WaterWired

CRS Report: 'Salton Sea Restoration' and More!

From the CRS 'dynamic duo' Pervaze A. Sheikh and Charles V. Stern comes another significant restoration project (updated 28 July 2021):'Salton Sea Restoration'. 

Another CRS report that packs a lot of information.

Check out this item (thanks to Doug Beeman) in Western Water by Gary Pitzer from the Water Education Foundation: Long Troubled Salton Sea May Finally Be Getting What it Most Needs: Action -- And Money. What timing!

Click on graphics to enlarge them. The very last table is a 2+ page chronology. Take a look at it.

Download CRS_Report_Salton_Sea_Restoration_28July2021

Salton Sea Resrtoration - Overview
The Salton Sea—a lake located in Southern California—is the largest inland water body in the state. The sea has few natural inlets of water, has no natural outlets, and is largely sustained by agricultural runoff from farmlands in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. In recent decades, agricultural runoff to the Salton Sea has diminished due to decreasing agricultural inflows, evaporation, and reduced precipitation, causing the sea to shrink and increase in salinity. High salinity levels, combined with greater concentrations of nutrients and toxins, have altered the sea’s ecosystem and surrounding habitat, making it difficult for most fish and bird species to survive. The Salton Sea’s diminishing size also has exposed lake bed (i.e., playa) around the sea’s shoreline; this playa contains toxic substances that may circulate in the air and impair local and regional air quality.

Over time, federal, state, and private entities have developed proposals to manage and restore parts of the Salton Sea. These efforts have common objectives, including controlling salinity, maintaining some of the sea’s habitat, and stabilizing sea water levels. The current and most prominent restoration initiative, the Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP), was released by the State of California in 2017. The SSMP’s first phase is being implemented from 2018 to 2028. The initiative includes activities to convey water to the Salton Sea, reduce salinity in the sea, and restore approximately 30,000 acres of exposed playa. Phase 1 is estimated to cost $420 million. Some federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior), are collaborating with the State of California to implement the SSMP.

The federal role in restoring the Salton Sea is limited to a handful of projects that address issues on lands in and around the sea managed by federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Defense. Unlike in areas such as Lake Tahoe, the Everglades, and the Chesapeake Bay, Congress has not authorized a comprehensive program to restore the Salton Sea.

The scope and content of plans to restore the Salton Sea have generated debate, and legislation to provide additional federal support for restoration has been introduced in the 117th Congress. Many stakeholders support restoring the Salton Sea because of the sea’s ecological significance as a large wetland along the Pacific Flyway, its role in providing habitat for fish and wildlife, and its economic importance to the region. Some also argue that restoration might mitigate the effects of increasing playa exposure, which is linked to regional airborne pollution. Some observers contend the sea should not be restored; they argue that the area’s geological history demonstrates a pattern of water bodies naturally shrinking, disappearing, and reforming over time and assert that the Salton Sea is following a similar process. Congress may consider issues related to restoring the Salton Sea, including the nature and extent of federal involvement in restoration; how (or if) the federal government should collaborate with the State of California in restoration efforts under the SSMP; and what (if any) federal responsibilities exist for mitigation of airborne toxins that occur due to exposed playa on federal lands.

Introduction
The Salton Sea—an inland lake in Southern California near the U.S.-Mexican border—is the state of California’s largest lake (Figure 1). The Salton Sea has higher salinity levels than the ocean and provides habitat for many species of plants and animals, including several endangered species. The Salton Sea’s ecosystem has deteriorated steadily over time, due largely to declining water levels caused by evaporation, reduced precipitation, and decreased water inflows from agricultural irrigation. Lower water levels have caused the sea to shrink, resulting in an increase in its salinity and the exposure of lake bed (playa).1 High salinity levels, combined with toxic substances in soils and runoff, have led to disease and widespread mortality of fish and birds, as well as to concerns about the effect of exposed playa on air quality.Conclusion
In the future, Congress may be asked by various stakeholders to make additional commitments to Salton Sea restoration, potentially in the form of additional appropriations to one or more federal agencies to supplement or match state expenditures on the SSMP or specific directives related to federal restoration efforts. Some prior commitments, such as those in DOI’s 2016 MOU with the State of California, may not be fully realized without additional funding and authorities from Congress. However, the extent to which this is the case remains unclear.

