How California got on board for the water deal

One of the more remarkable accomplishments in the new three-state water agreement to backstop the declining Lake Mead was California's very presence in the negotations.

After all, California has long held most if not all the cards in the Lower Colorado River Basin's water struggles. The 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act that authorized construction of the multi-billion Central Arizona Project gave California a key advantage. In the event of a shortage on the overallocated river, Arizona would stand to lose all of CAP's supply before California lost any.

So how did Arizona and Nevada water agencies get Southern California's Metropolitan Water District to join in the latest water deal? In it, the three states agreed to set 740,000 extra acre-feet of river water aside over the next three years to prop the lake up. The deal could forestall the possibility of a shortage for a year or two -- giving the states more time to look for longer-term solutions for Lake Mead's plight.

"There were very difficult discussions, but once we had established what everyone’s goals were, and that we had some common interests, it became straightforward," said Chuck Cullom, the CAP's Colorado River programs manager. "It took a long time. It was very difficult to achieve those common goals, because the situations at first blush in California, Arizona and Nevada are very different."

While Nevada and Arizona had concerns about the possibility of deep shortages in the river reducing their supplies, and/or the river's long-term imbalance between supply and demand. California's original attitude was, "We have the priority and those look like difficult problems -- good luck," Cullom said.

But ultimately, all three states came to realize that to allow the lake and the river's reservoir system to keep dropping creates risks for all users, regardless of their priority, Cullom said. For California, even though its supplies wouldn't initially be cut in a shortage, it would face restrictions in the flexibility of how it could use its water, he said.

Today, for instance, California can take its entire 4.4 million acre feet of annual river water, plus, some extra water it had stored in previous years, by paying irrigation districts in the state to leave some of their cropland fallow. Right now, it's using some of that extra water to make up for some of the water it's not getting from northern California due to that state's ongoing drought, Cullom said.

But if a Colorado River shortage were to occur, California would lose that flexibility, he said, meaning that if the California drought persisted at the same time, the Metropolitan Water District of that state could face rationing, Cullom said.

The MWD's Bill Hasencamp said that while Cullom's description of the district's current position is generally accurate, he said the Met is not concerned so much about the declaration of a shortage. What it really wants to avoid is Lake Mead dropping to a level such as 1,000 feet elevation, where the states have no agreement in place on how they would respond, he said. Today, the lake is at about 1,084 feet.

"That could result in litigation and fights among the states. We absolutely agree we’re better off having the lake higher," said Hasencamp, manager of MWD's Colorado River resources. "We can't only rely on our priority and say we have our priority and we’re protected."

http://tucson.com/news/blogs/desertb...18550eb7f.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk