowergeneratedfrom
GlenCanyonDamandCRSPismarketedbyWesternastheSLCA/IP.Otherdamsintheregion,such
as Hoover Dam, are operated under separate legal, contractual and repayment obligations. This
differencemadeitdifficulttoreplicatemethodsutilizedinTheBathtubRing(Jiangetal.2015),which
predictedthetotalcostofpoweratvaryingreservoirelevationsforcontractors’purchasingpower
fromHooverDam.Becauseofthesedifferencesinpowermarketingacrosssystems,wedetermined
asubstantialcomponentof thissectionshouldbedevotedtoexplainingpowermarketingatGlen
CanyonDamandthegreaterSLCA/IPsystem.Asmanagerscontemplatehowtoadjusttoincreasing
variation and uncertainty about reservoir levels, it is essential to understand the many benefits
derivedfromnaturalresourcessuchashydropower.ItisessentialforwatermanagersintheUpper
Basintounderstandhowpowerismarketedfrommulti-purposefederalprojectsinordertoassess
howdecliningreservoirsmayimpactthebasinasawhole.
DespitethedifferencesbetweenGlenCanyonandHooverDams,wesoughttoquantifythepotential
changeincostsassociatedwithdecreasedreservoirelevationsinLakePowellinasimilarmannerto
Jiangetal2015forLakeMead.Thereweretwoprimarydifferencesinourapproach.First,duetothe
aggregation of Glen Canyon power into the larger SLCA/IP energy product, we were unable to
calculatearateforpowerspecificallyatGlenCanyonDam.However,wewerestillabletocalculate
the cost of firming purchases under different reservoir scenarios. The second major difference
betweenourstudyandJiangetal2015,isthatwedidnotconsiderthecosttotheindividualcustomer.
Thiswasdue to the largenumberof customers thatpurchase SLCA/IPpowerand the inability to
determinewhich customers receive power specifically fromGlen CanyonDam.Additionally, once
eachcustomerhasreceivedfullSHPitcanchoosebetweenpurchasingmorepowerthroughWestern
(WRP)orobtainpowerontheirown(CDP)tomeettheirfullallocation.Thesechoicesaredifficultto
quantifyandvarybasedonspecificconditionsatthetimeofpurchase.
64|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
FurtherstudiescouldattempttomorecloselymimicTheBathtubRingbyincorporatingdatafromall
SLCA/IPunits.Thiswouldallowforthecalculationofcoststotheindividualcontractorandtherateof
hydropowerforSLCA/IPcustomers.Itwouldtakeconsiderabletimetoobtaininformationregarding
howmuchpowereachofthe143customersreceivesfromSLCA/IPunits.Duetothechoicebetween
WDPandCDP,theabilitytocalculatethecostofpoweruptofullCRODallocationsisunclear.Further
conversationswithWesternpersonnelwouldberequiredforthistobeassessed.
Ourestimatesquantifythecostoffirmingpurchasesunderdifferentreservoirscenarios.Ourresults
indicatethatanelevationchangeof150feet(from3675to3525)couldresultinatenfoldincreasein
the costof firmingpurchasesundermaximumgeneration scenariosanda fivefold increaseunder
minimumgenerationscenarios.AsindicatedinFigure29andTable18ourresultsalsoshowthatin
the average scenario where Glen Canyon Dam comprises 75 percent of SLCA/IP power firming
purchasescouldmakeupbetweentwoandfortypercentoftotalSHP(TableFIMR).Theincreased
cost of firming purchases would be additional to the cost of hydropower produced at the dam.
Althoughnot included inourestimates, thecostofhydropowerwouldalso increaseas reservoirs
declineduetoWestern’srepaymentobligations.
Regardless of generation scenarios, which are controlled by a variety of operational and
environmentalfactors,theimpactofdroughtonreservoirswillresultinincreasestothecostofpower
intheUpperBasin. Ifreservoirelevationscontinuetodeclinethebenefitsofhydropowerwillalso
decline.Hydropowerwillbecomemoreexpensiveandfirmingpurchaseswillbecomemorefrequent.
Themostextremeimplicationofthisisthatitcouldbecomecostprohibitivetopurchasehydropower
fromGlenCanyonDamandalternativeenergysources,besidesthewholesalemarket,wouldneedto
beidentified.Whilethisisanextremescenarioandunlikelyinthenearfuture,theslowdeclineof
reservoirlevelsarecauseforconcern.Futurepoliciesmayneedtobereassessedandchangedtofit
newenvironmentalnorms.
65|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Recreation
Introduction SincethecreationoftheGlenCanyonNationalRecreationArea(GCNRA) in1972,LakePowellhas
becomearenowneddestinationfordomesticandinternationalrecreationists.Morethantwomillion
yearly visitors come to enjoy the expansive shoreline (NPS 2013), where there are abundant
opportunitiestoboat,fish,hike,andcamp.Thelake’spopularityhelpsranktheGCNRAashavingthe
longestaverage“stay”ofanyattraction intheNationalParksystem(4.5days),whilealsooffering
convenientaccesstootherculturalandnaturallandmarksintheregion,suchastheRainbowBridge
andGrandStaircase-EscalanteNationalMonuments(FriendsofLakePowelln.d.).
LakePowelltourismandrecreationarecornerstonesoftheregionaleconomy.Abroadspectrumof
businessescaterstovisitorsinnearbyPage,Arizona,thelargestcommercialhubintheregion.The
local Chamber of Commerce lists among its members over eighty businesses that meet sports,
recreation,travelandtransportationneedsalone,inadditionto21storefrontsand59foodanddining
establishments(PLPCCn.d.).AccordingtotheNationalParkService(NPS),nearly2.3millionGCNRA
visitorsspentover$190millioninneighboringcommunitiesandsupportedalmost3,000localjobsin
2012alone(NPS2014a).
Whiletherecreationeconomyand its importancetotheregionarerelativelywellunderstood,no
knownanalyseshavemodeledhowitmaybeimpactedbyfuturelowlakelevels.Therefore,toinform
amoreholisticassessmentofdroughtimpactstovariouslake-dependentsectors,weasktwoprimary
questions:
1. Howmightrecreationalvisitationchange?
2. Whataretheimpactsoflowreservoirelevationsonpopularlakeaccesspoints?
RecreationonandaroundLakePowellcontributesessentialvisitordollarstonearbycommunitieslike
Page,anddrivesthedailyandlong-termoperationaldecisionsoftheGlenCanyonNationalRecreation
Area.Thissectionseeksto illuminatehowchanges in lakeelevationmay impactthemagnitudeof
futureLakePowellrecreationaluse.
Methods LakePowellElevationandRecreationalVisitationCorrelationAsinTheBathtubRing’sanalysisofLakeMead,ourprimarymethodforassessingchangesto
recreationalvisitationisastatisticalanalysisthatcorrelatesmeanmonthlyLakePowellvolumeand
monthlyrecreationalvisitoruse,anduseslinearregressiontopredictfuturevisitationatfourlake
elevationscenarios.Thelinearmodelutilizedinthisanalysiswasdevelopedinthestudy,Modeling
theinfluenceofwaterlevelsonrecreationaluseatlakesMeadandPowell(Neheretal.2013),which
correlateslakestoragevolumetoobservedrecreationalusebetween1996-2011.
LessonsfromNeheretal.
TheNeheretal.studyfoundlakevolumeandelevationtobeinterchangeable,highlycollineardata
points,renderingthemnearlyidenticalformodelingpurposes.Forconsistencywiththe2013report,
weperformedcalculationsinvolumetricunits(acre-feet,orAF)andconvertedtoelevationasneeded.
Neher et al. also found that scatterplots of historical Lake Powell visitation and storage volume
demonstrate a horizontal banding pattern (as shown in Figure 33), that differentiates winter
66|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
(November-March), shoulder (April, May, September and October) and summer months (June-
August). This trend indicates that the importance of volume as a predictor of visitation varies
depending on the season, and is likely attributable to Lake Powell’s high altitude, cold water
temperatures, and remote location relative to similar destinations (such as Lake Mead), causing
summermonthvisitationtobemoresensitivetolakevolume.
Additionalvariablesthatweretestedbythe2013studyandfoundtobenon-significantincludeda
fuelpriceindexandanindicatorvariablefortheinfluenceofthe“greatrecession.”
Figure33.AseasonalhorizontalbandingpatternisevidentinascatterplotofLakePowellwatervolumeandcorrespondingvisitation.
Data
ToextendtheNeheretal.datasetthroughJanuary2016,monthlymeanlivestorage16volumewas
procuredfromtheUSBRMonthlySummaryReportsforwateroperations(USBR2016c).Visitoruse
datawasobtainedfromtheNationalParkServiceMonthlyPublicUseReport fortheGlenCanyon
NationalRecreationAreaanddisaggregatedbylocationtoincludeonlyshorelineLakePowelldata
points (NPS 2014b). Non-recreational visitors were excluded from the model (including through-
traffic,subsistenceusers,andgovernmentpersonnelandemployees)(NPS2004).
16Thetotalreservoircapacityminusthedeadpoolcapacity.Thismetricwasusedforconsistencywiththe
Neheretal.dataset.
67|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Calculations
Werevisedthe2013Neheretal.modelusingtheextendeddataset.Inkeepingwiththe2013model,
categoricalindicatorvariableswereusedforthemonthsofMarch-November.Interactiontermswere
usedforsummerandshoulderseasonmonthsbecauseofseasonalvariabilityinthedegreetowhich
volumepredictsvisitation.Theresultingregressionanalysisandequationwerethenusedtopredict
visitationforeachmonthinthedatasettimeframe(January1996-January2016).
Then,totestthefitofthemodel,weusedpairedt-teststocompareactualmonthlyvisitationtothe
model’spredictedvisitationforthosesamemonths.
Finally,recreationalvisitationwaspredictedatfourlakelevelscenariostorepresentfuturedrought
conditions(at3675,3625,3575,and3525feetofelevation).Thesewereemployedforconsistency
withthisreport’shydropoweranalysis;althoughtheyhavenoparticularsignificancetorecreational
activities,theyprovideusefulbenchmarksformodelingthedeclineoflakelevels.Thescenarioswere
sourcedfromtheUSBRmaximumhydropowergenerationscenarios,whichprovidemonthlyelevation
valuesforahypotheticalwateryear17(Figure34).Eachmonthlyelevationwasconvertedtoavolume
livecapacityequivalentusingUSBRconversiontables(conversionsarepresentedbelowinTable19)
(USBR 2007d). These volumeswere then usedwithin the revisedNeher et al.model equation to
produce a predicted monthly visitation number. Those monthly predictions were combined to
produceanannualtotal.
Figure34. LakePowellelevationscenariosfromJanuarythroughDecember.
Eachscenarioreflectsseasonalhydrologicalfluctuationswithinawateryear.
17Asnotedinthehydropowersectionofthisreport,datawasacquiredforonefullwateryear(October-
September)beginninginJanuary.(OctoberthroughDecemberofoneyearandJanuarythroughAugustofthe
next.)ThiswasdonebecauseofthemannerinwhichtheCRSSsoftwareoperatesandthefactthatvolume
predictionsforJanuarydictatetherelevantoperationaltierandreleasevolumes.
68|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Table19.Elevationconvertedtoavolumelivecapacityequivalent(USBR2007d).
Elevation(ft) VolumeLiveCapacity(AF)3675 20,539,0383525 14,300,458
3575 9,517,254
3525 5,926,576
KeyPublicAccessPointsandLakePowellElevation
Inadditiontomodelingvisitationnumbersincorrelationwithlakevolume,thisreportreviewspopular
boatrampsusedbywaterrecreationistsaswellastheCastleRockCut.
Declininglakelevelswillimpacteachaccesspointdifferently,dependingonthegeologicalfeaturesof
theirlocation.Eachhasanabsoluteminimumwaterelevationbelowwhichitcannotbepracticably
orsafelyutilized,whichweassessincomparisontoourfourelevationscenarios.Marinasareexcluded
becausetheydonothaveabsoluteminimumwaterelevations;theyarecapableofregularadjustment
aswaterlevelsfluctuate,althoughextremeelevationshifts(5feetorgreater)requiremultiple,time-
intensiveadjustments.TheGCNRAfacilitiesdivisionprovidedbackground informationandcurrent
dataoneachaccesspoint.
ResultsKeyfindingsfromtherecreationanalysisinclude:
1. RecreationalvisitationtoLakePowellispredictedtodeclinefrom2.2millionat3675feetto
1.7millionat3525feet,a26percentreduction(Table20andFigure35).
2. Noofficialaccesspointsareprojectedtobeoperablebelow3525feetwithouttheinvestment
ofresourcestoextendboatrampsanddeepentheCastleRockCut(Table23).
TheseresultssuggestthatlowlakelevelscouldreducerecreationalvisitationatLakePowellbyover
aquarter,animpactthatwouldhaveseriouseconomicrepercussionsforthelocalPageeconomy.
Table20.PredictedyearlyLakePowellvisitationforeachelevationscenario.
Elevation(ft)PredictedVisitation(MaxScenario)
3675 2,237,545
3625 2,052,313
3575 1,791,418
3525 1,652,730
69|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure35.PredictedyearlyLakePowellvisitationforeachelevationscenario.
Discussion
LakePowellElevationandRecreationalVisitationCorrelation
Asummaryof theextendedNeheretal. regressionmodel is summarized inTable21.AnnualLake
Powell visitation predictionsweremade using thismodel and four elevation scenarios. Projected
recreationalusedoesnotdropbelow1.7millionvisitorsperyearevenwhenLakePowellisat3525
feet.
Table21.LakePowellestimatedrecreationalvisitationmodelusingdatafromJanuary1996through
January2016,adaptedfromNeheretal.(2013).R-squaredis94.6%withasamplesizeof241.