Congress may be interested in answers to several questions related to Salton Sea restoration and the effects of Salton Sea ecosystem degradation on environmental contaminants and human health. These questions may include the following:

 What are the effects of exposed playa on air quality and, consequently, on human health in the region? What is the federal responsibility for mitigating these effects?

 How do decisions related to water management in the Colorado River Basin affect the health of the Salton Sea ecosystem?

 What is the preferred federal role in implementing the SSMP? Does the project require additional funding, authorities, or other congressional direction?

 What are the cost, content, and duration of long-term restoration plans currently under way in the SSMP? How will these plans restore the Salton Sea ecosystem, mitigate the effects of exposed playa, and conserve species?

Enjoy!

“Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder.” - Laurence J. Peter

V.B. Price Opines: 'Water, Truth and Growth in Albuquerque - Thinking About the Future'

Here is V.B. Price's weekly column. He writes about a place in which I lived for almost a quarter of my life. I've been fortunate to spend my adult life in some pretty nice places: Tucson, Reno, Truckee, Santa Cruz, Albuquerque, and Corvallis. Of these places, Albuquerque, stands #1 for a variety of reasons. The biggest one is that I married Mary Frances while there (although we met when I worked in Reno and actually tied the knot at Lake Tahoe). I spent 17 wonderful years at the University of New Mexico before coming to Corvallis in 2006. 

Enjoy!

Water, Truth and Growth in Albuquerque:
Thinking About the Future

On the road this summer, I didn’t find a town or city that could hold a candle to Albuquerque. Granted, I’m partisan, but everywhere we went, from Texas and Georgia to Oklahoma and Tennessee, cities were confusing, overcrowded, rundown places. Not that Albuquerque doesn’t have its miseries, but the city as a whole is comfortingly legible. You always know where you are; it’s hard to get lost. The Middle Rio Grande Valley is a kind of Eden. The mountains are magnificent, the wild river and its forest have a beauty that can’t be surpassed and the West

Mesa volcanoes are still pristine as ever, reminding some of us of the days in Albuquerque when our leaders cared about such things as urban ecology, local agriculture, open space and human scale — and talked about them in public.

Albuquerque is an inherently appealing place. Its cultural diversity and deep-seated civility make doing business locally a pure pleasure when compared to dealing with big box stores and their distracting corporate cultures. We are so appealing, in fact, that there’s a chance with climate change-caused drought and heatwaves threatening the water supply, hydroelectric power and general livability of many cities around the southwest — including Los Angeles, Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and towns throughout West Texas — Albuquerque could find itself over the next decade trying to cope with an influx of new residents. It may come only in spasmodic trickles at first, mirroring the variability of the weather. But a general diaspora from neighboring cities could pick up steam if this 21-year dry spell we’re having turns into the new norm with no change in sight.

Opportunities abound. We might even find a market for a revival of serious fruit and vegetable farming here if ongoing agricultural water shortages diminish the productivity of California’s Imperial and Central Valleys, both crucial to the nation’s winter food supply.

It all depends on how much water we really have and how drinkable it really is. A quality water supply is so important to a city’s development that we used to fib about ours, spinning a tale about a mythical body of water the size of Lake Superior under the city. We learned differently when the U.S Geological Survey studied our aquifer in the 1990s under an invitation from then mayor Louis Saavedra. It found that our aquifer not only was not a lake, but that it was rapidly shrinking. That insight prompted the creation of the city’s successful long-range conservation strategy still in place today.

Yes, a steady flow of new people into our city also depends to some extent on Albuquerque somehow expunging its “Breaking Bad” reputation as a city characterized chiefly by ugly development, violence, drugs, rogue cops and a perfect storm of crime and poverty. Albuquerque Economic Development’s (AED) five-year strategic growth plan, published last week, is on the mark when it comes to admonishing us to restructure the city’s “brand,” with the goal of us becoming “known and recognized for having the highest quality of life and the most diverse, sustainable economy in the region,” according to the Albuquerque Journal. All of us who love this place know that the first part of that goal, at least, is uncontestably true.

