Looking Upstream: Analysis of Low Water Levels in … · 1 | LOOKING UPSTREAM Looking Upstream: Analysis of Low Water Levels in Lake Powell and the Impacts on Water Supply, Hydropower,

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


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).


AgricultureIrrigatedAcres 428,000

IrrigationWaterRequirement 2,491,000

WaterSupply-LimitedConsumptiveUse 1,659,000

Non-IrrigationDemand 171,000

TotalAgricultureWaterUse 4,321,000


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.).


Agriculture 112,600


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



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





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





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.


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


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).


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.



103|LOOKINGUPSTREAM

UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“AppendixC4UtahWaterDemandScenario

Quantification.”ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy.N.p.,2012i.Web.3

Apr.2016.



UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation.(USBR).“AppendixC3NewMexicoWaterDemandScenario

Quantification.”ColoradoRiverBasinWaterSupplyandDemandStudy.N.p.,2012j.Web.3

Apr.2016.



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