Difference between revisions of "Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead"
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Geolocation=36.1311317, -114.4410972 | |Geolocation=36.1311317, -114.4410972 | ||
|Issues={{Issue | |Issues={{Issue | ||
| + | |Issue=Low reservoir elevations caused by drought threaten water allocations. How can States prepare for low-elevation reservoir conditions? | ||
| + | |Issue Description=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. | ||
| + | |NSPD=Water Quantity; Governance; Assets | ||
| + | |Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency | ||
| + | }}{{Issue}}{{Issue | ||
|Issue=Low reservoir elevations caused by drought threaten water allocations. How can States prepare for low-elevation reservoir conditions? | |Issue=Low reservoir elevations caused by drought threaten water allocations. How can States prepare for low-elevation reservoir conditions? | ||
|Issue Description=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. | |Issue Description=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. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 17: | ||
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency | |Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency | ||
}}{{Issue}} | }}{{Issue}} | ||
| − | |Key Questions= | + | |Key Questions={{Key Question |
| + | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
| + | |Key Question - Transboundary=What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution? | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=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. | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=What kinds of water treaties or agreements between parties 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. | ||
| + | }} | ||
|Water Feature= | |Water Feature= | ||
|Riparian= | |Riparian= | ||
Revision as of 10:05, 25 May 2017
| 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 |
Contents
Summary
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
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
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
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
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 moreNo 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 parties 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.
