U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–774 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–183 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S COLORADO 

RIVER BASIN WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUDY 

JULY 16, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MIKE LEE, Utah, Ranking 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

RON WYDEN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 5 

Ferris, Kathleen, Executive Director, Arizona Municipal Water Users Association ........................................................................................................................ 38

Hawes, Taylor E. C., Colorado River Program Director, The Nature Conservancy ..................................................................................................................... 32 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ..................................... 4 

Lee, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Utah ............................................................. 1 

Ostler, Don A., Executive Director, Upper Colorado River Commission ............ 15 

Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator From Hawaii ................................................... 1 

Trujillo, Tanya, Executive Director, Colorado River Board of California ........... 10 

Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado ................................................... 2 

Vigil, T. Darryl, Chairman, Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership ............... 19 

Waskom, Reagan, Director, Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State University ......................................................................................................................... 45 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 59 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 75 

(1) 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN 

TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Good afternoon. 

Today we are here to discuss the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. The Bureau 

and the 7 basin States including Arizona, California, Colorado and 

New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming worked collaboratively 

with tribes, agricultural users, municipal and industrial water 

users, power users and environmental and recreational organizations to define current and future imbalances along the Colorado 

River. 

This was quite an undertaking. In fact, I’m told it’s the most 

comprehensive basin wide analysis ever taken up by the Department of the Interior. 

The study was finalized in December 2012. We are here today to 

discuss the study’s findings and the next steps. 

Unfortunately I have a scheduling conflict and cannot stay to 

Chair the hearing, but I’ve spoken with my friend and someone 

who knows this issue far better than I do, Senator Mark Udall. 

Given the significance of this topic in his home State of Colorado, 

he has agreed to chair the hearing today. I look forward to following up with him and the others on the committee on the next 

steps and anything that I can do in my role as subcommittee chair. 

At this time I’d like to recognize our Ranking Member, Senator 

Lee, for his comments. Then Senator Udall can make his opening 

statement followed by any other members. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall. 

It’s a pleasure to be here today with both of you. I thank you for 

leading this effort and this hearing on the Colorado River Basin 

Water Supply and Demand Study. It was released just a few 

months ago, last December. 
2 

I thank the witnesses for being here today and all of you for joining us as well. I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

I especially want to welcome Don Ostler from the Salt Lake City 

area, from Bountiful, where my sister lives, to the Water and 

Power Subcommittee. So, welcome. 

Water supply has been and always will be a contentious and 

challenging issue in the American West. The Colorado River is at 

the heart of it. The river supplies water for millions of Americans 

and millions of acres of irrigated farmland. It’s also the centerpiece 

of Grand Canyon National Park and many other recreational attractions. 

As these varying demands grow so too will the importance of 

managing the Colorado River in a responsible and circumspect 

manner which necessarily includes due respect for existing water 

rights. 

The most important fact to consider when examining water supply issues in the Colorado River Basin is that the river and its 

usage are primarily governed by the Colorado River Compact of 

1922. As we hear the details of this report it’s crucial to keep in 

mind that this compact will continue to control water supply decisions along the Colorado River. As evidence of this I might turn attention to the substantial disclaimer in the study that essentially 

states that nothing in the study is intended for use in any proceeding, whether Administrative or otherwise, that would impact 

the rights of States or tribes and the Colorado River. 

This is not to disparage the study itself, but to place this study 

in proper context. The report provides valuable information concerning the Colorado River, but does not serve as a foundation for 

any new regulatory or legislative proposals. The study seeks to inform, but not to direct. 

I thank the Bureau of Reclamation for conducting this study and 

also the witnesses for being here today. This subject impacts families and individuals across the West and is deserving of consideration by this subcommittee. 

I look forward to the testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM COLORADO 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

I want to thank as well, Chairman Schatz for agreeing to loan 

me his gavel for today’s important hearing. He sounded like I was 

doing him a favor, but in fact he has honored me by giving me an 

opportunity to chair what is a very important hearing to the State 

of Colorado and to the entire Southwest. 

Senator Heinrich has joined me. He and I called for this hearing 

earlier in the year because we felt it would be a perfect opportunity 

to bring our colleagues and the shareholders, stakeholders of all 

stripes, together to work collaboratively on a path forward. As 

Westerners and as avid outdoorsmen, the importance of water to 

our way of life was impressed upon us at a very early age. Much 

of our careers in public office have focused on solutions to our 

water challenges. 

I again want to thank Chairman Schatz. I appreciate his leadership on the Water and Power Subcommittee. His willingness to 
3 

give us time to discuss a topic that’s absolutely critical to our future. 

As Senator Lee knows water has literally shaped the West. It 

carved Colorado from red rock. It shaped landmarks from the 

Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of California. 

Water has etched green and fertile valleys into the desert and 

sustained generations of Americans in the Southwest. Water is literally what makes the West as we know it possible, from our ski 

resorts in places like Vail and Powderhorn to cities like Gunnison 

and Grand Junction to farmers in Utah, Arizona and California. 

But to understand the role that water has played in the West is 

to grasp the whole of modern Western history. The saying, ‘‘Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.’’ 

Out West, the most important source of water we have is the 

mighty Colorado, which brings us to today’s hearing on the Bureau 

of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study. 

We have an impressive list of witnesses. Two of them hailing 

from my home State of Colorado. I want to welcome all of them to 

the committee. I look forward to hearing from all of you in just a 

few minutes. 

Former Colorado Congressman Wayne Aspinall used to say, ‘‘In 

the West, when you touch water, you touch everything.’’ This is 

certainly the case for the Colorado River Basin. 

The Colorado River and its tributaries span parts of 7 States and 

provide water to nearly 40 million people for municipal use and irrigate nearly 5.5 million acres of land. 

The Colorado River sustains at least 22 federally recognized 

tribes, 7 national wildlife refuges, 4 national recreation areas, 11 

national parks and countless ecosystems and fish and wildlife species. 

This enormous demand, coupled with climate change and population growth, pose serious challenges for the Colorado River, our 

economy and our way of life. In order to meet these challenges it 

is important for us first, to acknowledge that current management 

and use of the river is unsustainable. 

Why do I say that? 

When you look at the current long term projections for supply 

and demand, demand is expected to outpace supply by 3.2 million 

acre feet by 2060 or enough water to supply 3.2 million homes. Rising temperatures and ongoing drought are only exacerbating the 

pressure on the Colorado. Insufficient rainfall and snow pack have 

led to dwindling reservoir levels, leaving water managers with really difficult decisions about how to meet the water needs of cities, 

farmers and endangered species. 

The United States Bureau of Reclamation forecasted below average river flows for 2013, as had been the case for ten of the last 

13 years. 

In my friend Senator Heinrich’s home State of New Mexico, several communities over the last several weeks have literally run out 

of water due to the drought. At some point soon, there will not be 

enough water to meet the demands of the almost 40 million people 

who depend on the Colorado River Basin for drinking water, agriculture, energy, hydropower, recreation and ecosystem and wildlife 

values. 
4 

But as a Westerner—I think Senator Lee and Senator Heinrich 

would join me in saying this—I’m an eternal optimist, and we still 

have time to reverse this trend. 

Thanks in large part to the Bureau of Rec study, we’ve been presented with promising strategies that will help to overcome our 

current challenges as well as our more serious challenges in the future. These strategies, which include reducing demand through innovation, conservation and better management of the supply, will 

help us prepare for the future and reduce the River Basin’s 

vulnerabilities. 

In the near-term, we need to—and I think we must—focus on 

conservation activities and water reuse and recycling. In short, we 

need to make every drop count. 

This study has been referred to as a call to action by many and 

rightfully so. It is time to act. 

There will, of course, be tradeoffs as we continue to engage all 

stakeholders on the best way forward. But this study and the procedure it puts forward will get the process rolling to make decisions. It’s my hope that today’s hearing will support that process 

and focus us on the necessary next steps. 

So I thank you for your attention. I thank the panel for being 

here. I want to turn to my colleague, Senator Heinrich, for any 

opening remarks he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Senator Udall, Chairman. 

I want to welcome all the New Mexicans. Senator Udall said two 

of the 4 were from Colorado. I count 3 of the 4 from New Mexico. 

So it’s a little bit like being a Marine. Once a New Mexican, always 

a New Mexican as far as I’m concerned. 

But I certainly want to welcome Mr. Darryl Vigil to the committee, a New Mexico native from Dulce and a member of the 

Jicarilla Apache Nation and the former Water Manager for the 

Jicarilla Apache Nation, a very important job and the current 

Chairman of the Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership. 

Welcome, of course, Mike Connor and Tanya Trujillo and say 

hello to Mr. Ostler. I’m looking forward to your input today as well. 

I was home over the weekend. It was just so incredibly striking. 

I spent 3 days on the road in South Central New Mexico from 

Socorro down to places like Alamogordo, Ruidoso, met with folks 

from Cloudcroft and Magdalena. 

Magdalena, their sole source well started sucking air about 3 

weeks ago. That’s never happened before. 

We had towns like Cloudcroft that are having water hauled to 

them as well. 

We have towns like Ruidoso and Alamogordo that are struggling 

with the impact of recent wildfires on those water supplies. 

These issues, while there are not directly related to what is going 

on in the Colorado Basin, are no different than what we see in the 

Colorado Basin. We’re seeing more and more demand, less and less 

supply. So we’re going to have to show some leadership to be able 

to rise to these challenges. 
5 

I want to thank everyone who is here to testify today, to being 

part of that solution. Because in my view, it is the thing, the greatest challenge for those of us in Western States, is how to learn to 

live and hopefully thrive in the new normal. 

So, thank you very much for the opportunity to say a few words, 

Senator. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Heinrich, thank you. 

Let’s get right to the panel. 

Let me make a brief introduction of each of you and then we’ll 

turn to the Honorable Mike Connor to kick things off. 

So we have been joined by the Honorable Mike Connor. He’s 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Next to him is Tanya Trujillo, Executive Director of the Colorado 

River Board of California. 

Next to Ms. Trujillo, Don Ostler, Executive Director of the Upper 

Colorado River Commission and as Senator Lee mentioned, a proud 

resident of the State of Utah. 

Next to Mr. Ostler is Darryl Vigil, Chairman of the Ten Tribes 

Partnership. 

All of you, welcome. 

Mr. Connor, we’ll kick it off with you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lee, 

Senator Heinrich. 

I’m Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. A 

New Mexican, I’m proud to say. Thank you for the opportunity to 

be here today to discuss the Colorado River Basin Study and its 

implications. 

There’s no question that the Colorado River Basin is one of the 

most critical sources of water in the West. As you noted, Chairman 

Udall, the river and its tributaries provide hydropower, supply 40 

million people with municipal water, irrigate nearly 5.5 million 

acres of land and provide the lifeblood for Indian tribes, national 

wildlife refuges, national parks as well as providing Ag and municipal water supplies to our neighbors in Mexico. 

Today the Colorado is facing a record drought. The period from 

2000 to 2013 is shaping up to be the lowest 14-year period in the 

100-plus years of historical measurements. The complexities of ensuring a sustainable water supply on the over allocated Colorado 

River has been recognized and documented by all 7 basin States for 

decades. 

It was against this backdrop that the study was conducted with 

input from a broad range of stakeholders. The purpose of the study 

was to define the current and future imbalances in water supply 

and demand over the next 50 years. The study did not result in a 

decision as to how future imbalances should be addressed. Rather 

it provides a common technical foundation that frames the range 

of potential imbalances and solutions that may be employed to address the situation. 

The study is an unprecedented joint effort and the most comprehensive basin wide analysis ever undertaken by the Department. It began in January 2010 and was completed in December 
6 

2012 at a cost of approximately $7 million, roughly shared by Reclamation and agencies representing the 7 basin States. The study 

is a model not only for other Reclamation basin studies, but for collaborative watershed planning across the country. 

The study used a scenario planning approach to identify a broad 

range of future conditions. It considers 4 different water supply 

scenarios and it is the first basin wide study to incorporate the influence of climate change on future water supply. 

A range of future demands were quantified in 6 different demand 

scenarios that included varied assumptions about economic conditions, population growth and water needs. When the median of 

water supply projections is compared against the median of the 

water demand projections, the basin wide imbalance in future supply/demand is about 3.2 million acre feet annually by 2060. The average reduction in hydropower output under this projection is approximately 12 percent but can vary widely under any of the future 

scenarios. 

Over 150 ideas or options were received and organized into 4 

groups. 

Those that increase basin water supply. 

Those that reduce water demand. 

Those that focus on modifying operations. 

Those that focus on governance and mechanisms to implement 

the options. 

While some may be too costly or technically infeasible, many of 

the ideas warrant further analysis. 

Ultimately this study is a call to action for all who rely on the 

Colorado River. In response to and consistent with aggressive actions that have been taken in the past 10 to 15 years, a broad 

group of stakeholders, led by Reclamation and the 7 basin States 

are moving forward to take the appropriate next steps. These will 

ensure that continued aggressive actions are taken to address the 

gap in supply and demand. 

These actions will be taken on a strong foundation of recent successes that include the historic 2007 agreement on coordinated operations and shortage sharing as well as the recently completed 

Minute 319 agreement with Mexico under the 1944 Treaty. These 

actions, along with others, have resulted in the conservation of over 

one million acre feet of water that’s currently available in Lake 

Mead. That’s ten feet of storage on Lake Mead, the installation of 

more efficient turbines on existing hydropower units and improved 

environmental conditions and endangered species populations in 

both the Upper and Lower basins. 

As next steps 3 multi-stakeholder workgroups have been formed 

to investigate municipal and industrial water conservation and 

water reuse, agricultural conservation and water transfers and the 

third group will look at environmental and recreational flows. Additionally the States and Reclamation will lead other efforts to address the situation. For example, Reclamation is working with the 

Ten Tribes Partnership in the Basin to complete a study related to 

tribal water needs. 

Against this backdrop of collaboration and commitments it is unfortunate to note that the FY2014 Energy and Water Appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives last week elimi-
7 

nates the vast majority of WaterSMART funding that supported 

the study and which is key to taking actions necessary to address 

its findings. Overall the House bill would cut WaterSMART by 53 

percent including the elimination of all funding for WaterSMART 

grants. This action undermines the Federal Government’s ability to 

partner with basin States and local communities on critical investments that are needed to address water resource issues and improve the resilience of the Basin against climate related impacts 

that threaten both economic and environmental interests. 

The Administration urges Congress to restore funding for 

WaterSMART to the requested level. It is simply imperative that 

we maintain our ability to respond. As we enter our second decade 

of drought conditions the communities that rely on the river are 

being forced to make tough choices. 

Tree ring reconstructions of stream flow indicate that the current 

14-year period is one of the lowest in not just the last 100 years, 

but the last 1,200 years. It is likely that climate change will exacerbate ongoing concerns that have major consequences on the Colorado River and those who rely on this oversubscribed resource. 

Resolving these challenges is going to take diligent planning and 

collaboration as well as resources from the 7 basin States, the Federal Government, tribes, water managers, environmental groups 

and others to find solutions. Fortunately the level of cooperation 

among key stakeholders has never been higher. As a result there 

is reason for optimism, even in the midst of the daunting challenges that exist in this basin. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important study. 

I’ll answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Udall and members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) at the Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today regarding the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand 

Study (Study). The Colorado River Basin (Basin) is one of the most critical sources 

of water in the West. The River and its tributaries provide water to nearly 40 million people for municipal use, for irrigation of nearly 5.5 million acres of land, and 

also it represents the lifeblood for at least 22 federally recognized Indian tribes 

(tribes), seven National Wildlife Refuges, four National Recreation Areas, and 11 

National Parks. Hydropower facilities along the Colorado River provide more than 

4,200 megawatts of generating capacity, helping to meet the power needs of the 

West and offsetting the use of fossil fuels. The Colorado River is also a vital component in fulfilling Mexico’s agricultural and municipal water needs in Baja California 

and Sonora. 

Today the Colorado River is facing a record drought. The period from 2000 to 2013 

is shaping up to be the lowest 14-year period in the over 100-year historical record 

for the Colorado River. Tree-ring reconstructions of streamflow indicate that the 

current 14-year period, which began in 2000, is one of the lowest in the Basin in 

over 1,200 years. The challenges and complexities of ensuring a sustainable water 

supply and meeting future demand in the over-allocated and highly variable Colorado River has been recognized and documented by Reclamation and the Basin 

States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming 

for decades. Looking ahead, concerns regarding the reliability of the Colorado River 

system to meet water deliveries, power generation, environmental and recreational 

needs are even greater, given the likelihood of increasing demand for water and projections of reduced supply due to climate change. 
8 

It was against this backdrop that the Study was conducted by Reclamation’s 

Upper Colorado and Lower Colorado Regions and the Basin States with participation and input from a broad range of stakeholders including tribes, agricultural 

users, purveyors of municipal and industrial water, power users, and conservation, 

environmental and recreation organizations. The purpose of the Study was to define 

current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the Basin and the 

adjacent areas of the Basin States that receive Colorado River water over the next 

50 years (through 2060). The Study also included a wide array of adaptation and 

mitigation strategies proposed by stakeholders and the public to resolve those imbalances. The Study did not result in a decision as to how future imbalances should 

or will be addressed. Rather, it provides a common technical foundation that frames 

the range of potential imbalances that may be faced in the future and the range 

of solutions identified by stakeholders and the public that may be considered to resolve those imbalances. Reclamation has not taken a position on the merits of any 

of these actions or whether it may ultimately support pursuing any individual actions. 

The Study is one of 22 Basin Studies being undertaken by Reclamation and nonfederal cost share partners across the West as part of the WaterSMART (Sustain 

and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) initiative. Through WaterSMART, 

Interior agencies work with state and local water managers to plan for climate 

change, drought and other threats to water supplies and consider their potentially 

interrelated and combined effects, and take action to secure water resources for 

communities, economies, and the ecosystems they support. 

The Study is an unprecedented joint effort by Reclamation and the Basin States 

and is the most comprehensive basin-wide analysis ever undertaken within the Department. It began in January 2010 and was completed in December 2012 at a cost 

of approximately $7.0 million, which was roughly equally shared by Reclamation 

and agencies representing the seven Basin States. This figure does not include the 

‘‘in-kind’’ services by all of the other collaborators. The Study is a model, not only 

for other Reclamation basin studies, but for watershed planning across the country. 

The FY 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives last week drastically underfunds critical investments that develop 

American energy sources to build a clean and secure energy future; develop and 

commercialize the emerging technologies that create high-quality jobs and enhance 

the Nation’s economic competitiveness; and improve resilience against current and 

ongoing climate impacts that threaten our economy, public health, and natural resources. The bill eliminates the vast majority of WaterSMART funding that supported the Colorado River Basin Study and would significantly hinder actions under 

the WaterSMART program that could help address water supply shortages in the 

Colorado River Basin and elsewhere. Overall, the House bill would cut 

WaterSMART by 53%, including the elimination of all funding for WaterSMART 

grants, despite already having helped facilitate the conservation of 616,000 acre feet 

of water from 2010 through 2012. This action undermines the Federal government’s 

ability to partner with local communities on improving resilience against climaterelated impacts that threaten a range of economic and environmental interests. The 

Administration urges the Congress to increase funding for the Bureau of Reclamation to the requested level and to allocate funding to priority conservation, science, 

and technology programs. 

THE STUDY BUILDS ON A HISTORY OF COLLABORATION IN THE BASIN

Water managers and water users in the Colorado River Basin have long recognized the need to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of shortfalls between water supply and demand. As early as the 1950s, the estimated annual water use in the Colorado River basin exceeded the annual yield in some years. Prior to that, early water 

planning efforts resulted in the construction of significant infrastructure such as 

Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams. This infrastructure—about four years of average 

natural flow of the river—has helped to avoid past water shortages and to provide 

substantial power generation benefits to the region. Recently, substantial progress 

has been made on refining Colorado River water management, including the 2007 

interim guidelines for shortage, surplus, and coordinated operations, and the 2012 

agreement with Mexico known as Minute 319 to the 1944 Treaty with Mexico. These 

efforts have resolved potential conflicts in the short and mid-term, are providing 

operational certainty in that same time frame, and are facilitating conservation actions along with increased water storage that is already helping to alleviate the impacts of the ongoing drought. The benefits of these agreements will continue to accrue for the foreseeable future. 
9 

The key to these historic accomplishments was collaboration and partnerships. It 

is in that same spirit that the Study was conducted. Through monumental outreach 

efforts, interested parties were engaged and their participation and input was critical to the Study. 

STUDY APPROACH AND PROJECTED RANGE OF WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND IMBALANCE

The Study adopted state of the art techniques and approaches to incorporate 

science, address uncertainty, and assess risk. In particular, a scenario planning approach was used to identify a broad range of future conditions leading to the most 

robust data generation and analysis of any planning effort in the Basin. The Study 

considers four different water supply scenarios and is the first Basin-wide study 

that considers the potential influence of climate change on future water supply. A 

range of future water demands were quantified in six different demand scenarios 

that included varied assumptions about future economic conditions, population 

growth, and water needs for agricultural, municipal and industrial, energy, mineral, 

and fish, wildlife, and recreation purposes. 

The Study confirms that the Basin faces a range of potential future imbalances 

between supply and demand. Each of those imbalances results in decline in the performance of water deliveries, hydropower, water quality, ecological, and recreational 

resources. When the median of water supply projections is compared against the 

median of the water demand projections, the basin-wide imbalance in future supply 

and demand is about 3.2 million acre-feet annually by 2060. The average reduction 

in hydropower output under this projection is approximately 12%. However, the imbalance can be much greater, or less, under any one of the multiple future supply 

and demand scenarios that could occur. 

The Study relied upon participants, stakeholders, and the public to provide a 

broad range of potential options to help resolve the water supply and demand imbalance. The Study then organized over 150 ideas or ‘‘options’’ into four groups: 1) 

those that increase Basin water supply, 2) those that reduce Basin water demand, 

3) those that focus on modifying operations, and 4) those that focus primarily on 

Basin governance and mechanisms to implement options. , The Study explored a 

wide range of options with the goal of incorporating all viable opportunities, even 

those that that may ultimately be uneconomic or technically infeasible. Reclamation 

has not taken a position on the merits of any of these actions or whether it may 

ultimately support pursuing any individual actions. 

An effective adaptation strategy would likely include large agricultural, municipal, and industrial conservation and water transfers, and water reuse options. 

Longer-term solutions are still unclear, and may or may not involve the use of largescale augmentation, such as ocean desalination. 

The Study’s portfolio exploration indicates that implementation of a broad range 

of options can reduce the Basin’s vulnerability and improve the system’s resiliency 

to dry hydrologic conditions while meeting increasing demands in the Basin and adjacent areas receiving Colorado River water. 

MOVING FORWARD AFTER THE STUDY

This Study is not a regional or river basin plan or proposal, or a plan for any Federal water resource project. Rather, Reclamation intends that the Study will promote and facilitate cooperation and communication throughout the Basin regarding 

the reliability of the system to continue to meet Basin needs. However, In recognition of the enormous challenge facing the Basin states, the Federal Government can 

provide a leadership role in appropriate processes to facilitate dialogue about addressing water supply and demand imbalances in the Colorado River Basin. As a 

part of this federal facilitation process, Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Anne Castle and I participated with representatives 

from the Basin States, the Ten Tribes Partnership, and conservation organizations 

in a ‘‘Moving Forward’’ public event in late May. This continuing effort will require 

innovative thinking, integration of many viewpoints and a commitment to work in 

a positive and collaborative spirit. 

Phase 1 of this process builds on the critical investigations identified in the Study 

and consists of the formation of three multi-stakeholder workgroups representing 

Federal, State, Tribal, agricultural, municipal, hydropower, environmental, and recreational interests. These workgroups will investigate: 1) Municipal and Industrial 

(M&I) Conservation and Water Reuse, 2) Agricultural Conservation and Water 

Transfers, and 3) Environmental and Recreational Flows. As projects, policies, and 

programs are developed, consideration will be given to those that provide a widerange of benefits to water users and healthy rivers for all users. In addition, Rec-
10 

lamation and the Ten Tribes Partnership are jointly pursuing a study related to 

tribal water use and long-term needs. 

It is anticipated that Phase 1 will be completed by 2014, after which Phase 1 efforts will be reviewed, additional phases will be identified, and the process will be 

reassessed and modified as needed to facilitate anticipated further phases of work. 

Of course, this new initiative is responsive to the findings of the Study and will be 

carried out in parallel with ongoing efforts such as continued operations under the 

2007 guidelines; implementation of Minute 319; installation of more efficient turbines on existing hydropower units; and actions to further implement endangered 

species recovery programs in the upper and lower basins. Collectively, these initiatives are critical for short and mid-term operations, even as we seek to improve 

long-term preparedness in the Basin. 

CONCLUSION

The Department of the Interior and Reclamation view the Colorado River Basin 

Study as a critical step to establish a common technical foundation from which important discussions can begin to help ensure the sustainability of the Colorado River 

system. As we enter our second decade of drought conditions, the communities that 

rely on the river to sustain them are being forced to make tough choices. Tree-ring 

reconstructions of streamflow indicate that the current 14-year period, which began 

in 2000, is one of the lowest in the Basin in over 1,200 years. It is likely that climate change and its emerging challenges will have major consequences on the Colorado River. There is no silver bullet to solve these challenges. Fortunately, the level 

of cooperation among key stakeholders has never been higher and as a result, there 

is reason for optimism, even in the midst of the daunting challenges that exist in 

this Basin. The Department will continue to be a partner in assisting the Colorado 

River Basin prepare for, and successfully address, the significant issues identified 

in the Study. 

This concludes my written statement. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

these important topics. I am prepared to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Ms. Trujillo. 

STATEMENT OF TANYA TRUJILLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. TRUJILLO. Thank you very much and good afternoon. It’s an 

honor to be here today. I am Tanya Trujillo, the Executive Director 

of the Colorado River Board of California. My comments will focus 

on the Lower Basin States of California, Arizona and Nevada, but 

I very much appreciate being here with my colleagues from the 

Federal Government, the Upper Basin States and the basin’s tribes 

as well. 

I flew along the Colorado River on my way out here and followed 

the river from Lake Mead, outside Las Vegas, through the Grand 

Canyon and into the Western mountains of Colorado. I started that 

day in Los Angeles where the Colorado River is part of our drinking water supply. In California we appreciate the importance of the 

Colorado River to our communities and our economies. We understand the diversity of interests that rely on it. 

This hearing centers on the Basin study that Reclamation and 

the States conducted. The study has been a helpful tool that will 

assist us as we continue to wisely plan for the future. Prudent 

water management means that we need to be as careful as possible 

with how water is used and to be creative as possible with respect 

to development of additional supplies. 

Although the Colorado River system is a variable system we have 

been experiencing a sustained drought for the past 14 years. We 

know that we need to be able to manage our systems for times of 

drought. 
11 

The Lower Basin States have worked together over the past 20 

years to develop strategies to manage the limited Colorado River 

supplies. We initially developed a system for allocating surplus 

water because at that time we had been experiencing a few decades 

of very good hydrology. But we also moved forward to develop a 

system for addressing potential shortages and developed agreements that provide for water banking and storage so that we have 

water to save for future uses. 

Within California for the past 10 years, our water users have 

had agreements in place that allow for the transfer of water between agricultural uses and municipal uses. Those agreements preserve the essential agricultural productivity in our State, but also 

provide for security for our cities. Additional tools such as lining 

canals and improving irrigation efficiency are also being put into 

place. 

Throughout the Lower Basin our cities continue to develop water 

savings programs to help reduce our overall per capita water uses. 

On a basin wide level the basin States and our water users work 

closely with the Bureau of Reclamation to develop guidelines for 

the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. We also 

worked with Reclamation and the International Boundary Water 

Commission on a recent agreement with Mexico to allow for flexibility in water deliveries in that system. These types of agreements 

help us efficiently manage our water supplies. 

Although we don’t know exactly what the future will hold we can 

use the 90 years of experience that we have and our recent collaborations to help us address our future challenges. No single strategy 

will be enough. But through additional conservation, flexible management and the development of additional supplies, we will strive 

to protect the many important uses on the river. 

Although we can always revert back to our respective corners 

and work to strengthen our historical positions, our current efforts 

are focused on working together to develop coordinated solutions. 

