Feds May Cut Water Deliveries To Nevada, California, Arizona - SacBee

[hatrack]

"The Bush administration is threatening to impose unilateral water cutbacks on California, Arizona and Nevada if the three states can't come up with a plan to deal with a historic drought on the Colorado River. Following five years of dry weather, the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado are roughly half-empty and dropping fast, and Interior Department officials are urging water agencies to work together on a contingency plan or have one imposed on them.

"We need the three basin states to get their act together and deal with shortages," said Assistant Interior Secretary Bennett Raley in a recent meeting with water officials from California, Arizona and Nevada. If the three states can't work out a plan, he said, the Interior secretary "will have to do it."

EDIT

Since 1999, Lake Mead has dropped more than 80 feet and is at 58 percent of capacity. With less water pressure going through its turbines, Hoover Dam is losing some of its capacity to generate power, and Las Vegas is preparing to deepen its water intake in Lake Mead to keep up with a moving target.

Upstream, at Lake Powell, the water loss is even more dramatic. In four years, Powell has dropped nearly 120 feet, and now holds 42 percent of its maximum water capacity. Never before have both Lake Mead and Lake Powell been at such a low state at the same time, according to officials for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Water leaders in the Southwest are closely watching these lake levels, and so are those in other Western states. Under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the upper-basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming must deliver 7.5 million acre-feet of water to the three lower-basin states each year. Lake Powell was built so the upper basin could deliver on that promise, but now Powell's future is in doubt."

EDIT

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/9076337p-10002238c.html

[mmm]

1. This is a major disaster!

[hatrack]

2. Not a disaster just yet, but this is extremely serious

For the feds to even discuss possible CRSP water delivery cutbacks is highly unusual. But with the main-stem reservoirs down as much as they are, and with the runoff forecast bleak, they don't have much choice but to start getting the word out.

NOAA and USGS also see no near- to medium-term relief from extremely dry conditions now persisting throughout the intermountain West, and yesterday's record highs all over southern California aren't very encouraging, either.

The drought monitor will give you some idea of conditions roughly 10 days back (UNL reposts new weekly drought reports each Thursday).

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

[mmm]

3. What is the solution?

[hatrack]

4. Don't put millions of people in regions that get 3" of rain per year

At least, don't do so in the expectation that you will, at some point, wake up and NOT be living in a desert.

Other than that, there are going to have to be some major changes in water use.

Most of the water diverted from the Colorado actually goes not to cities but to agriculture, so that farmers in the desert Southwest can add to the national surpluses of cotton and alfalfa.

Agribusinesses in the region are paying substantially more now than they did 15 years ago - prices have gone up from the old federally mandated price of $3.50 per acre-foot, which was unbelievably cheap - but there is still a substantial subsidy built into not only the water itself, but also the dams, canals and diversions that deliver it.

If this goes on, you're probably going to see some movement to buy out the water rights and lands of farmers still working the regions around Yuma, Phoenix and in the Salton Sink. The water acquired will probably be directed towards urban areas, where the votes and money are.

There will also have to be some substantial changes in how cities use water - lawns, landscaping and gardening, golf courses are going to cost a lot more. I wouldn't be at all surprised if prices for residential and industrial customers also rose substantially.

Sorry - there really aren't any short, easy answers.

[Sufi Marmot]

5. My naive question...

Are people in this part of the world metered and charged for their water use? If every household had a certain per capita water allowance for free, and any water consumption above that would be billed to them, you would think that people would learn to conserve very quickly.

I grew up in a small town in New England with private well water, and live in Vancouver which seems to have an endless (or is it...?) water supply from the mountain run off, so I've never had to pay for water per se, just the heat for hot water.

-SM

[hatrack]

6. Yes, through private or municipal water utilities

Some rural residents in all the affected states have well water, but this is a tiny percentage compared to the huge populations numbers in Phoenix, LA or LV. Almost everybody is metered and pays accordingly.

[Sufi Marmot]

7. Thanks!

Seems like they could just solve the problem by charging more until water levels come back up, but I'm probably being too simplistic... -SM