
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (John Fleck):
Getting ready for an interview this morning with Mark Brodie at KJZZ (waving at my Phoenix friends!) I put together a table to make it easier to compare the six-state proposal submitted Monday to reduce Lower Colorado River Basin water use, and the California proposal submitted yesterday (Tues. 1/31/23).
Perhaps worth sharing here? “Elevation” is Lake Mead elevation, the numbers are million acre feet of total cuts.
Two keys to note.
First, despite big disagreements about how to approach this, we have unanimity among all seven states that very deep cuts in Lower Basin water use are needed. At the lowest Lake Mead elevations, the numbers are similar.
The difference is in timing. California’s cuts don’t kick in until later – essentially a gamble on good hydrology once again helping us avoid conflict by letting us use more water in the short term.
The six-state proposal says “go big” any time Mead drops below 1,050. The California proposal doesn’t start “going big” until 1,025.
The six-state proposal yanks the bandaid off now.
Under the current “most probable forecast” for the coming year, we’d end up in 2024 with:
- Six state proposal: 3,168 million acre feet in cuts
- California proposal: 2,188 million acre feet in cuts
| Tier | Elevation | 6-state | California |
| Tier 0 | 1090 | 1,784 | 1,241 |
| Tier 1 | 1075 | 2,156 | 1,613 |
| Tier 2a | 1,050 | 2,918 | 1,721 |
| Tier 2b | 1045 | 2,918 | 2,013 |
| Tier 2c | 1040 | 2,918 | 2,071 |
| Tier 2d | 1035 | 2,918 | 2,129 |
| Tier 2e | 1030 | 3,168 | 2,188 |
| Tier 3a | 1025 | 3,168 | 2,525 |
| Tier 3b | 1020 | 3,368 | 2,675 |
| Tier 3c | 1015 | 3,368 | 2,875 |
| 1,010 | 3,368 | 3,125 | |
| 1,005 | 3,368 | 3,325 |
There are other differences too – huge disagreements on how to approach the allocation of the cuts! No time for that this morning, I’ve a book to write, but I hope to get back to that in the next few days, stay tuned.