Variable Coefficients StandardError tvalue P-valueIntercept 15,446 11,092 1.4 0.17
LakeVolume 0.0012 0.0007 1.8 0.082
March 53,841 7,585 7.1 0.0
April 71,740 17,133 4.2 0.0
May 153,124 17,380 8.8 0.0
June 203,227 19,138 10.6 0.0
July 227,603 19,390 11.7 0.0
August 192,925 19,146 10.1 0.0
September 138,330 17,814 7.8 0.0
October 56,670 17,738 3.2 0.002
November 27,092 7,587 3.6 0.0
SummerVisits 0.0059 0.0011 5.2 0.0
ShoulderVisits 0.0023 0.0011 2.2 0.03
70|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Observedhistoricalvisitationcomparedtomodel-predictedvisitationduring1996-2016ispresented
inFigure36.Althoughthelinesappeartodivergefrom2011to2016,thedifferencewasnotfoundto
bestatisticallysignificant.
Figure36.ObservedandpredictedvisitationatLakePowellduringstudytimeframe.TherevisedNeheretal.
modelcorrelatedLakePowellvolumetovisitationfromJanuary1996-December2011(leftofblackdash
line).ThemodelwasextendedthroughJanuary2016withadditionalvisitationandlakevolumedata(rightof
dashline).
TotestthefitoftheextendedNeheretal.model,pairedt-testswereusedtocompareactualvisitation
withmodel-predictedvisitationforthe1996-2016timeframe.Testsconductedseparatelyfor1996-
2011, 2012-2016, and 1996-2016 all produce high p-values and suggest no significant difference
betweenthemeanvaluesofmodelpredictionsandhistoricalobservations(seeTable22).
Table22.Resultsofpairedt-testsconductedtocomparethedifferencebetweenthe
meansofobserved(actual)visitationandmodel-predictedvisitation.
1996-2011 2012-2016 1996-2016P-Values 0.991 0.997 0.994
KeyAccessPointsandLakePowellElevation
ThenaturalfluctuationsbetweenwetanddrycyclesontheColoradoRiverproducehighlyvariable
conditionsforthemanagersofLakePowellaccesspoints,anddroughtconditionsonlyamplifythose
trends.Asmorebeachisexposed,itbecomesnecessarytomoverecreationalfacilitiessuchasmarinas
71|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
andcourtesydocks(seeFigure37map),extendboatramps,andrelocatesignsandnavigationalwater
aids–ayearlyprocessknownas“chasingwater.”Certainboatrampsareparticularlyvulnerableto
reaching theirabsoluteminimumwaterelevationsdue to theuniqueconditionsof their locations
alongthereservoir:
− Antelope Point ramp and Antelope Point Public ramp are positioned along a narrow
channel,andthelengthoftheirconcreteendswhereacliffbegins.Bothmustclosefor
safetypurposeswhenlakelevelsarewithin10verticalfeetoftheledge.
− Bullfrog Main launch ramp ends where the bottom of the lake flattens out, thus,
additionalextensionsoftheramparenoteffectiveinloweringitselevation.
− HiteboatrampcannotbeextendedbecauseofmovementoftheColoradoRiverchannel
duetodecliningwaterlevelsandsiltaggradation.
InTable23,theabsoluteminimumelevationsforLakePowellboatrampsandtheCastleRockCutare
comparedtoourfourelevationscenarios.Whileeachpointisaccessibleat3675feet,fouroutofnine
arenotusableat3575feet,andnoneat3525feet.Thelowestelevationthatcanbeaccommodated
is3551.5feet,attheWahweapMainboatramp.
Table23.AccessibilityofLakePowellboatrampsandtheCastleRockCut(Cook2016),andtheiroperabilityat
eachofthefourelevationscenarios.
BoatRampsandPassageways
AbsoluteMinimumElevation
3675ft 3625ft 3575ft 3525ft
WahweapMain 3551.5 Yes Yes Yes No
WahweapStateline 3558.5 Yes Yes Yes No
AntelopePoint(Public) 3585.5 Yes Yes No No
AntelopePoint 3586 Yes Yes No No
CastleRockCut-off 3580 Yes Yes No No
BullfrogMain 3575 Yes Yes Yes No
BullfrogNorth 3557 Yes Yes Yes No
HallsCrossing 3555 Yes Yes Yes No
Hite 3645 Yes No No No
72|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure37.MapofLakePowellrecreationaccesspoints(NPS2015).
73|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Castle Rock Cut AfterthecompletionofGlenCanyonDamin1963,LakePowellbecameaccessibletovisitorsforthefirsttimein1972
withthecreationoftheGlenCanyonNationalRecreationArea.Asthelakefilled,notreachingitsfullpoolelevation
(3700feet)until1980,ashort-cutfromWahweapBaytoWarmCreekBaywasexcavatedbetweenCastleRockand
AntelopeIslandbyLakePowellconcessionaire,ArtGreene.ThispassageconnectsthepopularWahweapBaywith
up-lakelocations,allowingboaterstobypassthenarrowColoradoRiverchannel(Figure38),aroutethatextends
traveltimebyatleastforty-fiveminutesandrequirestheuseofadditionalfuel.
Figure38.WahweapBay(left)andCastleRockCut(Elleard2016).
CastleRockCut’sfirstexcavationinthe1970’sloweredthecut’sdepthtoanelevationof3620feet.Declininglake
levelshavesincerequiredfouradditionalexcavationsin1994(3615feet),2008(3607feet-afterfiveyearswithout
access),2013(3600feet)and2014(3580feet)(Elleard2016).
Dueto itsproximity toPageandtherelativedepthof theWahweapramp,WahweapBay isapopularput-in for
boaters. Because the Cut becomes impassable well in advance of facilities in the Bay, this causes widespread
inconveniencetoboatersandtheGCNRAemployeeswhomustnavigatethelake.Additionally, intwoofthefour
elevationscenariosweexplored,bothAntelopePointrampsandtheCutareunusable.Whenthisoccurs,boatersdo
nothavetheoptiontosavetraveltimebyputting inatAntelope,which is locatedmid-wayuptheriverchannel,
ratherthanWahweap.
Withoutfurtherinvestments,therouteprovidedbyCastleRockCutwouldberenderedimpassableattwoofthefour
elevationscenariosexploredinourreport.
74|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
ModelLimitations
ThepredictionsoftheextendedNeheretal.modelarepremisedontheclimatic,economicandsocial
conditionsthatdrovevolumeandvisitationintheJanuary1996-January2016timeframe.Thus,future
trendsthatmayimpactLakePowellrecreationcannotbeforeseenandaccountedforinourmodeling.
Additionally, NPS visitation data does not distinguish between water-based and land-based
recreation.Lowlakelevelscouldbepresumedtoimpacttheseusagesdifferently,anuancethatisnot
capturedintheNeheretal.model.Forinstance,lowerlakeelevationmaynegativelyimpactboating,
butincreaseinterestinhikingasshorelineschangeandsidecanyonsareexposed.Furtherresearch
thatdisaggregatesrecreationistdataandanalyzes trends inpredominantuses (landversuswater-
based)wouldenhanceourunderstandingofLakePowellvisitationanditsvulnerabilitytodrought.
ThevalueofadditionalresearchisdemonstratedbyFigure39,alinegraphofhistoricallakevolume
comparedtoactualobservedvisitationfrom1996-2016.Beginningin2011,visitationremainshigh
relative to the lake’svolumeandpreviousyears.While this relationship isobservable, thehighp-
valuesfromourt-testsconfirmthatitisnotimpactingourmodel’spredictiveusefulness.However,
thistrendreinforcesobservationsfromGCNRArepresentativesthatthedemographyofLakePowell
visitorshasshiftedwithinthepastfiveyears,mostnotablythroughaninfluxofinternationalvisitors
duringshoulderandsummermonths,whoserecreationalhabitsaredominantlyland-based.
Figure39.LakePowellvolumeandrecreationalvisitation,January1996-January2016.Between2011and
2016,historicalvisitationremainshighdespitedeclinesinlakevolume.
Conclusion TherecreationalopportunitiesofferedbyLakePowellareessentialtoattractingthemorethantwo
millionvisitorstoGlenCanyonNationalRecreationAreaeachyear.Thisactivityiscrucialtothelocal
economy,supportingover80localbusinessesandattractingover$190millionvisitordollarsin2012
alone(NPS2014a).
75|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
TheextendedNeheretal.modelpredictsareductioninrecreationalvisitationaslakelevelsdecline,
estimating500,000fewervisitorsbetweenelevations3675and3525feet.Popularlakeactivitieslike
house-boating,guidedboattrips,andfishingallrequireshorelinefacilitieswhoseaccessibilitywillbe
impairedduringdroughtconditions.Shouldtheelevationdropbelow3525feet,allLakePowellboat
rampsandtheCastleRockCutwillbeunusableintheirpresentconditions.
However,visitationwithinthepastfiveyearshasremainedhighdespitelowlakevolume,suggesting
thatrecreationaltrendsmaybeincreasinglydrivenbynewfactorsnotrepresentedintheNeheretal.
model. Further researchmay illuminate these factors, particularly an investigation of changes to
types of recreation, and an analysis of whether international visitation is driving those shifts.
76|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Environmental Considerations
Introduction DevelopmentofhydropowerandwaterstorageprojectslikeGlenCanyonDammaketheColorado
River one of the most engineered river systems in the country. Addressing impacts from this
developmenton the environment andnative species requiresmanagers to consider newways to
balance the needs of water users while also promoting beneficial environmental conditions
downstreamfromthedam.AsthesurfaceelevationofLakePowellfalls,thelikelihoodofnegative
environmentalimpactsoccurringinthedownstreamreachesandriparianareasoftheriverincreases.
Currentprogramsdesignedtoaddressandimproveecologicalhealthorenvironmentalconditionsare
primarily derived from federal environmental laws and regulations that emerged after large-scale
water development had already fundamentally altered the flow and sediment regime of many
stretchesoftheriver.Schmidtetal.(1998)outlinepotentialstrategiesforaddressingthischallenge
asit ispresentedinthecontextoftheGrandCanyon,whichcaneasilybeappliedtomanagement
strategiesoftheUpperBasin.Theyprovidefiveapproachestomanagementthatmaybeespoused
bydifferentgroups,reflectingaspectrumofmanagementphilosophiesanddesiredoutcomes:
− TraditionalRiverManagement:maximizepowerproductionattimesofmaximumpower
price;
− Management for Naturalized Ecosystems: manage existing ecosystems including
desirablenon-nativespecies;
− SimulatedNaturalEcosystems:simulatesomepre-damecologicalprocessesandpartially
restoresomepre-damresources;
− Substantially Restored Ecosystems: extensive restoration of pre-dam processes and
managementelements;
− Fully Restored Ecosystem: attempt complete restoration of pre-dam processes and
resources.
Thisrangeofoptionsleadstoanequallybroadarrayofimpactsandeffectsonhydropower,revenue
generation, water transfers, recreation, and ecosystem health. Each strategy includes complex
tradeoffsanduncertaintythatareweighedbymanagersinlightofsocietalvaluesandconcerns.Asif
thisisn’tagreatenoughchallenge,managementstrategiesmustbesufficientlyadaptivetoaddress
shiftingdemands(likeagriculturalirrigationandendangeredspeciesrequirements),whileremaining
compatible with other moving parts within the larger management system. Collaborative and
proactivestrategiescanbeimplementedtobalancethesevarieddemandswhilemeetingtheneeds
ofvulnerableecosystemsandwildlifeasthelikelihoodofexperiencingshortfallsbetweenprojected
watersuppliesanddemandintheUpperBasinremainshigh.
As concernsaboutdeclining reservoir levelsanduncertaintyabout futurewateravailability in the
basin remainpressing, it is important toconsiderhowbeneficialenvironmentalprogramsmaybe
impacted, both by there simply being less water and through potentially decreased amounts of
funding available to support those programs. This section outlines several key environmental
programsintheUpperBasin,howtheyarefundedandmanaged,andhowtheymaybeimpactedby
decreased water availability. These programs include sediment management strategies and how
techniquessuchasHighFlowExperimentsareusedtomitigatechronicsedimentissues.Additional
consideration isgiventoexploringthe issuesofsalinitydownstreamfromthedam,aswellas the
goalsandstatusofcooperativefishrecoveryprograms.
77|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Funding Environmental Programs Inthe1980s,concernsaboutchangesintheriparianareasdownstreamfromGlenCanyonDamled
toinvestigationsintohowtooperateGlenCanyonDamwithgreaterconsiderationofimpactstothe
surroundingecologicalsystems.Theseconcernswereformalizedandsupportedbythecongressional
enactment of the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA). This action lead to subsequent
environmentalimpactstatements,biologicalopinions,andthe1996GlenCanyonDamROD,which
established the Adaptive Management Program (AMP) and Work Group. A new, Long-Term
ExperimentalandManagementPlan(LTEMP)andEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)wasreleased
inDecember2015,aproductoftheUSBRandtheNationalParkServiceincooperationwithother
stateandfederalagenciesaswellasNativeAmericanTribes.TheLTEMPbuildsonthe1992GCPAand
federallawtoprovidesaframeworkforthenext20yearsofmanagement.TheLTEMPdetermines
specific options for dam operations, non-flow actions, and appropriate experimental and
managementactionsthatwillmeettheGCPA’srequirements.Italsoworkstominimizeimpactson
resourceswithintheareaimpactedbydamoperations,includingthoseofimportancetoAmerican
Indian Tribes (NPS 2015). The overarching goal of the LTEMP is to create more certainty and
predictabilityforpowerandwateruserswhileprotectingenvironmentalandculturalresourcesinthe
ColoradoRiverecosystem.ThepubliccommentperiodontheLTEMPEISremainsopenatthetimeof
publicationofthisdocument.
