WaterWired

CRS Insight Report: 'Drought Contingency Plans for the Colorado River Basin'

Charles V. Stern has penned this critical 4-page CRS Insight report (dated 15 February 2019): Drought Contingency Plans for the Colorado River.   

I have pasted the entire report below and along with a PDF version. The online version may have some hot links; you can find that version hereor by clicking on the title above.

Download CRS_Insight_Drought_CRB_15February2019

Introduction
The Colorado River Basin is a critical source of water and power supplies for seven western states and Mexico. The basin is in the midst of a long-term drought. Water levels at the basin's two largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, could reach critically low levels. Building on prior agreements, the basin states and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) recently announced drought contingency plans (DCPs) that aim to decrease the likelihood of major water and power supply curtailments for users.

Colorado River Basin in Context
The Colorado River Basin (Figure 1) covers approximately 246,000 square miles, 97% of which are in the United States. It includes the Colorado River and its tributaries, which cross the United States border into Mexico before discharging into the Gulf of California. Pursuant to federal law, multiple federal facilities (e.g., Hoover Dam) store and convey water from the river and its tributaries and generate hydropower for the southwestern United States. The primary federal agency with jurisdiction over the river is Reclamation, an agency within the Department of the Interior (DOI).

Based on observed data, average natural Colorado River flows in the 20th century were about 15 million acre-feet (maf) annually. Flows have dipped during an ongoing, long-term drought dating from 2000; Reclamation estimated that from 2008 to 2018, flows averaged 12.9 maf.

Colorado River Compact
The Colorado River Compact of 1922, agreed to by the basin states and the federal government, is the foundation of the "Law of the River," which governs water management. Under the compact, water supplies are divided equally between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, with the dividing line at Lee's Ferry, AZ (near the Utah Border). Each basin was apportioned 7.5 maf annually. Congress approved the compact in the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. Multiple other compacts, federal laws, court decisions, and regulatory guidelines have since been added to the Law of the River. State-level apportionments were established by documents approved subsequent to the Colorado River Compact. Pursuant to a 1944 treaty with Mexico, an additional 1.5 maf per year was reserved for flows to Mexico.

Supply/Demand Imbalance
Consumptive use in the basin typically exceeds natural flows, and studies project this trend will lead to a long-term imbalance in basin supply and demand. The basin has thus far avoided major impacts on supplies due in large part to its significant storage (60 maf), coupled with the fact that Upper Basin states have not fully developed their entitlement. However, less water is in storage as a result of the drought. Additional supply/demand imbalance could result from projected population increases and the development of tribal water rights, among other things.

Drought Contingency Plans
In October 2018, after several years of negotiations, draft DCPs were announced for the Upper and Lower Basins. The DCPs aim to decrease the likelihood of major supply curtailments and other basin impacts. They build on a series of prior agreements:

1) 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). California agreed to reduce water use to adhere to its Colorado River water allocation and committed to a path for restoration of the Salton Sea in Southern California.

2) 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. These guidelines included criteria for "balancing" releases from Lakes Mead and Powell and a mechanism for storing conserved water in Lake Mead. They also included a schedule of Lower Basin curtailments in Arizona and Nevada if Lake Mead drops to an elevation of 1,075 feet or less (i.e., a "shortagecondition"). As of January 2019, there was a 69% chance of a shortage condition beginning in 2020.

3) 2014 Pilot System Conservation Program. This DOI-led effort provided cost-shared funding for projects to conserve water supplies in the Lower Basin.

4) 2017 Minute 323 agreement with Mexico. This agreement extended and replaced the previous Minute 319 agreement (2012) with Mexico. It included increased U.S. storage opportunities for Mexico and a binational plan that would commit Mexico to new delivery curtailments parallel to those in the Lower Basin DCP.

The Upper Basin DCP would establish a Demand Management Program for the Upper Basin by authorizing storage of conserved water in Lake Powell. It also would establish 3,525 feet as the target operational level for Lake Powell. Together, these efforts would decrease the risk of Lake Powell's elevation falling below 3,490 feet, at which point reduced hydropower generation and cutbacks to water users are possible.

The Lower Basin DCP would require that when Lake Mead reaches predetermined elevations, Lower Basin states would forgo deliveries beyond previously agreed-upon levels. It would further incentivize voluntary conservation of water to be stored in Lake Mead and commit DOI to conserving 100,000 acre-feet of water that will be left in the system. The agreement aims to avoid Lake Mead elevations falling below 1,020 feet.