These coordinated efforts are not easy and if the hydrology continues to worsen the tensions will increase. But through the rapport and trust that we have developed through the 2007 guidelines 

and our more recent efforts working together, for example with 

Mexico, we hope to continue our forward progress. 

We know that we need to coordinate with our Federal partners 

on all of these efforts and with our tribes and with the environmental interests in our States. Working together we can address 

the challenges that may lie ahead. We look forward to a productive 

dialog. We think the Basin studies next steps process will be a 

helpful effort. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward 

to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Trujillo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TANYA TRUJILLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO RIVER

BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee regarding the 

Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. I am Tanya Trujillo, Executive Director of the Colorado River Board of California. I appreciate the interest of 

the Subcommittee regarding this important topic. 
12 

BACKGROUND REGARDING THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

STUDY

The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study) is the 

latest collaboration between the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation 

and the seven Colorado River Basin States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. Although this testimony will focus on the perspective of the Lower Division States of Arizona, California and Nevada, the Basin 

Study is a good example of coordination among all of the basin States, interested 

water agencies, and others to collectively address the water supply challenges that 

the basin may face in the future. 

The Colorado River Board of California was established in 1937 to protect the interests and rights of the State of California, its agencies, and citizens, in the water 

and power resources of the Colorado River System. The Colorado River Board of 

California’s member agencies are Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation 

District, Coachella Valley Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, and 

the San Diego County Water Authority. The Colorado River Board also includes two 

members of the public and the Directors of the California Water Resources and Fish 

and Wildlife Departments. California has a normal, annual allocation from the Colorado River of 4.4 million acre-feet of water. Water from the Colorado River is used 

to irrigate over 700,000 acres of some of the most productive farmland in the country, particularly during the winter. The Colorado River is also a very important 

component of the water supply for the municipalities in Southern California, which 

provide water service to around 20 million people. 

The Colorado River provides similar benefits within Nevada, providing approximately 90% of the municipal water supply for member agencies of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) which include the Cities of Las Vegas, North Las 

Vegas, and Henderson, as well as Clark County. SNWA has two intakes in Lake 

Mead at elevations 1,050 and 1,000 feet above sea level; therefore, the future levels 

of Lake Mead are critical to a continued supply of water for southern Nevada. 

The Colorado River is also a vital resource for the State of Arizona. About 39% 

of Arizona’s total water demand is met with Colorado River water. Colorado River 

water is used to meet municipal, agricultural, industrial and tribal water demands. 

It is stored underground to provide protection against future droughts and shortages 

and to conjunctively manage groundwater levels in central Arizona. 

The communities that rely on Colorado River water in the Lower Division States 

are committed to ensuring that they utilize effective water management strategies 

and continue their ongoing planning efforts to protect and preserve Colorado River 

resources for many years. 

The Colorado River Basin States and the Department of the Interior have worked 

collaboratively for many years to overcome challenges relating to water allocation 

and to balance the many interests that exist within the Colorado River Basin. The 

Basin Study is another example of this successful partnership. The Basin States 

contributed one-half of the funding to conduct the study and provided extensive 

background information and technical input during the study. Over a three-year period, the Basin States, individual water agencies, other interested parties and the 

Bureau of Reclamation worked hand-in-hand to produce the most comprehensive 

analysis of the Colorado River Basin’s prospective water supply and demands to 

date. This collaborative effort compiled input from interested parties throughout the 

Basin including environmental organizations, Native American tribes and communities, hydroelectric power and recreational interests, and other federal agencies. 

The collaboration continues and the ongoing efforts will assist the Colorado River 

Basin managers in effectively addressing the challenges that lie ahead. 

THE STORY OF THE BASIN STUDY

The Basin Study is the most recent projection of the potential imbalances between 

water supply and demands in the Colorado River Basin and adjacent areas of the 

Basin States that receive Colorado River water. The Basin Study incorporates projections based on an evaluation of the potential effects of climate change on runoff 

within the Basin that may result in even more uncertainty regarding the potential 

future conditions the Basin may face. By analyzing four different supply scenarios 

and six different demand scenarios, the Basin Study projects that without continued 

proactive water management efforts in place, an overall average imbalance between 

available water supply and potential demands of about 3.2 million acre-feet by 2060, 

although the range of potential imbalances varied between 0 and almost 8 million 

acre-feet. 
13 

The Basin Study’s analysis was not a new concept for the Basin States or the Bureau of Reclamation. Prior studies and analyses also concluded that without development of effective water management strategies to address growing demands for 

water, an imbalance between available water supply and projected demands could 

exist. For decades, communities that rely on Colorado River water have made significant investments to conserve water, reuse water, develop supplemental water resources and construct infrastructure designed to efficiently utilize water. The Basin 

Study reinforces the continued need to implement programs and policies to address 

the water management challenges associated with the many competing needs for 

the river’s waters. 

Consistent with the ongoing practices and strategies for wise management of the 

Colorado River’s resources, the Basin Study identified a broad range of options and 

strategies to address projected imbalances between supply and demands. The suggestions were gathered from hundreds of perspectives, including the general public. 

The Basin Study categorized the proposed options and strategies according to 

whether they were aimed at reducing demands, increasing supplies, or modifying 

existing operations. All of the recommended options and strategies will require additional review and analysis before any of them can be implemented. None of the recommended options, on their own, would be sufficient to address the projected imbalances, but by grouping options and ideas together and analyzing the effects of combined efforts, a future scenario that maintains the balance between potential future 

supplies and demands is possible. 

The technical team that conducted the Basin Study should be complimented for 

their competent and professional approach to completing the Basin Study’s Technical Reports. The technical work will continue to be essential as the Basin’s water 

managers, agencies, businesses and individuals that rely on the Colorado River, 

progress forward. The Basin Study is an excellent example of a successful collaborative effort between the Federal Government and the Basin States that builds upon 

prior successful cooperation and hopefully will lead to successful continued coordination for decades to come. In this regard, the Colorado River Basin can be a model 

for other complex river systems. 

CONTINUED EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE PROJECTED IMBALANCE BETWEEN SUPPLY AND

DEMANDS

For more than 20 years, the Colorado River Basin States have been working with 

the Department of the Interior on ways to better manage the water supplies within 

the Colorado River Basin. The completion of the Basin Study in December 2012 was 

another step in the right direction. Since December, the Basin States and Interior 

have been collaborating with other interested participants to map out the next 

stages of cooperation. The Basin Study identifies several areas of potential future 

actions and the Basin States and the Bureau of Reclamation are working to implement each of the Basin Study’s recommendations. To evaluate some of these future 

actions, three workgroups have been formed. The Municipal and Industrial Conservation and Reuse workgroup will evaluate existing programs to refine the estimate of potential water saved through conservation and reuse programs. The Agricultural Conservation and Transfers Workgroup will refine the estimated potential 

savings from agricultural conservation and transfers. The Healthy Flows workgroup 

will evaluate potential model improvements for simulating river flows and evaluate 

certain river reaches. 

In conjunction with the release of the Basin Study, the Basin States released a 

statement confirming their ongoing commitments to future actions. Acknowledging 

the highly variable nature of the Colorado River system and recognizing that no single solution will be sufficient to meet the future potential water demand and supply 

imbalances, the Basin States identified a series of local, regional and basin-wide 

projects that are underway or can be implemented to help meet future demands for 

water within the Basin. The Basin States confirmed the need to adhere to the ‘‘Law 

of the River’’, which has served the Basin well for over 90 years and has evolved 

to meet ever present challenges. 

The Basin States recognize that successful ongoing water conservation and reuse 

efforts have been adopted by many municipal agencies in each State to reduce growing needs for water. In many areas, the per capita use of water is lower now than 

in the past despite higher populations. Municipalities within the Basin will continue 

to implement water conservation and reuse opportunities, and are working closely 

with the other members of the Basin Study’s Municipal and Industrial Conservation 

and Reuse Workgroup to refine the Basin Study’s assumptions. 

Similarly, the Basin Study’s Agricultural Conservation and Transfers Workgroup 

will document the existing conservation and transfers of Colorado River water 
14 

throughout the Basin. Within California, significant amounts of water will continue 

to be transferred from agricultural to municipal uses pursuant to existing agreements between specific water users. These types of voluntary agreements are designed to provide mutual benefits to the participating agencies and are important 

tools available to help manage finite supplies of water. 

Many of the water providers within the Lower Division States already have been 

very proactive in meeting existing water supply needs through wise management of 

the Colorado River’s resources, and also have developed additional sources of water, 

recognizing that developing a balanced portfolio of water supply is a sound water 

management practice. California’s municipal water providers serve close to 20 million of the more than 30 million people who receive at least part of their water supply from the Colorado River. California’s municipal conservation efforts include conservation, water recycling and reuse and development of local groundwater resources to supplement water supplies. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California’s 2013 Annual Progress Report to the California State Legislature documents the agency’s achievements in conservation, recycling and groundwater recharge. In Nevada, between 2002 and 2012, the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s 

consumption of Colorado River water decreased by approximately 29 billion gallons, 

despite the addition of 400,000 residents. SNWA has implemented a broad range of 

education and incentive programs to encourage ongoing water conservation. Arizona 

has also developed programs to encourage efficient agricultural, industrial and residential water uses and has an extensive groundwater management system in place 

to try to balance the surface and groundwater uses in Active Management Areas 

that include the largest population centers of the state. 

Water delivery contractors within the Lower Division States, such as the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District are allowed to bank 

portions of their conserved water supplies and have jointly funded projects to help 

increase the water resources within the Basin. These States have developed 

proactive water management agreements regarding how to allocate surplus water 

when it is available under certain conditions and how to address shortage conditions 

if the water supply levels deteriorate. On a basin-wide level, all seven Basin States 

have agreed to coordinated operating guidelines that the Bureau of Reclamation 

uses to manage releases of water from Lake Powell to the Lower Basin. These types 

of agreements have set the stage for the continued cooperation that exists today. 

The Basin States have also been working to develop basin-wide programs to support weather modification and vegetation management options, and have committed 

to evaluate additional water supply augmentation options such as large-scale desalination and importation projects that will require extensive planning and research 

prior to being considered for implementation. The Basin Study’s ‘‘next steps’’ outline 

describes the ongoing commitments of the Basin States to lead efforts to explore additional water banking, water supply augmentation and watershed management options to address short-term and long-term needs for water. 

The Basin States will also continue their efforts to assist in implementation of the 

International Boundary and Water Commission’s Minute No. 319 to the 1944 Treaty 

for the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio 

Grande between the United States and Mexico. Executed in November 2012, Minute 

No. 319 extends some of the water management flexibilities developed within the 

United States, such as water banking, to the context of the United States’ Colorado 

River water delivery obligations to Mexico. Collaboration with federal, state, and 

local representatives in Mexico resulted in the development of this mutually beneficial agreement. Continuing to build off the success of Minute No. 319 would result 

in additional basin-wide benefits. 

The collective management efforts among the Basin States, water agencies and 

the Federal Government have kept the water levels higher in Lake Mead than they 

otherwise would have been, despite having endured over 10 years of drought. In 

light of the looming possibility of continued drought and the Basin Study’s recent 

projections of potential supply and demand imbalances, it is more important than 

ever that we continue to roll up our sleeves and work together to find creative, 

implementable solutions. 

THE ROLE OF CONGRESS

The SECURE Water Act, Subtitle F of P.L. 111-11, provided general authority for 

the Basin Study and provides continued authority for the federal agencies to work 

with State and local entities to plan for the future and develop water sustainability 

strategies. Ongoing Congressional support for funding for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Water SMART and Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse programs would 
15 

help continue the beneficial cooperation that currently exists within the Basin. The 

Water SMART programs are cost-shared by the non-federal participants and provide 

assistance to local water management entities that are attempting to conserve water 

and maximize water use efficiency. Investments in existing water supply infrastructure to ensure that the operation of existing facilities can be as efficient and secure 

as possible and continued funding for water efficiency and conservation programs 

that are matched by or enhance the ongoing efforts at the state and local levels are 

helpful tools that should continue. 

CONCLUSION

The Colorado River Basin States recognize that we are part of a complex community that relies on a vitally important shared natural resource and involves diverse 

areas of responsibility. The impacts of continued drought are being felt by all of the 

varied users of water within the Basin States. The Basin States plan to continue 

our successful collaborations, including the recent successes with Mexico, to develop 

tools and strategies to enable us to address ongoing challenges and meet the evolving demands on the Colorado River. The Basin Study’s technical foundation will 

help support that process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important topic. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Ms. Trujillo. 

Mr. Ostler. 

STATEMENT OF DON A. OSTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTLER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee 

members. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on 

this important topic. 

My name is Don Ostler. I’m the Executive Director of the Upper 

Colorado River Commission. My Commission was created by ratification of the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. It’s comprised of members appointed by the Governors of the 4 Upper 

Basin States of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico and one 

member appointed by the President to represent the interest of the 

United States. 

As we talk about the study it’s important to recognize that this 

is not the first study of its kind in the Colorado River Basin. The 

States and Reclamation and others have been doing studies of supply and demand for many years. For example, the Upper Basin has 

completed numerous studies to determine the safe annual yield of 

the Upper Colorado River to determine our safe development levels. 

It has already been mentioned that 2007 interim guidelines is an 

action taken to help us manage shortage and coordinated operations. 

It’s also been mentioned that Minute 319 for the Mexican Water 

Treaty is a monumental action to help Mexico share in shortage, 

give them tools to address shortages and mitigate shortages, but 

better yet, to potentially augment the supply for all the users of the 

Colorado River Basin. 

These types of actions including the study that we’re talking 

about today are possible only by recognizing the close relationship 

that exists between the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the States. The States, after all, are the managers 

of the water within their boundaries. They’re the direct link to 

water users on the ground. 
16 

Reclamation and the Department of the Interior is the water 

manager for the Lower Basin and they operate the reservoirs that 

we depend upon. 

The Upper Colorado River Commission is the water manager for 

the water master for the Upper Basin. 

Now a word about the Study. 

The Basin study is an important step to refine and help us improve our strategies and options to address the supply and demand 

imbalance. The results of this study are no surprise the basin 

States. We have seen supply and demand imbalance projections before. This is a refinement at a level that is unprecedented, however, in terms of the level of this study. 

Another thing to remember with regards to this study is there 

are great uncertainty with regards to projections of the future. A 

good thing about this study is that it took a scenario approach to 

assume many different scenarios for demands in the future and 

many different scenarios for supply in the future. So that we have 

good data, regardless of which of those scenarios turn out to be 

true and we can plan for all of those scenarios which is the appropriate thing to do, in my opinion. 

Another thing that we learned from the study is that no single 

strategy will solve our vulnerability by itself. We need to implement a portfolio of actions in order to address and reduce the vulnerability of this entire basin to shortage. Those actions could include conservation, changing management approaches, as well as 

augmentation. 

Finally, even if we do that, we still will have to have good shortage management plans because vulnerability in this basin will not 

be entirely eliminated with the strategies that we’re looking at. But 

we can manage. We can make things bearable as we go through 

extreme droughts. 

I would like to just simply mention a couple of things that are 

different from the strategy between the Upper Basin and the 

Lower Basin. 

The Upper Basin States, which I represent, have additional 

water to develop from the Colorado River according to the compact 

and according to the safe annual yield of the river. 

Second is climate assumptions. Probably are the most significant 

impactor of our vulnerabilities in the Upper Basin, even more significant than the various ranges of development or demand growth. 

Finally the Upper Basin experiences shortages now every year. 

Those shortages are in the tributaries usually where we do not 

have storage. They exist now and they will continue in the future 

unless we find some way to provide storage for those tributaries. 

That’s no possible in all of them. 

So shortage is a fact of life. 

The Lower Basin, on the other hand, is at full development of all 

the water really that’s available from the compact. They face imminent system shortage. They face much greater problems of serving 

additional growth. 

So I think the importance of this is that, I think, all of the States 

are lined up to initiate the next steps. No one wants to see this 

study sit on the shelf. I think actions have been taken under the 

leadership of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of the In-
17 

terior and the States to further move toward implementation strategies. 

I’m optimistic with the foundation that we have, with our past 

working relationships, with proper attention to the role of each of 

the entities that are represented at this table, that we can greatly 

improve our future and manage through the droughts that we are 

expected to see. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ostler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON A. OSTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPPER COLORADO

RIVER COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to provide testimony on the important topic of the December 

2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. My name is Don 

Ostler and I am here today as the Executive Director representing the Upper Colorado River Commission (the Commission). The Commission is an interstate water 

administrative agency created by State and federal ratification of the 1948 Upper 

Colorado River Basin Compact (Compact). The Commission is comprised of one person appointed by the Governor of each of the Upper Division States of Wyoming, 

Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. In addition, the President appoints one Commissioner to represent the United States. The responsibilities of this Commission include performance of all functions required of it by the Compact. Among the duties 

assigned include engaging in cooperative studies; making findings of the annual 

quantity of water used in the Upper Basin; making findings of the water deliveries 

to Lee Ferry (the Lower Basin); making findings of the necessity for and extent of 

curtailment of use required by the Compact; making findings of the quantity of reservoir losses and the share chargeable under the Compact to each state and finally; 

making findings of fact in the event of the occurrence of extraordinary drought or 

serious accident to the system in the Upper Basin which may affect the United 

States’ obligations under the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. As you can see, this 

Commission has been and will continue to be critically involved along with the 

Upper Division States in the administration of Colorado River water. The Upper 

Basin includes the Colorado River and all tributary waters that drain into the River 

above Lee Ferry Arizona, a point about 16 miles downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam. The Lower Basin includes the Colorado River and all tributary water draining 

into the River downstream of Lee Ferry Arizona prior to its passage into Mexico and 

includes water users in Arizona, Nevada, California and small parts of New Mexico 

and Utah. 

ROLE OF THE STATES AND THE COMMISSION IN THE BASIN STUDY

The Colorado River Basin States and the Commission have long been involved in 

planning for development of the Colorado River water supply including forecasting 

supply and demand issues and developing strategies to address potential problems. 

For example, the Commission and Upper Basin States in partnership with Reclamation have conducted several hydrologic studies to determine the safe annual yield 

of the Colorado River in the Upper Basin. These studies have been used to guide 

development and use of Colorado River water in the Upper Basin. The seven Colorado River Basin States in cooperation with Reclamation have a history of working 

together to identify problems in advance and to cooperatively craft strategies to 

mitigate or avoid anticipated problems without disturbing the ‘‘Law of the River’’. 

Recent examples of this include the development of Interim Shortage Guidelines 

and Coordination of Reservoir Operations in 2007 to mitigate or avoid the effects 

of drought. In addition, the States recently played a major role along with the Department of the Interior (DOI) in initiating and conducting discussions with the government of Mexico to establish Minute 319 to the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. 

This Minute allows Mexico to participate in shortage management and mitigation 

along with the United States and provides tools for conservation and possible future 

augmentation of the supply to the benefit of both nations. Throughout these processes, the States and the Commission have enjoyed a close working relationship 

with the DOI, working primarily with the Bureau of Reclamation to cooperatively 

identify and address problems within the Colorado River System. Maintaining this 
18 

relationship is the key as we address future problems of supply and demand inasmuch as the states have the primary responsibility for managing water within their 

boundaries and are the principal link with actual water users. DOI is the water 

master for the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and the operator of many of the 

large storage reservoirs that we depend upon, and the Commission is the water 

master for the Upper Basin. 

THE 2012 BASIN STUDY (BASIN STUDY)

The seven Colorado River Basin states and the Commission, being fully aware of 

future supply and demand imbalances, sought funding jointly with the Upper and 

Lower Colorado River Regions of the Bureau of Reclamation for the Basin Study 

through the DOI WaterSMART Program. The Basin States contributed 50% of the 

expense of this study and along with the Commission, fully participated with Reclamation in management and direction of the study. This study provided a vehicle 

to update and refine information from previous studies done by the various states 

and others with more specifics as we move closer to implementation of strategies 

to address supply and demand imbalances. As such, the overall imbalance identified 

in the study was not a large surprise to us or to the Lower Basin States. There is 

considerable uncertainty in projecting future conditions in the Basin. Therefore the 

study identified numerous scenarios for anticipated future supply and demand conditions and then provided identification and evaluation of options and strategies to 

address supply and demand imbalances. The median of supply and demand imbalances projected through the year 2060 was 3.2 million acre-feet for the entire Colorado River Basin. A large number of options and strategies were evaluated to decrease system vulnerability. These included many different means to reduce demand, increase the supply and modify operations. It is clear from the study that 

no single option is adequate to significantly reduce vulnerability. It will require a 

portfolio of effective options and strategies to be implemented to accomplish this. 

Even then, system vulnerability will not be fully eliminated so shortage management plans during the worst drought conditions will still be required. It is important to note that both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin face challenges, but 

the problems are different for each basin. The Upper Basin has yet to develop its 

full 1922 Compact apportionment and will continue to develop its supply. Such development will continue to be tempered by better knowledge of future supply, more 

efficient management of water use and our ability to tolerate drought through development of management options. The study shows that the probability of a Compact 

driven curtailment of use, (or Compact call), is low for the Upper Basin over the 

50 year study period even with additional projected growth in water use. The most 

significant factor affecting this probability is the assumptions used to estimate future supply including global climate models. It is also important to understand that 

significant local hydrological driven shortages, primarily on smaller tributaries without sufficient storage, exist now in the Upper Basin every year and will continue. 

The Lower Basin, which has not had to endure shortages to date, has already developed its full 1922 Compact apportionment and faces much more imminent potential 

of system mandated shortages as well as greater challenges about how to meet the 

needs of future municipal and industrial growth. Although the problems faced by 

the two basins are different, many problems are common. Because of coordinated 

reservoir operations, problems or shortages in one basin can have an impact on the 

other basin. The seven Basin States recognize the significant commonality of our 

vulnerabilities to supply and demand imbalance and are committed to mutual coordinated efforts to address problems. 

NEXT STEPS

The Basin States, the Commission and the Department of the Interior all recognize that we must move immediately to address the vulnerabilities identified in the 

Basin Study. In doing so it is imperative that the close working relationship between DOI and the Basin States is maintained and that all parties move forward 

in a coordinated fashion respectful of the various roles and responsibilities of the 

entities involved. The Colorado River Basin remains in a very severe 14 year 

drought, the continuation of which could drive Lake Powell to levels that threaten 

the ability to generate electrical power and Lake Mead to levels that require implementation of shortages within a few years. It is for these reasons that the states 

and DOI are initiating a ‘‘Next Steps’’ process now to address vulnerabilities. Plans 

have already been put in place to formulate workgroups of state, DOI and stakeholder representatives to further refine options and strategies that may be implemented in both the near and long term. The seven Basin States and the Commission will continue their efforts to address near and long term water supply short-
19 

ages. We will continue to need the full support of DOI as we address these difficult 

issues in partnership. The modeling, technical expertise and policy guidance of Reclamation as well as continued Congressional support of financial resources such as 

the WaterSMART Program are essential in moving forward with next steps. I am 

confident that in a collaborative approach relying upon the sound relationships that 

we have built in the past, we have the ability to address these problems before us. 

Thank you for your time Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Ostler. 

Mr. Vigil. 

STATEMENT OF T. DARRYL VIGIL, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO 

RIVER BASIN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP 

Mr. VIGIL. Good afternoon, Chairman Udall, Ranking Member 

Lee and my Senator, Senator Heinrich. I’m Darryl Vigil. I’m a 

member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation and Chairman of the Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today regarding the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. 

The partnership was formed in 1992 for the purpose of member 

tribes joining together to develop and protect tribal water resources 

and to address technical, legal, economic and practical issues related to the operation of the Colorado River that would affect the 

interests of the Ten Tribes of federally recognized reserved water 

rights in the Colorado River and its Upper Basin tributaries. The 

Ten Tribes are located in both the Upper and Lower Basins of the 

Colorado River. 

The tribes located in the Upper Basin are the Ute Indian Tribe 

of the Uintah and Ouray reservation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 

the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Jicarilla Apache Nation. 

The tribes located in the Lower Basin are the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, the Cocopah Indian Tribe, the Colorado River Indian 

Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Cocopah, I mean the 

Quechan Indian Tribe. 

One tribe, the Navajo Nation, is located in both the Upper and 

Lower Basins. 

The partnership is a member of the Colorado River Water Users 

Association and the immediate past Chairman of the partnership, 

George Arthur, serves as the current President of the Colorado 

River Water Users Association in his capacity as representative of 

the Partnership. 

The study identified 29 federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin with claims to the use of water from the Basin. 

To date there has been recognized, either through Federal and 

State court decrees or Congressionally approved tribal water settlements that tribes in the Basins have a right to divert in excess of 

2.9 million acre feet per year from the Colorado River and its 

Upper Basin tributaries of which the Ten Tribes have a right to divert an excess of 2.3 million acre feet. 

Because not all the tribes in the Basin or all the Ten Tribes have 

had their water rights determined this amount will increase in the 

future as final resolution of tribes’ water rights are achieved. Given 

that the observed historical on term mean natural flow of the Colorado River is approximately 15 million acre feet per year, it is clear 

that the Tribes’ rights constitute a significant quantity of the his-
20 

toric long term mean natural flow and need to be fully addressed 

by the basin States and the United States in the ongoing Basin 

study. 

The Ten Tribes in the Basin use water for multiple purposes including irrigation, recreation, domestic, commercial, wildlife, in 

stream flows, habitat restoration, municipal, industrial, mining, 

power generation, cultural and religious activities to list a few. The 

Ten Tribes are working hard to put the water to which they are 

entitled to use for the benefit of their tribal members. But water 

development on reservations has proven to be difficult and slow 

frustrated in large part by the Federal Government’s general unwillingness to fund water infrastructure for the benefit of the 

tribes. 

The Ten Tribes are very concerned while they struggle to put 

their water to use, other with far more political clout are relying 

on unused tribal water supplies and will seek to curtail future tribal water use to protect their own uses. Stated another way, the Ten 

Tribes are concerned about the impact on other water users when 

the Ten Tribes’ water rights are put to full use for the benefit of 

tribal members and how that will affect the ability of the Ten 

Tribes to put their water to use. 

At the outset of the study the Ten Tribes were not represented 

on the steering committee established for the study. Membership 

was limited to the representatives of the Bureau and the basin 

States. Nor did the Ten Tribes feel that they had much of a role 

in it because they were neglected in participation on sub—that 

they were relegated to the participation on sub-teams that were 

used to develop technical data for the study. 

Because it appears that the study was to be a decision document 

which could significantly adversely impact tribal water rights and 

the tribal usage of water in the future exclusion from the steering 

committee became a matter of great concern of the Partnership. 

This shortcoming and other concerns were raised with the Bureau 

of Reclamation reminding the Bureau of the United States trust responsibility to them in the protection of the water and of the tribe’s 

sovereign status and control of their water. 

The Partnership suggests that the following steps be taken to address their concerns about the study. 

One, acknowledge and protect early priority of tribal water 

rights. 

Two, recognize and protect and use allocation of tribe’s quantified 

water rights. 

Three, recognize and protect unquantified tribal water rights. 

Four, recognize the special status of tribal reserve water rights 

that is embodied in Federal statutes and State case law. 

Five, provide a seat on the steering committee for the Partnership. 

Six, require the Colorado River simulation system model quantify 

the extent to the reliance of water users on the decreed and 

undecreed rights of the tribes not being fully exercised. 

In response to the concerns by the Partnership, the Bureau, 

much to its credit, undertook outreach to all the tribes to explain 

the purpose of the study, acknowledged the tribes water rights and 

reaffirmed the United States trust responsibility to the tribes. 
21 

The Bureau assured the Partnership the study was not intended 

to serve as a decision document, but was a first step in identifying 

what the potential imbalances of the Basin water supply and demand may be in the future and in identifying possible solutions to 

resolve these—those imbalances that deserve additional study and 

analysis. 

Because of the limited scope of the study the matters raised by 

the Partnership would not be addressed in the first step study. But 

those matters would be appropriate for further study. With that 

understood—with that understanding and as a result of the Bureau’s outreach efforts, a number of tribes actively cooperated with 

the Bureau in providing data for the study. 