But these are dicey times. Many days in a row of 102-degree heat in early June here does not portend well. Not being able to use our portion of the Colorado River to augment our drinking water this summer for the second year in a row has ominous implications for Albuquerque’s long-range water conservation strategies.

And all around us, heat and drought are causing serious problems that we are not immune to ourselves. The specter of Southern California losing a high percentage of its hydroelectric power from a severely diminished Lake Powell, causing rush-hour brownouts, makes us wonder about our own power sources in a time of high use and technological change. The prospect of heat waves, with blackouts and no refrigerated air in the hottest parts of the day haunt most Southwestern cities this summer, not to mention potential wildfires at the urban-wildland interface racing through unprepared suburbs.

But here sits mile-high Albuquerque in one of the most beautiful natural settings in the nation, with its fine university, great museums, major scientific institutions, recent history of good water management and coherent urban form, waiting, if not quite ready, to become a desirable destination in difficult times. But will we choose wholesome growth guided by goals and planning or go for an indiscriminate flooding of people who don’t care where they are, and incentivize hordes of out-of-state franchises that push out local businesses?

It could be a great time for us or a disaster.

The best way for us to turn these troubling times to our advantage is to stimulate realistic public discourse about not only our goals but also about major issues facing us in the future. This should be the job of mayoral campaigns this summer and fall. I want to see mayoral candidates actually grapple with the most important issue facing any Southwestern city in the 21^stcentury — not crime, not weed, not even jobs — but water, drinkable water.

Albuquerque would do well to familiarize itself with water woes in Tucson, a comparable sized city, more than two thousand feet closer to sea level than we are. Both Tucson and Albuquerque have done commendable jobs since the l990s in reducing water use, stimulating water conservation, educating school children and the public in the fine points of conservation and reuse for parks and golf courses, and in helping to recharge their aquifers. Albuquerque has even reduced its per capita per day usage over the last 30 years from 252 gallons to a 127, a major feat in anyone’s book. And we still need to use less.

But both cities also tend to talk about the future water supply as if they have it under control, as if climate change wasn’t a wild card with terrifying possibilities, as if old conservation patterns were going to extend themselves into the future without requiring severe new constraints, and as if their aquifers were clean with no pollution and no worries.

Both cities dismiss decades of groundwater pollution with a kind of deeply troubling happy talk that might be superficially “good for business” but undermines the urgency of work that still needs to be done to ensure useful and healthy growth down the road. A city can’t grow for long on dirty water.

Here’s part of the trouble: The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson’s paper, ran a piece this March extensively quoting a former city water manager who was optimistic that the “worst plausible scenario” of the city losing 50% of its Colorado River allocation to drought could be survived without much trouble into the “foreseeable future.”

A 50% loss seems, on the face of it, an absurd underestimation in an era of protracted, climate change drought, with Lake Mead, which supplies Tucson through the Central Arizona Project canal, at its lowest level since it was completed in the 1930s — nearing 33% capacity. And the former water manager never mentioned, as Albuquerque’s never do, pollution of the groundwater.

Pollution from military bases is so bad in and around Tucson that a plant to clean up polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) contamination found in many commercial products, and in large quantities in fire-fighting chemicals, in groundwater under airports and military bases, had to be closed down last month. There was so much of the contaminate the plant couldn’t process it all and produce drinkable water.

We could well be worse off than Tucson when it comes to our polluted aquifer. We don’t know for sure. But before we launch a new re-branding campaign, we better find out. We know this, though, that every city in the Southwest has major groundwater pollution under its military bases and around its manufacturing zones, which are often within poor neighborhoods. Albuquerque cannot be the exception. And we know it’s not.

But we need the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA), overseen by city and county elected leaders, to produce a detailed public inventory of all the metro area’s groundwater pollution sites, including, of course, the nation’s largest jet fuel contamination at Kirtland Air Force Base, the GE plume in South Valley and other groundwater contamination there, Sandia National Laboratory toxic landfills, septic tank and gasoline storage tank leaks and the plutonium residue in Cochiti Lake, downwater from the Los Alamos National Laboratories; the water we get from the Colorado River passes through that reservoir before it is treated by the city.