DCP implementation requires approval by basin states and stakeholders of the DCPs and a number of related intrastate agreements. Federal actions in the DCPs also require authorization by Congress. On February 1, 2019, Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman announced that basin states had not completed all of the required steps to approve the DCPs by a previously established January 31 deadline. Thus, the bureau published a Federal Register notice requesting input from basin state governors regarding how DOI might reduce the risk of drought in the basin. If the DCPs are completed by March 4, the notice would be rescinded and the DCPs could be finalized with congressional authorization. If they are not completed, DOI may use its authority to make unilateral water delivery cutbacks in the basin.

Enjoy!

"I've searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees." - G.K. Chesterton

New Mexico Groundwater: Moving Right Ahead with The Water Data Act

On 16 November 2017 I posted about a nifty program in New Mexico: the Collaborative Groundwater Monitoring Network (CGMN) of the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources (NMBGMR) Aquifer Mapping Program (AMP). He post included the glowing comments of one stakeholder.

I now have some information about a another groundwater program of the Bureau.  Hydrogeologist Stacy Timmons (OSU Geology MS, 2002), the AMP manager, told me of some 'cool legislation' - the Water Data Act - they are working on.

This bill was modeled similar to Californa's Open and Transparent Water Data Act of 2016, but catered to New Mexico. Some of the major points of this legislation are that it:

• Seeks to coordinate and integrate all relevant water data for the state.
• Establishes a multi-agency council to develop common water data standards and improve data openness, accessibility, and interoperability--co-chaired by the Bureau of Geology (as the state agency charged with maintaining data) and ISC (the primary body charged with state water planning). 
• All major resource management agencies and academic institutions would participate in the Council, along with an advisory group of stakeholders that could include federal, tribal, irrigation district and acequias, NGOs etc. 
• Establishes a fund to accept state and outside monies to support improvements to water data statewide.  

Here is a PDF of the bill:

Download NM_HB0651+2019

Stacy concluded her email:

I believe it would make New Mexico the 2nd state in the country to move water data into the wide open, and require it to be interoperable! As a desert state facing warmer times, we could actually be proactive on water issues!

She promised to send me more information - fact sheets and the like - if I wanted them. I will post them when I receive them.

This is really something - a model for other states. Once again, New Mexico fools everyone with its foresight when it comes to groundwater.

Enjoy!

"Until I came to New Mexico, I never realized how much beauty water adds to a river." - Mark Twain

CRS Report: 'U.S. Department of the Interior - An Overview'

When I think of water and Federal agencies, one of the latter immediately comes to mind: the Department of the Interior. If I lived east of the 100th meridian it  would likely be the U.S. Army Corps if Engineers. But in the West, DOI is The Big One. Nothing else even comes close. Why? Think USGS, Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, National Park Service, BIA and the most visible, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation or simply Reclamation (which works exclusively in the West). DOI has other bureaus as well, but the aforementioned are the ones best known to me. 

So what do the DOI bureaus do? Read Mark K. DeSantis' CRS report (31 January 2019): U.S. Department of the Interior: An Overview

Download CRS_Dept_Interior_Overview_31January2019

Summary
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is a federal executive department responsible for the conservation and administration of the public lands and mineral estate of the United States. DOI describes its mission as protecting and managing the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit of the American people; providing scientific and scholarly information about those resources and natural hazards; and exercising the nation’s trust responsibilities and special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and island territories under U.S. administration.

As part of its responsibilities, DOI oversees and fosters the use of more than 480 million acres of public lands, 700 million acres of subsurface minerals, and 1.7 billion acres of the outer continental shelf. Each year, Congress deliberates legislation that could affect DOI’s management of this vast federal estate. As a result, understanding the roles and responsibilities of DOI’s various components and offices is valuable when crafting legislation that affects the department’s operations and ability to fulfill its mission.

DOI primarily implements its responsibilities and mission through nine technical bureaus that make up more than 80% of the agency’s workforce. These technical bureaus are the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), National Park Service (NPS), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Each of these bureaus has a unique mission and set of responsibilities, as well as a distinct organizational structure that serves to meet its functional duties. In addition to these technical bureaus, DOI has multiple departmental offices, which provide leadership, coordination, and services to DOI’s various bureaus and programs.

As of June 2018, DOI employed a staff of 69,563 nationwide across its bureaus and offices. However, total DOI employment figures fluctuate throughout the year, as some bureaus rely on seasonal and part-time staff, increasing staff totals during the summer months. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reports the average total DOI employment as 65,350 for the four reporting periods from September 2017 to June 2018. The largest bureau within DOI based on number of staff is NPS, which averaged close to 20,000 staff over the same time period— more than twice the size of the second-largest bureau, BLM. The smallest technical bureau by employment is OSMRE, which averaged just over 400 employees. Approximately 10% of all DOI staff are within the District of Columbia core-based statistical area (CBSA), which includes the District of Columbia and selected counties in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Congress provides discretionary appropriations for DOI through two annual appropriations bills: the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill and the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Enacted discretionary appropriations for FY2018 totaled $14.6 billion. DOI also received $566 million in supplemental emergency appropriations in FY2018, for a total of $15.2 billion in discretionary appropriations for FY2018.

