Difference between revisions of "Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead"

From AquaPedia Case Study Database
Jump to: navigation, search
[unchecked revision][unchecked revision]
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
Line 133: Line 133:
  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
'''''7-4 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.  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.
 +
 +
'''''7-5 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.i 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|200px|thumb|left|Figure 2.Water level in Lake Powell. Data source: http://lakemead.water-data.com/]]
 +
 +
[[File:LakeMead_waterlevel.png|200px|thumb|left|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.i
 +
 +
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.i Longstanding questions began to arise about the shortage conditions which were not addressed in the Compact, and litigation was expected as the next step.
 +
 +
'''''7-6 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.  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).
 +
 +
'''''7-7 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.x 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.”  Other tribes noted the lack of a “Tribal Alternative” as had been developed for the agreement among Basin States.  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.”
 +
 +
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.  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.xiv
 +
 +
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.xv The final EIS was published in November 2007.
 +
 +
7-8 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 (from EISxv):
 +
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.ii
 +
 +
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:
 +
 +
* 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.
 +
 +
''''7-9 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.  As of early 2015, three states had stored .84 MAF of ICS water in Lake Mead.xix 
 +
 +
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. 
 +
 +
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.  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.
 +
 +
'''''7-10 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.
 
|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.
 
|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.
 
|Topic Tags=
 
|Topic Tags=

Revision as of 12:57, 25 May 2017

{{#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

7-1 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.

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. 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

7-2 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. 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.

7-3 Timeline of Key Events and Legislation {

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.

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.

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.



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.




References

Kuhn, R.E. (2005, February 25). Future Scenarios for the Colorado River. Retrieved from: http://www.coloradoriverdistrict.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Future-Scenarios-Kuhn.pdf 

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2007, November). Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/FEIS/index.html
 USGS. (2016, December 9). Colorado River Basin Focus Area Study. Retrieved from: https://water.usgs.gov/watercensus/colorado.html
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2015, June 4). Boulder Canyon Operations Office - Lower Colorado River Water Delivery Contracts. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/contracts/wateruse.html
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (1948). Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, 1948. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/ucbsnact.pdf
 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
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (1948). Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, 1948. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/ucbsnact.pdf
 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
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2017, May 1). Glen Canyon Unit. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2017, February 8). Hoover Dam Historical Information. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/history/storymain.html
 National Academy of Sciences. (2007, February) Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and Adjusting to Hydroclimatic Variability. Retrieved from: http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/colorado_river_management_final.pdf
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2005, June 15). Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/news/FRnoticeJune05.pdf
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2007, April 29). Re: Comments of the Navajo Nation on Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (“DEIS”). Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/DEIScomments/Tribal/NavajoNation.pdf
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2007, April 26). Comments by Ak-Chin Indian Community Regarding Bureau of Reclamation Proposed Colorado River Shortage EIS. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/DEIScomments/Tribal/AkChinTribe.pdf
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2007, April 30). Colorado River Indian Tribes. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/DEIScomments/Tribal/CRIT.pdf
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2006, July 7). Conservation Before Shortage II: Proposal for Colorado River Operations. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/alternatives/CBS2.pdf
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2007, December 13). Record of Decision. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf
 Grant, D. L. (2008). Collaborative Solutions to Colorado River Water Shortages: The Basin States’ Proposal and Beyond. Nevada Law Journal, 8, 964–993
 Colorado River Research Group. (2015, December). A look at the interim guidelines at their mid‐point: How are we doing? Retrieved from: http://www.coloradoriverresearchgroup.org/uploads/4/2/3/6/42362959/crrg_interim_guidelines_white_version_updated2.pdf
 Bureau of Reclamation. (2014, December 10). Memorandum of Understanding. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/LB_DroughtResponseMOU.pdf
 Central Arizona Project. (2017, January 5). Review of and Update on Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (LBDCP) and Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) Plus Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.cap-az.com/documents/meetings/2017-01-05/1604-10.%20Board%20Brief%20LBDCP%20and%20DCP%20Plus%20-%20010517.pdf
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2009, October). The Water Conservation Initiative and Implementation of the Secure Water Act. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/SWA.pdf
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2017, January 19). SECURE Water Act Report to Congress. Retrieved from: https://www.usbr.gov/climate/secure/



Retrieved from "http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Colorado_River_Basin_Shortages_and_Coordinated_Operations_for_Lake_Powell_and_Lake_Mead&oldid=8746"