Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan

Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan
Name	Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan
Date signed	2019
Location signed	Las Vegas
Parties	United States states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming; Bureau of Reclamation
Long type	Interstate water management agreement

Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan

The Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan is a multistate water management framework addressing prolonged hydrologic decline on the Colorado River and the Lake Powell–Lake Mead system. It coordinates supply reductions, reservoir operations, and urban and agricultural conservation across the seven basin states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming—and interfaces with the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and a spectrum of tribal, municipal, and utility stakeholders. The plan builds on prior compacts, legal decisions, and operational guidelines such as the Colorado River Compact (1922), Law of the River, and the Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007).

Background and context

The plan emerged amid sustained low inflows to Lake Powell and Lake Mead following drought conditions and increased consumptive use tied to population growth in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, and regional agricultural hubs in Imperial Valley and the Central Arizona Project service area. Historical drivers invoked include the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, and adjudications such as Arizona v. California. Hydrologic stresses were amplified by studies from institutions like the U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and University of Arizona climate researchers, which cited warming trends linked to broader patterns examined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Development and negotiation

Negotiations involved officials from state agencies such as the Arizona Department of Water Resources, California Department of Water Resources, Nevada Division of Water Resources, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, alongside federal representation by the Bureau of Reclamation and legal counsel from entities including the Colorado River Water Users Association. Tribal nations including the Tonkawa, Gila River Indian Community, Pueblo of Zuni, and others engaged through sovereign consultations paralleling cases like United States v. Arizona. Environmental organizations—The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and Audubon Society—participated with municipalities such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, utilities like Salt River Project, and water districts including the Central Arizona Water Conservation District. Negotiation dynamics referenced prior interstate compacts and episodes such as the Tucson water controversies and remediations related to the Colorado River Salinity Control Act.

Key provisions and mechanisms

The plan established tiered shortage-sharing and voluntary curtailment measures, coordinated reservoir operations at Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam, and created Drought Contingency Plan agreements for Upper Basin and Lower Basin participants. Mechanisms include intentionally created surplus and system conservation programs, water banking with partners like the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Central Arizona Project, and demand-management pilot programs coordinated with the Upper Basin States. Financial and incentive structures drew on funding from the Bureau of Reclamation, state legislatures such as the Arizona Legislature, and federal legislation comparable to provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act for conservation investments. The plan also referenced operational instructions from Coordinated Operations Record of Decision frameworks and incorporated monitoring by the Colorado River Basin Forecast Center.

Implementation and governance

Governance relied on interstate memoranda, operational committees composed of representatives from state agencies, federal liaisons from the Interior Department, and advisory involvement from tribal governments and large water users including Las Vegas Valley Water District and agricultural consortia in Yuma County. Implementation phases required triggers based on lake elevations at Lake Mead and Lake Powell, and execution involved technical tools like the Colorado River Simulation System and data from the Hydrologic Engineering Center. Oversight included reporting to state legislatures, coordination with municipal bodies such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and adaptive management protocols informed by research from Colorado State University and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Impacts and outcomes

Immediate outcomes included negotiated reductions in Lower Basin allocations when elevation thresholds at Lake Mead were reached, activation of conservation incentives in Arizona and Nevada, and increased interstate cooperation reducing acute risk of coordinated shortages. The plan catalyzed investments in recharge projects in the San Pedro River basin, expanded water banking in the Southern Nevada Water Authority portfolio, and supported pilot demand-management proposals in the Upper Basin states. Observed consequences affected agriculture in regions like the Imperial Valley and prompted municipal conservation measures in Phoenix and San Diego County. Independent analyses by entities such as the RAND Corporation and the Bureau of Reclamation quantified reductions in short-term shortage probabilities while signaling persistent long-term vulnerability under scenarios modeled by the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Legal and interstate issues

Legal complexity arises from the plan’s interaction with the Law of the River, reserved water rights affirmed in cases like Winters v. United States, and unresolved quantification of tribal allocations in contexts resembling United States v. New Mexico proceedings. Interstate compact law principles, exemplified by disputes adjudicated before the U.S. Supreme Court, framed negotiations over priority, apportionment, and enforcement. Contingencies required coordination with provisions of the Colorado River Storage Project Act and responsiveness to potential litigation from sovereign parties, water districts, and agricultural interests invoking precedents such as Arizona v. California and administrative review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics from tribal leaders, environmental advocates, and agricultural stakeholders argued the plan deferred resolution of quantified tribal rights, relied on voluntary measures insufficient for basin-wide sustainability, and perpetuated allocation rules rooted in the 1920s that overestimate average flows. Controversies paralleled debates around federal versus state authority illustrated by litigation in cases like Montana v. United States and drew scrutiny from media outlets in The New York Times and The Washington Post for equity and transparency concerns. Analysts cautioned that market-based banking and fallowing programs could disadvantage smallholders in Yuma County and rural communities in Colorado, while proponents cited cooperative governance successes similar to outcomes seen in other interstate compacts such as the California Water Fix negotiations.

Category:Colorado River Category:Water resource management in the United States