The outreach provided—proved to be successful. The results are 

reflected in Appendix C9 of the study which contains a tribal water 

demand scenario quantification. Although as noted, a number of 

the tribes actively participated in the data collection needed for the 

study, the Partnership was still wary that the information in the 

study regarding tribal water might be used to their detriment and 

recommended that a disclaimer about the study be incorporated 

into it. 

The import of which is nothing in that study is intended to nor 

shall the study be construed so as to interpret, diminish or modify 

the rights of any federally recognized tribe pursuant to Federal and 

State court decrees, treaties, agreements, executive orders and Federal trust responsibility. Further, the disclaimer acknowledges that 

the Bureau and the basin States would continue to recognize the 

entitlement and right of each State in any federally recognized 

tribe under existing law to use and develop the water of the Colorado River system. Through the cooperative efforts of the Bureau 

personnel the Basin State representatives and tribal representatives, a disclaimer was developed and agreed upon. It is found at 

Executive Summary –22 in the Executive Summary of the study. 

Inclusion of the disclaimer was an important aspect of the study 

for the Ten Tribes and laid the foundation for future work with the 

Bureau and the basin States in the next steps phase of the study. 

Because the Ten Tribes have significant quantities of recognized 

water rights which will increase as the remaining rights are fully 

quantified, any study of water in the Basin must—— 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Vigil, your statement is very important. The 

entire statement will be included in the record. I do want to get 

to questions. I’m worried that, frankly, if you complete your statement we’ll be quite a bit into the time that we all have. 

So can I ask you to summarize? 

Mr. VIGIL. Sure. 

Senator UDALL. Then we can turn to questions. 

Mr. VIGIL. Absolutely. 

Senator UDALL. I would say this with all due respect and I think 

I can speak for all the members of the committee. We support the 

Native American community’s requests in historic access to this 

water. We will work with you to ensure that your concerns are met. 

Mr. VIGIL. Sure. If I could read my conclusion statement, that 

would be great. Thank you. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss to not acknowledging the yeoman’s work performed by Carly Jerla and Pam 
22 

Adams of the Bureau of Reclamation in reaching out to the tribes 

and tirelessly advocating on the tribes’ behalf and ensuring the 

tribes’ concerns were addressed. This effort resulted in the tribes 

actively participating in the study. Their efforts were fully supported by Commissioner Connor, Assistant Secretary Castle and 

Regional Directors of the Lower and Upper Basins, Terry Fulp and 

Larry Walkoviak. 

I also wanted to note the cooperation and thank the Basin State 

representatives in working with the Partnership in developing the 

disclaimer contained in the study. 

Last I wanted to thank Cathy Condon and Chuck Lawler from 

the Partnership for their work in coordinating tribal and Bureau 

work which resulted in an improved study and better understanding of tribal water issues for all concerned. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vigil follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF T. DARRYL VIGIL, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO RIVER BASIN

TRIBES PARTNERSHIP

Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Darryl Vigil, a member 

of the Jicarilla Apache Nation and Chairman of the Colorado River Basin Tribes 

Partnership (‘‘Partnership’’). Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today regarding the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Water 

Supply and Demand Study (‘‘Study’’). 

BACKGROUND OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP

The Partnership was formed in 1992 for the purpose of member Tribes joining together to develop and protect tribal water resources and to address technical, legal, 

economic and practical issues related to the operation of the Colorado River that 

would affect the interests of the ten Tribes with federally reserved water rights in 

the Colorado River and its Upper Basin tributaries (‘‘Ten Tribes’’). The Ten Tribes 

are located in both the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River. The Tribes 

located in the Upper Basin are: Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Jicarilla 

Apache Nation; the Tribes located in the Lower Basin are: Chemehuevi Indian 

Tribe, Cocopah Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian 

Tribe and the Quechan Indian Tribe. One Tribe, the Navajo Nation, is located in 

both the Upper and Lower Basins. The Partnership is a member of the Colorado 

River Water Users Association and the immediate past Chairman of the Partnership, George Arthur, serves as the current President of the Colorado River Water 

Users Association in his capacity as representative of the Partnership. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TRIBES IN THE SEVEN BASIN STATES AND THEIR WATER

RIGHTS AND CLAIMS

The Study identified 29 federally recognized tribes (‘‘tribes’’) in the Colorado River 

Basin (‘‘Basin’’) with claims to the use of water from the Basin. To date, there has 

been recognized, either through federal and state court decrees or congressionally 

approved tribal water settlements, that tribes in the Basin have the right to divert 

in excess of 2.9 million acre-feet-per year (‘‘MAF’’) from the Colorado River and its 

Upper Basin tributaries, of which the Ten Tribes have the right to divert in excess 

of 2.3 MAF. Because not all tribes in the Basin or all of the Ten Tribes have had 

their water rights determined, this amount will increase in the future as final resolution of the tribes rights are achieved. Given that the observed historical long term 

mean natural flow of the Colorado River is approximately 15 million acre feet per 

year, it is clear that the tribes’ rights constitute a significant quantity of the historic 

long term mean natural flow and need to be fully addressed by the Basin States 

and the United States in the ongoing Basin Study. 

The Ten Tribes in the Basin use water for multiple purposes including irrigation, 

recreation, domestic, commercial, wildlife, instream flows, habitat restoration, municipal, industrial, mining, power generation, cultural and religious activities to list 

a few. The Ten Tribes are working hard to put the water to which they are entitled 

to use for the benefit of their tribal members but water development on the reserva-
23 

tions has proven to be difficult and slow, frustrated in large part by the federal government’s general unwillingness to fund water infrastructure for the benefit of 

tribes. The Ten Tribes are very concerned that while they struggle to put their 

water to use, others with far more political clout are relying on unused tribal water 

supplies and will seek to curtail future tribal water use to protect their own uses. 

Stated another way, the Ten Tribes are concerned about the impact on other water 

users when the Ten Tribes’ water rights are put to full use for the benefit of tribal 

members and how that will affect the ability of the Ten Tribes to put their water 

to use. 

COMMENTS ON THE STUDY AS IT RELATES TO TRIBAL WATER IN THE BASIN

At the outset of the Study, the Ten Tribes were not represented on the steering 

committee established for the Study; membership was limited to representatives of 

the Bureau and the Basin States. Nor did the Ten Tribes feel that they had much 

of a role in it because they were relegated to participation on sub-teams that were 

used to develop technical data for the Study. Because it appeared that the Study 

was to be a decision document which could significantly and adversely impact tribal 

water rights and tribal usage of water in the future, exclusion from the steering 

committee became a matter of great concern to the Partnership; this shortcoming 

and other concerns were raised with the Bureau of Reclamation reminding the Bureau of the United States’ trust responsibility to them in the protection of their 

water and of the tribes’ sovereign status in control of their water. The Partnership 

suggested that the following steps be taken to address their concerns about the 

Study: 

1. Acknowledge and protect the early priority of tribal water rights. 

2. Recognize and protect the unused allocation of the tribes’ quantified water 

rights. 

3. Recognize and protect the unquantified tribal water rights. 

4. Recognize the special status of tribal reserved water rights that is embodied in federal statutes and federal and state case law. 

5. Provide a seat on the steering committee for the Partnership. 

6. Require that the Colorado River Simulation System model quantify the extent of the reliance of water users on decreed and undecreed rights of tribes not 

being fully exercised. 

In response to the concerns raised by the Partnership, the Bureau, much to its 

credit, undertook outreach to all of the tribes to explain the purpose of the Study, 

acknowledge the tribes’ water rights and reaffirm the United States’ trust responsibility to the tribes. The Bureau assured the Partnership that the Study was not intended to serve as a decision document but was a ‘‘first step’’ in identifying what 

the potential imbalances of Basin water supply and demand may be in the future 

and in identifying possible solutions to resolve those imbalances that deserve additional study and analysis. Because of the limited scope of the Study, the matters 

raised by the Partnership would not be addressed in the ‘‘first step’’ Study but those 

matters would be appropriate for further study. With that understanding and as a 

result of the Bureau’s outreach efforts, a number of tribes actively cooperated with 

the Bureau in providing data for the Study. 

The outreach proved to be successful and the results are reflected in Appendix C9 

of the Study which contains Tribal Water Demand Scenario Quantification. 

Although as noted, a number of tribes actively participated in the data collection 

needed for the Study, the Partnership was still wary that the information in the 

Study regarding tribal water might be used to their detriment, and recommended 

that a Disclaimer about the Study be incorporated into it. The import of which is 

that nothing in the Study is intended to nor shall the Study be construed so as to 

interpret, diminish or modify the rights of any federally recognized tribe, pursuant 

to federal and state court decrees, treaties, agreements executive orders, and federal 

trust responsibility. Further the Disclaimer acknowledges that the Bureau and the 

Basin States would continue to recognize the entitlement and right of each State 

and any federally recognized tribe under existing law to use and develop the water 

of the Colorado River system. Through the cooperative efforts of the Bureau personnel, the Basin States representatives and tribal representatives, a Disclaimer 

was developed and agreed upon; it is found at ES-22 in the Executive Summary of 

the Study. 

Inclusion of the Disclaimer was an important aspect of the Study for the Ten 

Tribes and laid the foundation for future work with the Bureau and Basin States 

in the ‘‘next steps’’ phase of the Study. 
24 

REASONS FOR A TRIBAL WATER STUDY AS PART OF THE ‘‘NEXT STEPS’’ PHASE OF THE

STUDY THAT THE BUREAU IS UNDERTAKING

Because the Ten Tribes have significant quantities of recognized water rights 

which will increase as their remaining rights are finally quantified, any study of 

water in the Basin must reasonably include the Ten Tribes. Further because of their 

sovereign status and control over use of their water and the United States’ trust 

responsibility regarding protecting the tribes’ water resources, tribal involvement 

will be critical to any solution regarding future supply imbalance in the Basin. 

Water allocation and management of tribal water have significant legal and policy 

considerations and while these issues are identified in the Study, they were not addressed. To correct this shortcoming, at a meeting on the 28th of May in San Diego 

on the ‘‘next steps’’ phase of the Study, attended by Commissioner Mike Connor and 

Assistant Secretary for Power and Water, Ann Castle, for the Department of the Interior, the Bureau announced it will be undertaking a Tribal Water Study as the 

‘‘next steps’’ phase to address issues surrounding tribal water in the Basin States. 

This phase of the Study is intended to address tribal water issues in sufficient detail 

to provide the Bureau, the Basin States and Ten Tribes with the certainty necessary 

for future River management and planning. 

In response to this announcement, the Partnership has created a legal/technical 

team to work with a counterpart team created by the Bureau to undertake this 

phase. The ‘‘next steps’’ phase will hopefully include a study capable of evaluating 

full tribal development, control, and protection of tribal water resources in the 

Basin. 

CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP’S COMMITMENT TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH

THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND BASIN STATES TO ADDRESS THE PROJECTED SUPPLY AND DEMAND IMBALANCES IN THE BASIN

The Ten Tribes in the Basin have historically been good neighbors and consider 

water to be basic to life and are committed to working collaboratively with the Basin 

States, their Mexican relatives and the United States to initiate actions to implement plans to resolve current and future water imbalances in the Basin. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in not acknowledging the yeoman’s work performed by Carly Jerla and Pam Adams of the Bureau of Reclamation 

in reaching out to the tribes and tirelessly advocating on the tribes’ behalf and ensuring that the tribes’ concerns were addressed. This effort resulted in the tribes 

actively participating in the Study. Their efforts were fully supported by Commissioner Connor, Assistant Secretary Castle and the Regional Directors of the Lower 

and Upper Basins, Terry Fulp and Larry Walkoviak. I also want to note the cooperation and to thank the Basin States’ representatives in working with the Partnership in developing the Disclaimer contained in the Study. Lastly, I want to thank 

Cathy Condon and Chuck Lawler from the Partnership for their work in coordinating tribal and Bureau work which resulted in an improved Study and better understanding of tribal water issues for all concerned. 

I would be happy to respond to any questions the Committee may have, thank 

you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Vigil. 

In the interest of letting everybody know what we’re going to do, 

we do have a second panel. I do have to leave for a brief period 

of time at 3:25 to attend another hearing to introduce a nominee 

to head the Office of Personnel Management from Colorado. 

I’m going to ask 5 minutes of questions. I’ll turn to Senator Lee 

and then to Senator Heinrich. I believe Senator Heinrich will continue to Chair the committee while I’m gone for a few minutes. 

With that, I want to turn to Mr. Connor. 

Respecting the roles that the States have to manage their water 

resources and their current fiscal constraints, what role, if any, do 

you expect the Federal Government to play in solving the imbalances projected for the Basin? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think the Federal Government is a valued and 

necessary partner with the 7 basin States and the other stake-
25 

holders in the Basin. I say that we’re valued when we work collaboratively with those different stakeholders and certainly the States 

respecting their interest in the management and allocation of 

water resources. 

The Secretary is the water master in the Lower Colorado River 

Basin. So we have a certain specific responsibilities in that Basin 

that we don’t have elsewhere in operating those facilities and making sure that there’s compliance with the law of the River, the compact, the Treaty with Mexico. Notwithstanding that or in addition 

to that, we can’t carry out those obligations without working very 

closely and hand in hand with the States. 

I think it was Mark Risener in Cadillac Desert who characterized 

the Colorado River Basin as the most litigated stream system in 

the world. Probably for a long time it was that. Over the last 10 

to 15 years I think through that partnership collaboration with the 

States and including the other stakeholders in the discussion, I 

think we’ve hit upon a series of agreements and progress that we 

can all feel good about, but can’t keep up with the challenges that 

we face. 

So we’re going to have to, kind of, double down on our efforts as 

we move forward. 

Senator UDALL. I think it’s necessary and mandatory reading for 

anybody who cares about the Basin to page through Cadillac 

Desert. I know we don’t all agree with everything that’s in there. 

But it certainly was a seminal work. 

Mr. Ostler, let me turn to you. 

Could you expand on your testimony in describing the different 

supply and demand limitations between the Upper and Lower 

Basin States and the possibility of water banking in the Upper 

Basin could help address these systemic imbalances? 

Mr. OSTLER. Yes, Senator Udall. 

The Upper Basin States are interested and are now in the process of looking at water banking options that might help solve our 

imbalances. Water banking may include the concept of conservation 

during times when you have water so that it’s banked and available to help offset storage—or shortage. 

It also may include the development of a structure which would 

allow transfer of high priority water rights to low priority municipalities who need water during droughts so that that can be facilitated easily and without a great deal of questions, so that we can 

get through droughts and manage through the droughts. 

So I think the water banking concept would include both of those 

types of ideas. 

Senator UDALL. I look forward to you elaborating further in any 

additional written testimony you may provide to the Commission. 

This, I think, provides real opportunity for us. 

Commissioner Connor, let me come back to you. 

The study results suggest and Mr. Ostler, you spoke to this and 

others did as well, that climate change could have a major effect 

in the amount of water available in the Basin over the next 50 

years. 

How accurate and dependable are these projections? 

Should we expect and plan for even greater decreases in water 

supply in coming decades? 
26 

Then a third question for you. How can States, tribes and local 

entities prepare for and adapt to such conditions? 

You have to answer all of those in a minute and a half. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOR. I appreciate the challenge. It’s like managing the 

Colorado River. 

Senator UDALL. That’s a good way to put it. 

Mr. CONNOR. Overall I think with respect to climate change projections, we already know and there is, without a doubt, strong evidence about the increasing temperatures that have already occurred in the Basin and that are projected to occur over the next 

10, 15, 20 and 50 years, the planning period. Those changes in temperature, in and of itself, are causing a change in how water resources flow within the Basin as far as the timing, certainly in the 

form of that with reduced snow packs and more rainfall events. 

So we have incorporated those data points into the planning effort. We know we’ve got to respond and manage differently. 

Where I think the modeling is more wide open as far as interpretation is with respect to future changes in precipitation patterns. 

There’s a wide divergence of views. We’ve selected and tried to 

downscale the general circulation model on climate and arrive at 

a projection that the mean average flows at least are going to be 

about a 9 percent reduction over the 50-year planning period from 

where we’ve been historically. 

I would just say right now based on the last 14 years of drought, 

this period we’re 18 percent below our average annual inflows over 

that period than we have been over the last 100 years. So we’re already below that based on the existing drought. 

Then I think, Senator Udall, I may have forgotten your last question as part of that. 

Senator UDALL. How can States, tribes and local entities prepare 

and adapt for changes? 

Why don’t you take that for the record? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

Senator UDALL. I will stop because I want to recognize Senator 

Lee and then also Senator Barrasso who has joined us. I want to 

make sure everybody has a chance to direct some questions. 

I’ll turn to Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Why don’t we start with you, Commissioner Connor? 

The study notes at page 20 of the Executive Summary that not 

all stakeholders were in agreement with the results, with the findings. 

Could you elaborate on this for a minute? I’d like to know what 

people were not in agreement regarding. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Senator Lee, and yes, I’ll be happy to 

elaborate. 

Where there was disagreement that was noted in the Executive 

Summary is really on our assessment of the options, the proposals 

that were put forward about how we can attempt to resolve these 

imbalances. 

So there were 150 proposals, options. We did a threshold analysis 

as to technical feasibility, cost, yield, timing, permit ability, so 

there was some subjectivity in looking at a threshold analysis of 
27 

those options. That’s where there was a disagreement amongst 

some folks assessing that they thought something was more permit-able than maybe the authors did in the study. 

So that’s where we’re at. 

Senator LEE. Were there some recommendations that were more 

controversial than others among the stakeholders? 

Mr. CONNOR. Certainly some of the large scale augmentation programs are viewed as more controversial and more questionable as 

far as feasibility. I think different people have different views as 

to the feasibility of those efforts. 

Senator LEE. OK. 

Are those issues identified anywhere in the report, in the study 

itself, that the nature of the disagreement, where there is the most 

disagreement and so forth? 

Mr. CONNOR. I’m not sure how deeply we’ve delved down. So if 

I could answer that for the record. 

Senator LEE. OK. 

Mr. CONNOR. I’ll get you more information about that if it’s internal or external to the report we can do that. 

Senator LEE. OK. That’s fine. 

Mr. Ostler, let’s turn to you for a minute. 

Concerns have been expressed for several years with regard to 

energy sector water usage in some areas along the Upper Basin, 

in the Upper Basin in recent years. How would you characterize 

the significance of this type of water use there? 

How extensive is the energy sector water usage compared to 

other uses? 

Mr. OSTLER. It’s a critical question that a lot of folks are spending a lot of time thinking about. The States, each State, as they 

develop their demands, future demands, included their anticipated 

energy development and its water use. So those estimates according to the States were incorporated into the study that we’re talking about. 

But it depends on the type of energy development that you assume occurs and the amount of water that that particular development happens to utilize. That’s all an unknown. So I think the 

States included the best information that they had and included 

plans in their future demands for energy development that they 

could anticipate. 

Senator LEE. Is it your view that there are unique features, 

unique aspects, of energy sector water usage that are of particular 

concern or is it more just that people are concerned about the 

quantity of it or that it’s there? 

Mr. OSTLER. No. 

There are certain types of energy development that maybe use 

more water than other types. This is new technology. It’s changing 

all the time. The energy companies, I think, are looking for ways 

to reduce water usage. 

We’re seeing many that are coming up with proposals that are 

relatively new that may involve much less water use than what the 

early estimates were. So yes, it’s a matter of controversy. It varies 

with exactly what is planned on the ground. 
28 

Senator LEE. Both at the Basin level and at the State level how 

effective are our current legal arrangements at addressing this type 

of usage and the special concerns that arise from it? 

Mr. OSTLER. To my knowledge our current legal arrangements 

are adequate to address energy water usage. They, energy companies, need to obtain water rights through the existing State legal 

process for getting a water rights permit. So that’s the way that 

it’s done now. That’s the way we expect it to be done in the future. 

Senator LEE. OK. 

Mr. OSTLER. They will have to acquire those by paying for them 

if they don’t have themselves. 

Senator LEE. Finally are there any particular near term priorities for Federal action that you would recommend to this subcommittee? 

Near term priorities relating to water usage? 

Anything arising out of this study that you would recommend to 

this subcommittee that we look at? 

Mr. OSTLER. I think the States will continue to look to Reclamation for research and technical guidance on various mechanisms 

that we can use to improve conservation and operations. 

I think the availability of funding to be able to do studies such 

as this was extremely helpful and important through the 

WaterSMART program. 

Those are immediate things, I think, that we’re utilizing and 

looking at. 

Senator LEE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Ostler. 

I see my time is expired. 

Chairman, thank you. 

Senator HEINRICH [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Commissioner Connor, in the study water transfers and water 

banking were found to be one of the most cost effective and 

quickest ways to address the imbalance between supply and demand in the Basin. In fact, water transfers, exchanges and banking 

are predicted to cost somewhere between $250 and $750 per acre 

foot per year and could be implemented in as little as 5 years. 

Could you talk a little bit in some more detail about why water 

conservation forbearance banking exchanges are relatively much 

more cost effective compared to some of the other options that were 

explored in the study? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think overall, you know, it’s water transfers and 

banking arrangements can be put into place without large infrastructure or new infrastructure developments. So, once again, I 

think, you know, through the institutional arrangements that can 

be created from—even where there’s low cost investments for the 

agricultural sector say to make investments, conserve water, so 

that they can be a player in the water transfer and banking situations. Those are just more easily permitted, easily arranged and I 

think provide flexibility amongst water users to get water to those 

who need it and to allow for adjustments by those who have senior 

rights. 

So it’s just the ease, timing, permit and the low dollar with respect to initial investments, I think, that make it much more cost 

effective. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you. 
29 

Mr. Vigil, I wanted to ask you, Chairman Vigil, as Water Administrator for the Jicarilla Apache Nation you participated in the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation program. It’s been held 

up as a model on how to recover endangered species. 

Can you talk a little bit about that experience and that recovery 

program? What lessons we might learn in some of these other basins where we’re trying to balance the needs of productive water 

use while conserving our fish and wildlife? 

Mr. VIGIL. Sure, Senator Heinrich. 

Jicarilla Apache Nation has been a participant of that particular 

recovery program project for numerous years. One of the things 

that, you know, I have been back to DC for the last 3 years to lobby 

for the continued funding of that particular project. The success of 

that project, especially, because I think there was over 2,000 water 

projects that are related to the recovery program without, I think, 

any litigation at all which is pretty amazing that, you know, tribes, 

municipalities, State governments and the Federal Government 

can work together. 

I think it’s been the model that it can work. Hopefully, you know, 

you know, we can use that as a model, you know, for this next 

steps of the Basin study. We really appreciate Mike Connor and 

Assistant Secretary Castle’s commitment to a separate tribal water 

study. 

Because of the experience that we’ve had through programs like 

the recovery program, you know, we hope to take that knowledge 

and that experience that we have, you know, for that collaborative 

process as well. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairman Vigil. Thanks for your 

work on that because it really is something we’re hoping to learn 

from. 

Commissioner Connor, I wanted a follow up question. 

Water issues are often discussed as a conflict between diverting 

water for economic development or leaving water in stream for 

non-economic or environmental purposes. But in fact, high flows 

are critical for many rural economies that rely on recreation jobs 

in economic development. 

In New Mexico alone, Colorado River related recreation is responsible for over 17,000 jobs and more than $1.2 billion in direct 

spending. When you consider river management decisions, how do 

you find that balance between the needs of businesses that rely on 

divergence and those businesses that rely on robust in stream 

flows? 

Mr. CONNOR. All of those water uses and values are absolutely 

critical. The water that is diverted to sustain the economies that 

have grown up around that from the Ag sector and also for M and 

I purposes as well as the ecological flows that are important for the 

environmental considerations, but also the recreational based 

economies. 

So I think we are looking to, quite frankly, stretch the limited 

water supplies that are out there in an attempt to best balance 

those needs, as you said. It’s one of those where we want to work 

with the affected communities. We want to make water uses as efficient as possible. We want to create buffers so that when there 

are times of plenty, we’ve got reserve water supplies that can be 
30 

used whether it is to facilitate the environmental and ecological 

flows or whether it’s to provide water during times of drought to 

those needed to sustain their agricultural livelihoods. 

So it’s more flexibility in the system. It’s more efficiency that 

we’ve got to employ to try and sustain all those different uses. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, chairman or thank you, Commissioner Connor. 

I want to thank all of our panel for being here today because this 

is the beginning of something not the end. I appreciate your participation. 

I want to turn the gavel over to Senator Lee. He is going to chair 

while Senator Barrasso pursues some of his questions. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Connor, on June 6 our Senate Energy Committee 

had an oversight hearing reviewing the activities of the programs 

of the Department of the Interior. Secretary Jewell, in written testimony, addressed the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand study. 

She said that she is, ‘‘committed to continuing to work with our 

stakeholders to assess the implications of water shortages to develop flexible operational plans that account for expected periods of 

drought and support projects that conserve water and improve the 

efficiency of water delivery infrastructure.’’ 

I find this commitment very helpful. I think it fails to recognize 

that creating additional water storages, to me and to many others 

who live in the West, an obvious part of the solution to addressing 

the imbalance between supply and demand which the study 

projects will, you know, be greater than 3.2 million acre feet by the 

year 2060. So I don’t believe that you or any of the other witnesses 

on the panel believe that conservation and implementing projects 

to improve delivery efficiency are going to be able to be sufficient 

to close this gap. 

So what is your understanding of the Department of the Interior’s position about increasing reservoir storage capacity in the 

Colorado River Basin? 

Mr. CONNOR. It is one of the tools that in a whole portfolio of actions, I think, needs to be looked at and employed as part of the 

mix if we’re going to address this imbalance. 

So I would note that we have brought online additional storage 

projects in the Animas River Basin. Completed Lake Nighthorse in 

Ridges Basin Dam in the 2010 time period. 

We completed a regulating reservoir on the Lower Colorado 

River. 

I think a lot of the actions taken on the Colorado River to the 

2007 coordinated operations and shortage agreement created a 

mechanism to create intentionally created surplus which is water, 

additional water stored in Lake Mead which will delay and forestall in the way the potential shortages in the Lower Colorado 

River Basin. 

The Minute 319 agreement with Mexico is part of that mix too. 

All told, we’ve got a million acre feet of additional water in an 

existing reservoir on Lake Mead right now because of those actions. 

So we want to enhance storage in our existing facilities. We recognize the need for additional facilities both above ground and below 
31 

ground to try and address what I spoke of with Senator Heinrich 

which is there is going to be more extremes in our weather events. 

That’s one of the things we’ve got to take advantage of those really 

high flow years. 

Senator BARRASSO. If I could then ask you as well as Ms. Trujillo, it’s commonly understood that the lower division States are 

using their entire basic apportionments as provided by Article 

Three, Section A of the Colorado River Compact. So given the fact, 

what are the most viable sources of supply to meet the future 

water demand imbalances in Arizona, California and Nevada that 

have already been identified in this December 2012 study? 

What do you see as that? 

Mr. CONNOR. I certainly think there’s more room for conservation 

and mechanisms to enhance water transfers by willing participants 

in that effort. I, once again, it’s not the whole solution, but I think 

there is definitely more room to employ that mechanism. 

I think there’s water supply enhancement strategies in Southern 

California. I know they brought on their first desalinization facility 

which I think has been fully permitted and prepared to break 

ground. 

So I see a mix of those items with the regulating reservoir on the 

lower Colorado River. We’re operating more efficiently to capture 

water to be able to make that available for water users. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Trujillo, would you mind commenting as 

well? 

Ms. TRUJILLO. I think that was a good list to start with. 

In addition to that, you know, between the States we’ll continue 

to work on additional agreements for water banking or water sharing. 

We will work to explore new technologies. The Bureau of Reclamation’s desalinization research facilities are a good example to 

expand use of brackish water, additional supplies. 

Then we are looking on the demand side as well to be able to 

make sure we’re efficiently using everything we have and conserving more, if we can. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks. 

Commissioner Connor, just kind of given the realities of the Federal budget, the economic situation in the Southwest and Intermountain West, how can some of the projects to provide additional 

water supplies best be financed and funded? 

Any insights you could share or offer to the committee? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think I appreciate you raising that point because 

I think it’s the reality of the times that we live in that we can be 

a partner, a facilitator and we can strategically invest modest resources from the Federal level. 

