Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

From AquaPedia Case Study Database
Jump to: navigation, search
{{#var: location map}}


Case Description
Loading map...
Geolocation: 36° 7' 52.0741", -114° 26' 27.9499"
Total Population 1717,000,000 millionmillion
Total Area 637137637,137 km²
245,998.596 mi²
km2
Climate Descriptors Arid/desert (Köppen B-type)
Predominent Land Use Descriptors agricultural- cropland and pasture, conservation lands
Important Uses of Water Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Hydropower Generation, Recreation or Tourism
Water Features: Colorado Basin, Colorado River, Lake Mead, Lake Powell
Riparians: Arizona (U.S.), California (U.S.), Colorado (U.S.), Nevada (U.S.), New Mexico (U.S.), Utah (U.S.), Wyoming (U.S.)
Water Projects: Glen Canyon Dam, Hoover Dam, Colorado River Storage Project
Agreements: 2007 Interim Guidelines for Colorado River Operations, Colorado River Compact, 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act

Summary

From 1999 to 2007, the Colorado River Basin faced a historic drought which drastically reduced the Colorado River system storage while water demand among the U.S. Basin States increased. Over these eight years, storage in Colorado River reservoirs decreased from 94 percent capacity to 54 percent capacity. Existing legislature, the “Law of the River,” did not contain guidelines to allocate water in the Colorado River in the event of a shortage. This case explores the development of the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead in response to these low reservoir conditions. The Interim Guidelines were developed after nearly two years of negotiations and resulted in consensus among the seven U.S. Basin States on a 20-year agreement.



Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework

Geography of the Colorado River Basin

The Colorado River is a 1,450-mile river with its headwaters in the Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. The Colorado River Basin drains an area of 246,000 square miles, including parts of seven U.S. states (“Basin States”) and two Mexican states (USGS 2016).

Figure 1. Colorado River Basin. Source: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html

The Upper Basin refers to Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and includes part of Arizona within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system above Lees Ferry. The Lower Basin includes Arizona, California, Nevada, and parts of the states of New Mexico and Utah within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system below Lees Ferry. Two thirds of the flow from the Colorado and its tributaries is used for irrigation, and the remaining third is used for urban supply, evaporates into the atmosphere, or provides water to vegetation along the river. In the Lower Basin, Arizona and California use the water for irrigation and domestic uses while Nevada uses the water only for domestic purposes (Reclamation 2015). Today, the Basin supplies water to 17 million people in the Southwest and Mexico. The table below shows the allocation of water from the Colorado River Basin to the seven Basin States and Mexico.

Allocation of water from the Colorado River Basin to the seven Basin States and Mexico
Upper Basin, 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF)/yr total
Colorado 51.75% 3.86 MAF/yr
Utah 23.00% 1.71 MAF/yr
Wyoming 14.00% 1.04 MAF/yr
New Mexico 11.25% 0.84 MAF/yr
Arizona 0.70% 0.05 MAF/yr
Lower Basin 7.5 MAF/yr total
California 58.70% 4.40 MAF/yr
Arizona 37.30% 2.80 MAF/yr
Nevada 4.00% 0.30 MAF/yr
Mexico, 1.5 MAF/yr

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (1948). Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, 1948. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/ucbsnact.pdf and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2012, November 20). Department of the Interior Press Release 11/20/12. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/feature/minute319.html

Lake Powell and Lake Mead

In 1966, the 710-foot concrete arch of the Glen Canyon Dam formed Lake Powell, with a capacity of 27 MAF. This dam can provide up to 1,320 megawatts of hydroelectric power at the Glen Canyon Powerplant (Reclamation 2017). In the U.S., Glen Canyon Dam is surpassed only by the Hoover Dam 300 miles away, which rises 726 feet. Hoover Dam, completed in 1936, formed Lake Mead, which is the largest reservoir in the U.S. with an estimated capacity of over 31 MAF (Reclamation 2017).

