Reclamation Finally Gets Real About the State of the Colorado River
By Eric Balken
Earlier this month, the Bureau of Reclamation held a webinar for its upcoming Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which aims to prevent the collapse of Lakes Powell and Mead. For the first time in years, the charts presented by Reclamation were an honest reflection of our aridified hydrology, not the rosy projections based on wetter years.
Take a look at the graph below, which shows possible levels of Powell and Mead if we experience a repeat of the water years of 2000–2003. The scenarios outlined different variations of trying to protect Powell vs. Mead and vice versa. The red line reflects a “no action” level.
If the red “baseline” in this chart looks familiar, it might be because it’s very similar to the scenarios outlined in the report released this summer by GCI, Utah Rivers Council, and Great Basin Water Network. Our report projected reservoir levels that could occur if we experienced the hydrologic years of 2000–2004 and 2017–2021. The fact that Reclamation released similar scenarios has made jaws drop across the Basin. Much like to our report, they show rapid declines past power pool and toward dead pool at both reservoirs within a few years.
Clearly, Reclamation is sending a signal to the Basin States that there is no more time for stalling, and they must come up with a plan to cut water use immediately. In the immediate term, it appears Reclamation plans to hold back water in Lake Powell from the Lower Basin to the tune of 2–3 million acre-feet — an effort to prevent the dam from running solely on its River Outlet Works, which were not built to be the only release mechanism for the dam.
A lot can be inferred from the graph above, but one thing is clear: there is not enough water in the system to save both reservoirs. It’s time for policy makers in the Basin to honestly assess which reservoir should be saved. And if the outdated plumbing at Glen Canyon Dam is forcing agencies to turn the river’s management upside down and risk water deliveries in the Lower Basin, studies to modify the dam should be expedited.
At the meeting, GCI asked about the status of those studies, which will assess modifications of Glen Canyon Dam to operate below dead pool. Reclamation’s response was that those studies will take 1–2 years, and wouldn’t be incorporated into the SEIS, which is on an extremely expedited timeline. They did indicate that Glen Canyon Dam modifications would be incorporated into the post 2026 EIS.
Danial Bunk, Reclamation’s Boulder Canyon Office Chief, stated that their projections “still don’t reflect the full range of possible low hydrologic conditions.” In the webinar he made the point that even good snow years won’t necessarily turn things around — in the past few years, snowpack has been fairly average, but aridity and inefficient runoff have sapped the river.
Modifying Glen Canyon Dam’s plumbing to function in the 21st century should be a top priority in every planning process from here on out. Its outdated design is creating massive environmental and water supply risks for the Basin. And the vast ecological, cultural, and recreational resources emerging in Glen Canyon must be accounted for when deciding where to store water. If there isn’t enough water to save both reservoirs, save what’s left of Mead first, and let Glen Canyon’s incredible restoration continue upstream.