I’ll give you an example with the Yuma desalting plant. We initiated a trial run 2 years ago, 18 months. To really see if we could 

cost effectively operate that facility to produce water in the Basin. 

The trial run was a success. We invested dollars as did 3 entities, 

municipal entities, Metropolitan Water District, Central Arizona 

Project and Southern Nevada Water Authority. We produced 

30,000 acre feet of water at about $300 per acre foot. 

So we’ve got to partner up in those types of investments. We’ve 

got to figure out long term financing arrangements for the local en-
32 

tities that will, at the end of the day, need to finance most of the 

new development and infrastructure. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks, Commissioner Connor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEE [presiding]. I want to thank our panelists. We appreciate your testimony today. 

We’re going to go ahead and gavel out now prior to our second 

panel beginning its round of testimony so that we can await the 

return of my cousin from Colorado, Senator Udall. Thank you. 

We’ll stand in recess. 

[RECESS] 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Water and 

Power will come to order. Thank you all for your patience and understanding as we juggle a busy afternoon here in the Senate. 

I hear the subcommittee set a new standard in my absence. Senator Lee helmed the committee which I think is very appropriate 

since this has nothing to do with partisanship or political parties. 

This has to do with protecting the health of the river on which we 

all depend. 

I also feel comfortable, I should confess, with Senator Lee. Some 

of you may know he’s a cousin. It’s been said in the West the Lees 

are related to everyone. The Udalls are related to everybody. Senator Lee and Senator Udall are related. 

But be that as it may, we have a great second panel here. 

Ms. Hawes, why don’t I turn to you? 

You’re the Colorado River Program Director of the Nature Conservancy from Boulder, Colorado, one of the Coloradans I mentioned that was here to join us. 

So the Floor is yours for 5 minutes. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF TAYLOR E. C. HAWES, COLORADO RIVER 

PROGRAM DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Ms. HAWES. Thank you, Chairman Udall for the opportunity to 

testify today. I’m the Colorado River Program Director for The Nature Conservancy. Our work spans all 7 basin States and into Mexico. I’m also one of the co-chairs of the Healthy Flows Workgroup. 

My testimony today addresses 3 topics. 

One, the importance of the Colorado River system’s ecological 

and recreational values. 

A few of the shortfalls in the study but also potential remedies 

going forward. 

The scope of work for the Healthy Flows Workgroup for the next 

6 months. 

Since you’ve already heard quite a bit today about the results of 

the Basin study and what’s at stake I won’t spend more time repeating that. However, what you haven’t heard much about is 

what’s at stake relative to our river’s health and to our recreational 

economy. 

The Colorado River boasts more than 30 fish species found nowhere else in the world. Yet 50 percent of our native fish in the 

Basin have either gone extinct or are considered vulnerable. The 

river, as most people know, no longer reaches the sea and some of 

its headwater tributaries run dry on a seasonal basis. 
33 

At the same time the river system still provides habitat for the 

much prized Colorado River Cutthroat Trout and is a draw for visitors from around the world due to its unparalleled beauty and recreational opportunities. The Basin features a $26 billion recreational economy. There are ten national park units including the 

Grand Canyon as the Basin’s centerpiece. Rafting throughout the 

region is a major industry. Anglers come from around the world to 

fish both headwaters and our gold medal fisheries. 

More than 5 million adults visit the region each year as tourists 

supporting approximately 234 thousand jobs and generating more 

than $10 billion annually in wages and earnings. Unfortunately the 

study showed that under all portfolios or solution sets flow related 

values and resources would likely be negatively affected in the future. 

So while the Basin study’s consideration of flows was ground 

breaking in many regards. The study was, in large part, limited by 

a couple of factors. 

Reclamation’s water supply study, I’m sorry, water supply model 

that was used to perform the analysis, known as CRSS, was designed to manage reservoirs and operations along with those reservoirs. It was not designed to look at healthy flows or track 

healthy flows. Consequently these healthy flow needs were left out 

of the study. 

Another shortfall was that the study was primarily focused on 

finding solutions to meet consumptive water supply needs. While 

these are very important there was no mention or assessment of 

healthy flow needs and solutions associated with those. 

The conservation community hopes to remedy some of these 

shortfalls in the next phase. 

First, The Conservancy is already working with a broad cross 

section of water interests to explore ways to improve CRSS or create new management tools that will allow us to evaluate solutions 

for both our water users and our rivers. We are doing this with a 

grant through the Landscape Conservation Cooperative. 

Second, in my written testimony I provided several examples of 

solutions that have been developed around the Basin that meet the 

needs of people while also benefiting the river. Such solutions are 

feasible, cost effective, more durable, have buy-in and are more 

sustainable. 

As we move forward water banking, a mechanism we’ve talked 

about here. It’s one that facilitates the temporary movement of 

water from agriculture to cities and to the environment through 

voluntary agreements shows great promise as a way to, not only 

meet the needs of people, but also our rivers. 

The workgroup will be undertaking several tasks in the coming 

months. Very simply stated we will be seeking an agreement on 

which rivers are the most important from an ecological, for maintaining key ecological and recreational attributes and exploring 

ways to protect these rivers. 

This workgroup will also be seeking to understand how hydropower will be affected as that’s part of one of the flow aspects and 

looking for solutions that might affect those resources. 

We will be preparing a report by the end of 2013 that summarizes this information and proposes phase two activities. It’s impor-
34 

tant to remember and others have said this here today that the 

study is a means to an end. Our mutual goal is finding solutions. 

That’s where we head next. 

In conclusion, the future will not look like the past as demands 

will continue to increase and supplies are expected to decrease. We 

are at a crossroads in the Colorado River’s history as we—and we 

must all pull together to develop and implement sustainable solutions. 

Support from this committee and Congress will be critical to our 

success. The conservation community strongly supports continued 

funding of WaterSMART, landscape conservation cooperative programs as well as Title 16 funding. 

These programs provide vital assistance to facilitate urban and 

agricultural water conservation programs as well as environmental 

solutions. It’s imperative to the success of our workgroup that the 

other two workgroups also produce real savings in their efforts. 

These efforts must be integrated for us to succeed. 

In addition it’s important for this body to continue its oversight 

with regard to the next steps in search of financially prudent, realistic and timely solutions to the imbalances in the Basin and the 

need to protect these important ecological and recreational values. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I’ll be happy 

to answer questions when the time is right. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hawes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAYLOR E. C. HAWES, COLORADO RIVER PROGRAM

DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Lee and Subcommittee members, 

for the opportunity to testify on the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin 

Water Supply and Demand Study. I am honored to speak to you today about the 

Colorado River and how we can plan for its future to ensure it can meet the many 

demands it faces, including providing water for cities, agriculture, industry, environmental and recreational needs. I am the Colorado River Program Director for the 

Nature Conservancy. The Conservancy’s Colorado River Program spans all seven 

Basin states and Mexico. The Conservancy seeks to find solutions for our rivers 

while also meeting the needs of people. I am one of the co-chairs of the Environmental and Recreational Flows Workgroup and will be co-chairing that committee 

with representatives from the State of Colorado and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Nature Conservancy is a non-profit conservation organization founded in 

1951 whose mission is ‘‘to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.’’ 

The Nature Conservancy puts great emphasis on solutions and partnerships, and 

we rely heavily on science in deciding our direction, focus and priorities. Our staff 

lives and works in hundreds of communities across the U.S. and around the world. 

They are supported by almost a million members and by state Boards of Trustees 

made up of local leaders in conservation, business, agriculture and ranching, academia and philanthropy. 

This testimony addresses three topics: 

• The importance of the Colorado River system’s environmental and recreational 

values and why it is necessary and possible to find solutions for the Basin that 

meet the needs of people and nature. • A few of the long-term needs and opportunities coming out of the study. • The scope of work for the Environmental and Recreational Flows workgroup 

over the next six months or so. 

Before I delve into the details, I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Colorado River Basin. As we all know, water in the West 

is contentious, but in the case of the Colorado River Basin, Reclamation has successfully brought states and other water interests together to work towards solutions. 

The Nature Conservancy, along with many partner conservation organizations, 

has worked closely with the Study team, the seven Basin states and Reclamation 

to inform the Basin Study, serving on technical teams and providing comments on 
35 

drafts. The Study found that the combination of increasing demand and dwindling 

supply, threatens our communities, industry, agriculture, environment and recreational economy unless we take steps now to change our current course. Without 

healthy rivers, the region’s economic vitality and its rich natural heritage are at 

risk. Drought sets the stage for conflict between water users. But the Basin Study 

seeks a path where municipalities and the agricultural and environmental communities can find practical solutions to the water supply and demand challenge. We 

look forward to working with Reclamation, the seven States and other partners as 

we prepare for a future in the Colorado River Basin that sustains agriculture, allows cities to grow and protects our iconic rivers. 

THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN’S SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL VALUES

The Colorado River boasts more than thirty fish species found nowhere else in the 

world. However, fifty percent of all native fish species in the Basin have either gone 

extinct or are considered vulnerable. The River no longer reaches the sea and some 

of its smaller headwater tributaries run dry on a seasonal basis. Dramatic changes 

in the river’s flow regime have facilitated the dominance of invasive plant species, 

such as tamarisk and Russian olive, which creates poor riverside habitat and uses 

more water than native vegetation due to its spread up on to the benches above the 

river. At the same time, the river system still provides habitat for the much prized 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, and the Basin’s beautiful rivers, with their dramatic cottonwood galleries, draw birds and visitors from far and wide. 

The Basin features a $26 billion recreational economy, much of which revolves 

around rivers. There are 10 National Park units, including the Grand Canyon as 

the Basin’s centerpiece, as well as other parks and river reaches drawing hundreds 

of thousands of visitors annually. There are major rafting enterprises in Wyoming, 

Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. Anglers come from around the world to fish both 

headwaters streams and gold medal trout fisheries in larger tributaries. World-class 

ski resorts in the region, which rely on snowmaking, support thousands of jobs. Finally, there are many who cannot think of a better vacation than a week on Lake 

Powell. More than five million adults visit the region for recreational excursions, 

supporting approximately 234,000 jobs in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Utah and Wyoming and generating more than $10 billion annually in wages and 

earnings. Unfortunately, the Study showed that under all portfolios (solution sets), 

flow related values and resources would likely be negatively impacted in the future. 

The conservation organizations participated in the Study to ensure that it considered healthy river flows at the same time that it evaluated the future needs of agriculture and cities so that stakeholders could simultaneously develop a long term 

plan to meet the varied needs in and outside of the Basin. The conservation organizations’ vision was coordinated development and management of the River and its 

tributaries, in order to optimize economic and social welfare without compromising 

the health of the river itself. The next steps will involve tackling these issues at 

the Basin level. Recent examples in the Basin—two of which I highlight below— 

have proven that this kind of approach is possible, but its implementation requires 

political will and leadership. 

While the Basin Study is considering basin-wide solutions, our communities must 

also be creative in finding local solutions. Smaller scale projects in the Basin demonstrate that the needs of people and nature do not have to be mutually exclusive. 

For example, consider the San Pedro River. It starts in Mexico and flows north into 

Arizona near the City of Sierra Vista. The region includes two significant national 

assets: a major U.S. intelligence and communications testing installation at the 

Army’s Fort Huachuca and the BLM’s San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area. It provides critical riparian habitat to millions of migratory birds, many vulnerable animal species and an endangered aquatic plant. The combination of prolonged drought, increasing human water demands, and other factors have reduced 

the river’s flows in many locations, which has adversely affected wildlife and fish 

as well as the long-term reliability of water supplies for area residents. 

Finding a solution for the San Pedro started with good science and a better understanding of the river. Every June, the Conservancy works with more than 100 community members in the U.S. and Mexico to map over 270 miles of the river and 

its tributaries to define the extent of surface water, specifically, where the river continues to flow during the very hottest and driest time of the year. We then developed a computer simulation model with our local, State and federal partners to better understand underground groundwater flows in the aquifer that help sustain the 

river. Using this information, we were able to identify the best locations for groundwater recharge projects that enhance stream flows in the San Pedro by improving 

the aquifer where it is needed the most. In partnership with the Department of De-
36 

fense, the Conservancy has acquired key lands from willing sellers and is now designing aquifer recharge projects in conjunction with our partners, including Cochise 

County, local developers, private foundations and Natural Resource Conservation 

Districts. By combining private and public dollars to concurrently meet both the 

water needs of people and nature, we developed innovative new technologies and infrastructure solutions to address what were seemingly unsolvable water shortage 

issues. That is the future we see for the arid West and its rivers: collaboration between private and public interests, development of smart science, technical tools, 

and infrastructure; and a commitment to simultaneously address the water needs 

of all water sectors through informed decision-making. Water issues do not have to 

be focused on conflict. 

OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD

The SECURE Water Act directed Reclamation to perform basin studies that considered risks to a number of resource values. For the first time ever, SECURE directed consideration of water-dependent recreation, fish and wildlife habitat and 

‘‘flow and water-dependent ecological resiliency’’ on a par with Reclamation’s ability 

to continue water deliveries to traditional agricultural, urban and hydropower beneficiaries. §9503(b)(3). The Colorado River Basin Study was the first major effort of 

Reclamation and the States to look at flow and water-dependent ecological resources 

across the Basin. As a result, 

The Study recognized the importance of considering river flows to support 

flow and water dependent ecological systems, power generation, and recreation, through its adoption of metrics used to approximate the performance 

of these resources, the inclusion of an Enhanced Environment water demand scenario, and the inclusion of an Upper Basin water bank of which 

the objective specifically includes improving the performance of ecological 

and recreational resources. [Chapter 10] 

While this level of consideration of flows was ground breaking, the Study was, in 

large part, limited by the water supply model used to perform the study. Reclamation’s basin-wide model, known as Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS), was 

designed to manage water supply and reservoir operations. It was not designed to 

track environmental and recreational flow needs or develop solutions to protect or 

enhance those values. In other words, the model cannot tell us whether flow needs 

are being met at key locations, because it was not designed to assess flows. Consequently, many key flow needs and solutions were left out of the Study. 

Another shortfall was that the Study was focused on identifying solutions to meet 

consumptive water supply needs. It was not aimed at developing solutions to meet 

ecological or recreational flow needs. Therefore, with a few exceptions, the Study’s 

performance measures were not set up to guide the selection of water management 

actions to meet flow needs. Moreover, many flow needs and solutions were left out 

of the Basin Study because CRSS was unable to assess them adequately. Without 

direct linkages between environmental flow needs and water management actions 

to meet those needs, the Basin Study could not develop flow-related solutions as it 

did for consumptive water needs. Such disconnects made it difficult to prioritize solutions that meet multiple water needs as described in the San Pedro example. 

In the next phases of the Study, parties will be working to craft solutions to meet 

environmental and recreational flow needs in Basin communities, along with meeting consumptive water needs. The Basin Study will serve as the platform to discuss 

such long-term solutions that support not only communities, but the amenities everyone associates with the West, including its rivers. The Basin Study, as others 

have said, is also a ‘‘call to action’’ because it shows that the water supply and demand imbalance for traditional water users, including irrigators and cities, is significant. What is exciting about the Basin Study is that it establishes a dialogue 

focused on finding feasible, financially prudent solutions for cities, agriculture, industry, recreation and the environment. We ask Congress to follow through on the 

promise of the Basin Study by fully supporting the agencies, programs and stakeholders that are working on finding solutions to the challenge of managing such a 

critical river system to the West. 

Looking to the past, we can see that anything is possible with political will. For 

example, the Upper Colorado and San Juan Rivers Endangered Fish Recovery programs have shown that it is possible to meet the needs of endangered fish while 

also allowing continued consumptive water use. Specifically, the Upper Colorado 

River Recovery Program has found solutions that work, such as expanding Elkhead 

Reservoir, a small reservoir in northwest Colorado. The expanded capacity can be 

shared among a power plant, rural community, agricultural needs, and flows for the 
37 

endangered fish. The project sailed through permitting, because it was a true model 

of collaboration with multiple benefits. 

Another example is the recent agreement between the United States and Mexico 

that restores water to the Colorado River Delta while increasing water supply reliability for communities in both countries. In the past, the international boundary 

stood in the way of traditional approaches to restoring healthy river flows. When 

the Colorado River no longer reached the sea and habitat was lost in the delta, 

many decried Colorado River management as a failure. But water managers from 

both countries were able to overcome the challenge of the border by creating benefits for water users on both sides of the border. Flows for the environment will be 

created through cooperation between the United States and Mexico, as well as 

through private sector contributions. Water will help restore healthy habitat in the 

delta, water conservation will shore up supplies and both countries will benefit during wet periods and share the pain of cutbacks during drought. While these negotiations were arduous, and the agreement is a pilot planned to expire in five years, 

the benefits are expected to motivate both countries to negotiate for a successor 

agreement. Stakeholder processes are not quick, but they often result in the best 

and most durable solutions that satisfy multiple interest groups. 

Additionally, river stewardship tools are necessary for the future as the region becomes more arid. As discussed above, the current model (CRSS) that we use to manage the Colorado River does not allow us ‘‘see’’ innovative solutions that meet multiple purposes. Through a Landscape Conservation Cooperative grant, the Conservancy is working with a broad cross-section of water users, federal agencies, tribes, 

local communities and other environmental organizations to explore ways to improve the existing model and create new management tools that will better allow 

us to evaluate solutions for both water users and rivers. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL FLOWS WORK GROUP SCOPE OF WORK

The Environmental and Recreational Flows workgroup, with representatives from 

a broad cross-section of environmental, recreational, urban, and state interests, will 

undertake several tasks in the coming months. While the scope of work will be finalized next week at our first in-person meeting, we will be seeking agreement on 

which rivers are most important for maintaining key ecological and recreational attributes, what is the role of flows in maintaining those rivers, what are the best 

tools to protect those rivers and related attributes, and whether additional data is 

needed to help us develop solutions. As mentioned above, we need 21st Century 

management tools that allow us to ‘‘see’’ opportunities for river management that 

protect the river’s health while meeting the needs of people. Therefore, we will consider and hopefully integrate The Nature Conservancy’s assessment of the model 

into the recommendations of this group for the subsequent phase of work. This 

workgroup will also seek to understand how hydropower might be affected in the 

future and possible solutions for protecting those resources. 

Second, we will identify locations on the priority rivers identified through this 

process where opportunities exist to provide environmental and recreational flows. 

If opportunities exist that have broad support, we will focus on those opportunities 

first. Finally, we will prepare a report by the end of 2013 that summarizes this information and proposes Phase 2 activities to be conducted in 2014. 

CONCLUSION

The Basin Study has given us a glimpse into several possible future paths. The 

future will not look like the past as demands will continue to increase and supplies 

are expected to decrease. We need to be honest with our communities. We all have 

a role in creating a sustainable future for ourselves and this River system. To ensure a legacy of vibrant communities, state of the art urban and agricultural conservation, and healthy rivers, we must foster a water stewardship ethic that extends 

to our rivers. We are at a critical juncture in the Colorado River’s history—we must 

all pull together to develop and implement sustainable solutions. 

Finally, let Australia be a cautionary tale for why water imbalance projections 

should be a call to action. It was not prepared for the extreme dry conditions it has 

experienced. Australia was just beginning to plan for a 6% reduction in supplies 

when they experienced a 38% reduction. It is adjusting to a new normal that has 

forced dramatic changes in how it manages water for all uses. We can learn from 

this experience and create a better, less contentious future for the Colorado River 

and for everyone and everything that depends on this iconic river. 

Support from this committee and Congress will be critical to our success. The conservation community strongly supports continued funding of WaterSMART and 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative programs. Both of these programs provide crit-
38 

ical assistance to facilitate urban and agricultural water conservation projects and 

environmental solutions. Water conservation in all sectors will be crucial for meeting water needs in the future, both for our urban and rural communities, and for 

the health of the basin’s rivers. 

It is imperative to the success of the Environmental and Recreational Flows 

Workgroup that both the Agricultural and Urban Conservation workgroups produce 

real water savings. All these efforts must be integrated for us to succeed. In addition, it is important for this body to continue its oversight with regard to the next 

steps in the search for financially prudent, realistic and timely solutions to the imbalances in the Basin and the need to protect its important ecological and recreation 

values. The SECURE Water Act established a process where Basin Studies are the 

first step, followed by recommended solutions and feasibility studies for their implementation. The Colorado River Basin Study was ground-breaking as well as a call 

to action. The Nature Conservancy looks forward to working with our partners and 

the Congress to identify and implement solutions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and to outline next steps on 

the Colorado River Basin Study. I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Ms. Hawes. 

We’ve been joined by Kathleen Ferris. She’s the Executive Director of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association. 

Ms. Ferris, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN FERRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARIZONA MUNICIPAL WATER USERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. FERRIS. Senator Udall—OK you see how new I am at this. 

Senator UDALL. You’re doing great. 

Ms. FERRIS. Thank you. My apologies for taking a needed break. 

Senator UDALL. That was more than appropriate. No apologies 

necessary. 

Ms. FERRIS. OK. Thank you. 

As you heard, as you said, I’m Kathleen Ferris, Executive Director of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association. I’m one of 

the Chairs of the Municipal and Industrial Workgroup. So today 

I’m going to talk to you about the workgroup and about the role 

of municipal conservation and reuse in solving water imbalances 

based on the Arizona experience. 

Since 1980 Arizona has pursued a comprehensive approach to 

water management. We’ve implemented many programs to reduce 

consumption and increase efficiency. We’ve treated and reused millions of acre feet of waste water for many beneficial uses. 

We’ve stored underground over 8 million acre feet of water for 

use in times of drought. We prohibit new residential subdivisions 

that cannot demonstrate a 100-year assured water supply. 

The AMWUA members including the city of Phoenix have been 

leaders in progressive water management. Our success can be 

measured by the fact that while the population of the AMWUA cities has grown by 157 percent since 1980 to more than 3.2 million, 

water use has increased by only 87 percent. 

State wide our numbers also tell a similar story. Arizona’s population has increased a whopping 470 percent since 1957. But total 

water use today is virtually the same, virtually the same, as it was 

nearly a half century ago. We’ve done all this without sacrificing 

our quality of life or our economic prosperity. 

So Arizona’s experience demonstrates that conservation and 

reuse are absolutely essential. But I need to offer a word of caution 
39 

here about the role that they can play in solving all of the Colorado 

River imbalances. 

To estimate future demand for Colorado River Reclamation developed 6 scenarios. Then for each scenario a projected amount of 

conservation was included. It ranged from 500 thousand acre feet 

to over a million acre feet per year. 

The Basin study then assumed that progressively ambitious, best 

management practices or BMPs could reduce Colorado River demands by another one million acre feet annually by 2060. So that 

would be so great. But the study acknowledges that many of the 

BMPs have already been implemented throughout the study area. 

It also goes on to make clear and I quote that, ‘‘Its conservation 

assumptions do not necessarily reflect realistic or achievable local 

conservation goals. 

So here is where the M and I workgroup comes in. Our role is 

to ground truth the study. 

We will quantify conservation and reuse savings to date within 

the study area. 

We will document successful conservation and reuse programs already in place. 

We will explore the potential for expanding those programs to 

other parts of the study area. 

Finally, after gathering these facts the workgroup will analyze 

the potential for conservation and reuse to reduce Colorado River 

water demands. 

So it’s tempting. I know it’s very tempting to look to conservation 

and reuse as the silver bullet to Colorado River imbalances. Make 

no mistake they’re absolutely necessary to stretch our water supplies. 

But Arizonans have learned that we will also need to augment 

our water supplies and employ other management strategies to 

meet our growing demands. 

My 36 years as a water professional lead me to believe that a 

similar comprehensive approach is going to be necessary for solving 

the Colorado River imbalances. I think we have to be unafraid to 

seek the truth about what will and will not work so that the solutions we forge will have real and lasting results. We owe that to 

the Colorado River and to our citizens. 

Thank you very much for your interest in this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ferris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN FERRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARIZONA

MUNICIPAL WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Kathleen Ferris, Executive Director of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA). Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on the Colorado River 

Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study). 

AMWUA is a non-profit association of municipal water providers in the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. Our members are the Cities of Avondale, Chandler, Glendale, 

Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe, and the Town of Gilbert. 

Collectively, the AMWUA members provide water to over 3.2 million people, more 

than fifty percent of Arizona’s population. Since 1969, AMWUA has advocated for 

responsible water stewardship that supports economic prosperity and safeguards Arizona’s water supplies for future generations. 

I am also one of the Chairs of the Municipal and Industrial Conservation and 

Reuse Workgroup (M&I Workgroup). This Workgroup, comprised of conservation 
40 

1 A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 2 

2 A.R.S. § 45-401.B 

3 A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 2, Article 2 

4 A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 2, Article 5 

5 A.R.S. § 45-452 

6 A.R.S. § 45-598 

7 A.R.S. § 45-576 

8 A.R.S. § 45-563 

9 A.R.S. § 45-562 

10 A.R.S. § 45-561 11 A.R.S. §§ 45-564 through 45.568.02 

professionals from the Basin states, Reclamation, and representatives of NGOs, was 

formed as part of the next steps of the Basin Study. 

For the past 36 years, I have devoted my professional career to developing and 

implementing sound water management policies in Arizona. I was one of the drafters of Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act, served as the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, and was legal counsel to AMWUA for 24 

years before assuming the position of Executive Director. With that background, I 

would like to share my views on conservation and reuse as water management tools 

and their role in solving future imbalances of Colorado River water. I will also discuss the duties of the M&I Workgroup. 

CONSERVATION AND REUSE IN THE STUDY AREA—THE ARIZONA EXAMPLE

For more than thirty years, conservation and reuse of water have been a way of 

life in central Arizona. In 1980, Arizona enacted the Groundwater Management Act1

to ‘‘provide a framework for the comprehensive management and regulation of the 

withdrawal, transportation, use, conservation and conveyance of rights to use 

groundwater.’’2 Prior to 1980, Arizonans had been mining groundwater supplies 

without regulation to keep up with continually expanding uses. Groundwater mining led to land subsidence, water quality degradation, and costly lawsuits among 

water users. Finally, after two and a half years of work by a special commission 

and intense negotiations chaired by Governor Bruce Babbitt, Arizona passed this 

comprehensive law that is unique in the United States in its far-reaching approach 

to water management. Hailed in 1986 by the Ford Foundation and the Harvard 

School of Government as one of the ten most innovative programs in state and local 

government, Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act continues to be one of the nation’s most visionary laws for the use and protection of water resources. 

The Groundwater Management Act applies to Arizona’s most heavily populated 

areas. These are known as Active Management Areas or AMAs,3 and encompass approximately 83 percent of the state’s population and 57 percent of its water use. 

Within AMAs, the Act quantifies rights to use groundwater,4 prohibits new agricultural irrigation,5 permits new wells to be drilled only in conformance with well-impact standards,6 and prohibits the development of new residential subdivisions without a proven 100-year assured water supply.7

The Act also requires the Arizona Department of Water Resources to develop progressive 10-year management plans for each AMA, designed to achieve a management goal for that AMA.8 The management goal for the Phoenix, Tucson and Prescott AMAs is safe-yield.9 Safe-yield is a long-term balance between the amount of 

groundwater withdrawn in the AMA and the amount of natural and artificial recharge in the AMA.10 The management plans must contain conservation requirements for all water users in the AMAs.11 Because these plans provide the blueprint 

for conservation in most of Arizona, it is important to understand how they are developed and the strategies that have been employed to increase water efficiency in 

the AMAs. 

The management plans are developed using technical advisory committees and 

multiple levels of public input. In each successive ten-year period, the preparation 

of the plans provides the opportunity to analyze the effectiveness of water management efforts. Adjustments in strategies and conservation requirements are made, 

and additional reasonable reductions in water use are specified. In each management period, the Department of Water Resources has included incentives for the efficient use of renewable supplies, provided technical and financial assistance, and 

revised programs based on new technologies and practices. 

Since the First Management Plan was adopted in 1984, the approach to municipal 

conservation has been refined, evolving in sophistication and flexibility in each subsequent management period, in response to the growing understanding of the complexities of water management issues. In the First Management Plan, one program 

was applied to all providers. It quickly became apparent, however, that the unique 
41 

characteristics and growth patterns within a provider’s service area greatly influence that provider’s ability to reduce per capita use. 