Timeline of Key Events and Legislation

Year Event Legislation (if applicable)
1922 Colorado River Compact – Signed by seven U.S. states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, California, Arizona, and Nevada) and Mexico. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf
1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 – U.S. Secretary of the Interior designated as Lower Basin "water master" responsible for distributing all Colorado River water below Hoover Dam. Construction of Hoover Dam and the All American Canal authorized, which provided for a six-state ratification of the 1922 Compact. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf
1944 Treaty Between the U.S. and Mexico – Allocated 1.5 MAF of Colorado River water to Mexico annually. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/mextrety.pdf
1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact – Created the Upper Colorado River Commission and apportioned the Upper Basin’s allocation among Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and the portion of Arizona that lies within the Upper Colorado Basin. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/ucbsnact.pdf
1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act – Allowed the Upper Basin States to develop water resources for long-term storage, flow regulation, and hydroelectric power generation. The Glen Canyon Unit in Arizona (reservoir capacity of 27 MAF) was one of four initial storage units built as part of the Act, and construction began immediately. Other projects included: the Flaming Gorge Unit (reservoir capacity 3.8 MAF); Navajo Unit (reservoir capacity 1.7 MAF); and the Aspinall Unit, which consisted of three dams and reservoirs on the Gunnison River in Colorado. https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/
1963 Construction of Glen Canyon Dam completed.
1963 Arizona filed suit in the Supreme Court to challenge apportionment of waters of the Lower Basin. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/605/case.html
1964 Glen Canyon Unit (Glen Canyon Dam, Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Powerplant) began operation. Example
1964 In response to the Arizona vs. California case, U.S. Supreme Court decision stated the amount of water to be apportioned among the Lower Basin states, as well as the amounts that had been historically reserved for Indian tribes and federal public land.
1968 Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/opcriter.pdf
1970 Equalization rule was defined in the Long-Range Operating Criteria, which stipulates that an approximately equal amount of water must be retained in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead, in order to preserve hydro-power generation capacity at both lakes
2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead – See Section on Interim Guidelines. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies.html
2012 Minute 319 – International Boundary and Water Commission of the United States and Mexico signed an agreement to address how the 1.5 MAF of Colorado River water that Mexico receives every year would be affected by surplus or drought conditions. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/feature/minute319.html
2014 Pilot Drought Response MOU among the major water suppliers in the Lower Basin to put between 1.5 and 3.0 MAF of water into Lake Mead. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/LB_DroughtResponseMOU.pdf
2017 Drought Contingency Plan Plus – Called for voluntary reductions in Colorado River allocations among Arizona, California, and Nevada https://www.cap-az.com/departments/planning/colorado-river-programs/drought-contingency


Problem Context

The 1922 Colorado River Compact had apportioned 7.5 MAF of water per year to each the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin. These allocations were based on an expectation that the Colorado River’s average flow was 16.4 MAF per year, when estimates suggest the average was between 13.2 MAF and 14.3 MAF per year (NAS 2007). The period of “average” flow (1905 to 1922) turned out to include periods of abnormally high precipitation. As a result of the overestimation of future flows and underestimation of water demand, storage levels in the Colorado River Basin began to decline.

Threat of a Compact Call

From 1999 to 2007, the Colorado River Basin faced a historic drought which drastically reduced the Colorado River system storage while water demand among the U.S. Basin States increased. Over a period of eight years, storage in Colorado River reservoirs decreased from 94 percent capacity to 54 percent capacity (55.8 MAF to 29.7 MAF, respectively). Lake Powell dropped to 35 percent capacity in 2005 (Kuhn, 2005). In 2005, Lake Mead and Lake Powell had a combined storage of less than 50 percent capacity at this time, and the Basin States feared a “Compact call,” or formal shortage, if the Upper Basin was unable to release 7.5 MAF of water to the Lower Basin.

Until this point, there were no formal criteria in place to make the call. Furthermore, there were no guidelines to address operation of the two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, during drought and low reservoir conditions.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 depict the decline in water level of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, respectively, beginning in 1999.

File:LakePowell waterlevel.png
Figure 2.Water level in Lake Powell. Data source: http://lakemead.water-data.com/
File:LakeMead waterlevel.png
Figure 2.Water level in Lake Mead. Data source: http://lakemead.water-data.com/

A Compact call would require the Basin States to resolve technical and legal issues, including debates surrounding allegedly illegal diversions and water rights along tributaries. More importantly, new development along the Colorado River would not be permitted, and water to support growth in this region would need to come from existing uses (Kuhn, 2005).

In fall 2004, the Upper Basin States wrote a letter to the Lower Basin States raising unresolved questions regarding the Upper Basin’s obligation to Mexico under the Compact (Kuhn, 2005). Longstanding questions began to arise about the shortage conditions which were not addressed in the Compact, and litigation was expected as the next step.

Call to Action

As the “water master” with authority to declare a water shortage in the Colorado River Basin, the Secretary of the Interior intervened before tensions came to a head. The Secretary directed the Basin States to work together to develop formal shortage criteria to deliver water to the Lower Basin when there is insufficient water to deliver 7.5 MAF.