We can’t depend on the EPA right now to watchdog our water. It’s been fiscally and scientifically compromised by the Trump Administration and earlier Republican reigns. We have to do it ourselves. And we may have to tax ourselves to get it done. How terrible it would be to wake up one day and find ourselves coping with all the mixed blessings of rapid new growth, but under the cloud of a drought-shrunken and compromised water supply. We just can’t let that happen.
 

*Nullius in verba: take nobody’s word for it

You can join his mailing list and get these columns delivered by email - click here. View more here.

"Albuquerque: Next 17 Exits" - Suggested city motto. (Road sign on Interstate 40 heading west into Albuquerque)

“Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.” - Laurence J. Peter

CRS Report: 'Management of the Colorado River - Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role'

Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh have updated (1 July 2021) their excellent CRS report: 'Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role'.

Download CRS_Report_Mgmt_CO_River_Water_Allocations_Drought_Fed_Role_1July2021

The graphics are not placed where they occur in the report. Click on a graphic to enlarge it. Click here for an updated map of the basin.

Summary
The Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles in seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior) manages much of the basin’s water supplies. Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses; it is also important for hydropower production, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses.

Apportioned Colorado River water is widely acknowledged to be in excess of the river’s natural flows, and consumptive use of these waters typically exceeds natural flows. This causes an imbalance in the basin’s available water supply and demand. Stress on basin water supplies is exacerbated by a long-term drought dating to 2000. In the future, observers expect ongoing strain on the basin’s limited water supplies, which will be further stressed by climate change.

River Management
The Law of the River is the commonly used shorthand for the multiple laws, court decisions, and other documents governing Colorado River operations; its foundational document is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Pursuant to the compact, the basin states established a framework to apportion water supplies between the river’s Upper and Lower Basins, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ. Each basin was allocated 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) annually under the compact, and an additional 1.5 MAF in annual flows was made available to Mexico under a 1944 treaty. Further agreements and court decisions addressed other issues (e.g., intrastate allocations of flows), and subsequent federal legislation provided authority and funding for federal facilities that allowed users to develop their allocations. A 1963 Supreme Court ruling confirmed that Congress designated the Secretary of the Interior as the water master for the Lower Basin, a role in which the federal government manages the delivery of all water below Hoover Dam.

Reclamation and basin stakeholders closely track the status of two large reservoirs—Lake Powell in the Upper Basin and Lake Mead in the Lower Basin—as an indicator of basin storage conditions. Under criteria agreed upon by basin states, dam releases from these facilities are tied to specific water storage levels. As of late June 2021, Reclamation projected an extremely high likelihood of delivery curtailments (i.e., a Tier One or greater shortage condition) in the Lower Basin beginning in 2022. If Reclamation declares a Tier One shortage condition for 2022, it will be the first instance of such a declaration and the accompanying delivery curtailments.

Operational Changes and Drought Contingency Plans
The federal government has led multiple efforts attempting to improve the basin’s water supply outlook, resulting in previous collaborative agreements in 2003 and 2007. After several years of negotiations, in 2019 Reclamation and the basin states agreed on a new set of plans to alleviate the strain on basin water supplies. Congress authorized these drought contingency plans (DCPs) for the Upper and Lower Basins in 2019 in the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act (P.L. 116-14). Among other things, the DCPs required reductions beyond previous curtailment plans based on Lake Mead storage levels, committed Reclamation to additional water conservation efforts, and put in place plans to coordinate Upper Basin operations to enhance Lake Powell storage levels and hydropower generation. Although the DCPs were widely lauded for their consensus-based development, many remain concerned about the basin’s long-term water supply imbalance and the related potential for a compact call (a “call” on water rights between the Lower and Upper Basins). A central question facing decisionmakers is whether to renew interim agreements (including the DCPs) prior to their expiration in 2026, along with what (if any) additional changes might be necessary to prevent future shortages.