Today, there are two primary conservation programs for large municipal providers 

(those serving 250 acre-feet of water or more annually): the base Total Gallons Per 

Capita per Day (Total GPCD) Program and the Non-Per Capita Conservation Program (NPCCP). In addition to these programs, each provider must limit water system losses to less than 10 percent and meter all service connections, and is subject 

to mandatory reporting requirements. 

Under the Total GPCD Program, a large municipal provider must limit the annual per capita water use within its service area to a specified total GPCD requirement calculated individually for that provider. Total GPCD includes residential, industrial, commercial, and other uses supplied water by the municipal provider. The 

actual amount of water withdrawn, diverted, or received by the municipal provider 

in the calendar year determines compliance. Some deliveries of treated wastewater 

by the municipal provider are excluded from the calculation to encourage the use 

of reclaimed water. 

The alternative Non-Per Capita Conservation Program requires implementation of 

specific residential and non-residential conservation measures for interior and exterior water use and a water conservation public education program. Conservation 

measures selected by the provider must be designed to result in water use efficiency 

equivalent to that assumed in the provider’s total GPCD requirement. The NPCCP 

is a performance-based program with compliance determined by effective implementation of stipulated conservation measures and required water use reductions. 

Under municipal conservation programs, facilities and industries that receive municipal water, including landscaped public rights-of-way, turf-related properties and 

other non-residential customers, also have specific conservation requirements. These 

requirements include limitations on allowable acreage with turf, limitations on 

water-intensive landscaping for hotels, annual water allotments for turf, and low 

water use landscaping in rights-of-ways. 

The AMWUA members have responded to the challenges of conserving water. 

Each member has a dedicated water conservation office and expert staff to assist 

its community. In addition to limiting water system losses to less than 10 percent, 

repairing and replacing service meters, and setting rate structures that encourage 

conservation, the members collectively implement 305 best management practices, 

including: 

• Water-waste and irrigation ordinances 

• Residential audits 

• High water use notification and assistance 

• Rebates for converting from turf to water-efficient landscaping 

• Training for landscape professionals 

• Water use plan requirements for commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities 

• Retrofit programs for low-income residents 

• Plumbing codes 

• Restrictions on water features 

• Extensive outreach and education 

These individual efforts have paid great dividends, but AMWUA has also seen the 

benefit of collaborative regional conservation programs and was the forerunner in 

those efforts, launching the Regional Water Conservation Program in 1982. Through 

this program we share conservation information, messaging, training and education. 

We count our citizens as partners by supplying knowledge that encourages individuals to make real changes that foster stewardship of our resources. Because we pool 

resources and identify common needs, our efforts have greater visibility, reach, consistency and impact. 

Recognizing that between 50 and 70 percent of residential water use in central 

Arizona occurs outdoors, the Regional Water Conservation Program has focused extensively on developing educational brochures to inspire and assist homeowners to 

design, install and maintain low-water-use landscapes. We have distributed more 

than 4 million of these brochures and developed award-winning, interactive 

websites, helping to popularize the shift to water-efficient landscapes across our region. 

Research showed that our customers didn’t want to be told to conserve—they 

wanted to learn how to conserve—so our members also developed the multi-media 

campaign Water—Use It Wisely. We have devoted more than thirteen years to this 

campaign, increasing public consciousness and empowering individuals to conserve, 

and over 400 public and private entities across our country have followed Arizona’s 
42 

12 In Arizona, reclaimed wastewater is not groundwater or surface water and the entity that 

treats the wastewater is free to contract for its disposition. Arizona Public Service Co. v. Long, 

773 P2d 988 (1989) 13The Agreement was renegotiated in 2010. 14 A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 3 15 A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 12 16 A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 3.1 

* Graphic has been retained in subcommittee files. 

lead. Today, Water—Use It Wisely is the largest water conservation awareness campaign in North America. 

Since passage of the Groundwater Management Act, the AMWUA cities have also 

become leaders in the reuse of wastewater, reclaiming 100 percent of the wastewater produced by their citizens and putting it to beneficial uses such as energy production, turf irrigation, agriculture, environmental restoration, and recharge.12 The 

uses of this wastewater are many and varied, but one striking example shows the 

long-lasting and innovative nature of our reuse efforts. 

In 1973, AMWUA negotiated an agreement with Arizona Public Service Company 

to provide reclaimed wastewater to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo 

Verde) for cooling purposes.13 Located approximately 50 miles west of Phoenix, Palo 

Verde is the largest nuclear generating station in the western hemisphere, producing 4.0 gwh of energy, and supplying power to the grid for the entire southwestern United States. It is the only nuclear plant not located on a large body of 

fresh water for cooling purposes, and the only nuclear plant in the world to use recycled wastewater for cooling. The 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, operated by the City of Phoenix for Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale and Tempe, provides up to 80,000 acre-feet of reclaimed wastewater annually to Palo Verde through 

a dedicated pipeline. The plant itself uses water efficiently, recycling it 25 times for 

cooling purposes. Unlike other nuclear plants, Palo Verde maintains ‘‘zero discharge,’’ with no liquid waste discharged to rivers, streams or oceans. 

The AMWUA members also work with commercial and industrial facilities to create opportunities to recycle process water and advance efficiency and sustainability. 

Through an innovative partnership, the City of Chandler and Intel built and operate 

a facility that uses state of the art technology to treat industrial process water from 

Intel’s semiconductor manufacturing plants to bring it up to drinking water standards. The water is then recharged back into the ground, providing a renewable 

water supply for the City. Since the beginning of operations, the Chandler Reverse 

Osmosis Facility has pumped over five billion gallons of recycled water back into 

the ground, enough water to supply 45,000 households. Intel also uses recycled 

water in its cooling towers and reclaimed wastewater from a nearby Chandler reclamation facility to irrigate landscaping. This partnership has allowed industrial 

growth to occur in the City, creating thousands of high-paying jobs, increasing City 

tax revenues, and boosting the area’s economy, while maintaining a healthy water 

supply. 

Water management innovations in Arizona did not end with passage of the 

Groundwater Management Act. Since 1980, Arizona has enacted progressive laws 

prohibiting the use of drinking water in man-made development lakes,14 requiring 

water conservation plumbing,15 and encouraging the underground storage of excess 

water supplies for use in times of drought.16

The impacts of these laws on water use in Arizona have been substantial. Demand for water is flattening, despite the dramatic growth of the region. While the 

population of the AMWUA cities increased by 157 percent between 1980 and 2010, 

water use increased by only 87 percent. Individual municipal records are equally impressive. The City of Phoenix is the sixth largest city in the country with more than 

1.4 million residents. Between 1980 and 2010, the City’s population increased by 83 

percent, yet the City’s total per capita demand increased by only 35 percent and its 

total water production increased by only 18 percent. 

Conservation and reuse efforts outside of the AMAs tell a similar story. Cities in 

other parts of Arizona have also implemented programs and measures to promote 

water efficiency, including limits on landscape watering and expansion of turf, 

tiered rate structures, rebates for low flow appliances, and prohibitions on the use 

potable water for golf course irrigation. The numbers are dramatic. Statewide, Arizona’s population has increased by 470 percent since 1957, but total water use is 

virtually the same today as it was more than a half century ago. 

Water is not just about supporting the population, it drives the economy. In Arizona, we have found that we can have water efficiency and a healthy economy. The 

attached info-graphic shows that our domestic income continued to increase even as 

water use became more and more efficient.* 
43 

17 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Appendix F9-10, Table F9-4 18 Id., Appendix F9-6 19 Id., Appendix F9-11, Table F9-5 20 Id., Appendix F9-6 21 Id., Appendix F9-3 22 Id., Appendix F9-8 23While most of Arizona is located within the Colorado River Basin, municipal uses of Colorado River supplied by the Central Arizona Project are more similar to uses in out-of-Basin 

areas, since central Arizona is located more than 300 miles from the River. Municipal and industrial uses of Central Arizona Project water were treated like out-of-Basin uses for purposes of 

this Study. 

In Arizona, codes, ordinances, pricing, and incentives have led new development 

to build in efficiency on the front end. Efficient fixtures continue to improve interior 

water use. Desert-adapted landscaping has gained in popularity. Smart irrigation 

technology is becoming more common. Clearly, Arizonans embrace conservation and 

reuse to stretch all of our water supplies to ensure sustainable growth and economic 

prosperity. We are eager to share our successes with the other Basin states. 

CONSERVATION AND REUSE IN THE BASIN STUDY

Conservation and reuse are essential to our Colorado River basin economies, but 

while further implementation of evolving technologies and proven practices can continue to help maximize the use of our existing water supplies, it is doubtful that 

the projected Colorado River imbalances can be satisfied through conservation and 

reuse alone. 

To estimate the future demand for Colorado River water, Reclamation developed 

six water demand scenarios. These scenarios include current projected demand, demand based on slow growth or rapid growth, and demand based on enhanced environmental uses. The amount of M&I conservation included in each demand scenario 

varies, from 478,000 acre-feet for the current projected demand scenario to 

1,114,000 acre-feet for the enhanced environment scenario.17 Reclamation then examined the potential for additional conservation (over and above the amounts estimated in the demand scenarios) by considering three levels of increased conservation ‘‘based on assumed levels of reductions and adoption rates’’ of progressively ambitious best management practices (BMPs).18 Using this approach, the Study estimates that additional conservation could reduce Colorado River demands by as 

much as another 1 million acre-feet by 2060.19 This robust savings figure should be 

evaluated in light of the following considerations noted in the Basin Study: 

• The assumed levels of reductions and adoption rates for best management practices were derived from Colorado and California approaches and applied to the 

total Study Area demand to result in a Basin-wide estimate of potential savings. ‘‘The assumptions were derived for purposes of the Study and do not necessarily reflect realistic or achievable local conservation goals.’’20

• Many of the BMPs considered in the levels of increased conservation ‘‘have already been enacted throughout the Study Area.’’21

• ‘‘The potential M&I conservation measures are assumed to apply to the overall 

Study Area, but significant differences in potential water savings exist between 

geographies based on the current level of conservation adoption, commercial and 

industrial base, and climate.’’22

These considerations clearly indicate that the 1 million acre-foot figure should not 

be relied upon too heavily. 

Additionally, the Basin Study makes a distinction between conservation savings 

for ‘‘in-Basin’’ locations, and conservation savings for ‘‘out-of-Basin’’ locations, such 

as Southern California and Denver.23 The Study states: 

In many of the major urban areas receiving Colorado River water, the 

overall water supply provided to communities consists of a significant portion of other supplies (other surface supplies, groundwater supplies, reuse, 

etc.) in addition to Colorado River water. In most of these out-of-Basin 

areas, the supplies are commingled in the water supply and distribution 

systems before delivery to the consumer. Because conservation measures 

are end-use water demand reductions, the water savings result in a net demand reduction. In these areas, the net M&I demand reductions may not 

result in the same amount of demand reduction for Colorado River water. 

This is the result of the distributed nature of conservation efforts and the 

inability of conservation to target one type of supply in regions that have 

diverse water supply portfolios. . . . Water conservation will reduce the 
44 

24 Id., Appendix F6-3 25 Id., Appendix F6-2 

overall demand on these supplies collectively, but is not likely to result in 

a one-for-one reduction in Colorado River demand. 

As the next steps of the Study move forward, it will be important to gain a better 

understanding of how much Colorado River water can, or cannot, be saved by conservation in out-of-Basin urban areas. 

The Basin Study also estimates that greater municipal wastewater reuse could 

potentially reduce Colorado River demands by 930,000 acre-feet by 2060.24 The 

Study points out that, ‘‘Given the complexity of regional and local water management decisions, it was simply assumed that increased development of reuse reduces 

water demands proportionally to the magnitude of supply from Colorado River and 

non-Colorado River sources.’’25 This assumption and the role of reuse in reducing 

demands on the River warrant greater exploration. 

From my experience with water conservation and reuse in Arizona, I offer the following perspectives. While GPCD rates can be useful in tracking water use trends 

over time within a service area, such absolute metrics should not be used to judge 

relative water use efficiencies among different water providers. These metrics cannot take into account geographical differences, such as climate, and differences in 

development patterns, lot sizes, cultural and socio-economic conditions, and industrial and commercial uses within a provider’s service area, all of which significantly 

impact water use. There is no industry standard for how per capita use is calculated. A further complicating factor is that providers meter, categorize, and track 

customer accounts and end uses in dramatically different ways. There is no applesto-apples approach that is used by all providers. In short, a provider’s progress is 

best measured in light of the history and future potential within its specific service 

area. Efficient water use must also consider the need for viable economic development. 

Efficiency must allow for uses of water that provide high-paying jobs, increase a 

city’s tax base, provide goods and services to the nation, and improve overall standards of living. 

Conservation and reuse are necessary, desirable, and effective water management 

tools, but they must be supplemented with other measures. In central Arizona, we 

have found that a comprehensive approach is necessary. Even as we conserve and 

reuse, we must also augment our supplies and employ other strategies, such as underground storage of water, to ensure that our water supplies are secure, reliable 

and sustainable. The same can be said for Colorado River water. We must conserve 

and reuse Colorado River supplies, but we must be mindful of the limitations of 

these tools. We must explore all of our options, including augmentation, to ensure 

a balanced and sustainable approach to this complex issue. 

DUTIES OF THE M&I WORKGROUP

The M&I Workgroup consists of representatives of all of the Basin states, Reclamation, and several Non-Government Organizations. Carolyn Schaffer, of the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California, and Marc Waage, of Denver Water, 

serve with me as chairs. We have developed a proposed scope of work for the first 

phase of the Workgroup’s activities. We intend to quantify conservation and reuse 

savings to date within the Study Area by gathering and examining more detailed 

data from existing reports, studies, planning documents and other information 

sources. We will also document successful conservation and reuse programs that 

have been implemented in the Study Area and assess the potential to expand these 

programs to other parts of the Study Area. Ultimately, we will analyze the potential 

for additional conservation and reuse to help reduce Colorado River water demands. 

This is a big undertaking in a short period of time, but we are committed to completing our task. For Arizona, addressing potential Colorado River imbalances is of 

the utmost importance. For the AMWUA members, it is critical. The Central Arizona Project (CAP), along with Nevada and some Arizona municipal providers on 

the River, share the lowest priority to Colorado River water in the Lower Basin. In 

times of shortages, we take the first hit. My members hold contracts to almost 

300,000 acre-feet of CAP water, nearly half of the CAP M&I supply. As municipal 

water providers, we know the necessity of reducing vulnerabilities so that we may 

continue to provide reliable supplies to our citizens, businesses and industries. We 

recognize the need to balance competing interests and the value of a healthy River 

system. We understand the importance of dealing with Colorado River imbalances, 

just as we have long understood the urgency of managing all of our water resources 

efficiently. 
45 

Arizona and AMWUA appreciate Reclamation’s leadership on this crucial issue 

and look forward to working with Reclamation and the other Basin states to find 

comprehensive and lasting solutions. 

Thank you for your interest in this important issue. 

Senator UDALL. Ms. Ferris, thank you for that very insightful 

commentary. I look forward to directing a couple questions your 

way when Dr. Waskom concludes his remarks. 

The third member of our panel, a fellow Coloradan, is Dr. 

Reagan Waskom. He’s the Director of the Colorado Water Institute, 

Colorado State University at Fort Collins. 

Doctor, welcome. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF REAGAN WASKOM, DIRECTOR, COLORADO 

WATER INSTITUTE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. WASKOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the record my name is Reagan Waskom. I serve as the Director of the Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State University. 

I’m providing my comments today in my role as the co-chair of the 

Agricultural Conservation Transfers Workgroup of the Basin study. 

These comments are my own and they may or may not reflect 

the comments of my current or my fellow workgroup members. 

So my testimony today will focus on the importance of the Colorado River for sustaining agriculture in the Southwest. 

I’ll talk a little bit about the direction of our workgroup. 

Then the challenges inherent in agricultural water conservation, 

particularly for transfers to other uses. 

So as was already mentioned, the Basin study confirms that 

without further actions we face growing shortages. One of the options that’s been explored in the study and has been mentioned 

today already is the idea of agricultural conservation and transfers. 

Certainly this is not a new idea. We’ve been doing this in the Western U.S. for some time now. Hundreds of thousands of acres of previously irrigated lands have already been dried up in the West, to 

me, growing municipal, industrial and environmental needs. 

This trend of transferring agricultural water has real and far 

reaching implications on our future agricultural productivity and 

the viability of rural communities. 

Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin is driven by irrigation. 

Roughly two million acres irrigated in the Upper Basin and roughly two million in the Lower representing 15 percent of all U.S. crop 

receipts and about 13 percent of all livestock in the United States. 

Much of our winter vegetables as well, I might mention. 

So the Basin study estimates that we may be able to capture a 

million acre feet of water through conservation by the year 2060 to 

fill the gap. This would be done by implementing a number of 

measures specifically advance the irrigation scheduling, to have opposite irrigation, on farm irrigation system improvements, controlled environment agriculture conveyance system efficiencies and 

fallowing of irrigated lands. 

So in order to encourage the adoption of these measures two possible implementation strategies have been considered. 

The first calls for conservation through incentive based programs. So this would be voluntary conservation, increasing water 

use efficiency and thereby reducing agricultural demand. 
46 

The other approach is voluntary agricultural conservation that 

will result in conserved water available for transfer to other uses 

to meet supply demands, if you will. 

So as you’ve heard these basin study workgroups are being set 

up to dig deeper into the details. I’ll be co-chairing the agricultural 

workgroup with Tina Shields, of the Imperial Irrigation District 

and Ken Nowak of the Bureau of Reclamation. Our workgroup intends to develop a report that quantifies agricultural conservation 

and transfer of Colorado River water to date. 

So it’s been done through this mechanism. We want to document 

impacts and tradeoffs that have occurred and then determine any 

future plans for further conservation and transfer activities. 

Then estimate what sort of savings can we really expect to get? 

What could be transferrable? 

Then from that baseline information we want to move forward. 

So I think it’s important that we be aware that agricultural interests are concerned with the future scenarios that have been 

identified in the Basin study. I believe that irrigation districts in 

the Southwest, they appreciate the collaborative effort that’s been 

done to date between Reclamation and the States that has led to 

the completion of this first step. I think a key overall benefit is that 

now all the parties can more or less be on the same technical platform. We’re on the same page. 

However, I do know that many agricultural interests are concerned about virtually every scenario that’s been assessed in the 

Basin study. They all show a loss of irrigated lands as well as those 

concerned about the quantity of agricultural water that realistically 

can be conserved. 

So once our workgroup has a firmer hold on the number that we 

think is realistic through conservation savings, I’m hoping the 

workgroups will spend its time really focusing on the incentives 

and solutions that we need to meet the gap. Some of that will certainly come from improved infrastructure. Some will come through 

involuntary transfer mechanisms such as have been mentioned already. 

I’m pleased that Reclamation and the 7 States are committed to 

continued refinement of the Basin study as part of a long term tool 

for robust planning and implementation. The western irrigated agriculture is really an important component of our food supply. We 

need to think about that. As a society we need to think about the 

tradeoffs that are associated with transfer and water that’s currently being used to produce our food supply. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waskom follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REAGAN WASKOM, DIRECTOR, COLORADO WATER

INSTITUTE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

My name is Reagan Waskom and I serve as the director of the Colorado Water 

Institute at Colorado State University. The Colorado Water Institute is one of the 

54 state water resources research institutes funded through the US Geological Survey and organized under the National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR), the 

organization that collectively represents the state water resources research institutes. Our Institute has been working on agricultural water management and Colorado River issues, among many other pressing water problems, since 1965. Currently, we are deeply engaged in dealing with drought and its associated problems 

such as fire and crop failure in the state of Colorado. For the record, this year I’m 
47 

serving as the president of the National Institute for Water Resources and as the 

president of the Colorado Water Congress, but I am providing comments today solely in my role as a Co-Chair of the Colorado River Water Supply and Demand Basin 

Study Agricultural Conservation and Transfers Workgroup. My testimony will focus 

on the importance of the Colorado River for sustaining agriculture in the Southwest, 

the direction of our workgroup and the many challenges inherent in conserving agricultural water for transfer to other uses. 

IMPORTANCE OF THE COLORADO RIVER TO THE SOUTHWEST USA

The Colorado River is one of the most important resources in the Southwestern 

U.S. and it is a critical water resource for the State of Colorado. The Colorado River 

spans parts of the seven states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming (basin States), and it provides: 1) the municipal water 

supply for more than 30 million people; 2) the irrigation supply for nearly 4 million 

acres of land; and, 3) hydropower to generate more than 4,200 MW. 

Water supply and demand imbalances already exist in some geographic areas in 

the Basin and these imbalances are projected to increase in both magnitude and 

spatial extent in the future. The Colorado River system has storage capacity that 

is greater than 60 million acre-feet, which is approximately four times the average 

inflow (14.9 maf), and this storage has allowed most demands in the lower Colorado 

River Basin to be met, even over periods of sustained drought. In the upper Colorado River Basin shortages exist somewhere in the upper basin in most years, due 

to variability of snowpack and rainfall. However, studies indicate that droughts of 

greater severity have occurred in the far past and climate experts and scientists 

suggest that such droughts are likely to occur in the future. 

NATURE OF COLORADO RIVER BASIN AGRICULTURAL WATER USE

Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin is driven by irrigation, with about two 

million acres of land irrigated in the Upper Basin (including tributaries and 

transbasin lands) and another two million in the Lower Basin, representing about 

15 percent of all crop receipts and 13 percent of all livestock in the U.S. A wide 

variety of crops are grown in the basin, including corn, sorghum, wheat, barley, cotton, peanuts, sugarbeets, soybeans, potatoes, lettuce, onions, chilies, alfalfa hay, 

grass hay, cauliflower, broccoli, carrots, honeydews, cantaloupes, watermelons, 

grapefruit, oranges, lemons, tangerines, grapes, tomatoes, apples, cherries, apricots, 

and peaches. Production of sheep, goat, dairy and beef cattle are large contributors 

to the basin’s agricultural output. 

California has the greatest number of irrigated acres of the seven states, with its 

largest user the Imperial Valley, which irrigates almost 500,000 acres. In Colorado, 

there are approximately 600,000 acres of agricultural lands in the Basin plus another 900,000 acres outside the basin that are partially irrigated with transbasin 

diversions. The San Juan River (the Colorado River’s largest tributary) irrigates 

nearly 100,000 acres in New Mexico. Nevada does not directly use water from the 

Colorado River for agriculture; however, in Utah and Wyoming, the Colorado River 

and its tributaries provide irrigation water for over 500,000 acres. 

Previous research indicates that strong support exists among those who live in 

the western states for keeping land and water in agriculture and limiting water 

transfers that create adverse impacts on rural communities (Western Governors’ Association and Western States Water Council, 2012). Local food and fiber production, 

protecting open space and wildlife habitat, maintaining agricultural jobs and businesses, and preserving western heritage are among the reasons for ensuring there 

are adequate land and water resources for agriculture production. 

The Colorado Water Institute is currently working with the Water Research Institutes from the six basin states to survey and interview farmers and ranchers who 

use Colorado River water to determine their preferences for meeting future water 

shortages. They indicated a strong preference for water conservation and efficiency 

(77 percent); working towards public policy that supports keeping land and water 

in agriculture was ranked second highest at 75 percent. Findings from in-depth telephone interviews we conducted in late 2012 with agricultural water users and managers in all seven states suggest that agricultural irrigation efficiency and conservation are major concerns for farmers and ranchers. Yet significant technical, institutional, legal, economic, and social barriers to conservation are seen to exist across 

the Basin. Some water managers spoke of the technical complexities of efficiency 

and conservation, wherein the type of crop cultivated and irrigation technology employed shape how much water can be produced by conservation. For many farmers, 

conserving agricultural water is perceived as potentially harmful to their interests 

and to their future. Many fear, correctly or not, that under their state’s water law, 
48 

conservation may reduce their water rights and even subject them to legal abandonment. 

BACKGROUND ON THE BASIN STUDY

Recently, the Colorado River Basin States (‘‘Basin States’’) and the Bureau of Reclamation completed the Colorado River Basin Study (‘‘the Basin Study’’), to assess 

future water supply and demand imbalances over the next 50 years and develop and 

evaluate opportunities for resolving imbalances. The study has been under development for nearly three years by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and 

the Basin States, in collaboration with stakeholders throughout the Basin. Reclamation officials have emphasized that this is a planning study; it will not result in any 

decisions, but will provide the technical foundation for future activities. In addition, 

the Study explored various options that could be used to reduce the anticipated supply/demand imbalances. A scenario planning approach was used for this study to examine the full range of possible water supply/water demand projections. The Study, 

a compilation of seven technical reports and two overview documents, is available 

in its entirety at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/ 

index.html. 

The Basin Study’s four different supply scenarios and six different demand scenarios present a broad range of possible imbalances. However, when comparing the 

median of the six demand scenarios combined with the median of four different 

water supply scenarios, a Basin-wide imbalance of approximately 3.2 million acrefeet per year by 2060 is plausible. Moreover, the greatest increases in demand are 

projected to occur in the Lower Basin. The Basin Study also illustrates that because 

of the magnitude and distribution of the imbalances, no single solution will be adequate to meet all future water demand and supply imbalances. 

The Study confirms that without future actions, the Basin faces a range of potential future imbalances between supply and demand. A wide range of future imbalances is plausible and each of those imbalances results in the decline in the performance of Basin resources including water deliveries, hydropower, water quality, 

ecological, and recreational resources. 

The Study also demonstrates the implementation of a broad range of options that 

can reduce Basin resource vulnerability and improve the Colorado River system’s resiliency to low and variable hydrologic conditions. The Study identifies a series of 

next steps that should be taken to begin to discuss what actions should be pursued 

to ensure the sustainability of the system. One of the options that the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the Basin States explored within the Study was pursuing additional agricultural conservation and water transfers. This is not surprising or a new 

concept in the western United States. Many thousands of acres of agricultural lands 

have already been dried up within Colorado and throughout the West to meet growing municipal and industrial demands. This trend of transferring agricultural consumptive uses to growing municipal and industrial uses has real and far-reaching 

implications and effects. In Colorado alone, the trend has prompted policy makers 

to fund studies that explore and potentially provide alternatives to agricultural 

transfers. Tools like interruptible supply agreements, temporary fallowing arrangements, deficit irrigation techniques, water banks, improved infrastructure, and other 

tools are being developed and used throughout Colorado and the other western 

states. 

NEXT STEPS

While the Colorado River Basin Study provides new tools and answers a number 

of critical questions about the future of the Colorado River, it has raised new and 

different questions. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Basin States recognized 

that with the completion of the Colorado River Basin Study, their work was not 

done, but rather it was just beginning. 

The Bureau of Reclamation and the Basin States agree that there are three key 

areas where additional work is immediately necessary: 1) municipal conservation; 

2) agricultural conservation and transfers; and, 3) recreational and environmental 

flows. Thus, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Basin States formed three 

workgroups to tackle specific scopes of work associated with each of these subject 

matters. 

The Basin Study estimated that one million acre-feet of water can be conserved 

from agriculture by the year 2060 to fill the estimated gap that will exist between 

water supply and demand. Agricultural water conservation has been proposed to reduce the overall water demand in areas currently relying upon water supply from 

the Colorado River system. The concepts received were first organized into six agricultural water conservation measures reflecting different types of activities that 
49 

could generate water savings in the agricultural sector. The six agricultural water 

conservation measures consist of: 

• Advanced irrigation scheduling • Deficit irrigation • On-farm irrigation system improvements • Controlled environment agriculture • Conveyance system efficiency improvements • Fallowing of irrigated lands 

In order to encourage adoption of the targeted water conservation measures, two 

possible implementation approaches were considered: (1) Basin-wide agricultural 

water conservation through a federal or state incentive-based program to encourage 

agricultural water use efficiency without specific legal transfer of water or water 

rights, and (2) Basin-wide agricultural water conservation with water transfers between a willing transferor and willing transferee that promotes water conservation 

and/or short-term or permanent fallowing of irrigated lands to transfer conserved 

water to the transferee for a similar or different use. 