The Secretary tasked the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) with development of management strategies to address operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead under such low reservoir conditions (Reclamation 2005). Thereafter, Reclamation was responsible for the process of coordinating development of guidelines among Governor’s representatives from the seven Basin States and conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Process for Developing the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Reclamation implemented a comprehensive public participation program to engage stakeholders in the negotiation. Reclamation invited the general public, representatives of the seven Basin States, indigenous tribes, water and power contractors, environmental organizations, academic and science communities, and the recreation industry to join initial meetings to establish the scope, specifically the content, format, mechanism, and analysis to be considered (Reclamation 2005). Interested parties were welcome to convene in person and submit written comments to contribute to the scope. Over the course of two years, Reclamation held 75 meetings with stakeholders.

Reclamation developed the EIS jointly with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Western Area Power Administration, and the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC).

Reclamation reached out to nearly 50 leaders of indigenous groups, offering government-to-government consultation to discuss potential impacts of the agreement on tribes and solicit feedback. Feedback from tribes on the Draft EIS was mixed. Eleven tribes provided written responses, including a letter from the Navajo Nation which criticized the environmental impact statement of “fail[ing] to adequately account for or address the needs of the Navajo Nation” (Reclamation 2007). Other tribes noted the lack of a “Tribal Alternative” as had been developed for the agreement among Basin States (Reclamation 2007). The Colorado River Indian Tribes supported the determination, finding “no impact” on the ability of the Tribe to divert its entitlement of the Colorado and encouraging programs to keep Lake Powell and Lake Mead as full as possible as the “best insurance against shortages” (Reclamation 2007).

In 2005, a group of nongovernmental conservation organizations, including Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Pacific Institute, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, Rivers Foundation of the Americas, and the Sonoran Institute, introduced a proposal called “Conservation Before Shortage” for inclusion in the Interim Guidelines. The proposal suggested an approach to shortages in the Lower Basin through the implementation of a tiered program of voluntary and compensated water conservation, tied to the surface elevation of Lake Mead (Reclamation 2006). The Basin States next draft of their agreement included a new proposal to introduce mechanisms to increase flexibility within the Lower Basin, notably the “Intentionally Created Surplus” (ICS). In their revised proposal, “Conservation Before Shortage II,” the conservation organizations commended the Basin States for including elements of their proposal, though they unsuccessfully urged them to consider additional concepts to take those efforts further (Reclamation 2007).

Mexico was notably missing from the agreement. The exclusion prompted the USIBWC to create four work groups with Mexico to design a similar agreement that addresses how Mexico’s allocation would be affected by surplus or drought conditions. These negotiations evolved into Minute 319, signed by USIBWC and Mexico in 2012 as an update to the 1944 treaty.

On December 13, 2007, Governor’s representatives from the seven Basin States as well as Secretary Dirk Kempthorne signed the Interim Guidelines (Reclamation 2007). The final EIS was published in November 2007.

Content of 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

The purpose of the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead was three-fold (Reclamation 2007):

  1. To improve Reclamation’s management of the Colorado River by considering trade-offs between the frequency and magnitude of reductions of water deliveries, and considering the effects on water storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and on water supply, power production, recreation, and other environmental resources;
  2. To provide Colorado River users in the U.S. a greater degree of predictability with respect to allocations, particularly under drought and low reservoir conditions; and,
  3. To provide additional mechanisms for the storage and delivery of water supplies in Lake Mead to increase the flexibility of meeting water use needs from Lake Mead, particularly under drought and low reservoir conditions.

As part of the first step to create criteria that would facilitate Reclamation management, the agreement authorized specific allocations under surplus, normal, or shortage conditions at all operational levels.

As defined by the equalization rule from the Long-Range Operating Criteria of 1970, additional water is released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead during surplus conditions. This high-level rule required that storage between the two reservoirs be balanced, or equalized. The Interim Guidelines refined the equalization rule by providing specific criteria for the implementation of water transfers by the end of each water year. During high reservoir conditions, a minimum release of 8.23 MAF from Lake Powell is required (Reclamation 2007).

During normal conditions, the allocation for the Lower Basin remains 7.5 MAF.

