Since 2000, the Colorado River Basin (Basin) has been experiencing a historic, extended drought that has impacted regional water supply and other resources, such as hydropower, recreation, and ecologic services. During this time, the Basin has experienced its lowest 16-year period of inflow in over 100 years of record keeping, and reservoir storage in the Colorado River system has declined from nearly full to about half of capacity.
— from the US Department of the Interior website, December 2020.
We began this editorial series last week with some quotes from a lengthy Politico.com article, written by Annie Snyder and entitled, “The Rancher Trying to Solve the West’s Water Crisis”, wherein she describes the efforts of rancher Paul Bruchez to keep as much water as possible in the Colorado River.
Now, Bruchez has emerged as a leading voice for agriculture in Colorado as the state explores a controversial new scheme to manage its own, internal water usage — almost certainly by paying farmers to forgo using their water — in a bid to avoid a nightmare scenario in which river flows dip so low that the terms of a 1922 river compact force junior users like cities to be abruptly cut off.
The well-written story discusses many aspects of Colorado’s complex, codependent water issues, with an emphasis on money, and how money, extracted from certain water users and paid out to other water users, might allow Colorado ranchers and farmers to operate pretty much as they have for the past 100 years or so. The complex, codependent issue has been made more complex and codependent by 100 years of water law legislation and court rulings that essentially made “water” into private property — something that could be bought, and sold for a profit.
Although the Colorado Constitution suggests that our water ultimately belongs to “the public”, the situation is not exactly straightforward.
From Article XVI, Mining and Irrigation:
Section 5. Water of Streams Public Property
The water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the state of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropriation as hereinafter provided.
As it has turned out, however, the distribution of “water rights” to ranchers, farmers, manufacturers, mining and oil companies, cities and towns, water companies and districts, and various other water consumers, has converted much of the state’s free-flowing water into something that’s not very “public” at all.
Ms. Snyder’s article on Politico.com considers the question of a “compact call” on the Colorado River system (which includes the San Juan River), based on the legal concept that Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah “promised” — back in 1922 — to allow 7.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water, per year, to flow past their state boundaries at Lee’s Ferry. In the 98 years since the signing of the Colorado River Compact, the Lower Basin states — California, Arizona and Nevada — have never demanded their annual allowance (which is actually calculated based on a 10-year average).
If those three state did make a “compact call”… well, no one has the slightest idea what would happen as a result. Here is Colorado, the ranchers and farmers like Paul Bruchez, who obtained water rights dating back before 1922, seem to have an advantage. It’s possible that a Lower Basin “compact call” would not apply to their water usage, since Colorado considers a water right to be “private property”… with priority based on the date of the water right decree.
Even the highly intelligent folks who run our federal government seem confused by the situation.
If you visit the US Department of the Interior website, you can read this:
Since 2000, the Colorado River Basin (Basin) has been experiencing a historic, extended drought that has impacted regional water supply and other resources, such as hydropower, recreation, and ecologic services. During this time, the Basin has experienced its lowest 16-year period of inflow in over 100 years of record keeping, and reservoir storage in the Colorado River system has declined from nearly full to about half of capacity.
But if you visit the US Bureau of Reclamation website, you can find the following graph showing the “natural flow” of the Colorado — the calculated flows of the river at Lee’s Ferry, if no one upstream were diverting water out of the Colorado Basin. As we can see, the Colorado River system has had “good” years… and “bad” years.
1977 was a really bad year for Colorado River water users. So was 2002. But a close look at the years 2004 through 2019… well, they don’t look all that bad, compared to, say, the years 1954 through 1966.
Really? “A historic, extended drought”? Where’s the beef?
If we’re looking for an answer to how a rather typical river flow can be defined as “a historic, extended drought”, I suppose we need to understand the definition of “drought”. A less-than-normal amount of precipitation, where no one is using any water, is not a drought. The word ‘drought’ — as used by our governments — means, “not enough natural water to meet human expectations and demands”. This chart from the US Department of the Interior can help clarify the situation:
The blue line shows the ‘natural flows’ of the Colorado River system. The red line shows the amount of water humans pulled out of the system. The first time humans pulled more water out of the system than the Colorado River thoughtfully put in, was in 1954. Between 2000 and 2012, humans pulled out more Colorado River water than was available every single year except 2005, 2008 and 2011.
When you spend more than you earn, you’re ultimately going to wind up in debt.
A majority of the “excess” diversions took place in California, it would appear… especially, in California’s Imperial Valley. The Imperial Irrigation District receives 3.1 million acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River. The rest of California receives 1.3 million acre-feet. In other words, the 180,000 people in the Imperial Valley receive approximately 70% of California’s allocation of water from the Colorado River. The other 20 million-plus people in Southern California get about 30%.
This uneven distribution, between agriculture and domestic water users, is similar to the water situation in our own community of Pagosa Springs — albeit on a much reduced scale. About 400 farms and ranches in Archuleta County account for 94 percent of the total water diverted in our community, while the residential population of 14,000 uses about 5 percent.
We’re not trying to assign blame, here. Just stating the facts.
To judge by various news articles I’ve come across, California’s Imperial Irrigation District is something of political sacred cow. No one in a political leadership position in California seems capable of challenging the Valley’s right to massive diversions from the Colorado River — even as we’ve watched Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the American West’s two largest water reservoirs, slowly drained to half their capacity.
But according to Ms. Snyder, Colorado ranchers like Paul Bruchez are “trying to solve the West’s water crisis.”
Pretty ambitious, I’d say.
(Disclaimer: I currently serve on the San Juan Water Conservancy District Board of Directors, as an appointed volunteer, but this editorial series does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Board as a whole, nor of any individual Board members other than myself.)
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.