The original AMP created a framework formaking recommendations based on scientific findings
abouthowtheriversystemisimpactedbydamoperationsandallowedforprogramssuchashigh
flowandexperimentalwaterreleases(OttVerburg2010).Inadditiontoensuringtherepaymentof
federalwaterandpower investments,therevenuecreatedbythesaleoftheenergyproducedby
Glen CanyonDamand other CRSP units provides funding for important environmental programs,
approximately$20millionannually(CREDA2008).TheAMPWorkGroupreceivesanannualallotment
of$9.5million,withamajorportionoftheirprogrambudgetcomingfromtheColoradoRiverBasin
Fund). The Basin Fund, which is managed by Western, holds revenues for use in a variety of
environmentalprograms,includingsalinitymanagementandspeciesrecoveryplans.TheBasinFund
alsosupportsUpperBasinstatesincostsharingforSalinityControlPrograms($2millionannually),
andEndangeredFishRecoveryPrograms(approximately$7millionannually).Revenuesfromsalesof
hydroelectricpowerandtransmissionservicessupporttheBasinFund(USBR2008e).
TheAMPusesthesefundsformonitoring,sciencebasedresearch,andformakingrecommendations
to the Secretary of Interior on improvements in the Glen and Grand Canyons, focused on dam
operationsanddownstreamresources (GCAMP2013).TheBasinFundalsosupportswaterquality
andusestudies,aswellascostsharingforsalinitycontrolandfishrecoveryplans.Theseprograms
arefundedinnosmallpartbytheoperationofthedamitselfwithrevenuecominginfromsalesof
capacity,energy,andtransmissionservices(Warren2008).
MoneyfromtheBasinFundisalsousedtomakefirmingpurchaseswhenhydropowerproductionis
low. In 2004, CRSP had an annual revenue requirement of $143million, including operation and
maintenance,purchasepower,interest,andprincipalpayments(Warren2004).Theamountofthat
requirementtodayislikelyhigher.IfGlenCanyonDamwerenotinoperation,orunabletooperate
due to sufficiently low reservoir elevations, and the other CRSP generation units had to produce
power to meet the existing demand, the power rates would likely become cost prohibitive for
customers toevenconsider.Ofcourse,with theGlenCanyonpowerplantproducingroughly four
timesthepoweroutputastherestoftheCRSPunitscombineditisunlikelythattheremainingunits
78|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
wouldbeabletomakeuptheentirelyofGlenCanyon’spower.18TheBasinFundisalsotappedto
cover things like payroll for USBR and Western, and environmental programs like the Adaptive
ManagementPlanwhichpartiallyrelyonfundingfrompowergenerationrevenues.
It is important to note that the environmental impacts of the dam are not abatedwhen energy
productivitydiminishes.Unlesscustomer rates rise, there is simply lessmoneygenerated through
hydropowersalestosupportBasinFundprogramming.Additionalfundingtosupportenvironmental
programsliketheAdaptiveManagementPlaniscongressionally-authorizedandisnotimpactedby
changesinhydropowergenerationcapacity.
Managing Sediment Likeallrivers,theColoradoworksasaveritableconveyorbeltforsandsandsediment,movingeroded
rockfromthesurroundinglandscapedowntheriverchanneltowarditsnaturalconclusionatadebris
fanorsandydelta(Webbetal.1988).Whenthesedebrisfansaretheresultoftributaryinflowsthey
createriffles,rapids,andsandbarsthatareessentialtoriverhealthandrecreationalopportunities.
When impediments are placed in a river channel, altering or completely blocking a river's flow,
sedimentstendtobecometrappedbehindthoseimpediments.Undernaturalconditions,inthecase
ofadowntreeforinstance,sedimentswillbuildupanddivertwateraroundtheimpedimentuntila
largeenoughflowisgeneratedtoflushthesesedimentsdownstream.Withmanyrivers,asubstantial
portion(sometimesmorethanhalf)ofthetotalyearlysedimenttransportedcanoccurduringone
largeevent.Theselargeeventsalsoservetouprootandsweepawayriparianvegetation.
Whenpermanentstructures likeconcretedamsareplaced ina riverchannel, theability for these
naturaleventstoflushsedimentsthroughtheriversystembecomerare,andinmostcasesarestrictly
avoided(inthecaseofastructural failure, forexample).Waterthat is flowing intoan impounded
reservoirslows,allowingsedimentsto falloutofsuspensionanddepositonthe lakebottom.Like
waterintheriverchannel,thisflowofsedimentisconstant,andwithnooutlet,thesedimentsbegin
toconcentrateandaccumulate.
Glen Canyon is located downstream from significant sediment-contributing areas.19Prior to the
constructionofGlenCanyonDam,sedimentswerepusheddownstreamanddepositedassandbars
andbeaches.Withthedaminplace,thosesedimentsaredepositedinLakePowellatarateofabout
100million tons each year. As of 1986 when the last complete reservoir survey was conducted,
depositionhadreducedthestoragecapacityofLakePowellbyover868,000AF,or3.2percentofthe
totalstoragecapacity,overthecourseof23years(Ferrari1988).20
ConstructionofGlenCanyonDamhasimpactedthesizeandnumberofsandbarsdownstreamalong
theriver.Infreeflowingrivers,sandbarsaredepositedduringperiodsofhighdischargeandbecome
exposedwhenwaterlevelsrecede.Stabilizedandregulatedflowsbelowthedamprecludenatural
18Theenergyindustrytransitionfromcoaltogas,combinedwithcheapgasprices,makemeetingthepower
demandmoreeconomicallyfeasible.Hydropowergeneration,whichcanbepurchasedbyutilitiesatfraction
ofthecostofnaturalgas,isstillthepreferredchoicewhenitisavailable(NavigantConsulting2010).
19DownstreamoftheDam,thePariaandLittleColoradoRiversalsocontributelargequantitiesofsediment.
20Asubsequent“multibeam”digitalbathymetricsurveyingwasconductedinLakePowellin2004,but
drasticallylowerwaterlevels,aswellasbudgetaryandpersonnelconstraints,limitedtheusefulnessand
interpretationofthedatacollectedinthosesurveys(USBR2006).
79|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
depositionfromoccurringwhichwouldotherwiseservetorevitalizeor“turnover”thebeachesand
bars.
Disrupting thenatural flow regimehas alsohadan impacton riparian vegetation. Theamountof
vegetationalongtheriverhas increased,providingmorediversehabitatforwildlifethatcouldnot
have existed before damming when downstream flows were varied and irregular. For example,
studies focusing on these post-dammed riparian habitats have discovered that the black-chinned
hummingbirdnestsonly inhabitatsdominatedby the invasive tamarisk,andnotatall inhabitats
dominatedbythenativehoneymesquite(Brownetal.1992;Smithetal.2014).Asthetamarisktakes
rootinthelightlydisturbedsoildownstreamfromtheDam,displacinghoneymesquite,habitatfor
thisspeciesofbirdhasincreased.21
Thisapparentsilverlining,wherenewspeciesareabletothriveinthealteredhabitats,isoneofthe
tradeoffs thatturnsouttobeabenefitas theresultofdammingtheriver.Shockstotheecologic
conditionscanimpactthebalanceoffoodwebsintheseriverineandripariansystems,allowingnon-
native species like rainbow trout to benefit and gain an advantage over other species like the
humpbackchub.Predationimpactsfromintroducedspecieslikeblackbullheadcatfish,rainbowand
browntroutmaylimitnativespeciespopulations(MarshandDouglas1997).Viewsonthispointwill
surely be based on how different people or populations value a natural or native pre-dammed
environmentoveronethatexistsastheresultofmodificationviadrastichumanintervention.Further
discussionoftheimpactstofishcomeslaterinthissection,butfornowitishelpfultoexplorehow
managementstrategieshaveattemptedtomitigateimpactsofdisruptedsedimentflow.
HighFlowExperiments
Controlledfloods,knownaspulseflowsorhighflowexperiments(HFEs)havetakenplacein1996,
2004,2008,and2014.AsofMay2012,theseHFEsareoutlinedasanofficialprotocoloftheGlen
CanyonAdaptiveManagementPlan (USDOI2012).HFEs allow sand stored in the river channel to
become suspended by high-volume dam releases. Portions of that sand are re-deposited in
downstreamreachesassandbarsandbeaches,andtransporteddownstreambyriverflows.
Researchershavestudiedtheseeventstodeterminewhetherandtowhatextentconservationand
retentionofsandcanbeimproveddownstreamofGlenCanyonDambymimickingthebehaviorand
conditionsofanaturalriversystem.Theseeffortsaimtoreturntheecosystemtoadesiredpriorstate
whilealsobalancingtherealitiesandnecessityofthedamandhydropoweroperations.Sandbarshave
increased insize followingeachcontrolled flood,especiallywhenthereleasesare timedto follow
sandinputsfromdownstreamtributariessuchasthePariaRiver.Thoughpost-HFEerosioncontinues
tobeachallenge,experimentalreleasesprovidemoreinformationabouthowtoreformandrefine
management strategies to encourage desired sediment distribution and retention. Although the
extentofthebenefitsthroughoutthedownstreamreachesarenotequallydistributed(Rubinetal.
2002),thecumulativeresultssuggestthatsandbardeclinesmaybereversedifcontrolledfloodscan
beimplementedfrequentlyenough.
Thesuccessofrebuildingsandbarsdownstreamofthedamwillrequireasustainedanddynamiceffort
(Gramsetal.2015).Thegreatestamountofdepositiontendstooccurinsegmentsoftheriverthat
aremostenrichedwithsandfromtributaries. Justdownstreamfromthedam,thePariaandLittle
21ExtensiveworkhasbeendonebygroupsliketheTamariskCoalitionandotherstoevaluatetheimpactsof
TamariskandRussianOliveonbothhydrologicsystemsandhabitatintheColoradoRiverEcosystem.See
tamariskcoalition.orgforathoroughassessmentfrom2009.
80|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
ColoradoRivers together contributeonlya fractionof thepre-damamountsof sediment that ran
through the river. Sediment augmentation appraisals have been conducted by the Adaptive
Management Program Technical Working Group. The working group determined that running a
pipelinetotransportsediment-richslurry fromNavajoCanyon inLakePowell tobelowthedamis
technicallyfeasible,thoughplanstocarryoutthisprojectarenotcurrentlyinplace(Randle2010).
Thisleavesoptimizingdamoperationsastheprimaryandessentialtoolforachievingagoalofoptimal
sedimentdistributionoutcomesintheriverchannel(Rubinetal.2002).
TheHFEsappeartobeatleastinpartachievingtheirdesiredimpact,evenifthoseresultsprovetobe
shortlived,butthesesuccessescomeatafinancialcost(Grams2015).Powercompaniessaythatthe
costofthehighfloweventin2008resultedinalmost$4millioninforgonerevenue(Morales2012).
Thecost,orlostrevenue,ofeachofthesefloweventsdependsonthefrequency,theduration,and
timingwhentheflows(wherewaterbypassespower-generating,andrevenue-generating,turbines)
willoccur.Losthydropowergenerationistypicallymadeupbypurchasingreplacementpowerfrom
coal,gas,orothersources.
TheUSBR’sEnvironmentalAssessmentestimatedthetotalcostsofHFEs,includingenergycostand
capacitycost,asrangingfrom$8.1to$122.1millionovera10-yearperiod.HFEsareconductedonly
iftheywillnotalterannualwaterallocationanddownstreamdeliveriesthatwouldhaveotherwise
been dictated by the 2007 Interim Guidelines (USDOI 2012). A seasonally adjusted steady flow
regimen,asdescribedinthe1995EIS,couldbeimplementedforanincreasedtotalcosttoconsumers
ofbetween$1millionand$8.8million,orbetween1and10centspermonthforalargeportionof
households(Marcus2009).
Comprehensive approaches to assessing flow requirements can continue to inform and develop
restorationprojectsinthefuture.Creatinganaturalflowregimethatmimicsthenaturalvariability,
frequency, timing, duration, rate of change, and sequencing of such events has the potential to
advanceprotectionofbiodiversityandmaintenanceoftheripariancharacteristicsandwaterquality
supportedbytheriver(Arthingtonetal.2006).Thebenefitsfromsuchapproachescanbemeasured
inwaysthatarebeyondpurelyfinancial.22
22Moreextensivestudyoftheenvironmentalconsequencesofthesemanagementinitiatives,isfoundin
chapter4oftheDecember2015“GlenCanyonDamLong-TermExperimentalandManagementPlanDraft
EnvironmentalImpactStatement”preparedbyArgonneNationalLaboratoryfortheNPSandtheUSBR.
AdditionalinformationaboutthescienceandstrategyofHFEscanbefoundonUSBRwebsitesandinscholarly
papers:Dolanetal.1974:Man'sImpactontheColoradoRiverintheGrandCanyon.
81|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure40.ViewsfrombelowGlenCanyonDam,lookingupstream(top)andfromthetopofGlenCanyonDamofjettubes
during2008HFE(bottom).BottomPhoto:T.RossReeveviaUSBR.
82|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Impactoflowerreservoirlevels
The 2012High-flow Experimental Releases protocol establishes an experimental plan pursuant to
which the USBR will conduct high flow releases through 2020. This protocol for high-flow
experimental releases fromGlen CanyonDam is part of the ongoing implementation of theGlen
CanyonDamAdaptiveManagementProgram.TheexactnumberofHFEsthatwilloccurisdependent
onconditions,whichwillbedeterminedbysedimentinputsfromtributaries,aswellasamountof
wateravailabletobesentdownstream,andadecisionprocesscarriedoutbyInterior.Theprotocol
statesthatthetimingofhigh-flowreleaseswillbeMarch-AprilorOctober-November,themagnitude
willbefrom31,500cfsto45,000cfs,andthedurationwillbefromonehourto96hours,depending
onhowmuchsedimentisinthesystem,andotherresourceconditions(USBR2012k).