Congressional Role
Congress plays a multifaceted role in federal management of the Colorado River Basin. Congress funds and oversees management of basin facilities and has held oversight hearings on drought in the basin and elsewhere. Congress also has enacted legislation involving allocation of Colorado River waters (e.g., authorization of Indian water rights settlements; new water storage facilities) and authorities to mitigate water shortages (i.e., the DCPs and other related efforts). In the future, Congress may be asked to amend or extend these authorities to combat long-term water shortages.

Introduction
From its headwaters in Colorado and Wyoming to its terminus in the Gulf of California, the Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles. The river runs through seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, part of the Department of the Interior [DOI]) plays a prominent role in the management of the basin’s waters. In the Lower Basin (i.e., Arizona, Nevada, and California), Reclamation also serves as water master on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, a role that elevates the status of the federal government in basin water management. The federal role in the management of Colorado River water is magnified by the multiple federally owned and operated water storage and conveyance facilities in the basin, which provide low-cost water and hydropower supplies to water users.

Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes. The river’s flow and stored water also are important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreation, among other uses. A majority (70%) of basin water supplies are used to irrigate 5.5 million acres of land; basin waters also provide M&I water supplies to nearly 40 million people. Much of the area that depends on the river for water supplies is outside of the drainage area for the Colorado River Basin. Storage and conveyance facilities on the Colorado River provide trans-basin diversions that serve areas such as Cheyenne, WY; multiple cities in Colorado’s Front Range (e.g., Fort Collins, Denver, Boulder, and Colorado Springs, CO); Provo, UT; Albuquerque and Santa Fe, NM; and Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Imperial Valley in Southern California (Figure 1). Colorado River hydropower facilities can provide up to 4,200 megawatts of electrical power per year. The river also provides habitat for a wide range of species, including several federally endangered species. It flows through 7 national wildlife refuges and 11 National Park Service (NPS) units; these and other areas of the river support important recreational opportunities.

Precipitation and runoff in the basin are highly variable. Water conditions on the river depend largely on snowmelt in the basin’s northern areas. Observed historical data (1906-2018) show that overall, natural flows in the Colorado River Basin averaged about 14.8 million acre-feet (MAF) annually. Flows have dipped significantly during the current drought, which dates to 2000; natural flows from 2000 to 2018 averaged approximately 12.4 MAF per year. Reclamation has estimated that the 19-year period from2000 to 2018 was the driest period in more than 100 years of record keeping. The dry conditions are consistent with prior droughts in the basin that were identified through tree ring studies; some of these droughts lasted for decades. Climate change impacts, including warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns, may further increase the likelihood of prolonged drought in the basin.

Pursuant to the multiple compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines governing Colorado River operations (collectively known as the Law of the River), Congress and the federal government play a prominent role in the management of the Colorado River. Specifically, Congress funds and oversees Reclamation’s management of Colorado River Basin facilities, including facility operations and programs to protect and restore endangered species. Congress has also approved and continues to actively consider Indian water rights settlements involving Colorado River waters, and development of new and expanded water storage in the basin. In addition, Congress has approved funding to mitigate drought and stretch basin water supplies and has considered new authorities for Reclamation to combat drought and enter into agreements with states and Colorado River contractors.

This report provides background on management of the Colorado River, with a focus on recent developments. It also discusses the congressional role in the management of basin waters.

Cutting to the chase...

Issues for Congress 

Funding and Oversight of Existing Facilities and Programs
The principal role of Congress as it relates to storage facilities on the Colorado River is funding and oversight of facility operations, construction, and programs to protect and restore endangered species (e.g., Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Program). In the Upper Basin, Colorado River facilities include the 17 active participating units in the Colorado River Storage Projects, as well as the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project. In the Lower Basin, major facilities include the Salt River Project and Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Hoover Dam and All-American Canal, Yuma and Gila Projects, Parker-Davis Project, Central Arizona Project, and Robert B. Griffith Project (now Southern Nevada Water System). 

Congressional appropriations in support of Colorado River projects and programs typically account for a portion of overall project budgets. For example, for the most recent year available (FY2018), the Lower Colorado Region’s operating budget was $559.5 million; $134.8 million of this total was provided by discretionary appropriations, and the remainder of funding came from power revenues (which are made available without further appropriation) and nonfederal partners. In recent years, Congress has also authorized and appropriated funding that has targeted the Colorado River Basin in general (e.g., the Pilot System Conservation Plan). Congress may choose to extend or amend these and other authorities specific to the basin. 