The organizational structure of DOI is subject to continual congressional oversight and executive branch examination. In 2017 and 2018, President Trump and then-Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke submitted reorganization plans for the department and its bureaus. These plans put forth several recommendations, including the consolidation and transfer of most functions of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Division to DOI, the merger of the Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service with FWS, and the creation of 12 “Unified Regional Boundaries” across DOI’s various bureaus.

Enjoy!

Download HB0651

"Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys." -- @PJORourke

Paper: 'The Implementation of the Western Climate Initiative - How North American States and Provinces Lead International Climate Negotiations'

Whatever happened to the Western Climate Initiative (WCI)? Initially, 25 jurisdictions expressed strong interest in the WCI. It was a pretty ambitious plan, what with 7 US states and 4 Canadian provinces ultimately pledging to do something about climate change. But in the end (?), just California and Québec remained. 

What happened? This paper by Annie Chaloux of the Université de Sherbrooke will help you understand: The Implementation of the Western Climate Initiative: How North American States and Provinces Lead International Climate Negotiations by Annie Chaloux, International Negotiation 22 (2): 239-258 (2017) doi 10.1163/15718069-22021113

I posted one her other papers a dew days ago: Green Paradiplomacy and Water Resource Management in North America: the Case of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. Another very good read.

Download The_Implementation_of_the_Western_Climate

Abstract
The Western Climate Initiative is internationally recognized as a success story in global climate negotiations. However, between the first expression of the idea of a cap-and-trade system in 2007 and the launch of carbon trading in 2013, the number of participating Canadian provinces and us states fell from 11 to 2, and important hurdles risked derailing the project completely. The trajectory of this innovative cross-boundary policy holds important lessons for the prospects and pitfalls of green paradiplomacy in North America. This paper examines the impetus for subnational efforts to combat climate change in the face of federal inaction, and, through detailed examination of the wci, looks at jurisdictional, administrative, legal, political, social and economic factors that complicate the implementation of these initiatives. The analysis enables a better understanding of prospects for the establishment of norms, rules and institutions among North American federated states that can provide durable environmental regimes.

Conclusion
The 2007 plan for a multisectoral cap-and-trade system at subnational level was an ambitious idea put forth by subnational actors to counter what they saw as federal inaction on an important issue. However, despite strong initial interest from 25 jurisdictions, and early adhesion by 11, most states and provinces then abandoned the WCI, leaving California and Québec alone in the elaboration of what would become the largest carbon market in North America. These actors might have followed the pack and abandoned the idea as less relevant or impactful without other members. They also might have succumbed to the political, administrative, legal, social and economic challenges to implementation of the WCI. In short, the initiative could well have resulted in failure. In fact, it has done the opposite, overcoming obstacles that produced delays and officially launching the cap-and-trade system in 2013. Most importantly, the achievement of early targets and buy-in by affected GHG emitters in these two jurisdictions has sent strong encouraging signals to other potential subnational partners.

While it remains impossible, for the moment, to thoroughly evaluate the robustness of this cap-and-trade system, this article has highlighted some key elements that further studies might pursue in analyzing the implementation of subnational initiatives to combat climate change. It is evident that states and provinces want to be at the forefront of climate action, and implementa- tion of the WCI demonstrates the potential of green paradiplomacy to durably reconfigure North American climate and environmental governance.

Close, but no cigar...yet. Still a good idea...

Enjoy!

"The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking at it with sticks." - Wallace (Wally) Broecker of @Columbia at @UNM E&PS seminar, c. 1991

'CRS Report: 'Water Resource Issues in the 116th Congress (Updated 7 February 2019)

Updated on 7 February 2019: Water Resource Issues in the 116th Congress by an all-star CRS team: Nicole T. Carter, Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh, Peter Folger, Eva Lipiec and Anna E. Normand. 

Download CRS_WR_Issues_116Congress_7February2019

This short report deals with a plethora of water resource issues: USACE projects and activities; Western water and USBR; Indian water rights settlements; Canada and Mexico (Great Lakes; Columbia River Treaty; Coloriado River, Rio Grande); USGS water resource science; aging and new water infrastructure; partnerships; environmental protection and restoration; flood resilience and natural and nature-based approaches; and RECHARGING GROUBWATER (italics mine)! I did not see a specific 'Water Quality' heading but that all-important topic could be subsumed within a number of the above categories. 

Note: this graphic comes from another CRS report.