It is important to consider how programs like theHFEwill be impacted as the Basin experiences
prolongeddryingconditions.Asanexample,overthecourseofthe5-dayperiodin2014whenthe
HFEshaveoccurred,elevationofthewaterinthereservoirdecreasedanestimated2.5feet(USBR
2014c).
Overthecourseoftheyear,thereisnochangetotheLakePowelllevelasaresultoftheHFE.Thisis
becausethewaterreleasedfromthereservoirduringanHFEdoesnotchangethetotalamountof
waterthatisreleasedoverthecourseofthewateryear(OctoberthroughSeptember),justthetiming
andintensity.BecausetheadditionalwaterreleasedduringanHFEisincludedwithinthetotalannual
releasevolume,thesereleasesaremadeupforthroughadjustmentsmadetothemonthlyrelease
volumes throughout the rest of the water year (USBR 2012c). Having less water available in the
reservoircouldchallengethefrequency,effectiveness,orevenpossibilityofcarryingoutofHFEsin
thefuture.
Salinity As the river moves from its headwaters towards the Gulf of Mexico, salinity levels increase
substantiallywithsaltconcentrationlevelsbeingamplifiedbywaterwithdrawals,consumptiveuse,
andpersistentdrought.Amajorityofthesalts(alsoknownastotaldissolvedsolids,includingcalcium,
magnesium, sodium, etc.) in the river are derived from natural sources such as saline springs or
erosion from water flowing over salt formations (Pillsbury 1981). For example, natural sources
account forup to62percentof thesalt loadaboveHooverDam in theLowerBasin.A significant
contribution to salinity also comes from non-natural sources, primarily irrigation. Municipal and
industrial withdrawals impact salinity to a lesser extent through the consumption of the water
(Barnett2015;USBR2013).
Waterthatisappliedtoagriculturalfieldspicksupsaltsfromthesoilandeventuallyflowsbackinto
theriver.Someofthewaterappliedasirrigationisconsumedbyplantsanddoesnotreturntothe
river,which,alongwithwaterlosttoevaporation,servestoincreasethesalinityconcentrationina
riverthatnowhaslesswaterandmoresalt(USBR2005).Theincreasedsalinitycreatedbyagricultural
usenotonlydiminishesthewaterqualityoftheriver,butalsohasnegativeeffectsonfarming.More
salineirrigationwaterlimitsthetypesofcropsthatcanbegrownandnegativelyimpactscropgrowth.
83|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Figure41.Thisfigureillustrateshowsalinityconcentrationsincreasemovingdownriver.Valuesarebasedon
the2011calendaryear.(ColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlForum2014)
TheColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlActwasenactedin1974withtheintentofpreventingsalts
fromdissolvingandmixingintheriver,therebyenhancingandprotectingwaterquality.TheSalinity
Control Program was originally established in 1975 as an amendment to the 1974 act to more
thoroughlyaddress the requirementsof theCleanWaterAct.Theamendmentadded language to
supportcost-effectivemeasuresandassociatedworkstoreducesalinityfromsalinesprings,leaking
wells,irrigationsources,industrialsources,anderosionofpublicandprivateland,whilealsoproviding
forthemitigationoffishandwildlifevaluesthatarelostasaresultofthemeasuresandassociated
projects(ColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlAct1995).
Toaddresstheseissues,theBasinFundprovides$2millioninannualcostsharingtotheColorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. Federal and state programs also provide about $7 million
annually that isapplied towardagricultural improvements suchasditch liningor canalandpiping
equipment.Effortshavebeenmadetoreducetheimpactsofsalinitybyaddressingtheissueatthe
source,whichhasprovedmorecost-effectivethandealingwiththedetrimentalimpactofsalinityon
waterqualityandinfrastructure.ThesaltloadoftheColoradoRiverhasnowbeenreducedby1.2to
84|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
1.3milliontonsannually,buttheprogramisrequiredtocontinuetomaintainthepositiveimpactsof
thiseffort(Barnett2015).Thesepartnershipscontinuetoworkwithlocalcompaniesandindividual
wateruserstocontrolthesalinitylevelswhileallowingdevelopmentandusageofitswaterspursuant
tothe1922ColoradoRiverCompact.
ModelingbyUSBRshowsthatthequantifiabledamagesfromhighsalinitywaterareapproximately
$382millionper year toU.S. users,withprojections thatdamageswould rise tomore than$614
millionby2035iftheProgramwerenottocontinuetobeaggressivelyimplemented(Barnett2015).
The 2012 salinity reduction report shows that the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
effectivelymitigatestheimpactofover1.295milliontonsofsaltperyear.Inordertomeetthe1.85
milliontonsofsaltperyeargoalandalsomeetthewaterqualitystandardsintheLowerBasin,(below
LeesFerry,AZ)itwillbenecessarytofundandimplementpotentialnewmeasureswhichensurethe
removal of an additional 555,000 tons by 2030 (USBR 2013).23The Salinity Control Program is
estimatedtocostbetween$30-$160pertonofsaltremoved,whilethebenefits,orvalueofavoided
damage,are$540perton(2015dollarvalues)(USBR2011b).24
Impactoflowerreservoirlevels
Managing salinity in theUpper Basin is essential to providing sufficientwater quality as itmoves
downstream.Thechallengesoutlinedabovewillcontinuetocontributeinvariouswaystoincreasing
salinityintheriver.TheoveralllongtermeffectsthatlargereservoirslikeLakePowellhaveonsalinity
aregenerallyconsideredtobebeneficialandtohavegreatlyreducedthesalinitypeaksandannual
fluctuation. In a system like this the high-concentration low-flow waters can be mixed with low
concentrationspringrunoff,reducingthemonth-to-monthvariationinsalinitybelowdams(Mueller
etal.1988).AtGlenCanyonDam,thepre-andpost-dampeakmonthlysalinityhasbeenreducedby
nearly600mg/L,greatlyimprovingthequalityofwaterduringthesummer,fallandwinter.Reservoirs
likeLakePowellcanselectivelyroutelesssalinewaterwhileholdingmoresalinewatersduringlow
inflowperiods.Thepoorerquality,high-salinewaterscanthenbeslowlyreleasedaftertheinflows
havebeguntoincrease,whichhelpstopreventexceedingthesalinitycriteriaduringdroughtyears
(USBR2005).Withlesswateravailableasreservoirelevationsdecline,managingsalinityinthisway
maybecomemoredifficult.
The primary damage of prolonged drought, lower in-stream flows, and higher salinity within the
Colorado River main stem will be economic, with costs topping $1 billion annually (Borda 2004;
Morford2014).Thesegreatereconomiccostsofreactingtosalinityinthefuturedwarfthecostsof
proactive investments,which have demonstrated positive ecological returns.Withwater demand
23Biennialreports(whichhavebeenmostrecentlypublishedin2005,2009,and2013)onthequalityofwater
intheColoradoRiverBasin,includingdetailedinformationaboutsalinityanditsimpactsarerequiredbyPublic
Laws84-485,87-483,andtheColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlActandavailablethroughtheUSBR.
24Sedimentaggradation,increasedsalinity,impactedwatertemperatureanddissolvedoxygen(DO)areall
relatedchallengesthathavebeenexacerbatedbydroughtconditions.Sedimentsandorganicmatterconsume
oxygenastheydecay,whichlowersthedissolvedoxygenlevelsonthedownstreamsideofthedam,stressing
fishpopulationsdownstream.Rifflesorrapidscreateopportunitiesforre-oxygenation,butlowerwater
availabilityanddecreasedflowsmaydecreasethelikelihoodoftheseareasexisting.Whilethedeclining
reservoirlevelshaveinsomecasesexposednewfeaturesthatmaycreatewaterfallsorrougherwaterthat
wouldincreaseDO(Vernieu,2005;2010),thenetimpactofdecreasedinflowsandlowerreservoirlevelshas
alsodecreasedDO,resultinginthosechallengesearlierdescribed.
85|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
trending upward, further strain will be placed on meeting water quality and salinity control
requirements,particularlyifnaturalhydrologicpatternsresultindecreasedwateravailability.25
Asreservoir levelsdecline, thedam’sabilitytogeneratehydropowerdiminishesduetodecreased
efficiencyofwaterthatpossesslowerhydraulichead26,aswellasthethreatofwaterlevelsultimately
fallingbelow“deadpool”elevation.Whileaportionofthefundingforsalinityprogramsalsocomes
fromHooverDamhydropowerrevenues,achangeintheamountofenergyproducedatGlenCanyon
couldnegativelyimpacttherevenuegainedfromenergysales.Thiswoulddecreaseoneofthesources
offundingforenvironmentalprograms,fundedbytheBasinFund,thatworktoaddressthechallenge
ofmanagingsalinity.
Fish Recovery Programs DevelopmentoftheriversignificantlyimpactedthefishhabitatintheUpperBasinaswellasbelow
thedam.Alterationsof seasonal flows, lower (and less variable)water temperatures, intrusionof
invasivespecies,andtheobviousphysicalboundariesthatimpedemigrationpathshaveresultedin
degradedconditionsforfishpopulations.Bytheearly1970s,watertemperaturesinGrandCanyon
haddroppedbelowtherangeof16-22°C(61-72°F)neededforsuccessfulmainstemreproductionby
thenativewarm-water fishspecies (Webb1999).Reducedsediment flowsandsubsequenthigher
waterclarityhavesignificantlyreducedmovementbyhumpbackchub,possiblyaffectingfeedingand
suggestingthatthechubuseturbidwaterascover(ValdezandRyel1995).Thesechangesunderscore
anothernegativeeffectof loweredsuspendedsediment inbelowGlenCanyonandintotheGrand
Canyon.Theintroductionofnon-nativesportfishwhichoutcompetethenativespeciesforresources
alongwith pollution and intentional poisoning for population control have also increased species
stress(CRWUAN.d.a).
Twoofficialagreementshaveestablishedrecoveryprogramsthatdirectjointeffortsandcooperation
regardingwaterprojectdevelopmentandtheendangeredfishintheUpperBasin.Programpartners
includetheUpperBasinstates,theUSBR,FishandWildlifeService,NPS,CREDA,andNGOs.Along
with thesegroups, theDepartmentof Interior,WesternPower, andUpperBasinAmerican Indian
Tribeshavecollectivelyimplementedtherecoveryprograms,alsoreceivingfinancialsupportfromthe
BasinFund(OttVerburg2010).
The Upper Colorado Fish Recovery Implementation Program and the San Juan Endangered Fish
Recovery ImplementationProgram receive a combined total of approximately $7million annually
fromtheBasinFund.IntheUpperColoradotheprogramfocusesonfourfishspeciescurrentlylisted
undertheFederalEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA):bonytailchub(Gilaelegans),Coloradopikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)
(UCREFRP2015).Similarly, theprogramintheSanJuanRiverBasinfocuseseffortsontwospecies
listedundertheESA,whiletryingtomaintainotherwateruseswithintheBasin(SJRBRIP2007).
TheUpperColoradoRecoveryProgramwasinitiatedin1988,andtheSanJuanRiverBasinRecovery
Planwasinitiatedin1992.Bothagreementsareactivethroughtheyear2023.TheUpperBasinstates,
25FurtherinformationaboutsedimenttransportanalysiscanbefoundinUSBRreports(SedimentAnalysisfor
GlenCanyonDamHighFlowExperimentalProtocolEnvironmentalAssessment2010).
26ADam’sabilitytogeneratehydropowerefficientlydependsontheheightofwaterbehindthedam,baseda
measureofwaterpressurecalled“hydraulichead”.Lowerreservoirelevationsandlowerhydraulichead
diminishestheabilityofturbinestoproducehydropower.
86|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
USFishandWildlifeService,waterusersandCRSPpowercustomerscontributeannual fundingto
programseachyear.ThetotalpartnercontributionstotheUpperColoradoProgramforFY1989-2015
arejustover$350million,andtotalpartnercontributionstotheSanJuanProgramarealmost$63
millionoverthesametimeperiod.PowerrevenuesrepresentaboutaquarteroftotalUpperColorado
Programfunding,androughlyhalfofthetotalSanJuanRiverfunding(USFWS2016).27Expenditures
include habitat development, habitat management, in-stream flow acquisition, non-native fish
management, hatchery construction and operation, endangered fish stocking, research, public
informationandeducationandprogrammanagement.
Recoveryprogramsworktoprovideadequateinstreamflow,monitorpopulations,andcontrolnon-
nativespeciesthroughmethodslikeelectro-shocking(poisoningisnotallowedwhereitwouldimpact
National Park areas, and could also hurt other species that support native fish recovery) (Loomis
2013).Humpbackchub,forexample,willbeconsideredeligiblefordown-listingfromendangeredto
threatenedwhenadditionalself-sustainingpopulations form,essentialhabitat is legallyprotected,
and identifiable threats are removed (UCREFRP 2015). The creation of Glen Canyon Dam rapidly
changedtheecologicalconditionstowhichfishspecieshadadaptedandevolvedovertime.These
newconditions facilitated theproliferationofnon-native speciesat theexpenseofnative species
adaptedtothenatural flowsof theriver (Triedman2012).Fortunately for therecoveryprograms,
scientistsconfirmedthefirstreproductionofbonytailinthewildintheUpperColoradoRiverbasin,
representingastepintherightdirectionfortherecoveryofthatspecies(UCREFRP2016).