While discretionary appropriations for the Colorado River are of regular interest to Congress, Congress may also be asked to weigh in on Colorado River funding that is not subject to regular appropriations. For instance, in the coming years, the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund is projected to face a decrease in revenues104 and may thus have less funding available for congressionally established funding priorities for the Development Fund. 

Indian Water Rights Settlements
Congress has previously approved Indian water rights settlements associated with more than 2 MAF of tribal diversion rights on the Colorado River. Only a portion of this water has been developed. Congress likely will face ongoing decisions regarding whether to fund development of previously authorized infrastructure associated with Indian water rights settlements in the Colorado River Basin. For example, the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is being built to serve the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Navajo Nation, and the City of Gallup, New Mexico. Congress may also be asked to consider new settlements that may result in tribal rights to more Colorado River water. 

Plans for New and Augmented Water Storage, Conveyance
Some states in the Upper Basin have indicated their intent to further develop their Colorado River water entitlements. For example, in the 115th Congress, Section 4310 of America’s Water Infrastructure Act (P.L. 115-270) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of Wyoming whereby the state would fund a project to add erosion control to Fontenelle Reservoir in the Upper Basin. The project would allow the state to potentially utilize an additional 80,000 acre-feet of water storage on the Green River, a tributary of the Colorado River. 

Another project that would develop Upper Basin waters is the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP), which would direct approximately 86,000 acre-feet of Utah’s Upper Basin Colorado River Basin apportionment from Lake Powell to Washington County, UT (i.e., the St. George, UT, area, which is technically located within the Lower Basin drainage area). The pipeline would begin near Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona and would run through Arizona and Utah to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, UT. Reclamation has been designated the lead agency for the project under NEPA and is coordinating an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the most recently proposed version of the project. Supporters in Utah argue that the pipeline is needed to provide a second primary water source for the St. George area, in addition to the Virgin River. Some environmental groups have argued that the proposed development and diversion of additional Upper Basin waters is ill-advised in light of climate change and the basin’s issues with over-allocation. These groups have argued for major changes to the scope of the EIS. The six other Colorado River Basin states have raised concerns related to the proposed LPP’s “legal and operational issues,” and they have raised concerns with the LPP NEPA process as the de facto forum for resolving a conflict among basin states. The six states have requested that Reclamation refrain from issuing a final EIS until these issues can be resolved on a consensus basis.

Drought Contingency Plan Implementation and Future Basin Agreements Congress is likely to remain interested in the status of drought in the basin in general,110 as well as in the implementation of the DCPs and other related agreements and their success or failure at stemming further delivery curtailments and adding water to the basin’s storage reservoirs. Similarly, Congress may be interested in the overall hydrologic status of the Colorado River Basin, including new and existing efforts to plan for increased demand in the basin and stretch limited basin water supplies. 

Federally led efforts to extend the 2007 Interim Guidelines (including the DCPs), which expire at the end of 2026, look to be the next major hurdle in the consensus-based management of the Colorado River. These reconsultation efforts, including any major alterations to the existing agreements, are key to managing the basin’s future water resources. Insofar as these agreements involve new federal authorities, Congress may be asked to play a part in their approval. 

Enjoy!

"History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” - Mark Twain

New Map of the Colorado River Basin by Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

Little did I know that my favorite river basin was getting a new map!

Yesterday I got an email from Dr. Zachary (Zach) Sugg of the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, a part of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Zach announced that a new map of the Colorado River Basin has been published. Why a new map? Here is the bulk of his email:

The effort was inspired in large part by an airing of map-related grievances on John Fleck’s blog by Doug Kenney in 2019: All I Want is an Accurate Colorado River Map – jfleck at inkstain and by an earlier one by Sara Porterfield (referenced in Doug’s post) Why, in 1928, the Bureau of Reclamation treated Mexico as part of the Colorado River Basin – jfleck at inkstain. Through a lot of research and peer review we did our best to address these issues that folks had raised, some of which we were also generally aware of from seeing many different maps of the Colorado Basin over the years.  The front side of the map is the full Colorado Basin, which is accompanied by text and photos. There are also four smaller maps on the back side that highlight different regional issues: the Delta, the Salton Sea, wildfire and wildland-urban interface, and water, urban growth, and farmland.