The six agricultural water conservation measures have been conceptualized into 

two implementation approaches: 1) incentive-based programs to reduce agricultural 

demands and 2) water transfers to augment supplies. Because the conservation 

measures could produce different amounts of savings depending on the location in 

the Basin, implementation approach, and combination of conservation measures, the 

total quantities were estimated as an aggregate for each implementation approach 

rather than a summation of individual conservation measures. Up to 1 million acre 

feet of potential savings by 2060 was considered for both approaches combined with 

potential of roughly 500,000 acre feet under each approach category. By comparison, 

the summation of potential water savings for each conservation measure totals 2.44 

million acre feet per year when accounting for non-consumptive use savings outside 

the Basin and ignoring return flow impacts, and is reduced to 833,000 acre feet per 

year when only consumptive use savings are considered under each approach category. 

AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION AND TRANSFERS WORKGROUP

The ‘‘post-Basin Study’’ workgroups are being set up to dig deeper into the details. 

A ‘‘coordinating committee’’ will oversee and coordinate the activities of these three 

work groups. The result will be a draft report that is scheduled to be released later 

this year. 

I will be co-chairing the Agriculture Conservation and Transfers Workgroup, 

along with the Bureau of Reclamation’s Ken Nowak and Tina Shields, of the Imperial Irrigation District. 

The Agricultural Conservation and Water Transfers Workgroup is intending to 

collect information and prepare a report that: quantifies agricultural conservation 

and transfers of Colorado River water (both in and outside of the Basin) that have 

occurred to date, documents programs that have been successful to date, documents 

impacts and tradeoffs, lists any existing future plans for these types of activities, 

and estimates what potential savings could come from these existing plans. From 

this baseline information, this workgroup will also propose Phase 2 activities to be 

conducted in 2014 to the Coordination Team. 

Members of the Workgroup include: 

Co-Chairs 

Ken Nowak, Reclamation 

Tina Shields, Imperial Irrigation District 

Reagan Waskom, Colorado State University 

Members 

Doug Bonamici, Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Astor Boozer, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Grant Buma, Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Aaron Citron, Environmental Defense Fund 

Chuck Cullom, Central Arizona Project 

Aaron Derwingson, The Nature Conservancy 

Anisa Divine, Imperial Irrigation District 

Eslton Grubaugh, Welton-Mohawk Irrigation District 

Jeff Johnson, Southern Nevada Water Authority 

Mark Johnson, Coachella Valley Water District 

Janine Jones, California Department of Water Resources 

Dave Kanzer, Colorado River District 

Dan Keppen, Family Farm Alliance 
50 

Randy Kirkpatrick, San Juan Water Commission 

Eric Klotz, Utah Division of Water Resources 

John Longworth, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 

Jan Matusak, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

Lee Miller, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 

Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission 

Pat O’Toole, Family Farm Alliance 

Halla Razak, San Diego County Water Authority 

Russ Schnitzer, Trout Unlimited 

John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

Ed Smith, Palo Verde Irrigation District 

TBD, Western Governors’ Association/Western States Water Council 

Tanya Trujillo, Colorado River Board of California 

Warren Turkett, Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

Grant Ward, Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District 

Erin Wilson, Colorado Water Users 

Brad Wind, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 

Ed Yava, Colorado River Indian Tribes 

CONCERNS OF BASIN AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS

Agricultural interests throughout the Basin, from headwater areas in my state to 

the fruit and vegetable producers in the Imperial Valley and Yuma, are concerned 

with the future scenaros identified in the Basin Supply. I believe that Basin irrigation districts appreciate Reclamation and the Basin states for their collaborative effort that led to the completion of this important study. A key overall benefit of this 

study is that, from now on, all Colorado Basin parties can work from the same technical foundation. However, I also know that many agricultural interests are concerned that virtually every scenario assessed by the Basin Study shows a loss of 

Colorado River Basin irrigated acreage by the year 2060. 

The Basin Study assumes that irrigated acreage in the Colorado River Basin will 

decrease by 300,000 to 900,000 acres during the time period 2015 to 2060. Policy 

makers and Colorado River stakeholders must understand the critical implications 

of taking existing irrigated agriculture out of production. We are already behind the 

curve when it comes to meeting the future food needs of the world. Every single acre 

of land that is taken out of production reduces our capacity to meet that demand. 

Irrigated agriculture is one of the largest economic engines in the Western U.S., 

according to the 2012 Family Farm Alliance report, ‘‘The Economic Importance of 

Western Irrigated Agriculture’’. For a region that spans the 17 Western states, the 

total household income impacts derived from the ‘‘Irrigated Agriculture Industry’’, 

made up of direct irrigated crop production, agricultural services, and the food processing and packaging sectors, is estimated to be about $128 billion annually. 

There are concerns about how the quantity of agricultural water that can be conserved was developed in the Basin Study. Once we have a firmer hold on that number, I’m hoping we can spend our time focusing on incentives and solutions to actually fill the gap. Some of that will certainly come from improvements and expansions in infrastructure and some will come from temporary, voluntary transfer 

methods like the water bank concept included in the Study. 

We need to ensure that in-basin agriculture has the tools to remain resilient and 

profitable in the face of reduced supplies and increased pressure from cities to buy 

up agricultural land and water. Those tools can be directed to provide healthy flows 

benefits without permanently taking land out of production. Diversion and infrastructure improvements that can improve flows without drying up land are a good 

example. Healthy irrigated agriculture in the Basin provides value for water in 

place and gives environmental interests a partner to work with on conservation 

projects. 

PAST HISTORY CAN PREDICT FUTURE ACTIONS

Several of the entities who are represented on the Ag Workgroup participated in 

the Colorado River Ag/Urban/Enviro Water Sharing forum a few years ago. Water 

used for agriculture in the Colorado River Basin and the western United States is 

increasingly seen as a potential supply for growing urban and environmental needs. 

In 2008, the Western Governors’ Association, working through their water arm, the 

Western States Water Council (WSWC), issued Water Needs and Strategies for a 

Sustainable Future: Next Steps. One of the next steps identified in the report was 

that‘‘...states, working with interested stakeholders, should identify innovative ways 

to allow water transfers from agriculture to urban use while avoiding or mitigating 

damages to agricultural economies and environmental values.’’ In direct and inde-
51 

pendent response to the WGA’s call to action, a diverse Water Sharing Work Group 

of highly knowledgeable and influential water leaders representing the sectors of agriculture, urban interests, and the environment, set aside parochial positions to collaboratively take on the governors’ challenge. 

One of the first issues the group resolved focused on the very nature of water 

transfers. Some in the group did not want to participate in any process that would 

somehow encourage additional water to be transferred out of agriculture. An essential first step in building the collaborative process was to come to the decision that 

the group would focus on ways to improve sharing of water between multiple sectors, and would not seek to find more ways to unilaterally transfer water out of agriculture. 

This group also recognized that there was a need for additional dialogue on the 

role of storage. Faced with mounting demands to provide water for urban growth 

and other beneficial uses, including agriculture, some members of the group identify 

themselves as pro-storage. Others remain leery of the potential adverse impacts and 

costs associated with some storage projects. However, the group generally accepted 

the concept that there may be benefits to properly sized and located storage in certain circumstances, especially when such projects are part of a larger, multiple-benefit strategy. The group also generally agreed that when projects have the support 

of multiple entities, including agriculture, environmental, and urban players, the 

regulatory process for approval of such projects should be better integrated, more 

conducive to moving forward, and less embroiled in redundant action by multiple 

agencies. 

I helped facilitate the Ag/Urban/Enviro effort, and based on that experience, I 

think I have a good sense of the issues that we will tackle in the Workgroup I will 

be co-chairing. Colorado Basin agricultural interest will advocate that States and 

local governments consider the impacts of continued growth that relies on water 

transfers from agriculture and rural areas and to identify feasible alternatives to 

those transfers. Also, I’m certain the topic of aging infrastructure will come up. 

Aging Federal water infrastructure in the West must be addressed, as failure to reinvest in critical facilities will negate economic gains of past generations and create 

a failed legacy for future generations. It is imperative that we find creative ways 

to provide for the operation, maintenance, and modernization of existing water supply infrastructure. And, Colorado River Basin farmers and ranchers have long advocated for new water and power supplies, which they see as necessary to satisfy recreational and environmental needs, allow for population growth, and protect the economic vitality of the West. They would like the federal government to adopt a policy 

of supporting new efforts to enhance water supplies and management flexibility, 

while encouraging state and local interests to take the lead in the formulation of 

those efforts. 

Irrigated crop production has a long history of innovation and adapting to changing conditions. New technologies and more efficient use of water are constantly 

being developed and voluntarily implemented throughout the irrigation belt of the 

West. The recent drought has certainly accelerated new technology and these advances in irrigated agriculture are most often first introduced to producers through 

the USDA Farm Bill programs. EQIP and the other programs target proven conservation practices and provide technical and financial assistance to farmers and 

ranchers as they continue to voluntarily reduce water use and improve irrigation 

efficiencies. Farmers need conservation programs such as EQIP and the CREP to 

assist, not subsidize, them as they face extremely difficult water conservation challenges caused by both drought and growth. 

CONCLUSION

I am pleased that Reclamation and the Basin States are committed to the continued refinement of scenario planning as part of a robust long-term planning framework for the Basin. Policy makers and elected officials must clearly understand the 

importance of Western irrigated agriculture and the implications associated with 

transferring the water currently producing food in the Colorado River Basin and 

elsewhere. 

At the appropriate time, federal authorizations or appropriations may be recommended or suggested as a result of the deliberations by the Workgroups and the 

States. We look forward to working with the Congress as we address these future 

challenges. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony to you. 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Waskom, thank you. 
52 

Let me recognize myself for 5 minutes to direct some questions 

to the panel. We’ve been joined by my colleague and friend, Senator 

Flake from Arizona. When I’ve completed my 5 minutes, I’ll recognize him for questions he may have. 

Dr. Waskom, in your testimony you suggested it may be possible 

and encourage more conservation on Ag lands. Can you give us 

some examples of how the industry can work with less water, but 

still maintain the productivity required to feed our country? Can 

you explain in a second section how the Farm Bill programs like 

EQIP and CSP are helping conservation efforts in Ag? 

Mr. WASKOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

That’s a very important question. So we know that we can conserve water in agriculture. You state that well. The question is can 

we do that and still maintain productivity, right? That is the difficult question as well as can we do that, maintain productivity and 

transfer water to other uses. That’s where the complexity and the 

tradeoffs really fall in. 

So yes, there’s mechanisms. We can do that by fallowing marginal lands, by upgrading our infrastructure, by improving diversions, canal structures on farm irrigation. There’s a number of tools 

in the bag of tricks. 

But what we have to keep in mind is that irrigation is a risk 

minimization strategy, right? We use that water to produce food 

with. When we get tighter and tighter on the amount of water that 

we have to use, the greater the risk that producers face. 

Relative to farm programs I think EQIP, the Ag Water Enhancement Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program. All of those 

have been very important in incentivizing producers, helping them 

with assistance to get some of these practices on the ground, so 

through both technical assistance as well as financial assistance. 

Senator UDALL. Let me turn to Ms. Hawes. 

You highlighted the Basin’s, I think $26 billion is the number 

you used, recreational economy. That’s generated by 5 million adult 

visitors, 2,034 thousand jobs are supported. 

Can you provide some insight on the ecological and recreational 

areas that are most at risk in the River Basin? I’m sure you have 

some sense of what the potential economic impacts might be given 

various thresholds of effects. 

Ms. HAWES. Certainly. 

A lot of the impacts are very local in nature. So there are endangered species, threatened species throughout the Basin on smaller 

tributaries like the Delores, the San Pedro. They’re certainly impacts all throughout. 

There’s booming recreational economies throughout the Basin. In 

your home State lots of places like Aspen, Vail that depend on a 

healthy river system for their economy and for their tourism. 

So there are some places in the Basin that we want to focus on 

first, what we consider Integrator Rivers. If you can protect those 

rivers they have a bigger bang for their buck, so to speak. Some 

of those might be places like up the Green River, the San Juan 

River, the Upper Colorado, the Yampa. 

Some of those Upper Basin tributaries really impact the whole 

system and provide recreational opportunities all the way down. 

We owe that water down to Lake Powell anyway. So we’re just try-
53 

ing to figure out ways to see how we might enhance those resources as they go down to Lake Powell. 

In terms of some of the impacts I think there’s quite a few. 

First there’s the impact to businesses that rely on the river 

whether that’s rafting companies, angling, you know, fishing 

guides, wineries. In Grand Junction there’s lots of different businesses that rely on the river. There’s also communities along the 

river that rely on helping a healthy river for their tourism, as I 

mentioned. 

There’s also a recent study out. That just came out yesterday 

about real estate values and how they’re linked to having a healthy 

river. So I think we’ll see things like as rivers, I think the study 

said and I have not had a chance to look at it yet, that the headline 

was, ‘‘As Flows Drop How Does That Affect our Real Estate Values?’’ The idea is that it’s a negative one. People like to live along 

a healthy river. 

Also there’s an avoidance cost I think when it comes to endangered and threatened species. It costs a lot of money to recover a 

species. It’s much easier to find proactive ways to protect a species 

before they’re threatened. 

So there are some species that are on the edge. Our goal would 

be to make sure that those species don’t fall off the edge. That has 

benefits for all of us because if you have an Endangered Species 

Act compliance program that reduces the flexibility of water users. 

So we want to make sure we’re not creating that situation. But 

that means having a healthy river system. 

Then last I would mention hydropower. That’s a flow benefit in 

many parts of the Basin. That’s a big driver. In fact I met the head 

of the Regional WAPA, Western Area Power, person on the plane 

yesterday who was coming out here to talk to folks about flows and 

how they’re concerned about Lake Powell and Lake Mead. 

So I think there’s a lot of different things that we don’t necessarily think about when we think about healthy flows. But 

they’re all connected in having a healthy river system. 

Senator UDALL. Let me recognize Senator Flake. I know he has 

a fellow Arizonan here. Ms. Ferris I also think my family had some 

involvement in the good work you all have done in Arizona. 

Ms. FERRIS. Yes, indeed, Senator Udall. I was thinking about my 

last visit here was 30 years ago when I was coming here to save 

the CAP by passing a ground water code. I had the great privilege 

of meeting your Dad at that time. It was terrific. 

Senator UDALL. He had a long history with the CAP. I know Senator Flake’s family does as well. 

Ms. FERRIS. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. I think I said earlier, Senator Flake, that it was 

said in the West that the Lees and Udalls are everywhere and 

we’re related. But the Flakes are everywhere as well. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. It’s great to have—— 

Senator FLAKE. I was watching in my office and I was quite offended I was left out there. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. I appreciate that. 
54 

Senator UDALL. What was yours? 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Ms. Ferris, you have obviously a long history and have done so 

much good work in the State Ground Water Act. What? Thirtythree years ago now? 

Ms. FERRIS. Yes. 

Senator FLAKE. It has stood the test of time and then some. I can 

tell you people who fly into Sky Harbor and look around and see 

the amount of development that has happened. They all ask the 

same thing. How are you able to do it in a desert like this? 

It was because of a lot of foresight and a lot of actions taken 

early on and sticking to the plan. I commend you for the good work 

early on and for all the good work since. 

Ms. FERRIS. Thank you. 

Senator FLAKE. You mentioned in your testimony and I’m sorry, 

I listened to part of it and had to run over here. That you don’t 

believe that conservation will be able to make up for the deficiencies in the future. It’s going to take augmentation. Do you want 

to elaborate on that and in what way, what kind of augmentation 

are you talking about? 

Ms. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Flake, yes, I do believe that 

we need a comprehensive approach. As I said in my testimony conservation and reuse are essential. But we have to expand our 

thinking and look at what other possibilities are out there. 

I know that in Arizona we look locally first and then we try to 

look regionally at what we can accomplish regionally. I think that’s 

what we’re going to have to do in this situation as well. I’m not 

sure we can find a silver bullet to the whole problem. We’re going 

to find regional and local approaches. 

But one of the things that’s been discussed is desalinization. 

There is an option to look at desalinization along Southern California and in the Gulf of Mexico and use that water to meet Southern California’s demands in a trade for using some other Colorado 

River elsewhere. 

So and that got pretty high remarks, I think, in the study in 

terms of economic viability. There’s a lot of permitting required. I 

know that. 

But we also have the Yuma desalter in Yuma that has been 

mothballed for a long time. We know there was a trial program. 

We’ve got to explore them. We’ve got to explore all of them. 

Senator FLAKE. With regard to where direction ought to come 

from, like I said, I think all of us praise what has been in Arizona. 

A lot of forethought went into it. 

What role do you see for Congress to take place? It looks as if 

local expertise is where it’s at here. But what to you see as a role 

for Congress moving ahead? 

Ms. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Flake, I think that we need 

to complete the next steps of this study and try to sort out if there 

is a role to played at the Federal level. I think first though it’s really up to the States working with Reclamation to try to develop solutions that everyone can agree upon and that we can then, if we 

need Federal or congressional help then we come forward with the 

ask. 
55 

But I’m not sure we’re there yet. I know that it’s going to take 

a lot of work at the Basin level, with the States, working together 

with Reclamation to really figure out those solutions. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. That’s certainly what I prefer because I’ve seen the good work locally. If we’re a last resort and obviously there are functions that Congress needs to perform here. 

But to the extent that can be done locally that’s certainly the 

preference. 

Mr. Waskom, Ms. Hawes, do you want to talk about how these 

proposed solutions being talked about will be crafted in a way to 

protect some traditional agriculture. I know there’s always concern 

in some of the agricultural communities that plans and moving 

ahead, in terms of water resources, will somehow leave them out. 

What can we do to make sure that doesn’t happen? 

Ms. HAWES. You go first. 

Mr. WASKOM. Thank you, Senator. 

My response to that would be part of what we’re doing with the 

workgroups is really engaging a broad base of stakeholders from 

the top to the bottom of the Basin, agricultural stakeholders, folks 

that manage water on a day to day basis. 

I think really to answer your question we need to work closely 

with the irrigation districts in the Basin. They manage the water. 

They will know what the degrees of freedom are to move water 

around and where we can conserve and perhaps where we can augment it for the sake of agriculture as well. 

So that would be my response. 

Senator FLAKE. OK. 

Ms. Hawes. 

Ms. HAWES. Yes, thank you, Senator. 

In the State of Colorado we’re looking at water banking in the 

State of Colorado as a mechanism to deal with compact compliance. 

But I think it has broader ramifications and the way that we’re 

working with irrigators and cities and Reclamation and the tribes. 

We’ve hired an Agricultural Outreach Coordinator just to be talking to agriculture because without agriculture there is no solution. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. 

Ms. HAWES. It has to be voluntary. It has to be something that 

works for them. When we talk about the water bank in Colorado 

our first line is if you’re not on board this can’t go forward. 

So we’re really spending a lot of time exploring what their local 

concerns are. What, you know, there’s economic issues. There are 

environmental issues within their own property sometimes. 

It has to work for them economically. I think we’re spending 

some time trying to understand the technical issues that they are 

facing through fallowing and deficit irrigation and crop rotation. All 

those things have to be explored and we have to make sure their 

concerns are addressed. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Ms. Ferris, do you have anything to add to that or I know you’re 

limited in time for your opening statement. Is there anything else 

that you’d like to cover? 

Ms. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Flake, you know it’s always 

a balance. That’s how it feels to me. After all these years I’ve spent 
56 

on this issue you really have to have collaboration among all the 

affected parties or nothing works. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. 

Ms. FERRIS. So I’m a really big believer in that. I’m a really big 

believer in bringing everybody to the table and trying to forge the 

necessary solutions. 

Senator FLAKE. It is a tough balance. Property use and protecting property owners and conservation and supply, everything, 

it’s a tough balancing act and manage to do it pretty well in Arizona. Thanks for all of your hard work here. 

So, thank you. 

Ms. FERRIS. Welcome. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

I, too, want to acknowledge the visionary work you’ve done in Arizona. I think many other States have taken a look at what you’ve 

accomplished and said, ‘‘what can we apply in our State?’’ 

I know you work closely with most of the time, Ms. Mulroy, up 

in Las Vegas. 

Ms. FERRIS. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Flake, I’m inclined to think if we turn 

Ms. Ferris and Ms. Mulroy loose they might figure this all out for 

all of us. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. FERRIS. Just put us in a room together we’ll do fine. 

Senator UDALL. But anyway, I wanted to follow up a little bit on 

what Senator Flake was discussing with you about some of the successes you’ve had. 

Your working group, I think, is examining reuse as one of the future supply options. How do you take that into account as you examine the impact of enhanced reuse on downstream water users, 

most notably agriculture? 

Ms. FERRIS. Senator Udall, really good question. It’s really why 

we have these workgroups, I think, because if you read the study, 

especially on the reuse part it’s pretty thin. There are some assumptions made that we can achieve 930 thousand acre feet of savings through reuse, but it’s very global. It acknowledges that we 

have to dig deeper. 

So that’s really what the workgroup will do. 

I think again, we have to look regionally and locally because laws 

vary, as you know, from State to State. So in Arizona, for example, 

cities that treat waste water, that waste water becomes theirs. 

They can contract for it. 

That’s part of the reason we’ve been so successful in reusing 

waste water in Arizona. Because we’ve been able to sign contracts 

with power plants and use the water for riparian areas and use it 

for industrial purposes. 

The laws in other States are very different. So obviously you’ve 

got to protect property rights as we go along. So we’re just going 

to have to dig deeper into what is the existing law and the existing 

structures in different areas and really determine what we can 

really get from reuse and how we can do it in a way that doesn’t 

impact vested water rights. 

Senator UDALL. I look forward to hearing more about that. 
57 

We’re beginning to do more of this in Colorado. You’re probably 

familiar with the city of Aurora, the second largest city. They’ve 

just opened a significantly sized reuse plant. Prairie Waters, I believe, is the name of the plant. It’s raised some of those legal questions you just surfaced as well. 

But it’s where we have to go as one of the solutions. 

In the end, though, augmentation is going to be important as 

how you augment and the effects that Ms. Hawes touched on. 

I want to turn to you, Ms. Hawes, for the last question before we 

conclude the hearing. 

Can you share some examples of a situation where multiple 

needs have been balanced between municipal, power, recreational, 

environmental and Ag users? If you could, include any of the key 

factors that resulted in those successes? 

I’m assuming you have a few or I wouldn’t ask that question. 

Ms. HAWES. Thank you, chairman. 

As I described in my testimony we have some great examples. I 

think that’s what gives me such hope. I’m definitely an optimist, 

as well, but if we didn’t have so many great examples I think it 

would be harder to make the case. 

There’s an example in Northwest Colorado where through the 

Upper Basin Recovery program which as we heard earlier is such 

a model for success. 

We enlarged a small reservoir so it was an existing reservoir. It 

didn’t have to go through huge permitting hoops. But they raised 

the level of the reservoir to get another, to achieve an increased 

yield of about 15,000 acre feet of water. 

They then divided that in thirds. 

One third for the fish, for the endangered fish. 

One third for a local power plant. 

One third for local communities and agricultural interests available by contract. 

So I think that’s one example, kind of a local one, but where 

again the key factor was political will. Everybody recognized that 

it was necessary. We needed better base flows in the region. All the 

parties came together. They did the financing was easy and the 

permitting was a breeze by today’s standards. 

So once you have all those parties in agreement it makes it a lot 

easier to, kind of, push the project forward and meet all those multiple purposes. 

Another recent example is the bi-national agreement, Minute 

319. My point I’d like to make is if we can do that with Mexico, 

we can do that with recreational interests and environmental interest around the Basin. So in that example there was multiple benefits being met. 

It was tourism in Mexico. It was environmental flows and restoration for migratory bird habitat in Mexico. There was shortage 

sharing between the two countries as well as surplus sharing if 

we’re ever so lucky to have that day again. 

There was also investment from the cities in the U.S., in Mexico’s infrastructure and then they got real water in exchange in 

Lower Basin cities. So I think that’s another great example. 

In my testimony I also describe an example in the San Pedro 

River in Arizona where ground water levels were dropping. It was 
58 

affecting the river, but it was also affecting the community. So 

through good science and a lot of time spinning out, figuring out 

exactly what was the problem. 

They were able to identify key recharge locations that could be 

used. It can use effluence and storm water to recharge in these key 

locations, recharge the ground water which not only benefits the 

communities, but it also benefits the river. We’ve been able to track 

that progress along the way. 

So I think there are great examples out there. I could go on, but 

I think that we can see all around the Basin that there are good 

examples of us finding ways to meet all these multiple purposes. 

The key factor, in my opinion, is political will. 

Senator UDALL. Political will. 

That’s very helpful. You all have provided some fascinating, crucial testimony. It may not be as fascinating to people who live east 

of the 100th meridian, but it’s very fascinating to us who live beyond the 100th meridian, which, of course, was the title of a wellknown book that talked about the original belief on the part of the 

settlers. The Native people were a little wiser than the settlers 

were. But the rain follows the plow. 

We’re now looking for a new construct in the 21st century that 

combines your optimism with the realism that this study lays in 

front of us. I’m confident we can, through technology and ultimately through political will, get to where we need to be. The very 

way of life we all love in the Southwest depends on it. 

So thank you again for your important testimony. We will keep 

the record open for two more weeks to receive any additional comments. Some of the committee members may want to submit additional questions in writing, and I know you all will be happy to 

submit answers for the record. 

I also want to thank the first panel which was an important part 

of this hearing as well. 

With that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(59) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF MIKE CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR UDALL

Question 1. As climate change could have a major impact on the amount of water 

available in the Colorado River Basin, how can states, tribes, and local entities prepare for and adapt to such conditions? 

Answer. While climate models do not definitively agree upon the net impact climate change may have on Colorado River flow, annual (natural) historical data of 

the past 20 years averages nine percent below the long-term mean (1906-2013). Further, considering the past 14 years, annual average flow has decreased by twice that 

amount (down to 82 percent of long-term mean). Recent measured flow reductions, 

coupled with a considerable number of climate models projecting further reductions 

in flow, suggest that it is prudent and essential to plan for future decreases in water 

supply. 

As we continue to encounter significant drought conditions, the communities that 

rely on the river to sustain them are being forced to make tough choices. It is likely 

that climate change and its emerging challenges will have major consequences on 

the Colorado River system. There is no silver bullet to solve these challenges. Fortunately, the level of cooperation among key stakeholders has never been higher and 

as a result, there is reason for optimism, even in the midst of the daunting challenges that exist in this Basin. The Department will continue to be a partner in assisting the Colorado River Basin to prepare for, and successfully address, the significant issues identified in the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Supply 

and Demand Study (Study). The Study, along with the wide array of adaptation and 

mitigation strategies proposed by stakeholders and the public, is an important step 

towards facilitating much needed collaboration amongst States, tribes, local entities 

and stakeholders in order to identify and move forward with practical solutions. 

Question 2. Can you describe the role of the National Park Service with respect 

to the Basin Study? What, if any, will their role be in quantifying recreational and 

environmental flows in National Parks? 

Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) played a role in the Study through its 

involvement in the collaborative development of the Study’s system reliability 

metrics for ecological and recreational resources. These metrics were the measure 

of how well the Colorado River system may perform in the future under different 

water supply and demand scenarios, with and without the implementation of options to help resolve future imbalances. 

The NPS will continue to be a key partner in the Study’s next steps process. This 

continuing effort will require innovative thinking, integration of many viewpoints 

and a commitment to work in a positive and collaborative spirit. 

The first part of this process builds on critical investigations identified in the 

Study as next steps and consists of the formation of a Coordination Team and three 

multi-stakeholder workgroups representing Federal, State, Tribal, agricultural, municipal, hydropower, environmental, and recreational interests. These workgroups 

will investigate: 1) Municipal and Industrial Conservation and Water Reuse, 2) Agricultural Conservation and Water Transfers, and 3) Environmental and Recreational Flows. 

NPS representatives are members of the Coordination Team as well as the Environmental and Recreational Flows workgroup. The Environmental and Recreational 

Flows Workgroup has recently begun the process of preparing its work plan outlining near-term activities. The NPS Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Di-
60 

rectorate includes technical experts in water resource management and climate 

change who will continue to support efforts to examine water supply, utilization, 

and ecological needs within the basin. 

