The federal government has come up with two ideas for how to save the Colorado River.
Neither is likely.
Federal and state water authorities have been beating their drums since a supplemental environmental impact statement was released on April 11th.
Both options, either relying on existing priority systems or just relying on flat cuts distributed according to usage, are extremes of a range meant to spur debate.
They are not a realistic view of how severe and painful cuts will be by 2026. We assume that this wet winter and other voluntary actions to conserve water will not be enough to keep Lake Powell and Lake Mead stable for so long.
CAP decreases to trickle
But that doesn’t mean you should completely ignore the projected impact of either alternative.
If anything, it explains why we desperately need to find something in the middle.
For that reason, we should look Appendix D The plan provides two action options for when and how much a particular water user can be reduced.
For example, I briefly stated that the Central Arizona project, which brings water to cities, tribes, and farmers in Metro Phoenix, Pinal County, and Tucson, would be nil under Alternative 1 (priority-based).
And it’s true: all drops in CAP’s internal non-Indian quotas, municipalities, industries and India’s priority pools will be cut.
It’s part of the state’s fourth-highest water priority, and it will also be zero if the 2,083,000 acre-foot reduction is mandated.
The Gila River tribe will be zeroed out
But that doesn’t mean the canal will dry up completely.
This is because some cities such as Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe also have access to some of the state’s third highest priority water. These waters will be curtailed as mandated cuts increase he to 4 million acre feet, but not completely eliminated. .
Admittedly, this is a tiny fraction of the water that flows through the CAP today.
No, this study does not fully model the effects on a city if that small amount of water were to flow into the city. This is a very missing piece of analysis that could really add to the discussion.
Incorrect count:How many areas are likely to lose water supply?
But be careful who doesn’t get water in a straight-up deprioritization scenario. Gila Indian Community.
As the largest CAP entitlement and a growing power broker in Arizona’s water community, this tribe only has water as the fourth highest priority.
And in this scenario you lose everything.
This means that many other people who rent water from the tribes will also lose their water, with cascading effects on water policy and state and tribal politics.
California will feel the pain too
California will feel the pain too, albeit a little later than Arizona.
Fourth priority water, primarily supplied to the Metropolitan Water District, which serves millions of people in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas, will be phased out at a reduction of 2.5 million acre feet.
As with all water, the state’s third, second, and first priority before the 4 million acre-foot reduction is mandated.
This means that only the oldest current consummation owner in the basin will have access to water in California.
These rights holders will not lose a single drop of water if the state’s low-priority water remains at zero.
Still, we need to reduce another 20,393 acre-feet to reach our goal of 4 million acre-feet.
From where? good question.
The federal government has gone to great lengths in its appendix to avoid hinting at where it came from.
need to know where no Take out
Let me emphasize again. These are just hypotheses.
If alternative 1 (or 2, or for that matter zeroing out far fewer users, but requiring everyone to be cut) is chosen in writing, I can guarantee you’ll end up in court.
The federal government wants to avoid it if possible because it knows that just filing a lawsuit will make matters worse while the Colorado River is in tank condition.
However, it is still important to explain these two extreme results. please do not i wanna go.
to reach All Hands joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. on Twitter: @joanna allhands.
If you like this content (or don’t like it – no judgement), Subscribe to get more?