Summary
The 116th Congress may conduct oversight and deliberate on authorization and funding of water resource development, management, and protection. Congress engages in authorization and appropriations for water resource projects and activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). USACE constructs projects nationwide, primarily to improve navigation, reduce flood damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Reclamation constructs projects in the 17 arid states west of the Mississippi River; these projects primarily provide water supply benefits, often to agricultural irrigation users. The 116th Congress, like earlier Congresses, also may consider Indian water rights settlements and may evaluate the focus of and funding for the water resource science activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Development pressures, droughts and floods, and concerns about changing hydrology from land- use change and climate change have engendered nonfederal interest in federal financial and technical assistance for water resource science and projects. Stakeholders are interested in a range of water resource issues, including

•   new water resource infrastructure (e.g., storm surge gates, water storage) and new kinds of projects (e.g., groundwater recharge, nature-based flood risk reduction);

•   reinvestment in aging water resource infrastructure and use of water science and real- time monitoring and forecasting to improve infrastructure operations;

•   funding and financing of projects, and whether and how to shift from federally led projects to federal partnerships with state and/or local entities; and

•   activities to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems and enhance flood resilience (including the use of nature-based approaches).

  Some topics arise within the context of specific agencies. USACE-related topics for the 116th
  Congress may include funding and financing issues, such as use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; the status of investments in projects to deepen coastal harbors; USACE budgeting priorities; and oversight of USACE efforts to implement public-private partnerships and develop alternative financing opportunities. Some Reclamation-related water project and management issues during the 116th Congress may include the status of proposed new and augmented water storage projects, as well as efforts to address the agency’s aging infrastructure and transition certain qualifying projects to nonfederal ownership. Congress also may address Reclamation drought mitigation activities in the Colorado River basin and other areas. In addition, Congress may exploreongoing issues associated with Reclamation’s project operations in California and other areas. It may address how these issues affect water deliveries to irrigation districts and municipalities and threatened and endangered species, among others.

  Some topics are international in character. Regarding freshwater bodies shared with Canada, potential topics for the 116th Congress include federal funding for activities supporting Great Lakes restoration and negotiations (and any resulting agreements) with Canada to modify the Columbia River Treaty. Potential topics related to Mexico include oversight of a binational agreement on water sharing during dry conditions in the Colorado River basin and Mexico’s deliveries to theUnited States in the Rio Grande basin.

  Crosscutting topics (i.e., topics relevant to multiple agencies and programs) also are part of congressional water resource deliberations. For example, the 116th Congress may consider the status and priority of new and ongoing federal efforts to restore large-scale aquatic ecosystems that have been altered or impaired by changes to their natural conditions (e.g., Florida Everglades, Chesapeake Bay). Congress may explore the funding and performance of existing restoration efforts, including what changes (if any) may be necessary to improve project delivery and evaluation. The 116th Congress may consider its guidance to multiple federal agencies on how to respond to flood hazards, including efforts related to enhancing the resilience of infrastructure and communities to flooding. There is interest in developing and evaluating approaches that protect natural elements that reduce flood risk (e.g., natural dunes) or are “nature-based” in comprehensive flood risk management (e.g., constructed dunes). Congress also may consider legislation and oversight on USACE supplemental appropriations for response to and recovery from floods.

Cutting to the chase...

Conclusion
Many factors shape the water resource issues before the 116th Congress. These factors include demand for reliable water supplies; hydrologic conditions, such as droughts, floods, and effects of climate change; issues regarding safety and performance of existing infrastructure, and interests and concerns about alternative financing and public-private partnerships.

The 116th Congress may consider some measures proposed but not enacted in the 115th Congress, as well as new legislative proposals. In the water resource area, legislative activity often is specific to the federal water resource management agencies or to water use by particular sectors, including energy, agriculture, navigation, recreation, and municipal and industrial use. Occasionally, Congress takes up broader water resource policy issues, such as coordination of federal water resource activities, programs, science, and research.

Congress and other decisionmakers often make water resource decisions within a complicated context. These decisions may involve existing federal infrastructure and their beneficiaries, multiple or conflicting objectives, various legal decisions, multiple environmental and natural resource statutes, and long-established institutional mechanisms (e.g., water rights and contractual obligations). These decisions also occur within a federalist framework in which water resource responsibilities are shared with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.

Broad water resource questions for the 116th Congress described herein include the following:

•   For existing water resource facilities, including aging dams, levees, and navigation channels, what will be the federal role and level of investment in maintaining performance and safety?

•   For planning and construction of new or expanded water resource projects, what will be the circumstances, conditions, and nature of federal involvement?

•   For water resource project design and operations, how may federal and nonfederal science, observation, and monitoring be used to improve performance?

Let's hope Congress gets some of these issues off its platter and into reality.

Enjoy!

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville