Water Supply in the Lower Colorado River Basin: Effectiveness of the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 149, Issue 10
Abstract
The Colorado River supplies water to seven southwestern states and Mexico. It is one of the most stressed river systems in the US. To address sustainability in the Lower Colorado River Basin (LCRB), the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) organized discussion of river operations and diversions among the LCRB states, eventually leading to the 2007 Interim Guidelines (2007-IG) and then to a revised river management structure, the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan (DCP). Among other features, the DCP increased the severity of reductions, or shortages, in annual water deliveries to the LCRB states (California, Arizona, and Nevada) and Mexico that are triggered by low year-end water levels in Lake Mead. Shortage measures were designed to mitigate the effects of long-term southwestern drought on reservoir levels, perhaps avoiding the worst outcomes for regional water supply while maintaining the energy-generating capability of the Colorado River system. The objective of this study was to evaluate water supply reliability in the LCRB with and without DCP measures and with and without anticipated climate effects. Four combinations of hydrological conditions and management strategies were analyzed. The results show that both 2007-IG and DCP measures will reduce the most severe shortages in Colorado River Water (CRW) supply to the LCRB states and Mexico under historical hydrologic conditions. Neither set of regulating measures insulates the LCRB against drought with anticipated climate change. However, the most distressing low-water projections are predicted to be less frequent and severe with DCP measures in place. The methods used to project the impacts attributable to climate change and the DCP on LCRB water deliveries can be used to anticipate the effects of alternative river management provisions now under consideration for drought mitigation.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some models and code used during the study were provided by a third party. This includes GCM, VIC, and CRSS, which are available from the USBR. Direct request for these materials may be made to the provider as indicated in the Acknowledgments.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the USBR for the models, code, and support necessary to utilize GCM, VIC, and CRSS models on behalf of the project. The work described was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #DGE1735173. The grant funds interdisciplinary research and student education, advancing knowledge and technology at the food–energy–water interface. Work was carried out in partnership with Diné College and the Navajo Technical University. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed are those of the authors and may not reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or our partner institutions.
References
Barnett, T., and D. Pierce. 2008. “When will Lake Mead go dry?” Water Resour. Res. 44 (3): W03201. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006704.
Christensen, N., and D. Lettenmaier. 2007. “A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (4): 1417–1434. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1417-2007.
Christensen, N., A. Wood, N. Voisin, D. Lettenmaier, and R. Palmer. 2004. “The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin.” Clim. Change 62 (1–3): 337–363. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013684.13621.1f.
Hamman, J. J., B. Nijssen, T. J. Bohn, D. R. Gergel, and Y. Mao. 2018. “The Variable Infiltration Capacity model version 5 (VIC-5): Infrastructure improvements for new applications and reproducibility.” Geosci. Model Dev. 11 (8): 3481–3496. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3481-2018.
Hidalgo, H. G., T. C. Piechota, and J. A. Dracup. 2000. “Alternative principal components regression procedures for dendrohydrologic reconstructions.” Water Resour. Res. 36 (11): 3241–3249. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900097.
Huizar, L., C. B. Yazzie, A. M. Fathabad, J. Cheng, K. Lansey, and R. G. Arnold. 2020. “The Colorado River, Native American water rights, climate change, and the drought contingency plan.” In The Kachina News, Quarter Two, 23–29. Chandler, AZ: AZ Water Association.
Huizar, L. H., K. E. Lansey, and R. G. Arnold. 2018. “Sustainability, robustness, and resilience metrics for water and other infrastructure systems.” Sustainable Resilient Infrastruct. 3 (1): 16–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1345252.
IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. “Fourth assessment report.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar4/.
Liang, X., D. P. Lettenmaier, E. F. Wood, and S. J. Burges. 1994. “A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models.” J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 99 (D7): 14415–14428. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00483.
MacDonnell, L. J., and A. J. Castle. 2022. “The Colorado river compact and apportionment of basin water uses.” Chap. 1 in Cornerstone at the confluence, negotiating the Colorado river compact’s next century, edited by J. A. Robison. Tucson, AZ: Univ. of Arizona Press.
Milly, P. C. D., K. A. Dunne, and A. V. Vecchia. 2005. “Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate.” Nature 438 (7066): 347–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04312.
Seager, R., et al. 2007. “Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America.” Science 316 (5828): 1181–1184. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139601.
Stockton, C. W., and G. C. Jacoby. 1976. Long-term surface-water supply and streamflow trends in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Umhoff, A. A. 2008. “An analysis of the 1944 US-Mexico water treaty: Its past, present, and future.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/volumes/32/1/umoff.pdf.
United States Government Printing Office. 1944. “Utilization of waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Treaty between the United States of America and Mexico.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/mextrety.pdf.
USBR (US Bureau of Reclamation). 1922. “Colorado River Compact, 1922.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf.
USBR (US Bureau of Reclamation). 2011. “Lake Mead area and capacity tables.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/LM_AreaCapacityTables2009.pdf.
USBR (US Bureau of Reclamation). 2012. “Colorado River Basin water supply and demand study.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html.
USBR (US Bureau of Reclamation). 2015. “Law of the River.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html.
USBR (US Bureau of Reclamation). 2019. “Agreement concerning Colorado River drought contingency management and operations.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.usbr.gov/dcp/docs/DroughtContigencyPlansBasinStates-TransmittalLetter-508-DOI.pdf.
US Department of the Interior. 2007. “Colorado river interim guidelines for lower basin shortages and the coordinated operations for Lake Powell and lake mead. Final environmental impact statement.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf.
USGS. 2016. “Colorado River Basin map.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/colorado-river-basin-map.
USGS. 2022. “Elevation-area-capacity relationships of Lake Powell in 2018 and estimated loss of storage capacity since 1963.” Accessed December 28, 2022. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2022/5017/sir20225017.pdf.
Wood, A. W., L. R. Leung, V. Sridhar, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2004. “Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs.” Clim. Change 62 (1–3): 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013685.99609.9e.
Wood, A. W., E. P. Maurer, A. Kumar, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2002. “Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States.” J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 107 (D20): ACL 6-1–ACL 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000659.
Woodhouse, C. A., S. T. Gray, and D. M. Meko. 2005. “Updated streamflow reconstructions for the Upper Colorado River Basin.” Water Resour. Res. 42 (5): W05415. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004455.
Yachmin, J. 2023. “Who shoulders Mother Nature’s cut of the Colorado River?” Accessed March 8, 2023. https://www.eenews.net/articles/who-shoulders-mother-natures-cut-of-the-colorado-river/.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 149 • Issue 10 • October 2023
Copyright
© 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 18, 2023
Accepted: Apr 27, 2023
Published online: Jul 25, 2023
Published in print: Oct 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Dec 25, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Luis Huizar, Sarai Díaz, Kevin Lansey, Robert Arnold, Economic Impacts of the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan in the Lower Colorado River Basin: Water, Energy, and Recreation, Journal of Environmental Engineering, 10.1061/JOEEDU.EEENG-7505, 150, 4, (2024).