Impactoflowerreservoirlevels
Theprogramsandpracticesinplacehavemadepositiveimpactsonrestoringsomeoftheecological
health necessary for the survival of threatened fish species. As a deeper understanding of the
connectednessofthesesystemsisunderstood,andaclearerconceptofhowactionsupstreamhave
complex impacts throughout the system, proactive strategies can be prioritized. The Endangered
Species Act has provided a framework for action, and the dynamic, ever-changing nature of
environmental conditions could benefit from a proactive holistic approach. Fish species that are
adaptedtowarmerwaterwillcontinuetofeelpressureasreleasesofcoldwaterfromthereservoir
arepusheddownstream.Decreasedwateravailabilitycouldcontinuetohavedetrimentalimpactson
populationsofthreatenednativespecies,bothin-streamandalongtheripariancorridors.Aslower
reservoirlevelsdecreasetheefficiencyofwatertogenerateenergyatGlenCanyonDam,revenues
thatsupportrecoveryprogramscouldalsodecrease.However,thebasefundingfrompowerrevenues
thatisutilizedtosupporttheseprogramsisanon-reimbursablefederalexpenditure.Givensufficient
liquidityfortheBasinFund,thereshouldnotbeanimpactonratesasreservoirlevelsdecline.Western
andUSBRmustmaintainsufficientrevenuesintheBasinFundtomeetthebasefundingobligations
oftheseprograms(USCENR2000).
Conclusion Constructionofthedamitselfcreatedunavoidableenvironmentalconsequencesthattodayrequire
extensivestudytounderstandandadequatelyaddress.Thedynamicnaturalprocessesandvariations
of the river that flora and fauna require for survival have been without question altered by the
presenceofthedam.Environmentalrestorationprogramscanhelpalleviatesomeoftheecosystem
impactsthathavecomeaboutasaresultofdamconstruction.Thetechnological,politicalandsocial
27FiscalYearhighlightreportsareissuedbytheU.S.Fish&WildlifeServicedetailingfishrecoveryprograms,
projectsandprogress.SeethebibliographyforalinktotheFY2014-2015highlightsreport,explaining
specificsabouttheprogram.
87|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
challengesthattheseenvironmentalprogramsfacewillbecompoundedaswaterscarcitybecomes
anevenmorepressingissueandreservoirlevelsremainwellbelowfullpoolelevations.
AppreciatingtheconnectivityandinterdependencebetweentheUpperandLowerBasinscaninform
managers in developing holistic, basin-widemanagement goals to address issues that impact the
entireregion.Thechallengesofsedimentmanagementandimpactsofalterationofnaturalseasonal
flowscontinuetocreatetheneedforexpensiveremediationprogramsthatare fundedat least in
smallpartbytheBasinFund,withrevenuesgainedfromhydropowerproduction.Asreservoirlevels
drop,theefficiencyofwatertogeneratehydropower(theeffectivehead)andpowerconversionrates
ofwaterpassingthroughtheturbinesisreduced.Wateratlowerelevationsthatis“lessefficient”at
makingpowerleadstolowerrevenuesderivedfrompowergeneration,andlessmoneyavailableto
supporttheseessentialenvironmentalprograms.
88|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Conclusion WatersuppliesinLakePowellareusedtomeetdeliveryrequirementstotheLowerColoradoRiver
Basin, generate hydropower, provide recreational opportunity, and contribute to environmental
health.Water deliveries in theUpper Basin are inextricably linked towater levels at Lake Powell
throughdeliveryobligationstotheLowerBasin.Tounderstandhowdecliningwaterlevelsthroughout
theColoradoRiverBasinaffectthesesectors,thisreportcomplementsTheBathtubRingbyanalyzing
theimpactsofoperatingLakePowellandGlenCanyonDamatlowwaterlevels.Theintentionofthis
reportistosparkconversationamongColoradoRivermanagersandmotivatedroughtcontingency
efforts.
UpperBasinwatersuppliesmaybeatriskinthefutureifwaterlevelsinLakePowellreachcritically
low elevations. Concerns arise over increasing water demands and legal ambiguities that create
uncertaintyforwatermanagementshouldreservoirlevelsdroplowenoughtorequireUpperBasin
curtailments. Changes in winter precipitation, temperature patterns, and timing of spring runoff
impactwateravailabilityandadd furthercomplexity tomanagementchallenges.While theUpper
Basinaswholesharecommonvulnerabilities,itisimportanttohighlightstatespecificconcerns.The
challengeistoovercometheinertiaofthestatusquo,tocurbdemandinthefaceofgrowth,andto
planforcontingenciesthatmayincludedecreasedwateravailability.
Thecurrentlegalframework,towhichtheentireColoradoRiverBasinmustadhere,promisesmore
waterthanisgenerallyavailableinanygivenyear.Coupledwithlegaluncertaintyaroundapotential
compactcall, theUpperBasin isat riskdueto their juniorpriority toLowerBasinwaterusers.To
createmorecertainty,furtherresearchinthisareaofanalysiswouldbeasynthesisofwaterrights
fromeachUpperBasinstatetobetterunderstandprioritydates,usebysector,andtheproportionof
waterrightscurrentlyinuse.Thisinformationwouldnotonlyhelpplanningeffortsintheeventofa
curtailment,butalsohelpwaterusersunderstand theirplace in this complex,but interconnected
systemwhereonewateruserislinkedtoanother.
Under the current powermarketing system, declining reservoirs in Lake Powell will result in the
increasedcostofpowerforutilitiesthatpurchasepowerfromGlenCanyonDam.Ouranalysisshows
thattheamountoffirmingpurchasesrequiredinordertomeetWestern’sSustainableHydropower
contract obligationswill increase. Althoughnot included in our analysis, the costs of hydropower
generatedatGlenCanyondamwillalsoneedtoincreaseinordertocoverraterepaymentobligations.
Thevolatilityoftheenergymarketmakesitdifficulttopredicttheexactcostassociatedwithreservoir
declines.Refiningourestimatesforthecostofenergyonthewholesalemarketwillhelptonarrow
therangeofpredictionswemake.Lastly,itwaschallengingtomodelthecostsassociatedwithpower
atGlenCanyonDamaloneandcompletingasimilaranalysisfortheentireSLCA/IPsystemswillallow
forthehydropowercoststobeincludedinourestimatesandisavenueforfurtherresearch.
OneimplicationoftheincreasedpowercostsassociatedwithdecliningreservoirlevelsatLakePowell
is that alternative sourcesof energymayneed tobe identified.As thequantity and frequencyof
firmingpurchases increase, the total costof thesepurchasesmay requiremanagers to reconsider
currentpowermarketingplans.ThedevelopmentoftheWesthasreliedonthebenefitsprovidedby
inexpensive hydropower, however, if new environmental norms are realized in the 21st century,
hydropoweroperationsandmarketingmayneedtobereevaluated.
BecauseofthecorrelationbetweentherecreationalvisitationandstoragevolumeofLakePowell,
lowLakeelevationsareprojectedbytheextendedNeheretal.modeltocauseasignificantreduction
89|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
invisitation-over25percentbetween3675and3525footelevations.Theseimpactsmaybefurther
exacerbatedbyadditionalconsiderations,suchastheinoperabilityofshorelineaccesspointsrelied
uponbyboatersandotherwaterrecreationists,aswellaslimitedaccesstoinner-lakeroutessuchas
theCastleRockCut.BecausevisitorstotheGlenCanyonNationalRecreationAreaarecriticaltothe
local Page economy, decreases in Lake Powell visitation could cause a corresponding decrease in
visitordollarsspent in theregion,whichweremeasuredtobe$190million ina2012report (NPS
2014a).
However,dataanalyzedinthisstudytimeframe(1996-2016)suggestthatnewvisitationpatternsmay
betakinghold,demonstratinghigherrecreationalactivityinthepastfiveyearsthanwouldbeinferred
throughreservoirvolumealone.InterviewswithNPSstaffcorroboratethisobservationandpresent
anuntestedhypothesisthataninfluxofinternationalvisitorshasbothraisedtheoverallvisitationat
LakePowell,andshiftedthetypesofusagetowardsmoreland-basedactivities.Furtheranalysison
thedemographyandpreferencesofcurrentLakeuserscould illuminateandquantifythesetrends
further,aswellas refine theNeheretal.model toaccount for these factors should theybecome
significantindicatorsoffuturevisitation.
Environmentalimpactisanunavoidableconsequenceofdamconstruction.Managersareresponsible
fordealingwiththoseimpactsandthepoliciesthatdictatepriorityforaddressingconcerns.Beneficial
environmental outcomes rely on a shift in project priorities. Emphasizing management and
implementationprogramsthatoperateinaholisticmannerandallowforperiodicreassessmentand
adjustment will be important for achieving positive environmental outcomes. Additional benefits
couldarisefromexpandedBasin-widecoordinationwithappreciationofthebroaderinterconnected
ecosystemandbioregion.Attendingtotheneedsofplantsandwildlifewithintheriversystemneeds
tobeconstantlybalancedwiththeneedsofpeoplewhohavecometodependgreatlyonthiswater
supplyinavarietyofways.Environmentalprojectfundingthatistiedtohydropowergenerationisat
risk of declining as new realities of lower water availability become the norm. If reservoir levels
continuetodeclineandtheotherpurposesofthedamtakepriorityovertheenvironment,thereis
riskofneglectthatcouldexacerbateexistingenvironmentalissuesintothefuture.Balancingthese
demandsappropriatelywillbenosmalltask.
Thechoicesthatmanagersandpolicymakersmakeinvolvecomplexdecisionsthatincludeeconomic
effectsandimplicationsforothersocietalvalues.MultipurposeprojectssuchasGlenCanyonDam
andLakePowelloftenhaveconflictinggoalsandaffectadiversevarietyofstakeholders,allofwhich
must be taken into consideration bymanagerswhen determining how to operate the system as
whole. This suggests that there will be no single optimal management strategy for river or dam
operations, but thatdifferent constituent groupsmust accept tradeoffsmadeduring thedecision
process.
Drought conditions and the resulting decline in Lake Powell storage only complicate this already
complexpoliticallandscape.Themagnitudeofthechallengeshouldnotbeadiscouragingfactorfor
engagement.It isourhopethatinformationdetailedinthisreportwilladdtotheexistingbodyof
knowledge and provide an additional framework for building understanding and aligning shared
interestsacrossmanagingentitiesandstakeholdergroups.
90|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Bibliography Adler,RobertW."RevisitingtheColoradoRivercompact:timeforachange."J.LandResources&
Envtl.L.28(2008):19.
AmericanRivers.“ColoradoRiverBasin–ProtectingtheFlows.”N.p.,2014.Web.12Oct.2015.
http://www.americanrivers.org/initiative/dams/projects/colorado-river-basin-protecting-
the-flows
AmericanRivers&WesternResourceAdvocates.(AmericanRivers&WRA).HardestWorkingRiver
intheWest.N.p.,2014.Web25Sept.2015.http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/
reports-and-publications/CRC%20Whitepaper%20with%20Exec%20Summary_FINAL
%20red.pdf?1ef746
Andrews,EdmundD."SedimenttransportintheColoradoRiverbasin."ColoradoRiverEcologyand
DamManagement:ProceedingsofaSymposium,May24–25,1990,SantaFe,NewMexico.
1991.
ArizonaDepartmentofWaterResources.“WaterRightsFactSheet.”N.p.,2001.Web.6Dec.2015.
http://www.uafwp.org/html/WL1ArizonaWaterLawFactSheet.pdf
Arthington,AngelaH.,etal."Thechallengeofprovidingenvironmentalflowrulestosustainriver
ecosystems."EcologicalApplications16.4(2006):1311-1318.
Barnett,DonA.“BriefingDocument”ColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlForum.1May2015.Web.
2Feb2016.http://coloradoriversalinity.org/documents.php?ctgy=Documents
Benenati,EmmaP.,etal.“Reservoir-riverlinkages:LakePowellandtheColoradoRiver,Arizona.”
JournaloftheNorthAmericanBenthologicalSociety19.4(2000):742-755.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1468131
Betz,Eric."WithLakePowellatLowestLevelsince2005,ParkServiceExcavatingCastleRockCut."
DeseretNews.com.N.p.,26Jan.2014.Web.Oct.2015.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765646389/Park-Service-excavating-Castle-Rock-
Cut.html
Blomquist,WilliamAndrew,EdellaSchlager,andTanyaHeikkila.Commonwaters,divergingstreams:
LinkinginstitutionstowatermanagementinArizona,California,andColorado.Resourcesfor
theFuture,2004.136-153.Print.
Borda,Charles.“EconomicImpactsfromSalinityintheLowerColoradoRiverBasin.”Technical
MemorandumNumberEC-04-02.BureauofReclamation.Denver,CO.2004.
91|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Brown,BryanT."NestingChronology,DensityandHabitatUseofBlack-ChinnedHummingbirds
alongtheColoradoRiver,Arizona."JournalofFieldOrnithology(1992):393-400.
CaliforniaStateWaterResourceControlBoard.“TheWaterRightsProcess.”N.p.,2015.Web.6Dec.
2015.http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/water_rights_process.shtml
Carothers,StevenW.,andBryanT.Brown.TheColoradoRiverThroughGrandCanyon:Natural
HistoryandHumanChange.UniversityofArizona,1991.Print.
