The grinding megadrought that’s plagued the southwestern United States since 2000 plunged to a new level of seriousness on Tuesday, August 16, as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced that the first-ever Tier 2 water restrictions will take effect in January 2023 along the Colorado River. Generous monsoon rains over parts of the Southwest this summer have done little to blunt the grim longer-term prognosis.
Based on the latest set of two-year projections (called the 24-month study), the water level at Lake Mead will drop to near 1048 feet by next January 1, putting it just below the Tier 2a threshold of 1050 feet.
The Colorado River, and the 40 million people – plus billions of dollars in agriculture – that draw on its water across the Southwest, were already in the midst of stringent cuts after a previous 24-month study, released in August 2021, that put into place Tier 1 restrictions (itself an unprecedented step at the time) starting in January 2022. The range that triggers Tier 1 for Lake Mead is 1050-1075 feet.
The Tier 1 cuts will now be expanded by 15 to 20 percent in 2023 for two U.S. states plus Mexico:
Arizona: 512,000 acre-feet (Tier 1), plus 80,000 acre-feet (Tier 2a)
Nevada: 21,000 acre-feet (Tier 1), plus 4,000 acre-feet (Tier 2a)
Mexico: 80,000 acre-feet (Tier 1), plus 24,000 acre-feet (Tier 2a)
Together, these Tier 1 and Tier 2a restrictions translate into supply cuts of 21% for Arizona, 8% for Nevada, and 7% for Mexico.
Under the agreements that dictate southwestern water, California would not face any cuts until Tier 2b status is declared. That would have happened had the January 1 projection for Lake Mead been just 2.5 feet lower, said climatologist and water researcher Jeff Lukas on Twitter.
As noted by Tom Yulsman (ImaGeo/Discover), Lake Powell and Lake Mead were both at record lows on August 16, sitting at 26 and 27 percent of capacity, respectively.
“At best, the bureau’s action today will only delay the day of reckoning,” Yulsman wrote.
Interstate negotiations locked in a stalemate
Based on century-old water law (collectively dubbed the Law of the River), each of the two Colorado River Basins is allocated 7.5 million acre-feet of water, with an additional 1.5 million acre-feet allocated to Mexico. Collectively, the lower-basin states consistently use as much of their allocation as allowed per year; the upper-basin states typically use only about 60% of their allocated supply. The reservoir system is designed to store around 60 million acre-feet, or roughly four years of average natural river flow.
Alas, these numbers are based on 20th-century averages that are proving far too generous as populations expand, the climate warms, and reservoir withdrawals routinely exceed recharge.
Bureau of Reclamation Director Camille Touton said in a congressional hearing in June that the seven states of the Colorado River Basin (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) will need to somehow come up with cuts of 2 to 4 million acre-feet (or 13-26% of standard allocations) before 2023 in order to stabilize the supply and stave off major reservoir impacts.
“That is a stunning number,” said journalist and Colorado River expert John Fleck (University of New Mexico) in a blog post. As Fleck puts it: “Each Colorado River Basin state has a reasonable argument for why it’s already sacrificed enough. Taken together, though, if each state digs in its heels, there’s not enough water to go around.”
Despite state pledges to cooperate toward meeting the goal set by Touton this summer, negotiations haven’t gotten far.
In a statement on August 16, Tom Buschatzke (director, Arizona Department of Water Resources) and Ted Cooke (general manager, Arizona Project) said: “The Basin States have not yet produced a viable plan nor has the United States proposed a plan that achieves the protection volumes identified by the Commissioner.… It is unacceptable for Arizona to continue to carry a disproportionate burden of reductions for the benefit of others who have not contributed.”
Meanwhile, John Entsminger (general manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority) said in a July 25 letter to the Department of the Interior, as reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Despite the obvious urgency of the situation, the last sixty-two days produced exactly nothing in terms of meaningful collective action to help forestall the looming crisis… We are at the stage where basin-wide every drop counts, and every single drop we are short of achieving two to four million acre-feet in permanent reductions draws us a step closer to the catastrophic collapse of the system.”
The failure of leadership of the 7 states to collaboratively agree to limits that would avoid harmful future regional consequences for seems to be a lot like the failure of national leaderships to collaboratively agree to limit climate change harm done to the future of global humanity.
Regional leadership pursuing regional popularity and perceptions of prosperity, including perceptions of superiority relative to others, is a serious problem. It forces higher level leadership to intervene to try to limit the regional harmful unsustainable activity. And regional pursuers of popular support and perceptions of prosperity can be expected to try to blame external higher level 'leadership by others' for any regional perceptions of loss.
Self interested pursuit of benefit is potentially one of the most harmful human characteristics. And its developed perceptions of success can make it harder to govern and limit the harm it does.
"Self interested pursuit of benefit" is OK as long as it is informed by the human capacity for abstraction and the realization that altruism, or even pseudo-altruism, can inure to one's benefit. It's called "enlightened self-interest." I fear we as a species have been losing that quality of late.
Jimspy,
Agreed that self interest governed by the pursuit of increased awareness and understanding of what is harmful is essential to sustainably improve things (truly make things better).
The best 'certain to be viable' futures for humanity appear to require all humans to be governed by the pursuit of learning and accepting the diversity of ways to be human that fit into, are sustainable parts of, the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet.
Everyone self governing that way would be great ... But that is unlikely (a fantasy). Some people will likely need to be governed by others to limit the harm they cause in pursuit of personal benefit.