Question 3. As you examined the Basin Study’s findings and the Bureau’s storage 

infrastructure, how can existing infrastructure be better utilized? Please quantify 

the cost of these improvements, as well as the potential effect on regional supply 

or demand in the Basin. 

Answer. Several ideas were received from the public related to the modification 

of current reservoir operations and construction of new storage. These options were 

not addressed quantitatively in the Study due to their complex legal and technical 

nature and their respective costs. 

Reclamation recognizes that modified reservoir operations and infrastructure have 

been and will continue to be important tools used to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of future imbalances. These tools have been used in the past, which continue 

to provide benefits through the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Shortage, Surplus, and 

Coordinated Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Brock Reservoir, completed 

in 2010, was collaboratively constructed by Reclamation and stakeholders in the 

Lower Basin States to respond more effectively to changing weather and river conditions, and conserve water. 

Question 4. Are there ways the Bureau can help promote more effective and costefficient water use in coordination with its project beneficiaries? 

Answer. Reclamation has made substantial progress in addressing Colorado River 

water management over the past several years, including the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Shortage, Surplus, and Coordinated Operations of Lake Mead and Lake 

Powell, the 2010 signing of Minute 318 and the 2012 signing of Minute 319 to the 

1944 treaty with Mexico, the High Flow Experimental Protocol and Non-Native Fish 

Control programs adopted in 2010 at Glen Canyon Dam, and the WaterSMART 

(Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) initiative focused on prudent water management and new technologies to address upcoming gaps in supply 

and demand. 

Through WaterSMART, Interior agencies work with state and local water managers to plan for climate change, drought and other threats to water supplies and 

consider their potentially interrelated effects, taking action to secure water resources for communities, economies, and the ecosystems they support. In July 2013, 

Reclamation announced $8.2 million in WaterSMART funding for projects to assist 

the Colorado River Basin by augmenting water supplies, conserving and reusing existing water supplies and planning for the future of the Basin. Interior awarded $2.8 

million in Water and Energy Efficiency Grants for seven projects, $1.8 million for 

one Basin Study and one plan of study and $3.6 million for water reclamation and 

reuse projects in Albuquerque, NM and Long Beach, CA. 

Question 5. Do you anticipate that further studies will show that the location of 

water demands will not always correlate well with the location of potential supplies, 

resulting in a need for additional transport infrastructure? 

Answer. The system reliability analysis conducted as part of the Study indicates 

that Basin resources (water deliveries, hydropower production, and ecological and 

recreational resources) in locations throughout the Basin are vulnerable on some 

level to future supply and demand imbalances. However, the nature, timing, and 

magnitude of the future vulnerability are complex and dependent on a number of 

factors including the resource need and its location. 

Although the Colorado River system is one of the most complex networks of water 

conveyance in the world, many other situations exist where the location of supply 

does not correlate with the location of demand. In some cases, existing stream and 

river channels or infrastructure can be used to achieve the necessary conveyance of 

water. Many of the augmentation-type options to resolve future supply/demand imbalances considered in the Study require additional transport infrastructure. The 

Study’s portfolio analysis demonstrated that many resource vulnerabilities can be 

decreased considerably with a wide-range of solutions in place. The Study does not 

result in a decision as to how future imbalances should or will be addressed, and 

Reclamation has not taken a position on the merits of any of these actions or whether it may ultimately support pursuing any individual actions. 

Question 6. The Basin Study identified a greater-than-zero chance of a Colorado 

River Compact ‘‘call.’’ Would Reclamation be prepared to participate in such an administrative effort within the confines of the Colorado River Compact? How would 

you see Reclamation’s role in such an event? Does Reclamation believe the Basin 

States are appropriately prepared? 

Answer. The Colorado River Compact is the foundation of the Law of the Colorado 

River as well as a key element of applicable federal law that establishes the framework for Reclamation’s Colorado River operations. The Compact establishes rights 
61 

and obligations between the States of the Upper Division and the States of the 

Lower Division. It has long been recognized that in certain circumstances a ‘‘Compact call’’ could be invoked by one or more of the affected states. Working closely 

with the Department of the Interior, the seven Colorado River Basin States—as a 

group—have been aggressively engaged and successful in dealing with emerging 

challenges on the Colorado River in a cooperative and consensus-based fashion, particularly over the past 15 years. This effort has resulted in adoption of numerous 

proactive measures designed to reduce the likelihood of disruptive events, including 

circumstances such as a Compact call. Reclamation will continue to work to ensure 

that accurate and objective information is available for decision makers and stakeholders, and Reclamation will continue to work to facilitate cooperative solutions 

that can meet the challenges ahead, including those identified by the Study. 

RESPONSES OF MIKE CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. The study (page ES-20) noted that not all stakeholders were in agreement with the results. Please elaborate on this statement. What results were stakeholders not in agreement with? Which recommendations were the most controversial 

among stakeholders? 

Answer. As noted on page ES-20, not all stakeholders in the Study were in agreement with the option characterization results. The Study explored a broad range of 

options to help address future water supply and demand imbalances. Between November 2011 and February 2012, more than 150 ideas were received from stakeholders and interested parties to be included in the Study. A group of representative 

options, designed to represent the submitted ideas, were then ‘‘characterized’’ 

against a set of 17 criteria (e.g. cost, timing, technical feasibility, energy needs, etc.). 

These criteria were used to describe the options, provide a relative comparison of 

their attributes, and support the development of portfolios or groupings of options. 

Although the characterization process strove for objectivity and consistency, there 

were limitations including geographic challenges due to the Basin’s large size and 

regional variety, the appraisal level of the analysis, potential subjectivity during the 

characterization process, and significant uncertainty due to limited data. It was recognized by all stakeholders that future efforts will result in a more in-depth assessment of the criteria, opportunities for additional research and development, and the 

improvement of available data. 

Question 2. The Colorado River Supply and Demand Study indicated (page ES21) that in early 2013 Reclamation would consult and work with tribes regarding 

tribal water rights issues reflected in the report. What consultation with tribes has 

occurred and what is planned for the next few years? 

Answer. On May 28, 2013, in San Diego, Assistant Secretary for Water and 

Science Anne Castle and Commissioner Mike Connor joined dozens of stakeholders 

for a public event outlining a path of next steps for the Basin based on the findings 

of the Study. Darryl Vigil, Chairman of the Ten Tribes Partnership, provided an essential contribution to the event by presenting the tribal perspective on Basin 

needs. The next steps have included the formation of a Coordination Team and 

workgroups that will focus on the critical investigations identified in the Study. 

There are two Ten Tribes Partnership representatives on the Coordination Team as 

well as tribal representatives on the workgroups. 

In addition, Reclamation is committed to its ongoing support of Tribal Nations. 

For example, jointly with the Ten Tribes Partnership, Reclamation will conduct a 

study related to tribal water use. Reclamation is currently discussing the objectives 

and scope of this study with the Partnership. Additionally, Reclamation is engaged 

in discussions with the Intertribal Council of Arizona to better understand their 

issues raised during the Study related to tribal water and is committed to continuing to seek resolution on these issues. 

Question 3. What is Reclamation or Department of the Interior doing to bring in 

other federal agencies and programs during the identification of next steps for the 

Colorado River basin? Are U.S. Department of Agriculture programs (e.g., EQIP) 

that affect how water is used, drought resiliency, and agricultural water demands 

integrated into the next step efforts in the basin? Similarly, are U.S. EPA programs 

related to municipal water investments and water efficiency being evaluated for 

their potential contribution? 

Answer. A process has begun which moves beyond the Study to address projected 

water supply and demand imbalances in the Basin. This continuing effort will require innovative thinking, integration of many viewpoints and a commitment to 

work in a positive and collaborative spirit. 

The first part of this process builds on the critical next investigations identified 

in the Study and consists of the formation of three multi-stakeholder workgroups 
62 

representing Federal, State, Tribal, agricultural, municipal, hydropower, environmental, and recreational interests. These workgroups will investigate: 1) Municipal 

and Industrial Conservation and Water Reuse, 2) Agricultural Conservation and 

Water Transfers, and 3) Environmental and Recreational Flows. 

Federal members on these teams represent a broad spectrum of federal agencies: 

Department of the Interior (Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Geological 

Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and Department of Agriculture (Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service) agencies. 

Near-term activities include documenting the success of municipal and agricultural conservation programs, estimating the amount of additional water saving each 

program may achieve by 2060, and compiling a listing of best practices. Savings occurring from USDA and/or EPA programs will be addressed through this task. 

Question 4. No cross-cut budget for federal activities in the Colorado River basin 

affecting water demands and supply is publically available. Cross-cut budgets for a 

wide variety of federal agencies are regularly produced for the Florida Everglades 

restoration, California Bay Delta restoration, and the Great Lakes. Would there be 

value for producing a similar budget for the Colorado River water supply and demand in order to better understand the current federal role? 

Answer. Reclamation already closely coordinates with a number of federal agencies on Colorado River operations, planning, and ecosystems. These include the National Weather Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, and several agencies within the Department of the Interior including 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Park Service. 

Question 5. Among individual ‘‘representative’’ options included in each of the 

portfolios, how does current spending in the basin compare with the estimated 

range of costs for these actions in the recommended portfolios? (i.e., What would be 

the required increase in investment in individual areas?) For example, how much 

is currently spent per year on desalination compared to the recommended investment in portfolios A and B? How much is spent on weather modification, which is 

recommended in all portfolios? 

Answer. The Study considered four portfolios, each different in options, potential 

yield and associated costs. For a given portfolio, the actual investment was variable, 

depending on the demand and supply scenarios. This variability, coupled with uncertainty regarding current spending on option-type programs makes determining 

the ‘‘suggested additional investment’’ challenging. Ultimately, Basin-wide investment ‘‘need’’ is likely to exceed current funding levels (both federal and non-federal) 

for most options considered in the Study. The exact amount will depend on a variety 

of factors, including but not limited to region, option type(s) and desired yield. 

As part of the Study’s next steps, work groups are actively engaged in activities 

that examine existing agricultural and municipal conservation programs. Conservation was among the most frequently proposed options considered in the Study. Significant conservation efforts are already underway, but additional efforts could reduce supply-demand imbalances. Products from these workgroups will quantify previous efforts (in both water savings and dollars) and illuminate the additional effort, 

financial and otherwise, to achieve the additional levels quantified in the Study. 

The other major category of options can be broadly described as augmentation: developing other water supplies to ease the burden placed on the Colorado River. Currently few projects exist that fall into this category. The Yuma Desalting Plant 

(Yuma, AZ) was completed in the early 1990s and has a capacity to conserve approximately 100,000 acre-feet/year. In Carlsbad, CA, a 56,000 acre-feet/year desalination facility is scheduled to be completed in 2016. For comparison, desalination 

options modeled in the Study offered a potential yield of about 1.5 million acre-feet/ 

year by mid-century. Thus, in the case of desalination, the maximum rate of development would constitute an approximate 10-fold increase relative to the past ?35 

years. Given increasing costs per acre-foot associated with option implementation 

and the potential for imbalances to increase over time, it is prudent to assume that 

additional Basin-state investment beyond current levels will be required. 

Question 6. How confident is Reclamation in its estimates of the potential costs 

for the portfolios? Please elaborate further on the basis for these estimates and the 

major assumptions used. The costs appear to range from $4 billion to $7 billion annually in 2060 (in 2012 dollars). 

Answer. As part of the option characterization process, all submitted options were 

characterized using 17 evaluation criteria and the relative cost of an option was one 

of the characterization items. The cost criterion included capital and annual costs 

expressed in terms of unit costs in dollars per acre-foot. The option costs were estimated based on limited and high-level analyses. Therefore, knowledge of items such 

as costs, permit requirements, and long term feasibility are highly uncertain. For 
63 

example, cost estimates for infrastructure-type projects are based on similar past 

projects with adjustments for parameters such as scale and location. These adjustments are approximate, especially for projects where the scale of the project is larger than any previously completed similar project. Past studies by the Association for 

the Advancement of Cost Engineering show that concept-level estimates can typically have an expected error range of between 30 to 50 percent. Cost estimates for 

non-structural type projects are often even more uncertain because historical documentation of costs for similar past projects are often not fully applicable or fully documented, or such projects are based on changes in human behavior. Despite the uncertainties in estimating the magnitude of costs, a significant effort was made to 

provide cost estimates that are useful when considering relative costs. 

Question 7. Of the specific options and strategies outlined within the portfolios, 

which options are the most and least viable? Was there any effort to quantify which 

options were the most and least cost effective, in terms of cost per acre-foot? 

Answer. As part of the option characterization process, each option was characterized using a set of 17 criteria, including both quantitative criteria such as timing 

of implementation, annualized cost per acre-foot, yield, and energy use, and qualitative criteria such as technical feasibility and implementation risk. The cost criterion included capital and annual costs expressed in terms of unit costs in dollars 

per acre-foot, however the option costs were estimated based on limited and highlevel analyses. Therefore, knowledge of items such as costs, permit requirements, 

and long term feasibility are highly uncertain. 

The Study shows that no single option or project will be adequate to meet the varied needs of the Basin under the range of future scenarios considered. Indeed, the 

four portfolios (groups of options) evaluated in the Study indicate that a diverse 

combination of options has the potential to reduce resource vulnerability. Future 

planning will require careful consideration of the timing, location, and magnitude 

of anticipated future Basin resource needs. The purpose of exploring the options and 

portfolios is not to identify a ‘‘best’’ portfolio or strategy, but to acknowledge that 

there are various ways to address the water supply and demand imbalance and to 

recognize that each approach has implications to be considered in future planning 

processes and decisionmaking. 

Question 8. What is the current status of federal salinity management issues in 

the basin, and how are salinity concerns being integrated into the decisions about 

next steps for water supply and demand? 

Answer. Reclamation partners with the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin 

States) and other federal agencies to meet the target objective of reducing the annual salinity load in the Colorado River by 1.8 million tons by the year 2030 under 

Title II of the Salinity Control Act (PL 93-320) (Act). Currently, federal agencies and 

their salinity control programs prevent about 1.3 million tons of salt from the Upper 

Colorado Basin from entering the Colorado River system each year. Reclamation’s 

salinity control programs control about 570,000 tons of that annual total. 

The Act also authorized funds deposited into the Upper Colorado River Basin 

Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund (Basin Funds) from 

a surcharge on power produced at Reclamation facilities to be advanced to cost 

share 30 percent of the cost of the Title II salinity control programs authorized by 

the Act. In recent years Reclamation has received about $8 million in appropriations 

for its Basinwide Salinity Control Program to fund with the cost share from the 

Basin Funds the installation of the salinity control measures with an average unit 

cost of about $55/ton. 

Under Title 1 of the Act, Reclamation constructed salinity control facilities to 

meet United States’ obligations under Minute 242 of the 1944 Treaty with Mexico. 

These facilities and programs currently enable Reclamation to maintain acceptable 

salinity levels in the water supplies delivered to Mexico, including the collection and 

analysis of data and reporting of salinity compliance. The Study’s next steps process 

do not address salinity concerns explicitly, however, the extent to which salinity concentrations are impacted by agricultural conservation and water transfers will be 

documented. 

Question 9. How does Reclamation envision the future federal role in the Colorado 

River Basin? Is the federal role expected to change? 

Answer. The Secretary of the Interior, through Reclamation, serves as the water 

master for the Colorado River in the Lower Basin and is the responsible federal official for the many water and power projects throughout the Basin, delivering water 

and power to the recreational, agricultural, environmental, and municipal communities that depend on the river. As such, Reclamation and Interior are well positioned to provide leadership to work towards the goal of sustainable water supplies 

in the Basin. The collaborative approach adopted by the Study was paramount to 

its success. As in the past, Reclamation and Interior can provide a leadership role 
64 

in furthering these partnerships so as to be well poised when new challenges and 

opportunities arise. 

Question 10. In your opinion, what is the best model for basin-wide decision making and coordinated implementation of programs such as the ‘‘portfolio’’ options? Is 

there a comparable example of a decision making entity that takes into account all 

levels of interest and implements a coordinated strategy? 

Answer. Reclamation does not believe there is a single ‘‘best’’ model for basin-wide 

decision making and coordinated implementation of programs, and recognizes the 

broad range of interests that would have to be considered in any such analysis. During preparation of the Study Reclamation received input comprising over 150 options from Study participants, interested stakeholders, and the general public. Some 

of the options focused on Basin governance and mechanisms to facilitate option implementation (Governance and Implementation). Reclamation noted that the governance/decision making concepts that related to water management and allocation (including Tribal water issues) have significant legal and policy considerations that 

will require future consideration and discussions and were beyond the scope of the 

Study. 

RESPONSES OF MIKE CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. Sections 201 and 202 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act direct 

the Secretary of the Interior to address the future water needs of the Western 

United States. 

Section 202 declares that the— 

‘‘satisfaction of the requirements of the Mexican Water Treaty from the 

Colorado River constitutes a national obligation which shall be the first obligation of any water augmentation project planned pursuant to section 201 

of this Act and authorized by the Congress.’’ 

Does Section 202 of the 1968 Act have relevance or a bearing on what will be accomplished during the next phase of the Colorado River Water Supply and Demand 

Study? 

Answer. The Colorado River Basin Project Act is an important element of applicable federal law and part of the overall Law of the River. Reclamation does not anticipate that Sec. 202 will directly affect or be determinative with respect to the 

multi-stakeholder fact-gathering efforts envisioned in the Study’s next steps process. 

Current effort builds on findings for critical next investigations described in the 

Study and consists of the formation of three multi-stakeholder workgroups to investigate and provide additional factual detail regarding: 1) Municipal and Industrial 

(M&I) Conservation and Water Reuse, 2) Agricultural Conservation and Water 

Transfers, and 3) Environmental and Recreational Flows. Additionally, in an effort 

parallel to these activities, Reclamation-led activities will include a joint investigation with the Ten Tribes Partnership, related to tribal water use in the Colorado 

River Basin. 

Question 2. It seems highly unlikely that augmented water supplies in the Colorado River Basin will be dedicated to going to Mexico. How should we address Section 202 of the 1968 Act? 

Answer. The question of how Congress should address Section 202 of the 1968 Act 

goes beyond the scope and analysis of the Study. During preparation of the Study, 

Reclamation received input comprising over 150 options from Study participants, interested stakeholders, and the general public, including options related to small and 

large scale augmentation concepts. A number of the options focused on Basin governance and mechanisms to facilitate option implementation (Governance and Implementation). Reclamation noted that a number of the governance/decision making 

concepts that related to water management and allocation (which would include 

issues involving augmentation under applicable law, including the 1968 Act) have 

significant legal and policy considerations that will require future consideration and 

discussions and were beyond the scope of the Study. In any future consideration of 

augmentation programs, the United States’ obligations to Mexico under the 1944 

Treaty will have to be fully considered and integrated. 

RESPONSE OF KATHLEEN FERRIS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR UDALL

Question 1. In your testimony, you highlighted that the potential water saving figures included in the study do not capture the complexities of how municipalities 

manage their water, especially in regards to ‘‘out-of-Basin’’ cities like Denver and 

Los Angeles. Therefore, it becomes much more difficult to evaluate potential water 

quantity impacts on the Colorado River Basin as municipal water savings are likely 
65 

not directly proportionate to their different sources of water. What information 

would it be useful for municipalities to provide in order to have a greater understanding of the impact their water management decisions have on the Basin? 

Answer. A municipal water provider considers many different factors if it has 

multiple sources of water to meet demands within its service area. Some of these 

factors include the volume of water in storage in surface water reservoirs, hydrologic 

forecasts of water supply availability, environmental issues that may impact the 

availability of supplies, water right restrictions and contractual requirements, cost 

of delivery of raw water to treatment facilities, cost of treatment to potable standards, quality of the raw and potable water, and cost to pump groundwater (if part 

of a supply portfolio). Consequently, there is variability in how providers choose to 

use their supplies from year to year. 

Municipal providers should be able to provide historic data identifying how much 

Colorado River water they have used. In many cases municipal providers have forward looking water resources plans that can inform us as to how their future use 

of Colorado River water might shift over time. 

The Municipal and Industrial Conservation and Reuse Workgroup will collect and 

analyze the necessary data, but it will take some time to accomplish this task. 

RESPONSES OF KATHLEEN FERRIS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

Question 1. While Arizona’s population increased from 5.1 million in 2000 to 6.3 

million in 2010, water use remained relatively constant at 7.6 million acre-feet. 

Water use in 2010 was only 7% greater in 2010 than in 1957. What are the lessons 

from the Arizona experience for dealing with the demand-supply imbalance identified by the Colorado River Water Supply and Demand Study? 

Answer. Arizona’s experience demonstrates that a comprehensive water management program will yield the best results. All water sources—surface water, Colorado 

River water, groundwater and reclaimed water—must be addressed conjunctively. 

Arizona’s approach employs regulatory and non-regulatory measures that often result in financial or other incentives for efficient use of water. This approach allows 

flexibility for water users to choose management options that work best for them, 

including balancing costs and rates. 

Arizona’s municipal conservation program, for example, has a regulatory requirement to reduce per capita consumption, but how reductions are achieved is left to 

each water provider. This has enabled each provider to create water savings programs that meet the unique circumstances of its service area and to allow its customers to choose from a menu of water conservation options rather than dictate specific measures. The resulting partnership between water providers and their customers that has been effective in reducing Arizona’s water use over time. 

An example of the value of more direct regulation is the Assured Water Supply 

program that requires new residential development to be served largely with renewable water supplies. Since the water resources and infrastructure to achieve compliance with this program are more expensive than using non-renewable supplies, such 

as groundwater, water providers are incentivized to use less water simply to control 

their costs. Arizona law also encourages the reuse of reclaimed water because the 

entity that treats the water is allowed to reuse that supply or contract with another 

for its reuse. 

Question 2. Arizona’s municipalities have combined strategies for providing water 

for decades through innovations in groundwater storage and water banking. What 

will the demand-supply imbalance in the Colorado River basin mean for the ability 

and cost of reliably delivering water to water users in Maricopa County? What actions and investments are your members undertaking or preparing for meeting future water needs? How are these investments being financed? What role can 

groundwater management play in improving water supply reliability? 

Answer. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) shares the lowest priority for Colorado River water (along with Nevada) in times of shortages. If the projected shortages of Colorado River become a reality, Maricopa County water users, like many 

other water users in the Basin, will likely be required to curtail water use more 

often and will see increased costs. 

Because we have always known that CAP water has a junior priority, Arizona and 

municipal water providers have invested in measures to prepare for shortages. The 

legislature established the Arizona Water Banking Authority in 1996 to store excess 

CAP water (water not used by other Colorado River entitlement holders) underground for use by municipal water providers in times of shortages of CAP water. 

To date, the Banking Authority has stored over 3 million acre-feet of excess CAP 

water underground. 
66 

AMWUA’s members have undertaken and continue comprehensive efforts to enhance supplies and manage demand in order to meet future needs. These efforts 

have included: 

• Ongoing long-range planning, including extensive research to understand future 

water demand trends, service area growth patterns, supply availability, impacts 

of drought and climate change, and potential regulatory impacts. 

• Full reuse of reclaimed water for beneficial uses such as energy production, turf 

irrigation, agricultural irrigation, environmental restoration and enhancement, 

and recharge, offsetting potable supplies. 

• Storing excess surface water supplies underground for use in times of shortages. 

To date, this storage amounts to over 1.6 million acre-feet. 

• Protection of groundwater supplies to ensure availability in times of surface 

water shortage. 

• Development of necessary infrastructure to store, recover, treat, and distribute 

supplies. 

• Continued investment in programs to increase water use efficiency and conservation, including aggressive system leak detection and repair; increasingly 

sophisticated metering and tracking; customer outreach, education, and assistance; rebates and incentives; ordinances and codes; and conservation-based 

rates. 

• Examining options for augmentation, including opportunities for water and 

water rights transfers on a willing buyer—willing seller basis; development and 

acquisition of additional supplies from outside the county; treatment of brackish 

groundwater; and the potential for direct potable reuse of reclaimed water. 

• Drought planning, including strategies for curtailing demand during shortage. 

Often, these actions and investments are best implemented on a regional level, 

with local water providers partnering with each other and, in some cases, state and 

federal governments, providing more cost-effective, efficient, flexible, and successful 

solutions. Ongoing regional dialogue and discussion will continue to be critical to 

identifying and developing opportunities and initiatives to enhance water management and meet future water demand. 

These investments are primarily financed through bonding and water rates. Other 

funding mechanisms include: 

• Impact fees on new development. 

• Ad valorem property taxes assessed in Arizona’s three most populous counties 

for the purpose of constructing recharge projects and paying for excess CAP 

water to be stored underground by the Banking Authority to offset future shortages. 

• Water Infrastructure and Finance Authority (WIFA). WIFA is an agency of the 

state of Arizona and is authorized to finance the construction, rehabilitation 

and/or improvement of drinking water, wastewater, wastewater reclamation, 

and other water quality facilities and projects. Generally, WIFA offers borrowers below market interest rates on loans. As a ‘‘bond bank,’’ WIFA is able 

to issue water quality bonds on behalf of communities for basic water infrastructure. WIFA also manages a Planning and Design Assistance Grant Program. This program offers planning and design grants to eligible wastewater 

and drinking water systems. The purpose of the grant program is to help prepare water and wastewater facilities for future infrastructure project construction. 

• The Arizona Department of Water Resources Water Management Assistance 

Program provides financial and technical resources and assists in the development and implementation of conservation programs, augmentation programs, 

and programs to monitor hydrologic conditions and assess water availability in 

the Active Management Areas (AMAs) of the state. The program is funded 

through a portion of the groundwater withdrawal fees paid annually by those 

who withdraw groundwater in the AMAs. 

• Competitive funding opportunities, such as the Bureau of Reclamation 

WaterSmart Program. 

AMWUA members have often pooled funding to accomplish regional objectives. 

Examples include: 

• Expansion of Roosevelt Dam.—Roosevelt Dam was modified in the 1990’s to increase storage capacity on the Salt River to capture additional flows in wetter 

years. A coalition of six AMWUA members, along with the Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt River Project, Central Arizona 

Water Conservation District, Arizona Department of Transportation, and Mari-
67 

copa County Flood District, funded the $424 million dollar expansion that increased the dam’s capacity to nearly 1.7 million acre feet (of which nearly 

305,000 acre-feet is new conservation space allocated to the six AMWUA members). • Construction and operation of underground storage projects.—Underground 

storage is a cost effective alternative to surface water impoundments to store 

excess renewable water supplies for future withdrawal and use. In most cases, 

a water provider’s existing well system can be used to withdraw water which 

has been stored underground when it is necessary to recover the stored water. • CAP/Salt River Project (SRP) Interconnection Facility.—The CAP/SRP Interconnection Facility (CSIF) allows for the conjunctive management of water supplies from the Salt and Verde Rivers and the Colorado River—the watersheds 

that provide the majority of Arizona’s renewable surface water resources. Completed in 1990, in partnership with six of the AMWUA members and at a cost 

of $10 million, the CSIF provides a link between the CAP and SRP water delivery systems, increasing the Valley cities’ ability to take their Colorado River allocations and put them to direct use or store them underground at local recharge projects. The CSIF has also facilitated water exchange agreements between SRP and CAP that has allowed SRP to supplement its surface water supplies during low-runoff years on the Salt-Verde system. 

Groundwater management has played an enormous role in improving water supply reliability since the State’s adoption of the Groundwater Management Act in 

1980. In an effort to reduce reliance on groundwater, the AMWUA members have 

developed diversified water supply portfolios consisting of multiple surface water 

sources, as well as extensive reuse of reclaimed water. Today, AMWUA’s members 

rely on groundwater for only seven percent of their water supplies. As a result, 

groundwater is largely preserved for use when there is a shortage of surface water 

supplies in the future. 

RESPONSES OF TAYLOR E. C. HAWES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. What do the study’s projections of water supply and demand suggest 

for the future for threatened and endangered species in the basin? How might these 

changes impact ongoing water project operations and related conservations programs? Are there certain endangered species or conservation programs that you expect to be more imperiled by these trends than others? 