The most critical contribution of the Interim Guidelines was the strategy put in place to address low reservoir conditions based on tiered shortage measures. The agreement specified allocations for three levels of shortage conditions determined by the water elevation of Lake Mead: light, heavy, and extreme shortage (Reclamation 2007):

  • Light shortage is declared when elevation at Lake Mead below 1,075 feet but above 1,050 feet. Lower Basin states would receive 7.17 MAF per year: 4.40 MAF to California, 2.48 MAF to Arizona, and .29 MAF to Nevada.
  • Heavy shortage is declared when elevation of Lake Mead is below 1,050 feet but above 1,025 feet. Lower Basin states would receive 7.08 MAF per year: 4.40 MAF to California, 2.40 MAF to Arizona, and .28 MAF to Nevada.
  • Extreme shortage is declared when elevation of Lake Mead drops below 1,025 feet. Lower Basin states will receive 7.00 MAF per year: 4.40 MAF to California, 2.32 MAF to Arizona, and .28 MAF to Nevada.

In line with the second purpose of the Interim Guidelines, the tiered measures allowed Lower Basin States to anticipate declaration of a shortage and prepare for a reduced allocation in the upcoming water year. This applies especially to Arizona, as the allocation for Arizona is reduced by the greatest degree in the event of a shortage. The Interim Guidelines do not reduce the allocation for California even under conditions of extreme shortage.

Included in part due to influence from conservation organizations, the Interim Guidelines encourages efficient and flexible use of Colorado River Water through Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS). The ICS provision allows Lower Basin States to earn water credits at Lake Mead through four mechanisms: (1) Extraordinary Conservation ICS, (2) Tributary Conservation ICS, (3) System Efficiency ICS and (4) Imported ICS. Extraordinary Conservation ICS is generated by fallowing agricultural land or lining canals that would receive water from the Colorado River. Tributary Conservation ICS is created by purchasing tributary waters within a state that has water rights from before the Boulder Canon Project Act. System Efficiency ICS is a temporary credit generated by financing a project to reduce water loss. Imported ICS is created by introducing new water not naturally in the Colorado River Basin.

The Interim Guidelines included further protection from shortage by giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to take additional necessary actions at critical elevations to avoid Lower Basin shortage as the conditions approach thresholds. As all parties share a goal to prevent an official shortage, the Basin States entrust one actor to make quick decisions in the interest of the Basin without a lengthy engagement process to seek consensus on an action. Basin States also agreed in the Interim Guidelines to approach disagreements first through negotiation and consultation before resorting to litigation.

The twenty-year timeline was put in place as a way to grow operational experience and open a window to re-evaluate the guidelines based on their experience. The Interim Guidelines expire in 2026.

Aftermath of the Interim Guidelines

Continuously over the past decade, the Colorado River Basin has had sufficient water to enable consumptive use of 7.5 MAF in the Lower Basin while meeting delivery obligations to Mexico. A shortage was nearly declared in 2015, but heavy precipitation in the Upper Basin prevented a shortage called for the year 2016 (Colorado River Research Group 2015). As of early 2015, three states had stored .84 MAF of ICS water in Lake Mead (Colorado River Research Group 2015).

In 2008, soon after the Interim Guidelines were approved, a surplus condition was announced for the Lower Basin after a season high snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains. Instead of time- and resource-intensive litigation, implementation of the refined equalization rule ensured that the additional .83 MAF was delivered from Lake Powell to Lake Mead.

There have been several actions since the Interim Guidelines that have expanded on the themes of water as a flexible resource, adaptive management, and negotiation. In 2014, the major water suppliers in the Lower Basin (Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), the Colorado River Board of California, and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada) entered a Pilot Drought Response MOU with the Department of the Interior to engage jointly in “best efforts” to put between 1.5 and 3.0 MAF of water into Lake Mead by 2019 (Reclamation 2014).

In 2017, Arizona, together with Nevada and California, negotiated a deal called the Drought Contingency Plan Plus. The plan calls for voluntary reductions in Colorado River allocations among these three states in order to assure that no more water is allocated from Lake Mead than flows into it (Central Arizona Project 2017). It asks California, for the first time, to reduce its allocation if Lake Mead dipped below a certain elevation. The plan has not been finalized, but demonstrates ongoing initiative and coordination within the Basin States to secure water elevations of Lake Mead.