CentralArizonaProject.“LakeMeadStructuralDeficitAddstoIssuesofDroughtandShortage.”N.p.,
2015Web.3Apr.2016.http://www.cap-az.com/public/blog/466-lake-mead-structural-
deficit-adds-to-issues
CentralUtahProjectCompletionActOffice.“CentralUtahProjectCompletionActOffice-
FrequentlyAskedQuestions.”N.p.,n.d.aWeb.3Apr.2016.http://www.cupcao.gov/faq.html
CentralUtahProjectCompletionActOffice.“CentralUtahProjectCompletionActOffice-An
Overview.”N.p.,n.d.bWeb.3Apr.2016.http://www.cupcao.gov/TheCUP/overview.html
Christensen,NiklasS.,etal."Theeffectsofclimatechangeonthehydrologyandwaterresourcesof
theColoradoRiverBasin."Climaticchange62.1-3(2004):337-363.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013684.13621.1f#/page-1
Cohen,Michael,JulietChristian-Smith,andJohnBerggren.WatertoSupplytheLand,Irrigated
AgricultureintheColoradoRiverBasin.Oakland:N.p.,2013.Web.
http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/pacinst-crb-ag.pdf
ColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlAct(43U.S.C1571).Pub.L.104-20.109Stat.255.28Jul1995.
Congress.gov.Web.2Feb2016.
ColoradoDivisionofWaterResources.“WaterRights.”N.p.,n.d.Web.6Dec.2015.
http://water.state.co.us/surfacewater/swrights/Pages/default.aspx
ColoradoRiverDistrict.“ColoradoRiverPlanning-FAQ.”N.p.,n.d.Web.18Feb.2016.
http://www.coloradoriverdistrict.org/supply-planning/colorado-river-planning-faqs-by-eric-
kuhn/
ColoradoRiverEnergyDistributorsAssociation.(CREDA).PreferencePower.N.p.Web.
http://www.creda.org/Pages/Preference.html
92|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
ColoradoRiverEnergyDistributorsAssociation.(CREDA).TheHouseofPowerandLight:
HydroelectricPowerintheUpperColoradoRiverBasin.2006.Print.
http://www.holsingerlaw.com/uploads/1/7/0/6/17068386/the_house_of_power_and_light.pdf
ColoradoRiverEnergyDistributorsAssociation.(CREDA).HydropowerandGlenCanyonDam.
PhoenixArizona:N.p.,2008.Print.
http://www.creda.org/Documents/Messaging%20Final%20100810.pdf
ColoradoRiverEnergyDistributorsAssociation.(CREDA).TheColoradoRiverStorageProject-Over
50yearsofRenewableEnergyintheWest”.N.p.,2015.Print.
http://www.creda.org/Documents/MessagingFinal100810.pdf
ColoradoRiverGovernanceInitiative.“DoestheUpperBasinHaveaDeliveryObligationoran
ObligationNottoDepletetheFlowoftheColoradoRiveratLeeFerry?”Universityof
ColoradoLawSchoolColoradoLawScholarlyCommons(2012a):n.p.Web.
http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=books_reports_
studies
ColoradoRiverGovernanceInitiative.“RespectiveObligationsoftheUpperandLowerBasins
RegardingtheDeliveryofWatertoMexico:AReviewofKeyLegalIssues.”N.p.,2012b.Web.
26Apr.2016.
ColoradoRiverWaterUsersAssociation.(CRWUA).“Environment.”N.p.,N.d.aWeb.10Oct.2015.
http://www.crwua.org/colorado-river/uses/environment
ColoradoRiverWaterUsersAssociation.(CRWUA).“Reclamation.”N.p.,N.d.bWeb.8Oct.2015.
http://www.crwua.org/colorado-river/uses/reclamation
ColoradoRiverWaterUsersAssociation(CRWUA).“TenTribesPartnership.”N.p.,n.d.cWeb.3Apr.
2016.http://www.crwua.org/colorado-river/ten-tribes
ColoradoRiverWaterUsersAssociation(CRWUA).“Wyoming.”N.p.,n.d.dWeb.3Apr.2016.
http://www.crwua.org/colorado-river/member-states/wyoming
ColoradoWaterConservationBoard.“StatewideWaterSupplyInitiative-2010.”N.p.,2010.Web.3
Apr.2016.http://cwcb.state.co.us/water-management/water-supply-
planning/Pages/SWSI2010.aspx
ColoradoWaterConservationBoard.“Chapter2-Colorado’sLegal&InstitutionalSetting.”Colorado
WaterPlan.N.p.,2015a.Web.3Apr.2016.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowaterplan/colorados-water-plan-final-2015
93|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
ColoradoWaterConservationBoard.“Chapter3-OverviewofEachBasin.”ColoradoWaterPlan.
N.p.,2015b.Web.3Apr.2016.https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowaterplan/colorados-
water-plan-final-2015
ColoradoWaterConservationBoard.“Chapter5-WaterDemands.”ColoradoWaterPlan.N.p.,
2015c.Web.3Apr.2016.https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowaterplan/colorados-water-
plan-final-2015
ColoradoWatershedAssembly.(CWA).“ColoradoWaterFacts.”N.p.,2015.Web.12Oct.2015.
http://www.coloradowater.org/Colorado%20Water%20Facts/#CO%20Riv
Cook,BenjaminI.,TobyR.Ault,andJasonE.Smerdon."Unprecedented21stcenturydroughtriskin
theAmericanSouthwestandCentralPlains."ScienceAdvances1.1(2015):e1400082.
Cook,Chris.Telephonecorrespondence,emailcorrespondence.Spring2016.
Cozzetto,K.etal.“ClimateChangeImpactsontheWaterResourcesofAmericanIndiansandAlaska
NativesintheU.S.”ClimaticChange120.3(2013):569–584.Web.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0852-y
Culp,Peteretal.LiquidAssets:InvestingforImpactintheColoradoRiverBasin.N.p.,2015.Web.
http://encouragecapital.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/water-in-the-west-full-report-
final_web.pdf
Davis,Tony."TestRunonYumaDesalinationPlantaSuccess."ArizonaDailyStar.28June2012.
Web.2Feb.2016.
DeseretMorningNews.(DMN)."PowellBoatAccessaChallenge."DeseretNews.com.29July2004.
Web.Oct.2015.www.deseretnews.com/article/595080387/Powell-boat-access-a-
challenge.html?pg=all.
Dolan,Robert,AlanHoward,andArthurGallenson.“Man'sImpactontheColoradoRiverinthe
GrandCanyon:TheGrandCanyonIsBeingAffectedBothbytheVastlyChangedColorado
RiverandbytheIncreasedPresenceofMan.”AmericanScientist62.4(1974):392–401.
Web.
Elleard,Carl.Telephonecorrespondence,emailcorrespondence.March2016.
EnvironmentalDefenseFund.(EDF).“AbouttheColoradoRiverBasin.”N.p.,2015.Web.12Oct.
2015.http://www.coloradoriverbasin.org/about-the-colorado-river-basin/
94|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
EPA.“ClimateChangeIndicatorsintheUnitedStates,2014.”Change(2014):n.p.Web.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf
Ferrari,RonaldL."1986LakePowellSurvey."AvailablefromtheNationalTechnicalInformation
Service,SpringfieldVA22161,asPB89-178818.Report(1988).
Flanagan,Cathleen,andMelindaLaituri.“LocalCulturalKnowledgeandWaterResource
Management:TheWindRiverIndianReservation.”EnvironmentalManagement33.2
(2004):262–270.Web.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-003-2894-9
Flanigan,Kevin,andKristinGreen.NewMexicoOfficeoftheStateEngineer/InterstateStream
Commission.Telephonecorrespondence.12February2016.
Fleck,John.“ArizonaWaterManagersWarnLakeMeadCouldBeSortaUnusableinFivetoEight
Years.”N.p.,2014.Web.30Apr.2016
FriendsofLakePowell.“LakePowellFacts.”N.p.,n.d.Web.6Oct.2015.
http://www.lakepowell.org/page_two/information/Lake_Powell_Facts/lake_powell_facts.html Garfin,Greggetal.“Ch.20:Southwest.”ClimateChangeImpactsintheUnitedStates:TheThird
NationalClimateAssessment2014:462–486.Web.
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southwest#intro-section.
Generas,GeorgeP.Jr.,andKarenGantt.“RevisitingtheColoradoRiverCompact:Timefora
Change?”JournalofLand,Resources&EnvironmentalLaw28(2008):1–18.Web.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lrel28&div=8&g_sent=1&collection=j
ournals#
Germann,John.“DetectingCavitationtoProtectandMaintainHydraulicTurbines.”TheKnowledge
Stream2013:12–13.Web.https://www.usbr.gov/research/docs/updates/2014-14-
cavitation.pdf
Getches,DavidH.“ColoradoRiverGovernance:SharingFederalAuthorityasanIncentivetoCreatea
NewInstitution.”UniversityofColoradoLawReview68.3(1997):n.p.Web.
http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/Legal/ColoradoRiverGovernanceGetches1997.pdf
GlenCanyonDamAdaptiveManagementProgram.(GCDAMP).“GlenCanyonDamAdaptive
ManagementProgram.”n.p.,2013.Web.10Oct.2015.
http://www.gcdamp.gov/aboutamp/pg.html
Grams,PaulE.,etal."BuildingsandbarsintheGrandCanyon."EOS,TransactionsoftheAmerican
GeophysicalUnion96(2015):1-11.
95|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Gustaveson,Wayne."CastleRockCutDeepening2014."WaynesWords.N.p.,22Mar.2014.Web.
Oct.2015.
Harrison,John."ColumbiaRiverHistoryProject."Hydropower.NorthwestPower&Conservation
Council,31Oct.2008.Web.2Dec.2015.https://www.nwcouncil.org/history/Hydropower
Hecox,WalterE.,BrendanP.Boepple,andMatthewC.Gottfried.“StateoftheRockiesReportCard
ColoradoCollege’sRockyMountainStudyRegion.”2012.Web.
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/286d5cd1-9c42-4ebf-bfc3-efeee214f71f.pdf
Jacobs,JamesJ.,GordonFassett,andDonaldJ.Brosz.“WyomingWaterLaw:ASummary.”N.p.,
1995.Web.6Dec.2015.http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu/wrp/90-17/90-17.html
Jacobs,Jeffrey.“SustainabilityofWaterResourcesintheColoradoRiverBasin.”Bridge41.4(2011):
6–12.Web.https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/55183/55194.aspx
Jiang,Ningetal.“TheBathtubRing:ImplicationsofLowWaterLevelsinLakeMeadonWater
Supply,Hydropower,Recreation,andtheEnvironment.”2015.Web.
http://thebathtubring.weebly.com
Kenney,Douglasetal.“TheColoradoRiverandtheInevitabilityofInstitutionalChange.”Public
LandsandResourcesLawReview32(2011):103–152.Web.
http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=plrlr
Kuhn,Eric.RiskManagementStrategiesfortheUpperColoradoRiverBasin.N.p.,2012.Web.
http://www.coloradoriverdistrict.org/conservepress/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/Kuhn_on_Risk_Mgt_Strategies_of_the_UCRB.pdf
Kuhn,Eric.GeneralManagement,ColoradoRiverDistrict.Emailcorrespondence.25February2016.
LakePowellWaterDatabase.(LPWD).LakePowellWaterDatabase.N.p.,n.d.Web.12Oct.2015.
http://lakepowell.water-data.com/.
Longsworth,JohnW.etal.“NewMexicoWaterUsebyCategories2010.”NewMexicoOfficeofthe
StateEngineerTechnicalReport54.N.p.,2010.Web.3Apr.2016.
http://www.ose.state.nm.us/Pub/TechnicalReports/TechReport%2054NM%20Water%20Us
e%20by%20Categories%20.pdf
Loomis,Brandon."NationalParkServiceAttemptstoUndoTroutDamageatGrandCanyon."
Azcentral.com.USAToday,3Mar.2013.Web.14Apr.2016.
96|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Marcus,David.“GlenCanyonDamReleases-EconomicConsiderations”.Web.28Feb2009.
http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/gc_damEconomics.pdf
Marsh,PaulC.,andMichaelE.Douglas."Predationbyintroducedfishesonendangeredhumpback
chubandothernativespeciesintheLittleColoradoRiver,Arizona."Transactionsofthe
AmericanFisheriesSociety126.2(1997):343-346.
Meko,DavidM.etal.“MedievalDroughtintheUpperColoradoRiverBasin.”GeophysicalResearch
Letters34.10(2007):1–5.Web.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL029988/epdf
Melis,TheodoreS.,etal.ProceedingsoftheColoradoRiverBasinScienceandResource
ManagementSymposium,November18-20,2008,Scottsdale,Arizona.No.2010-5135.P.
195-200.USGeologicalSurvey,2010.Web.3Feb2016.
MexicanWaterTreatyandProtocol.N.p.,1944.Web.http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/1944Treaty.pdf
Millis,Eric.Director,UtahDivisionofWaterResources.Telephonecorrespondence.27Feb.2016.
Morales,Laurel."TensionsRiseWithPlanToFloodGrandCanyon."AroundtheNation.NPR,10July
2012.Web.2Feb.2016.
Morford,Scott.2014.“SalinityintheColoradoRiverBasin.”
https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/education/classes/files/content/page/6%20Morford-
Colorado_Basin_Salinity.pdf.
Mueller,DavidK.,andLisaL.Osen.Estimationofnaturaldissolved-solidsdischargeintheupper
ColoradoRiverbasin,westernUnitedStates.DepartmentoftheInterior,USGeological
Survey,1988.https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/education/classes/files/content/page/6
Morford-
Myers,Tom."LossRatesfromLakePowellandTheirImpactonManagementoftheColoradoRiver."
JAWRAJournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation49.5(2013):1213-1224.
Nania,Julia.“TribalWaterRights.”N.p.,n.d.Web.3Apr.2016.
http://www.tribalwateruse.org/?page_id=569
NationalParkService.(NPS).U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.“Director’sOrder#82:PublicUseData
CollectingandReportingProgram.”2004.Web.28March2016.
https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO-82draft.htm
97|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
NationalParkService.(NPS).U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.“EconomicBenefitsofGlenCanyon
andRainbowBridge.”26Feb.2013.Web.1Oct.2015.
http://www.nps.gov/glca/learn/news/economic-benefits-of-glen-canyon-and-rainbow-
bridge.htm
NationalParkService.(NPS).U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.“GlenCanyonNationalRecreation
AreaProposesFeeIncrease.”19Dec.2014a.Web.12Oct.2015.
http://www.nps.gov/glca/learn/news/glen-canyon-national-recreation-area-proposes-fee-
increase.htm.
NationalParkService.(NPS).U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.“MonthlyPublicUseReport.”19Dec.
2014b.Web.1Feb.2016.
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Monthly%20Public%2
0Use?Park=GLCA]
NationalParkService.(NPS).U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.“GlenCanyonDamLong-Term
ExperimentalandManagementPlanEnvironmentalImpactStatement.”Dec2015.Web.14
Apr.2016.http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/draft-eis/vol2/Front_Matter_Vol_2.pdf
NationalParkService.(NPS).U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.“LakePowellPure.”N.d.Web.13Dec.
2015.http://www.nps.gov/glca/learn/news/lpp.htm
NationalResearchCouncil.“ColoradoRiverBasinWaterManagement:EvaluatingandAdjustingto
HydroclimaticVariability.”TheNationalAcademiesPress.N.p.,n.d.Web.9Dec.2015.
http://www.nap.edu/read/11857/chapter/1.
NationalResearchCouncil.“AdaptiveManagementofGlenCanyonDamandtheColoradoRiver
Ecosystem.”TheNationalAcademiesPress.pg.233.1999.Web.9Dec.2015.
http://www.nap.edu/read/9590/chapter/16#223
NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA).DroughtintheColoradoRiverBasin.
N.p.,n.dNov.2015.Web.https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/colorado-
basin-drought
NavigantConsulting.“RenewableEnergyGlobalandDomesticMarketDrivers.”RenewableEnergy
FinanceForum.PDF.29June2010.Web.
Neher,ChrisJ.,J.W.Duffield,andD.A.Patterson.“Modelingtheinfluenceofwaterlevelson
recreationaluseatlakesMeadandPowell.“LakeandReservoirManagement29.4(2013):
223-246.Web.1Oct.2015.
98|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
NevadaDept.ofConservation&NaturalResources.“NevadaWaterLaw101.”N.p.,n.d.6Dec.
2015.Web.http://dcnr.nv.gov/documents/documents/nevada-water-law-101/
NewMexicoOfficeoftheStateEngineer/InterstateStreamCommission(NMOSE).“WaterResource
AllocationProgram.”N.p.,n.d.aWeb.6Dec.2015.http://www.ose.state.nm.us/WR/
NewMexicoOfficeoftheStateEngineer/InterstateStreamCommission(NMOSE).“Officeofthe
StateEngineer.”N.p.,n.d.bWeb.3Apr.2016.http://www.ose.state.nm.us/OSE/index.php
NewMexicoOfficeoftheStateEngineer/InterstateStreamCommission(NMOSE).“Interstate
StreamCommission.”N.p.,n.d.cWeb.3Apr.2016.
http://www.ose.state.nm.us/ISC/index.php
NewMexicoOfficeoftheStateEngineer/InterstateStreamCommission(NMOSE).“Draft2016San
JuanRegionalWaterPlan.”N.p.,2016.Web.3Apr.2016.
http://www.ose.state.nm.us/Planning/RWP/region_02.php
OpenWaterDataInitiative.(OWDI)“DroughtintheColoradoRiverBasin.”N.p.,n.d.Web.4Feb.
2016.
Ostler,DonA.“ImpactEvaluationofLakePowellWaterSurfaceElevationFallingBelowMinimum
PowerPool.”UpperColoradoRiverCommission,20July2004.Web.
OttVerburg,Katherine.“TheColoradoRiverDocuments,2008.”2010.73-75.Print.
PageLakePowellChamberofCommerce.(PLPCC).“BusinessDirectory.”N.p.,n.d.Oct.2015.Web.
http://pagechamber.com/m/listing/home/.
Pillsbury,A.F.1981.Thesalinityofrivers.ScientificAmerican.245(1):54-65.
Powell,JamesLawrence.DeadPool.LakePowell,GlobalWarming,andtheFutureofWaterinthe
West.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2008.Print.
Randle,Tim.“ColoradoRiverEcosystemSedimentAugmentationAppraisalEngineeringReport”.
ProceedingsofGlenCanyonDamAdaptiveManagementProgramTechnicalWorkingGroup,
BLMNationalTrainingCenter,Phoenix,AZ.24Aug2010.Web.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/10aug24/
Rowell,Kirsten,andDavidL.Dettman."HowHasOver-AllocatingtheColoradoRiverAffected
SpeciesintheGulfofCalifornia?"ProceedingsoftheColoradoRiverBasinScienceand
ResourceManagementSymposium,November18–20.2008.
99|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Rubin,DavidM.,etal."RecentsedimentstudiesrefuteGlenCanyonDamhypothesis."Eos,
TransactionsAmericanGeophysicalUnion83.25(2002):273-278.
SanJuanRiverBasinRecoveryImplementationProgram.(SJRBRIP).“SanJuanRiverBasinRecovery
ImplementationProgram.”N.p.,2007.Web.10Oct.2015.
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/sjrip/index.cfm.
Schmidt,JohnC.,etal."ScienceandvaluesinriverrestorationintheGrandCanyon."BioScience
48.9(1998):735-747.
SecretaryoftheInterior.CriteriaforCoordinatedLong-RangeOperationofColoradoRiverReservoirs
PursuantTotheColoradoRiverBasinProjectAct.N.p.,1970.Web.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/opcriter.pdf
Smith,D.Max,DeborahM.Finch,andScottH.Stoleson."Nest-locationandnest-survivalofblack-
chinnedhummingbirdsinNewMexico:acomparisonbetweenriverswithdifferinglevelsof
regulationandinvasionofnonnativeplants."TheSouthwesternNaturalist59.2(2014):193-
198.
StateofUtahDivisionofWaterResources.“Utah’sWaterResources:PlanningfortheFuture.”2001.
Web.http://www.water.utah.gov/Planning/SWP/StatePlans/SWP2001/SWP_pff.pdf
Tory,Sarah.“InUtah,aMassiveWaterProjectIsGainingGround.”HighCountryNews2016.Web.
24Apr.2016.
Triedman,Natalie.2012.“EnvironmentandEcologyoftheColoradoRiverBasin.”InThe2012
ColoradoCollegeStateoftheRockiesReportCard,88–107.
UnitedStates.Cong.ColoradoRiverCompactof1922.67thCong.3rdsess.WashingtonDC.1922.
Web.https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf
UnitedStates.Cong.UpperColoradoRiverBasinActof1948.80thCong.2
ndsess.WashingtonDC.
1948.Web.https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/ucbsnact.pdf
UnitedStates.Cong.ColoradoRiverStorageProjectActof1956.84thCong.2ndsess.PL485.
WashingtonDC.1956.Web.http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crspuc.pdf
UnitedStates.Cong.ColoradoRiverBasinProjectActof1968.90thCong.2ndsess.PL537.
WashingtonDC.1968.Web.http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crbproj.pdf
100|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“OperationofGlenCanyonDam:FinalEnvironmental
Statement”.Chapter1,p.7ff.1995a.Web.5Dec2015.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/eis/gc/pdfs/Ch1/ch-1.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“OperationofGlenCanyonDam:FinalEnvironmental
Statement”.Chapter3AffectedEnvironment.1995b.Web.26March2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis/gc/pdfs/Ch3/chap3-1.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).QualityofWater,ColoradoRiverBasin,Progress
ReportNo.22.23-31.2005.Web.https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR22.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“Methodstoreplaceorrecoverthebypassflow
includingtheYDP.”PDF.2005b.Web.2Feb2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/bypass/Oct2005presentation.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“ReconnaissanceTechniqueforReservoirSurveys”.
PDF60-63.2006.Web.http://pubs.usgs.gov/misc/FISC_1947-2006/pdf/1st-7thFISCs-
CD/8thFISC/Poster_Ferrari_Collins.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).QualityofWater,ColoradoRiverBasin,Progress
ReportNo.24.3.2013.Web.https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR24final.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).FactSheet:SixthReviewofthe1970Criteriafor
CoordinatedLong-RangeOperationofColoradoRiverReservoirs.N.p.,2005Web.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/lroc/FactSheet.pdf.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).GlenCanyonPowerPlantColoradoRiverStorage
ProjectGlenCanyonStorageUnit.N.p.,2007a.Web.
http://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1240935647334.pdf.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“RecordofDecision:ColoradoRiverInterim
GuidelinesforLowerBasinShortagesandtheCoordinatedOperationsforLakePowelland
LakeMead.”2007b.Web.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“AffectedEnvironment,FinalEIS:ColoradoRiver
InterimGuidelinesforLowerBasinShortagesandtheCoordinatedOperationsforLake
PowellandLakeMead.”2007c.Web.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/FEIS/Chp3.pdf.
101|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“TableAtt.B-1:LakePowellElevationtoStorage
VolumeandSurfaceAreaRelationships.”FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement,Appendix
A:CRSSModelDocumentation.2007d.Web.1Feb.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/FEIS/AppA.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“CRSPGlenCanyonUnitConstructionHistory.”N.p.,
2008a.Web.6Oct.2015.http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/history.html.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“CRSPNavajoUnit.”N.p.,2008b.Web.9Oct.2015.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/navajo/index.html
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“CRSPAspinallUnit.”N.p.,2008c.Web.9Oct.2015.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/aspinall/index.html
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“CRSPPowerMarketing.”N.p.,2008d.Web.4Oct.
2015.http://www.usbr.gov/uc/power/progact/pwrMrkt.html.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“UpperColoradoRiverBasinFund.”N.p.,2008e.Web.
1Dec2015.http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/bf.html
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“GlenCanyonDam-FrequentlyAskedQuestions”
N.p.,2008f.Web.26March2016.http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/bf.html
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“ColoradoRiverBasinProject.”N.p.,2009a.Web.1
Dec.2015.
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Colorado+River+Basin+Project
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“DamDetails-GlenCanyonDam.”N.p.,2009b.Web.
6Oct.2015.
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Glen+Canyon+Dam&groupName=Ove
rview
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“NavajoIndianIrrigationProject”N.p.,2011.Web.26
March.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Navajo+Indian+Irrigation+Project
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“ColoradoRiverBasinSalinityControlProject”N.p.,
2011b.Web.6April.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Colorado+River+Basin+Salinity+Cont
rol+Project
102|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemand
Study:ExecutiveSummary.”N.p.,2012a.Web.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Executive%20Summary/CRB
S_Executive_Summary_FINAL.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“ColoradoRiverandHooverDamFactsandFigures.”
N.p.,2012b.Web.12Oct.2015.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“November2012HighFlowExperimentalRelease
FAQ.”p.3.,2012c.Web.2Feb.2016.
https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdHFE/2012/pdfs/FAQ.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemand
Study:AppendixG2.CRSSModelingAssumptions”,2012d.Web.26March.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Technical%20Report%20G%
20%20System%20Reliability%20Analysis%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Options%20and%2
0Stategies/TR-G_Appendix2_FINAL.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“TechnicalReportC-WaterDemandAssessment.”
ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy.N.p.,2012e.Web.3Apr.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/TechnicalReportC-Water
DemandAssessment/TR-C-Water_Demand_Assessmemt_FINAL.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“AppendixC10HistoricalConsumptiveUseandLoss
DetailbyState.”ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy.N.p.,2012f.Web.3
Apr.2016.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“AppendixC2ColoradoWaterDemandScenario
Quantification.”ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy.N.p.,2012g.Web.3
Apr.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Technical%20Report%20C%
20-%20Water%20Demand%20Assessment/TR-C_Appendix2_FINAL.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“AppendixC5WyomingWaterDemandScenario
Quantification.”ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy.N.p.,2012h.Web.3
Apr.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Technical%20Report%20C%
20-%20Water%20Demand%20Assessment/TR-C_Appendix5_FINAL.pdf
103|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“AppendixC4UtahWaterDemandScenario
Quantification.”ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy.N.p.,2012i.Web.3
Apr.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Technical%20Report%20C%
20-%20Water%20Demand%20Assessment/TR-C_Appendix4_FINAL.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“AppendixC3NewMexicoWaterDemandScenario
Quantification.”ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy.N.p.,2012j.Web.3
Apr.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Technical%20Report%20C%
20-%20Water%20Demand%20Assessment/TR-C_Appendix3_FINAL.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“EnvironmentalAssessmentDevelopmentand
ImplementationofaProtocolforHigh-flowExperimentalReleasesfromGlenCanyonDam,
Arizona,2011-2020”.2012k.Web.13Apr.2016.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“QualityofWater,ColoradoRiverBasin,Progress
ReportNo.24.”N.p.,2013.Web.3Apr.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/pdfs/PR24final.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“GlenCanyonDam.”N.p.,2014a.Web.6Oct.2015.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/index.html
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“CRSPFlamingGorgeUnit.”N.p.,2014b.Web.9Oct.
2015.http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/fg/index.html
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“GlenCanyonDam2014HighFlowExperimental
Release”N.p.,2014c.Web.2Feb2016.http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdHFE/
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).MovingForward:Phase1Report:Introduction.N.p.,
2015a.Web.12Oct.2015.
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/MovingForward/Phase1Report/Chpt1.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“WaterOperationsData:Elevation,Content,Inflow&
ReleaseforLast40Days.”N.p.,2015b.Web.15Feb.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/rsvrs/ops/crsp_40_gc.html
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“WaterOperationsHistoricalData.”N.p.,2015c.Web.
3Apr.2016.http://www.usbr.gov/rsvrWater/faces/rvrOSMP.xhtml
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“GlenCanyonDam.”N.p.,2016a.Web.3Apr.2016.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/gcd.html
104|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“ColoradoRiverStorageProject”N.p.,2016b.Web.26
March2016.http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“MonthlySummaryReports.”N.p.,2016c.Web.1
Feb.2016.http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/rsvrs/ops/monthly_summaries/index.html
UnitedStatesCensusBureau.(USCB).PopulationDistributionandChange:2000-2010.2010Census
Briefs.,2010.Web.https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf
UnitedStatesCommitteeonEnergyandNaturalResources(USCENR).SenateReport106-403–
UpperColoradoRiverandSanJuanRiverBasins.ByLisaMurkowski.N.p.,7Sept.2000.Web.
22Apr.2016.
UnitedStatesDepartmentoftheInterior.SalazarAnnouncesImprovementstoGlenCanyonDam
OperationstoRestoreHighFlowsandNativeFishinGrandCanyon.PressReleases.USBR,23
May2012.Web.2Feb.2016.
UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService(USFWS).ImplementingInnovativeSolutionstoManage
WaterandHydropowerResourcesWhileRecoveringEndangeredSpecies:Highlights2014-
2015.2016.Web4Apr2016.http://www.fws.gov/southwest/sjrip/pdf/20142015highlights.pdf
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey.(USGS).ClimaticFluctuations,Drought,andFlowintheColorado
RiverBasin.N.p.,2004.Web.http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3062/pdf/fs2004-
3062_version2.pdf
UpperColoradoRiverEndangeredFishRecoveryProgram.(UCREFRP).“AbouttheUpperColorado
RiverEndangeredFishRecoveryProgram.”N.p.,2015.Web.10Oct.2015.
http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/general-information/about.html
UpperColoradoRiverEndangeredFishRecoveryProgram.(UCREFRP).“EndangeredBonytail
SpawningConfirmedinaGreenRiverFloodplain.”Denver:U.S.FishandWildlifeService,
2016.Print.http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/general-information/about.html
UtahDivisionofWaterResources.“LakePowellPipeline.”N.p.,n.d.Web.3Apr.2016.
http://www.water.utah.gov/LakePowellPipeline/GeneralInformation/default.asp
UtahDivisionofWaterRights.“WaterRightsInformation.”N.p.,2011.Web.6Dec.2015.
http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/
UtahGovernor’sOfficeofManagement&Budget.“Demographics.”N.p.,n.d.Web.3Apr.2016.
http://governor.utah.gov/DEA/demographics.html
105|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Valdez,RichardA.,andRonaldJ.Ryel.Lifehistoryandecologyofthehumpbackchub(Gilacypha)in
theColoradoRiver,GrandCanyon,Arizona.Bio/West,Incorporated,1995.
Vernieu,WilliamS.“CurrentstatusandtrendsofLakePowellandGlenCanyonDamreleasewater
quality.”GrandCanyonMonitoringandResearchCenter,USGS.2005.PDF.
http://www.gcrg.org/docs/gtslib/vernieu-05.pdf
Warren,Brad.“ReporttotheUpperColoradoRiverCommission.”ColoradoRiverStorageProject
ManagementCenter.17Jun2004.PDF.
Warren,Brad.HydropowerEconomics[PDFdocument].2008.RetrievedfromUSBRMeetingNotes
Webpage:https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/08sep09/Attach_13a.pdf.
Webb,RobertH.,etal."MonumentCreekdebrisflow,1984:Implicationsforformationofrapidson
theColoradoRiverinGrandCanyonNationalPark."Geology16.1(1988):50-54.
Webb,R.H.,etal."DownstreameffectsofGlenCanyondamontheColoradoRiverinGrand
Canyon:areview."ThecontrolledfloodinGrandCanyon(1999):1-21.
WesternAreaPowerAdministration.“Customers.”N.p.,(n.d.a)Web.8Dec.
2015.https://www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/Pages/customers
WesternAreaPowerAdministration.“CRSPManagementCenter”N.p.,(n.d.b)Web.26March
2016.https://www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/Pages/crsp.aspx
WesternAreaPowerAdministration.“HistoricalOperationsData”N.p.,(n.d.c)Web.26March
2016.www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/OpsMaint/Pages/operations-information.aspx
WesternAreaPowerAdministration.“PowerMarketing”.N.p.(n.d.d)Web.23April
2016.https://www.wapa.gov/PowerMarketing/Pages/power-marketing.aspx
WesternAreaPowerAdministration.“HowWesternDoesBusiness:AnExplanationofWestern’s
ProductsandServices.”2012.PDF.https://www.wapa.gov/about/pages/about.aspx
WesternAreaPowerAdministration.2015StateofAssetsReport.WesternReleasesIts2015Stateof
AssetsReport.,10Apr.2015.Web.30Sept.2015.
https://www.wapa.gov/newsroom/NewsReleases/2015/Pages/2015-assets.aspx.
WesternAreaPowerAdministration.Telephonecorrespondenceswithpersonnel.2016.
WisconsinValleyImprovementCompany.(WVIC).“HowHydropowerWorks.”N.p.,2015.Web.6
Oct.2015.http://www.wvic.com/content/how_hydropower_works.cfm
106|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Wolff,Steve,andBethRoss.WyomingStateEngineer’sOffice.Telephonecorrespondence.12
February2016.
Woodhouse,ConnieA.StephanieA.McAfee,KiyomiMorino,GregoryJ.McCabe,GregoryT.
Pederson“IncreasingInfluenceofAirTemperatureonUpperColoradoRiverStreamflow.”
(2016):1–8.Web.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067613/full
WWCEngineering,AECOM,andEROResourcesCorp.“GreenRiverBasinPlan.”N.p.,2010.Web.3
Apr.2016.http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/2010/finalrept/finalrept-GRB.html
WyomingWaterDevelopmentOffice(WWDC).WyomingStateWaterPlan.“FillingCriteria”.Web.5
Dec2015.http://waterplan.state.wy.us/BAG/green/briefbook/lor/lor-12.html
WyomingStateEngineer’sOffice.“BoardOfControl.”N.p.,n.d.aWeb.3Apr.2016.
https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/seo/agency-divisions/board-of-control
107|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Appendix A: Full list of CRSP Customers(Westernn.d.a)
Customer
CustomerType StateAcomaPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
AggregatedEnergyServices Cooperatives AZ
AK-ChinIndianCommunity NativeAmericanTribes AZ
AlamoNavajoChapter NativeAmericanTribes NM
AlbuquerqueOperation-DOE FederalAgencies NM
ArizonaElectricPowerCooperative Cooperatives AZ
ArkansasRiverPowerAuthority Municipalities CO
Aspen,Cityof Municipalities CO
Aztec,Cityof Municipalities NM
BasinElectricPowerCooperative Cooperatives ND
BlackHillsPowerandLight Investor-ownedUtilities SD
BrighamCity,Cityof Municipalities UT
Burbank,Cityof Municipalities CA
CannonAirForceBase FederalAgencies NM
CanoncitoNavajoChapter NativeAmericanTribes NM
Cargill-Alliant,LLC PowerMarketers MN
Center,Townof Municipalities CO
CentralValleyElectricCooperative Cooperatives NM
ChandlerHeightsCitrus IrrigationDistricts AZ
CocopahIndianTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
ColoradoRiverAgency-BIA NativeAmericanTribes AZ
ColoradoRiverCommissionofNevada StateAgencies NV
ColoradoRiverIndianTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
ColoradoSpringsUtilities Municipalities CO
DeCochitiPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
DefenseDepotOgden FederalAgencies UT
Delta,Cityof Municipalities CO
DeseretGenerationandTransmission Cooperatives UT
ElectricalDistrict2 IrrigationDistricts AZ
ElectricalDistrict3(APS)Pinal IrrigationDistricts AZ
ElectricalDistrict4 IrrigationDistricts AZ
ElectricalDistrict5Pinal IrrigationDistricts AZ
ElectricalDistrict6Pinal(SRP) IrrigationDistricts AZ
ElectricalDistrict7MaricopaCounty IrrigationDistricts AZ
FarmersElectricCooperative Cooperatives NM
Farmington,Cityof Municipalities NM
Fleming,Townof Municipalities CO
FortMojaveIndianTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
108|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Customer CustomerType StateFortMorgan,Cityof Municipalities CO
Frederick,Townof Municipalities CO
Ft.McDowellYavapaiNation NativeAmericanTribes AZ
Gallup,Cityof Municipalities NM
GilaRiverIndianCommunity NativeAmericanTribes AZ
GlenwoodSprings,Cityof Municipalities CO
GrandValleyElectricCooperative Cooperatives CO
Gunnison,Cityof Municipalities CO
HavasupaiTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
Haxtun,Townof Municipalities CO
HeberLightandPower Municipalities UT
Helper,Cityof
Municipalities UT
HillAirForceBase FederalAgencies UT
HollomanAirForceBase FederalAgencies NM
HolyCrossElectricAssociation Cooperatives CO
Holyoke,Cityof Municipalities CO
HopiTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
HualapaiTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
IntermountainRuralElectricAssociation Cooperatives CO
IsletaPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
JemezPuebloTribe NativeAmericanTribes NM
JicarillaApacheTribe NativeAmericanTribes NM
JPMorganVenturesEnergy PowerMarketers NY
KirtlandAirForceBase FederalAgencies NM
LagunaPuebloTribe NativeAmericanTribes NM
LasVegasPiuteTribe NativeAmericanTribes NV
LeaCountyElectricCooperative Cooperatives NM
LosAlamosCounty Municipalities NM
LukeAirForceBase FederalAgencies AZ
MaricopaCountyMWCDNo.1 IrrigationDistricts AZ
Mesa,Cityof Municipalities AZ
MescaleroApacheTribe NativeAmericanTribes NM
MorganStanley PowerMarketers NY
NambePuebloTribe NativeAmericanTribes NM
NavajoAgriculturalProductsInd. NativeAmericanTribes NM
NavajoTribalUtilityAuthority NativeAmericanTribes AZ
NavopacheElectricCooperative Cooperatives AZ
Needles,Cityof Municipalities CA
NevadaEnergy Investor-ownedUtilities NV
OakCreek,Townof Municipalities CO
Ocotillo IrrigationDistricts AZ
PacifiCorp Investor-ownedUtilities OR
109|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Customer CustomerType StatePage,Cityof Municipalities AZ
PascuaYaquiTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
PiauteIndianTribeofUtah NativeAmericanTribes UT
PicurisPuebloTribe NativeAmericanTribes NM
PlatteRiverPowerAuthority Municipalities CO
PojaquePueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
Powerex PowerMarketers CAN
Price,Cityof Municipalities UT
PublicServiceCompanyofColorado Investor-ownedUtilities CO
PublicServiceCompanyofNewMexico Investor-ownedUtilities NM
RamahNavajoChapter NativeAmericanTribes NM
ResourceManagement Cooperatives AZ
RooseveltCountyElectricCooperative Cooperatives NM
RooseveltIrrigationDistrict IrrigationDistricts AZ
RooseveltWCDistrict IrrigationDistricts AZ
Safford,Cityof Municipalities AZ
SaltRiverPima-Maricopa NativeAmericanTribes AZ
SaltRiverProject StateAgencies AZ
SanCarloApacheTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
SanCarlosIrrigationProject-BIA NativeAmericanTribes AZ
SanFelipePueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
SanIldefonsoPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
SanJuanPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
SanTanIrrigationDistrict IrrigationDistricts AZ
SandiaPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
SantaAnaPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
SantaClaraPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
SantoDomingoPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
SilverStateEnergyAssociation PowerMarketers NV
SouthTexasElectricCooperative Cooperatives TX
SouthernUteIndianTribe NativeAmericanTribes CO
St.George,Cityof Municipalities UT
SulphurSpringsValleyElectricCooperative Cooperatives AZ
TaosPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
TesuquePueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
Thatcher,Townof Municipalities AZ
TohonoO’odhamUtilityAuthority NativeAmericanTribes AZ
TontoApacheTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
TooeleArmyDepot FederalAgencies UT
Torrington,Cityof Municipalities WY
TransAltaEnergyMarketing(US) PowerMarketers CAN
Tri-StateGenerationandTransmissionAssoc. Cooperatives CO
110|LOOKINGUPSTREAM
Customer CustomerType StateTruthorConsequences,Cityof Municipalities NM
TucsonElectricPowerCompany Investor-ownedUtilities AZ
UniversityofUtah StateAgencies UT
UtahAssociatedMunicipalPowerSystems Municipalities UT
UtahMunicipalPowerAgency Municipalities UT
UtahStateUniversity StateAgencies UT
UteIndianTribe NativeAmericanTribes UT
UteMountainUteTribe NativeAmericanTribes CO
Wellton-MohawkIrrigationDistrict IrrigationDistricts AZ
WillwoodLightandPowerCompany Cooperatives WY
WindRiverReservation NativeAmericanTribes WY
Wray,Cityof Municipalities CO
WyomingMunicipalPowerAgency Municipalities WY
YampaValleyElectricAssociation Cooperatives CO
YavapaiApacheNation NativeAmericanTribes AZ
YavapaiPrescottIndianTribe NativeAmericanTribes AZ
YombaShoshoneTribe NativeAmericanTribes NV
YumaProvingGrounds FederalAgencies AZ
Yuma,Cityof Municipalities CO
ZiaPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM
ZuniPueblo NativeAmericanTribes NM