Lower Basin Drought Contingency Planning

Natural Resources CommitteeArizona Forward

Thomas BuschatzkeDirector

Arizona Department of Water ResourcesMarch 1, 2017

Arizona’s Water BudgetBy Source

2 *ADWR 2015 water use data

3

Arizona’s Water BudgetBy Sector

*ADWR 2015 water use data

Upper Basin - 7.5 maf

Lower Basin - 7.5 mafCA – 4.4 maf

AZ – 2.8 maf

NV – 0.3 maf

Mexico - 1.5 maf

Arizona Upper Basin -50 kaf

Colorado River Allocations

UPPER

BASIN

LOWER

BASIN

4

2007 Interim Guidelines Shortage Impacts to Lower Basin

Lake Mead Elevation

ArizonaReduction

Nevada Reduction

California Reduction

Mexico Reduction

1075’ 320,000 AF 13,000 AF 0 50,000 AF

1050’ 400,000 AF 17,000 AF 0 70,000 AF

1025’ 480,000 AF 20,000 AF 0 125,000 AF

August 24-Month Study projections of January 1 Lake Mead elevations are used to determine operation of Lake Mead in upcoming year.

5

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Probability of any level of shortage (Mead ≤ 1,075 ft.)

0 34 30 29 33

1st level shortage (Mead ≤ 1,075 and ≥1,050 ft)

0 34 30 27 25

2nd level shortage (Mead <1,050 and ≥1,025 ft)

0 0 <1 1 7

3rd level shortage (Mead <1,025)

0 0 0 <1 1

Source: US Bureau of Reclamation Results from the January 2017 CRSS / MTOM model run

Probabilities of Lower Colorado River Basin Shortage

6

Cities & Tribes

Cities, Industry & Tribes

Cities & Tribes

Ag

Other Excess

CAP1.6 MAF

City of Yuma, Yuma Ag, Tribes and

Military Bases

River Cities

On-River1.2 MAF

Tribes, Industry, Ag

Tier 1 Shortage = 320,000 AF

Arizona Shortage in the Near-Term Arizona’s Allocation – 2.8 MAF

Excess

Long Term Entitlements

7

Observed Hydrology & “Stress Test”

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

20,000,000

22,000,000

24,000,000

1906

1909 1912

1915

1918

1921

1924

1927

1930

1933

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008 2011

Natural Flow at Lee Ferry (1906 - 2013)

Natural Flow Median 10 yr

Stress TestPeriod

8

Protection Volume AnalysisVolumes needed to absolutely protect Lake Mead’s elevations 1,025 ft and 1,000 ft through 2026

Hydrology

Lake Mead Elevation: 1,025 ft.

Lake Mead Elevation: 1,000 ft.

Maximum in any year

(MAF)

First Yearthat

Maximum Occurs

Average through 2026

(MAF)

Maximum in any year

(MAF)

First Yearthat

Maximum Occurs

Average through 2026

(MAF)

Observed 3.0 2023 0.97 1.5 2023 0.56

Climate Change 6.0 2021 2.8 4.5 2021 2.4

Combined 6.0 2021 2.3 4.5 2021 2.2

9

• Discussions began in June 2013 between Upper Basin and Lower Basin states principals. Met with Secretary of the Interior soon after.

• Driving factor was sustained drought and substantially decreased water levels in Lake Powell.

• Believed – “Everyone is affected and everyone must participate in the solutions.” Control our own destiny!

• No single sector of water users can provide the solution.• Monthly meetings and calls.• Resulted in Memorandum of Understanding for Pilot Drought

Response Actions

Colorado River Drought Contingency Discussions (2013-2014)

10

Colorado River Lower Basin Drought Contingency Planning

• Discussions between: Lower Basin States Department of the Interior Other contract holders

• Goal of discussions: Restore risks to levels achieved in the 2007 Guidelines Conserve 1.5 – 3.0 MAF in Lake Mead over the next 5 years Reduce the risk of Lake Mead falling below critical elevations as

was seen in the 2013 model projections

11

• The Lower Basin States met monthly since July 2015; meetings included Reclamation but not the Upper Basin States

• The parties recognize the need to develop additional operational tools for the Lower Basin States to utilize through December 31, 2025 to address potentially critical elevation declines in Lake Mead

• Any new agreement would supplement the 2007 Interim Guidelines

Lower Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Discussions (2015-2016)

12

Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

• Avoid and protect against the potential for the elevation of Lake Mead to decline to elevations below 1,020 feet by collectively taking additional actions

• Includes a commitment by the U.S. to work to create or conserve Colorado River system water

• Recovery of additional reduction volumes would be allowed under certain conditions

• Incentivize ICS creation/storage Agree that ICS may be withdrawn at lower Lake Mead elevations,

similar to ICMA arrangements under Minute 319 Modification of the evaporative losses currently applied to ICS

13

LBDCP Water Use Reductions

Lake Mead Elevation

AZ [2007]

AZ [Plan]

AZ TOTAL

NV [2007]

NV [Plan]

NVTOTAL

CA [2007]

CA [Plan]

CATOTAL BOR TOTAL

1090-1075 0 192K 192K 0 8K 8K 0 0 0 100k 300k

1075-1050 320K 192K 512K 13K 8K 21K 0 0 0 100k 633k

1050-1045 400K 192K 592K 17K 8K 25K 0 0 0 100k 717k

1045-1040 400K 240K 640K 17K 10K 27K 0 200K 200K 100k 967k

1040-1035 400K 240K 640K 17K 10K 27K 0 250K 250K 100k 1,017k

1035-1030 400K 240K 640K 17K 10K 27K 0 300K 300K 100k 1,067k

1030-1025 400K 240K 640K 17K 10K 27K 0 350K 350K 100k 1,117k

<1025 480K 240K 720K 20K 10K 30K 0 350K 350K 100k 1,200k

Revised on 11/18/15 to include US and TOTAL reductions 14

Lake Mead – Selected Percentile ElevationsStress Test Hydrology – “No Action” and With DCP

No Action

With DCP

DCP Plus PlanDCP Reductions

2017 2018 2019 Total

DCP 0 192,000 192,000 384,000

DCP Complementary Plan System Conservation (SC)2017 2018 2019 Total

Subtotal Compensated SC

80,000 165,000 165,000 410,000

Subtotal Uncompensated DC

185,000 0 0 185,000

Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS)2017 2018 2019 Total

Subtotal Tribal ICS 120,000 77,500 57,500 255,000

2017 2018 2019 Total

TOTAL:SC, DCP & ICS

385,000 434,500 414,500 1,234,000

16

17

• Discussion regarding the voluntary reductions in Arizona and development of Arizona consensus Reductions mostly impact Agricultural Pool, Arizona Water

Banking Authority, other excess water users and NIA Pool Goal to mitigate impacts to Agricultural Pool

• Communication & messaging (ongoing)

• Finalize DCP among Lower Basins States (Arizona, California & Nevada) & Reclamation Include board actions

• Arizona Legislature

• Federal Legislation

Lower Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Discussions Next Steps

18

Questions?

Thomas BuschatzkeDirector

Phone: 602.771.8426Email: tbuschatzke@azwater.gov

Website: www.azwater.govTwitter: @azwater