Looking Ahead

There is strong agreement in temperature and precipitation forecasts that the U.S. Southwest will face drastic changes due to the impact of climate change on temperature and the hydrologic cycle (see figures below). Rising temperatures are expected to increase evaporation and the severity of droughts. Winter precipitation in the Rocky Mountains is expected to fall as rain instead of snow, influencing the snowpack that melts into the Colorado River. As winter low temperatures rise, the snowpack melts earlier in the spring, producing earlier runoff and limiting how winter precipitation can be used later in the summer. Furthermore, increased temperatures will increase evaporation and water demands (Reclamation 2009).

File:PrecipitationTemp westernStates.png
Figure 4. Precipitation and Temperature Trends in Western States. Source: Reclamation. Factsheet: The Water Conservation Initiative and Implementation of the Secure Water Act. October 2009. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/SWA.pdf

These effects will exacerbate challenges to managing the Colorado River Basin, building on stress to water supply, water quality, flood risks, wastewater, aquatic ecosystems, and energy production (Reclamation 2017). The SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) identifies climate change as a growing risk to water in the Western states, including the Basin States. Among its projections, the 2016 annual report notes a 7 to 27 percent decrease in April to July stream flow in the Colorado River Basin (Reclamation 2017).

The Interim Guidelines produced adaptive legislation based on scenario planning, which incorporated stakeholder engagement and creative positive-sum programs. The agreement bought time for decision makers, which expires in 2026. Even more imminent is the expiration of Minute 319 at the end of 2017. Continued collaboration among all water users and stakeholders in the Colorado River Basin will be necessary to minimize system losses, augment supply, and reduce consumption to prepare for and respond to impacts of climate change.

Issues and Stakeholders

Low reservoir elevations caused by drought threaten water allocations. How can States prepare for low-elevation reservoir conditions?

NSPD: Water Quantity, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency

The agreement in place to allocate water among the Upper and Lower Basins lacked guidance on reservoir operations during drought conditions. Lake Mead and Lake Powell neared water elevations that would trigger an official shortage, which would require reductions in water deliveries from the Colorado River Basin to its seven states.


Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight

What is an ASI?

Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.

Learn more

No ASI articles have been added yet for this case



Key Questions

Transboundary Water Issues: What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution?

The Interim Guidelines looked beyond allocation and provided additional mechanisms for the storage and delivery of water in Lake Mead to increase flexibility of meeting its water needs. Specifically, it incentivized conservation efforts and storage of unused allocations in Lake Mead to maintain its elevation via creation of a legal construct called “Intentionally Created Surplus” (ICS) water.



Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?

Framing a new agreement to include specific water allocations to parties under a variety of scenarios can ensure resilience of an agreement through uncertain futures. One expert described a “new era” of the Colorado River in which the future hydrology “cannot be reasonably estimated by simply using the available gauge record.” Basin States “acknowledged the potential for impacts due to climate change and increased hydrologic variability” and collaborated on scenario planning in response. The 2007 Interim Guidelines defined specific deliveries to each Basin at stepped storage elevations of the reservoirs. Cognizant of the highly uncertain water supply in the Basin, the Guidelines defined allocations which addressed surplus, normal, and shortage conditions. The Guidelines included further protection from shortage by giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to take additional necessary actions at critical elevations to avoid Lower Basin shortage as the conditions approach thresholds.




References



Facts about "Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead"RDF feed
Agreement2007 Interim Guidelines for Colorado River Operations +, Colorado River Compact +, 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact + and 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act +
Area637,137 km² (245,998.596 mi²) +
ClimateArid/desert (Köppen B-type) +
Geolocation36° 7' 52.0741", -114° 26' 27.9499"Latitude: 36.1311317
Longitude: -114.4410972
+
IssueLow reservoir elevations caused by drought threaten water allocations. How can States prepare for low-elevation reservoir conditions? +
Key QuestionWhat mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution? + and What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? +
Land Useagricultural- cropland and pasture + and conservation lands +
NSPDWater Quantity +, Governance + and Assets +
Population17,000,000 million +
RiparianArizona (U.S.) +, California (U.S.) +, Colorado (U.S.) +, Nevada (U.S.) +, New Mexico (U.S.) +, Utah (U.S.) + and Wyoming (U.S.) +
Stakeholder TypeFederated state/territorial/provincial government + and Non-legislative governmental agency +
Water FeatureColorado Basin +, Colorado River +, Lake Mead + and Lake Powell +
Water ProjectGlen Canyon Dam +, Hoover Dam + and Colorado River Storage Project +
Water UseAgriculture or Irrigation +, Domestic/Urban Supply +, Hydropower Generation + and Recreation or Tourism +
Has subobjectThis property is a special property in this wiki.Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead + and Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead +