As we wait for the runoff into the Colorado River and Lake Powell to begin, there’s no need to sit idly by and just watch it happen when you could still influence how the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) manages the runoff in the months ahead. Here’s my open letter to them:
Thank you for your ongoing efforts to manage what is clearly the biggest challenge facing your agency in its history. The complex legal framework, diverse (and sometimes divergent) interests involved and competing goals in resolving issues related to the long-term effects of drought in the Colorado River watershed make for difficult solutions, not likely to please all parties involved.
With the huge impending spring runoff ahead, there’s a real opportunity in terms of how it will be managed over the next few months. I know the Bureau of Reclamation’s primary considerations in this are related to water and energy delivery, but those are not the only important issues, which also include habitat protection below Glen Canyon Dam and, perhaps even more crucially, economic issues related to recreational activity centered on Lake Powell.
BOR’s recent message to increase April releases through Glen Canyon Dam from 552,000 to 910,000 acre-feet caused concern in that regard. I understand the bureau is trying to manage for the long haul, and dealing with its multiple facilities and competing goals in their management. But such an early high volume release — before the serious runoff really begins — jeopardizes boating access to Lake Powell at least through April.
What is the rationale for your April management strategy? I understand possible considerations related to keeping sufficient storage capacity in Lake Powell as the waters rise quickly in the late spring and early summer, but this is a fundamentally different situation than in 1983, when the lake started at 3,685 feet on April 1 of that year, and there was no place to put the huge runoff ahead. It’s even drastically different than 2011, the last comparable runoff year to what we are about to experience.
At this time in 2011, the lake was 90 feet higher than it is today. Nobody was concerned about boat access or the effects of a critically low lake on the regional economy.
If the concept is to help Lake Mead now, what is the urgency? At 1,045, it’s in no danger of approaching minimum power pool this year, and the reservoirs below Hoover Dam are essentially full. It would seem that the entire system would be better served leaving as much in Lake Powell right now, as it can always be released later in the event it is really needed downstream for one reason or another. Once the water flows through Glen Canyon Dam, it’s never coming back.
It’s also worth noting that in terms of balancing Lake Powell and Mead, that Powell currently holds about 2 million acre-feet less water than Mead (with a comparable storage capacity), and is closer to reaching minimum power pool than Mead. It seems to me that of the two, Powell is the reservoir that needs more help.
Because of the record March snowfall in the region, I suspect that the April 24-Month Study that will be released later this week will look considerably different than the one in March. With the April 1 NOAA estimate of unregulated inflow to Lake Powell (April through July) rising by 1.3 million acre-feet from what was predicted in mid-March (although it has dropped by 0.7 million acre-feet in just the past week), that aligns pretty closely with a regulated inflow for Water Year 2023 in the ballpark of what was predicted as the “maximum probable inflow” scenario back in January.
At that time, the bureau projected it would release 9.5 million acre-feet through the dam if that were to occur. Although there may be a temptation (and possible political pressure from the Lower Basin states) to now release more than that, I would hope that the bureau follow its own previous recommendation, and keep outflows to no more than that amount for the year. That would allow for a reasonable rise in Lake Mead of at least 20 feet, and possibly more considering the high inflows from the streams below Glen Canyon Dam. Required water and power deliveries would easily continue.
Just as importantly, it would allow Lake Powell to rise to somewhere above 3,590 feet. This has huge positive ramifications for the regional recreation-based economy, allowing all marinas to once again operate normally, and would open the Castle Rock Cut near Wahweap, a crucial shortcut that reduces boater congestion (i.e, improves boater safety) in the southern part of the reservoir.
Opening the cut would also save considerable gas (and money) by shortening the distance for boaters traveling uplake. The Castle Rock Cut is only safely usable when the lake is above about 3,585 feet or, more ideally, 3,588.
I supported the bureau’s June 2022 call to the seven watershed states to reduce their water use by 2 million to 4 million acre-feet. That was an important goal, and necessary in order to preserve the operational viability of both Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
I hope that your planned operations (i.e., increased releases through Glen Canyon Dam) do not provide a false sense of security to the Lower Basin states, and reduce the urgency of coming to a new agreement for across the board reductions in future water use.
John F. Rickenbach, has been an environmental and land use planning consultant since 1990, with an expertise on issues related to the management of the Colorado River watershed. He is also a technical contributor to the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an organization focused on maintaining access to public lands throughout the West, and the author of “The Path to 3588: A Plan for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.”
from The Salt Lake Tribune https://ift.tt/1PjfRoy
Post a Comment