The map was designed to make good use of the poster-sized hard copy format but it is also available as a pdf here. There is also a link at the bottom of that webpage where people can request a hard copy through the mail.

Download Crb_map_web

We also just published a short piece in the Lincoln Institute’s Land Lines magazine that I wrote reflecting on the challenges of making the map that might also be of interest. Cartographic Meditation: Mapping the Colorado River Basin in the 21st Century (lincolninst.edu)

Request a poster-sized free copy here.

So, let's see the map already! Here you go:

Enjoy! I will! Thanks, Zach!

“I sit watching until dusk, hypnotized. I think of the sea as continually sloshing back and forth, repetitive, but my psyche goes with the river- always loping downhill, purposeful, listening only to gravity.” - Ann Zwinger, Downcanyon: A Naturalist Explores the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon

CRS Report: 'Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies - Overview of FY2021 Appropriations

From Carol Hardy Vincent - this CRS report (28 June 2021): 'Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: Overview of FY2021 Appropriations'.

Download CRS_Report_Int_Env_Related_Overview_FY2021_App_28June2021

Click on the graphics to enlarge them. A list of CRS staffers and their areas of expertise is on page 14.

Summary
The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill contains funding for three dozen agencies and entities. They include most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) as well as agencies within other departments, such as the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and other organizations and entities. Issues for Congress included determining the amount, terms, and conditions of funding for agencies and programs.

P.L. 116-260, enacted on December 27, 2020, contained $38.52 billion for FY2021 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (in Division G). This total included $36.17 billion in regular appropriations and $2.35 billion for wildfire suppression under a discretionary cap adjustment. Earlier, President Trump’s request, a House-passed bill, and a SenateAppropriations Committee majority draft bill all supported this wildfire suppression adjustment; it consisted of $2.04 billion for the Forest Service and $310.0 million for DOI.

Of the $38.52 billion enacted for FY2021, the 11 major DOI agencies in Title I of the law received $13.72 billion, or 35.6% of the total. For EPA, funded in Title II, the FY2021 law contained $9.24 billion, or 24.0% of the total. For the 24 agencies and other entities funded in Title III (“related agencies”), the FY2021 law provided $15.56 billion, or 40.4% of the total. Overall, nearly three-quarters of the $38.52 billion was for five agencies: EPA, Forest Service, Indian Health Service, NationalPark Service, and Bureau of IndianAffairs.

The FY2021 enacted total was $2.19 billion (5.4%) lower than the FY2020 enacted total of $40.72 billion, which included $2.41 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for coronavirus preparedness and response and activities related to the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. However, the FY2021 enacted total was $0.2 million (0.6%) higher than the FY2020 enacted regular appropriation of $38.30 billion (in P.L. 116-94, Division D).

The FY2021 enacted total was $4.46 billion (13.1%) higher than President Trump’s FY2021 request of $34.07 billion. Many agencies in the bill received higher enacted appropriations than President Trump requested, including the EPA, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Education, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Of the $34.07 billion requested, President Trump had sought the following amounts: for DOI agencies, $12.05 billion, or 35.4% of the total requested; for EPA, $6.70 billion, or 19.7% of the total requested; and for the related agencies in Title III of the bill, $15.31 billion, or 44.9% of the total.

Prior to enactment of P.L. 116-260, the House had passed an earlier FY2021 Interior appropriations bill. H.R. 7608, as passed by the House on July 24, 2020, contained $54.67 billion (in Division C) for agencies in the Interior bill. This total included $39.17 billion in annual appropriations and $15.50 billion in emergency appropriations for additional infrastructure investments of three agencies (EPA, the Indian Health Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs). The FY2021 enacted appropriations law did not include this infrastructure funding. To further negotiations between the House and the Senate, on November 10, 2020, the chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations released a draft Interior bill along with a draft accompanying explanatory statement. This Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bill contained $38.22 billion in annual appropriations.

Enjoy!

"As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld (1932-2021)