Answer. There is no question that the Basin Study’s projections suggest increased 

competition for limited water resources in the Colorado River Basin, if no action is 

taken. Increased use of the flows of the Colorado River Basin could pose risks to 

currently listed species and those at risk of listing. The Conservancy currently sits 

on the management committees of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and 

the Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program. We are not involved in the 

Grand Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. Consequently, my responses 

will focus on the former three programs and in particular the Upper Basin Recovery 

Program, where we have been involved since its inception. 

The successes of the Upper Colorado Recovery Program and San Juan Recovery 

Program and related state specific efforts show that we can meet all needs, including those of fish and wildlife, with careful and flexible water management, good 

science and a collaborative approach. Because water rights management is largely 

governed by state laws, it is vital to have early federal/state cooperation on the 

issues identified by the Basin Study. 

The Upper Colorado Recovery Program and the San Juan Recovery Program are 

critically important forums that have demonstrated cooperation, commitment and 

success in conserving threatened and endangered species while allowing water development and management activities to continue. They have been shown to be 

adaptable to changing conditions and we hope they will continue to receive strong 

federal, state and tribal support. I have attached the 2012 Briefing Book from the 

two programs documenting their progress and success. They are model programs 

demonstrating that protecting the environment and water supply do not have to be 

in conflict. 

At the state level, Utah established a model water rights leasing program designed to keep native fish off of the endangered species list. Under this law, passed 

in 2008 and amended earlier this year, private groups may lease water rights from 

landowners and agricultural producers for use instream to benefit native trout. This 

state program uses the free market to foster collaborations that can benefit both 

irrigators and the environment. 
68 

Water users and conservation stakeholders must work together to explore additional management tools, such as an Upper Basin Water Bank, that could benefit 

cities and rivers and protect the region’s agricultural economy. Reclamation’s Basin 

Study follow-up process provides a viable path forward to address these challenges. 

Moreover, proactive action is the key to avoiding any new species listings. 

Question 2. In your opinion, are conservation programs in the basin adequately 

coordinated on a basin-wide scale? 

Answer. There are four major recovery programs in the Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are involved in all four programs, so 

there is cross-over and coordination across those agencies. In addition, there are organizations like The Nature Conservancy, water providers, and tribes whose representatives participate in multiple recovery programs. This overlap in membership 

provides additional informal coordination. Several years ago, there was also a basinwide researchers’ conference that included all four recovery programs, and the 

Upper Colorado and San Juan Recovery Programs hold an annual researchers meeting. Gatherings like these facilitate sharing of information, techniques and lessons. 

It would be valuable to hold basin-wide science meetings periodically to ensure that 

we can learn from each other’s successes and failures. 

In addition, it may be worthwhile for the federal agencies to ensure there is coordination among related programs of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, including water, habitat and soil conservation and salinity management programs of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. There may be ways to 

simultaneously reduce red tape for agricultural producers and achieve greater conservation benefits if these programs are more closely coordinated. Such coordination 

could help avoid duplication of effort and maximize the use of limited federal resources. 

Question 3. How would you characterize the implementation of adaptive management in the basin to date? Has it been successful? What are the challenges for 

adaptive management, and how what do they tell us about the prospects for the options outlined in the Supply & Demand study? 

Answer. The recovery programs mentioned above are all adaptive management 

programs. Monitoring and adaptation are critical elements of successful recovery. In 

particular, the Upper Basin and San Juan recovery programs have diverse participants who bring their science and technical expertise to bear to understand fish 

population and habitat trends and develop solutions for species recovery. In the two 

Upper Basin programs, we are seeing signs of recovery, especially in Colorado 

pikeminnow populations. There are no perfect strategies. Therefore, monitoring and 

then adapting offer our best chance at recovering the Basin’s endangered and 

threatened fish species. 

There is one major challenge relative to adaptive management and results of the 

Supply and Demand Study. Water supplies are expected to decline over time and 

demand continues to increase. The combination of these factors means that we will 

likely have less flexibility in water management. This will require federal, state, 

tribal and municipal agencies and non-profit conservation groups to be even more 

creative and collaborative in finding ways to meet the needs of cities and wildlife 

while also maintaining a viable agricultural sector. 

RESPONSE OF TANYA TRUJILLO TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR UDALL

Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned that the Basin States have confirmed their ongoing commitment to take further action in conjunction with the 

Basin Study. Can you describe some of those proposals? 

Answer. In conjunction with the release of the Basin Study in December 2012, the 

Basin States prepared a document summarizing their ongoing commitments to address supply and demand issues within the Colorado River Basin. A copy of the 

Basin States’ Commitments to Future Actions Following Release of the Basin Study 

is attached for the record. As was noted during the July 16 hearing, the Basin 

States and our water users have long recognized the potential for an imbalance between supply and demand in the basin if proactive measures were not taken to conserve and otherwise efficiently use water and/or to continue to develop additional 

supplies of water. The Basin Study was another tool to help the states and water 

users plan for the future. It provided another opportunity for the Basin States to 

work together and to confirm their ongoing commitments to encourage more conservation and develop additional supplies. 

The Basin States have noted that regional solutions such as water banking and 

joint funding of projects that conserve and more efficiently utilize water are effective 
69 

mechanisms that should be continued and expanded. The states and certain water 

users have also jointly funded programs to increase supplies within the basin. Additional projects will continue to be developed in conjunction with the Basin Study’s 

‘‘next steps’’ process and other ongoing efforts. 

RESPONSES OF TANYA TRUJILLO TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. Salton Sea restoration played a role in the negotiations of the 2003 

Quantitative Settlement Agreement. What is the current status of Salton Sea restoration efforts? 

Answer. The Colorado River Board of California is not directly involved with the 

restoration of the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea Authority, a Joint Powers Agency 

within California (Saltonsea.ca.gov), has been established under California law and 

is actively working on Salton Sea restoration issues. The status of Salton Sea restoration is also the subject of the most recent ‘‘River Report’’ produced by the Water 

Education Foundation, (Summer 2013 ‘‘Finding a Solution for the Salton Sea’’, 

http://www.watereducation.org/doc.asp?id=876). 

Question 2. Legal challenges began soon after the adoption of the Quantitative 

Settlement Agreement. Are those challenges over with the June 2013 ruling that 

upheld the validity of the 12 contract agreements, or are there outstanding legal 

challenges? Are there any lessons to draw from the QSA experience for the future 

of efforts to manage future water supply and demand in the Colorado River basin? 

Answer. On July 31, 2013, the Superior Court of California issued its final Statement of Decision affirming the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), in a 

state court proceeding consolidating several cases relating to the QSA (QSA Coordinated Civil Cases, No. JCCP 4353). As of the date of this response, the County of 

Imperial has indicated that it may appeal that decision but the deadline for filing 

appeals has not yet expired. 

A federal court lawsuit relating to the QSA is awaiting a decision by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was filed by the County of Imperial and Imperial 

County Air Pollution Control District. They have appealed a judgment granted in 

favor of the federal defendants by the district court. (People of the State of California ex rel Imperial County Air Pollution Control Dist. et al. v. United States Department of the Interior, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 12-55856.) 

The QSA and the quantification of water entitlements within California have allowed the California agencies to implement many of the very successful programs 

that continue to assist California in meeting its critical water supply needs. Negotiation, compromise, and cooperation from diverse interests can lead to comprehensive 

programs that can have widespread benefits throughout the Colorado River Basin. 

RESPONSE OF T. DARRYL VIGIL TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR UDALL

Question 1. I understand that Reclamation is now conducting a tribal water study 

as part of their next steps. What is your recommendation for the best way to include 

tribes in the on-going planning process? 

Answer. The best way to include tribes in the on-going planning process is for the 

Bureau of Reclamation to establish a formal meeting process that includes the Basin 

States and the Tribes. When the Ten Tribes Partnership was initially formed in 

1992, the Tribes were invited to attend and to participate in meetings with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Seven Basin States regarding water issues in the Colorado River Basin. While this practice was never formally adopted, over time, the 

practice of including the Tribes ceased. We recommend the initial process be reinstituted and that the Bureau establish a formal meeting process that includes the 

Basin States and the Ten Tribes. This will ensure that the Tribes will be included 

in all future water planning processes. 

RESPONSES OF T. DARRYL VIGIL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. The Colorado River Supply and Demand Study indicated (page ES21) that in early 2013 Reclamation would consult and work with tribes regarding 

tribal water rights issues reflected in the report. What consultation with tribes has 

occurred? What are the Ten Tribe Partnership’s priorities for federal action to address Colorado River water supply and demand? 

Answer. Representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Ten Tribes’ legal/ 

technical committee have held meetings this year regarding tribal water rights 

issues but there have not been any formal ‘‘consultations’’ between the Bureau and 

Ten Tribes. The meetings that have taken place centered on defining the scope of 

work that the Bureau’s technical staff and the Ten Tribes’ legal/technical committee 
70 

will focus on during the tribal water study as part of the ‘‘next steps’’ to implement 

solutions to resolve imbalances in the Basin. Agreement has been reached by the 

Bureau’s technical staff and the Ten Tribes’ legal/technical committee on having future meetings regarding the tribal water study. 

The priorities of the Ten Tribes Partnership’s for federal action to address Colorado River water supply and demand include the need for the Bureau to: 

1. Acknowledge and protect the early priority of tribal water rights. 

2. Recognize and protect the unused allocation of the tribes’ quantified water 

rights. 

3. Recognize and protect the unquantified tribal water rights. 

4. Recognize the special status of tribal reserved water rights that is embodied in federal statutes and federal and state case law. 

5. Provide a seat at the table for the Partnership for participation in meetings 

between the Bureau and the Basin States. 

6. Require that the Colorado River Simulation System model quantify the extent of the reliance of water users on decreed and undecreed rights of tribes not 

being fully exercised. 

7. Provide a mechanism for voluntary transfers of water such as leasing. 

Question 2. What lessons about future tribal water challenges in the Colorado 

River basin can be drawn from the current drought conditions and experience with 

federal programs and basin water management? 

Answer. The drought and the Tribes’ experience with federal programs and with 

basin water management highlight the following challenges: 

1. The Tribes cannot develop future tribal water use with non-existent or failing infrastructure and limited funding. 

2. The Tribes’ need enhanced opportunities to gain economic benefit from 

their water resources. 

3. The Tribes need to participate in dialogue at the Basin level by sitting at 

the table with the Bureau and the Basin States. 

4. The Tribes must be treated more equitably relative to the Basin States and 

Mexico. 

5. Congress must continue to support financial resources for the on-going 

study such as the WATERSMART Program and the Secure Water Act. 

6. The Tribes must be allowed to investigate conservation practices, augmentation of supply, ground water storage, water banking, desalinization, environmental, power generation, agricultural, municipal, industrial, domestic, recreational and cultural practices in order to address these challenges. 

RESPONSE OF REAGAN WASKOM TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR UDALL

Question 1. When you examine agricultural transfers as a potential future supply 

to meet growing municipal and industrial demands, how do you see the diverse 

needs of these stakeholders being met, given the long term certainty desired by municipal and industrial users versus the reliable supply also needed by the agricultural community? 

Answer. Permanent voluntary transfer of agricultural water to municipal and industrial interests is the most common transfer mechanism and is generally deemed 

mutually beneficial for the buyer and individual seller. It is the third party interests 

that are most likely to not have all of their needs addressed in these transfers. Examples might be remaining shareholders lower in the ditch system that see more 

shrinkage losses on their water supply, or the local community that experiences a 

loss of jobs, or a local agricultural supply operation that loses an important customer from an already thin market base. 

Temporary transfers can work very well and actually benefit both agriculture and 

M&I interests and when local water markets function well, providing agriculture 

with a source of revenue and a spot market for those needing additional water during or following drought. There are a few examples of this in the Basin, such as 

the Arizona Water Bank. However, it should be noted that cities need a permanent 

source of water to meet demands and that temporary transfers are useful mainly 

for coping with drought or refilling reservoirs following drought. These temporary 

mechanisms are not well suited for base supply if other options are available. 

Bottom line is that there is not enough water to meet all of the needs in the Colorado River Basin, particularly when you factor in the need for enhanced environmental flows. Market based solutions are desirable, but public policy solutions that 

can lead to augmented water supplies are also important, particularly for sustaining 

our ability to produce food in the Colorado River Basin. 
71 

RESPONSES OF REAGAN WASKOM TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. The Colorado Water Institute is partially funded through the programs authorized under the Federal Water Resources Research Act; the Colorado 

Legislature also provides financial support. How have recent federal funding issues 

affected operations at the Colorado Water Institute? How have recent federal funding issues affected the federal data being collected (e.g., stream gages) in the state? 

Answer. The USGS chose to apply a greater percentage of the FY13 sequestration 

cut to the Water Resources Research Institutes, cutting our base funding by approximately 40% and completely eliminating the competitive national grant program. In the case of the Colorado Water Institute, these FY13 federal budget cuts 

resulted in the elimination of funding for one research project and a reduction of 

funding for an additional project at my Institute. The net result is that several students did not receive funding for their graduate work, and there were important research questions that could not be addressed this year. Our Institute also had to 

eliminate part of our technology transfer activities as a result of these cuts. Funding 

from Colorado State University and the State of Colorado allowed our Institute to 

fare much better than many of the other smaller Institutes that do not enjoy the 

support that we do in Colorado. If FY14 budget cuts are similar or worse, significant 

harm or closure will result for many of the Institutes. I expect the Colorado Water 

Institute will be harmed but will survive. 

Stream gaging data and other critical water and natural resource data collection 

efforts will also be harmed by these cuts, hampering our ability to efficiently manage water resources during a difficult period of drought in the West. Retrograding 

our water infrastructure and information systems at the same time that water scarcity grows will eventually lead to crisis based decision-making, likely harming agriculture and other important sectors of our economy. 

Question 2. From the Institute’s perspective, what are the priority research needs 

in the basin? What would be the appropriate federal role in this research? 

Answer. We need research based information on: 

1. Development of policy and economic incentives for agricultural water use 

efficiency within the current legal framework of Basin states. 

2. Development of advanced tools for measuring, monitoring and modeling 

crop consumptive use and irrigation return flows as we implement efficiency 

and conservation measures. 

3. Determination of food production impacts and appropriate substitutions as 

water is voluntarily transferred out of agriculture in the Basin. 

4. Management techniques to enhance use of marginal water and reused 

water for agriculture in the basin. 

5. Development of policy and economic incentives for establishment of robust 

water markets that can move water across the Upper and Lower Basin states. 

6. Quantification of base flow and flushing flow needs for specific reaches of 

the river that are likely to have future disruptions based upon species listings. 

Development of flexible arrangements to avoid further listings and provide adequate habitat and refuge for species in these specific reaches. 

7. Desalination technology 

The appropriate federal role in this research is providing federal funding through 

the existing programs such as WaterSmart and the Water Resources Research Act, 

leadership in establishing research priorities, coordination across federal agency research programs to avoid duplication and optimize data sharing, and providing incentives for state and local matching funds. 

Question 3. Given your research on municipal and agricultural water conservation 

and efficiency efforts, how can investments in conservation and efficiency most effectively address the imbalance in water demand and supply in the basin? What are 

the most effective means to prompt these types of investments? 

Answer. In the case of agricultural water conservation, the most effective investments are likely to be economic incentives based upon developing functioning markets targeted for specific irrigation districts where a market based solution can result in significant quantities of transferable water. 

Irrigated agriculture is going to need technical and financial assistance to implement conservation measures that benefit sectors other than agriculture, particularly 

when expensive upgrades in diversion structures and irrigation equipment are the 

best mechanisms to achieve greater efficiency. This assistance has historically been 

provided through various USDA and USBR programs. Federal cost sharing programs are historically the most effective mechanism to leverage local and state investments. In addition, federal attention to the aging infrastructure needs associ-
72 

ated with federal water storage projects and irrigation canals is important to maintaining and increasing overall water use efficiency. 

Question 4. Your research has included research on water quantity and quality 

issues associated with coal bed methane in Montana and Wyoming. From this experience, what are some priority data or research needs associated with energy sector 

water use in the Colorado River basin? 

Answer. We must move forward aggressively to develop technology and incentives 

for cost effective recycling of produced water and hydraulic fracturing flowback. Additionally, technology to reduce water use for energy production and cooling is needed. Impaired and produced waters must be treated and put to beneficial use to the 

full extent practicable so that fresh water is not used in energy exploration and production processes where marginal water can be substituted. Efforts to collect data 

tracking the amount or percentage of produced water and frac-flowback water that 

are recycled by the energy industry would be helpful. 

RESPONSES OF DON A. OSTLER TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. Concerns about energy sector water use have increased in some areas 

of the Upper Basin in recent years. How would you characterize the significance of 

this water use compared to the other water supply and demand challenges in the 

basin? Are there unique features of energy sector water use that are of particular 

concern, and how effectively are the current institutional and legal arrangements 

both at the basin and state levels addressing this water use? 

Answer. The energy sector of water use in the Upper Colorado River Basin has 

the potential to become very large and significant, however the amount of development and the pace of development are extremely uncertain. There are widely varying estimates of future energy sector water demands. Conversely, it is also possible 

that certain portions of the energy sector (deep oil and gas wells which produce 

water) could introduce new water sources from deep aquifers into the basin if properly treated for quality purposes. Added to these uncertainties is the fact that water 

demands for various activities in the energy sector are also rapidly changing with 

new technology. In my opinion, the legal and institutional requirements are in place 

in the states to properly regulate water use within the energy sector now and into 

the future. Energy projects must acquire legally valid water rights from the States 

to use water for their projects. If water is not fully allocated in the area, they must 

follow the same process as any other entity to develop a new water source. If water 

is fully allocated, they must acquire or purchase valid existing water rights in order 

to proceed. Market values and existing laws govern such developments. I personally 

do not believe that water use regulation is the proper vehicle to determine the type 

of land use that is allowed in a given region. That should be done through proper 

planning and zoning. There are no basin-wide water requirements that are imposed 

on any given sector. Water is allocated basin-wide to each state and the states regulate individual water uses. 

Question 2. Are there any Upper Basin near-term priorities for federal action to 

address Colorado River water supply and demand? 

Answer. The Upper Basin continues to need financial assistance and technical 

support from the Bureau of Reclamation through the Water Smart program to assist 

us in development of a basin wide plan to address supply and demand imbalance 

in the entire Colorado River Basin. The Department of the Interior needs to continue to push and assist the Lower Basin States to address their current lack of 

sustainability in water use. The current imbalance of supply and demand in the 

Lower Basin, even absent drought, will have negative effects on water use in the 

upper basin as well due to coordinated reservoir operations. The lower basin currently uses more water than a normal compact allotment provides on an annual 

basis. 

Question 3. Which federal programs in any federal agency most influence how 

water is used in the basin by either influencing the demand for water or how water 

is supplied? 

Answer. The NEPA program and Endangered Species Act have significant impact 

on the ability to supply water to meet growing demands. The Salinity Control Program within the Bureau of Reclamation has a positive influence on how water is 

supplied to insure the quality is suitable for downstream uses. 

Question 4. What data collected by the federal agencies would be most helpful in 

improving basin water management decisions? 

Answer. The federal government has recently decreased funding for USGS stream 

gages and snow measurement stations (SNOTEL). This data is needed to help make 
73 

sound supply management decisions. Additional climatological stations are also 

needed to better assess water use from agriculture. 

(75) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

CORRECTION ‘‘FOR THE RECORD’’ OF THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN

FERRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARIZONA MUNICIPAL WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

A small but significant error exists in the information we provided regarding their 

water use trends on page 8 of Kathy Ferris’ July 16 testimony on the Colorado River 

Basin Supply & Demand Study. 

It currently reads: 

‘‘Between 1980 and 2010, the City’s population increased by 83 percent, 

yet the City’s total per capita demand increased by only 35 percent and its 

total water production increased by only 18 percent.’’ 

It should state: 

‘‘the City’s total per capita demand decreased by 35 percent’’. 

STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNOR’S REPRESENTATIVES ON COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS: STATES OF ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, 

UTAH, AND WYOMING

THE SEVEN BASIN STATES’ COMMITMENTS TO FUTURE ACTIONS FOLLOWING RELEASE OF

THE BASIN STUDY

Background 

The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study) is the 

most recent example of the Seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin States) and 

the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) working together to address Colorado 

River water supply and demand issues. The possibility of future water supply and 

demand imbalances has been identified since the 1960’s. For example over 30 years 

ago, the study, The Westside Study Report on Critical Water Problems Facing the 

Eleven Western States (Reclamation 1975), concluded that in spite of conservation, 

the Basin faces future water shortages unless its natural flows are augmented by 

more than 2.5 million acre-feet/year, or water-dependent Basin development is limited. With this knowledge, the Basin States and Reclamation have taken several actions to begin to address the potential for imbalance between future supplies and 

demands. 

The Basin Study is the most comprehensive effort to date to quantify and address 

future supply and demand imbalances in the Colorado River Basin. The Basin Study 

evaluates system reliability and also outlines potential options and strategies to 

meet or reduce imbalances that are consistent with the existing legal framework 

governing the use and operation of the Colorado River. A range of future water demands are quantified in six different demand scenarios that include varied assumptions about future economic conditions, population growth, and water needs for agricultural, municipal and industrial, energy, minerals, and fish, wildlife, and recreation purposes. 

The Basin Study considers four different water supply scenarios and is the first 

Basin-wide study conducted by the Basin States and Reclamation that considers the 

potential influence of climate change on future water supply. As described in Technical Report B—Water Supply Assessment, the climate change scenario, called the 

Downscaled Global Climate Model (GCM) Projected scenario, was developed using 

112 downscaled GCM projections and shows a median projected decrease in mean 

flows of about 9 percent on average over the 2011-2060 period as compared to the 

1906-2007 period. For comparison sake, the 25th and 75th percentiles show a decrease of 1 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Although this variation indicates 
76 

the need for additional research to better project climate changes on the Colorado 

River Basin, the results strongly suggest that the Colorado River system is vulnerable to possible changes in water supplies resulting from a drier climate. 

The Basin Study’s four different supply scenarios and six different demand scenarios present a broad range of possible imbalances. However, when comparing the 

median of the six demand scenarios combined with the median of four different 

water supply scenarios, a Basin-wide imbalance of approximately 3.2 million acrefeet/year by 2060 is plausible. Moreover, the greatest increases in demand are projected to occur in the Lower Basin. The Basin Study also illustrates that because 

of the magnitude and distribution of the imbalances, no single solution will be adequate to meet all future water demand and supply imbalances. 

The Basin Study confirms that the Basin faces a range of potential deficits between future water supply and demand and that these possible deficits will require 

diligent planning and implementation of water supply and demand management 

programs to help avoid severe shortages and provide necessary supplies for future 

demands throughout the Colorado River Basin. The flow of the Colorado River is 

highly variable and given this fact, diligent planning and implementation of water 

supply programs will need to include portfolios that combine options and strategies 

that both address supply and demand imbalances and also take advantage of higher 

flow years. Local, state, regional, and Basin wide projects will all be needed to meet 

demands over the 50 year planning horizon to ensure that the Basin can develop 

to its full potential. 

The Basin Study identifies a range of measures to address the supply and demand 

imbalance. Several options proposed during the public comment phase of the Basin 

Study raise serious legal and policy issues. Without the foundation of existing law, 

some options and strategies would require significant changes impacting a wide variety of local, state, and federal entities and resulting in increased uncertainty and 

risk. The Basin States will discuss all options submitted, however, they are committed to taking future actions that fit within the ‘‘Law of the River’’. 

THE SEVEN BASIN STATES’ COMMITMENTS

Additional Conservation and Reuse 

The Basin Study recognizes that many municipal agencies in each state have implemented water conservation and reuse to meet the water needs of their growing 

populations and have incorporated comprehensive conservation programs into their 

planning to meet future demands. These conservation reductions are included in the 

forecast of future demands in the Basin Study. Municipal conservation can only be 

implemented step by step, providing a balance between water rates, demand elasticity, and demand hardening during droughts. Municipalities will continue to 

evaluate additional conservation and reuse, over and above what is already reflected 

in the Basin Study demand scenarios, and implement necessary programs on a case 

by case basis considering local conditions. 

In many states, significant agricultural conservation programs are already in 

place. Additional agricultural conservation, above that already included in the calculation of demands, will require significant additional investment. Agricultural 

water transfers are being implemented within the Law of the River, represented for 

example by forbearance of agricultural water use, and new transfers are under evaluation in many states. Many of the states are also exploring alternatives to permanent agricultural transfers, and these types of alternatives are being further analyzed and implemented. Only projects that actually reduce consumptive use will reduce the imbalances between future supply and demands. This Basin Study identifies additional conservation and transfer opportunities that will be considered by entities as appropriate through local and/or state measures. While these local and 

state programs will offer a partial solution in some areas of the Basin, they may 

be, in many cases, problematic because much of the water diverted for use within 

the Basin returns to the river or a tributary for use by others downstream. 

Regional Solutions 

Water banking has been ongoing in the lower Basin for many years. A number 

of water banking options were submitted for consideration by the Basin States and 

Reclamation. A representative water banking option was included within the Basin 

Study to conceptually explore water banking. This option demonstrated that there 

are a number of legal, policy, and institutional barriers to implementing an Upper 

Basin water bank, however, the benefits associated with this option clearly demonstrate the need for additional exploration and analysis of this and similar concepts. 
77 

There are many watershed and regional solutions already being implemented and 

explored by the states and water agencies. For example, the states and water agencies have jointly been funding weather modification pilot programs for over five 

years as well as land and vegetation management options. All of these regional solutions are outlined in the Basin Study. The Basin States and relevant water agencies 

are committed to evaluating and implementing programs and options that have the 

greatest potential to yield additional supply. Although generally observed to be effective, the potential to generate additional water can vary significantly from year 

to year, and it is often very difficult to quantify the additional amounts of water 

generated at particular locations within the river system. Accordingly, regional implementation of these options would likely need to be used to augment the river on 

a Basin wide basis. 

Desalination and Importation Solutions 

The large demand and supply imbalances projected at the latter part of the planning horizon can realistically be met only with implementation of a variety of options and strategies. Of the options analyzed, only large scale desalination and importation projects provide the reliability and quantity of water necessary to meet 

many of the plausible projected supply/demand imbalances. Future population 

growth in the Basin, the uncertainty of the reliability of the Colorado River supply 

and long lead times for implementation of projects, dictate that the Basin States 

and the Federal Government must start evaluating options for developing such 

project(s) immediately. For example, permitting and construction of large scale desalination projects may take 20 years or more before the projects become operational. The Basin States, in cooperation with appropriate Federal agencies will 

form a partnership to immediately begin developing a process to consider feasible 

options for developing large scale desalination and/or importation project(s), with 

the goal of having such project(s) in operation before the end of the planning horizon 

(by 2060). 

Other Commitments 

Modification to the operations of Lakes Powell and Mead was implemented in 

2007 through the ‘‘2007 Guidelines’’ and will be effective through 2026 with re-consultation to occur no later than 2020 or if Lake Mead reaches an elevation of 1,025 

feet. The Basin Study does not contemplate any changes to the 2007 Guidelines. 

Within the context of the 2007 Guidelines, Basin States’ representatives will begin 

discussions of additional measures or approaches to be taken at a Lake Mead elevation of 1,025 feet. 

The Basin Study has again demonstrated to Reclamation and the Basin States the 

great interest in the future of the Colorado River by a wide variety of stakeholders—tribes, recreational entities, power providers, environmental organizations 

and conservation groups. As work continues following the completion of the Basin 

Study and based on its recommendations, the Basin States and Reclamation will 

continue to work with key stakeholders to explore solutions. 

The Basin Study provides tools for water resource planning for the Colorado River 

Basin. The Basin States will work with Reclamation to evaluate progress regarding 

consideration of options listed in the Basin Study, evaluate the ability to use the 

tools developed for the Basin Study, and update water demands and supply scenarios on a five-year time frame. In addition, the Basin States will work with Reclamation to support improvements in the modeling and analytical tools used in the 

Basin Study and the information developed to support those tools, including those 

improvements specifically described in Appendix C5 of Technical Report C—Water 

Demand Assessment. 

The Basin States will work with local, state, and federal representatives, and a 

wide array of diverse and interested stakeholders, to obtain funding to aid in the 

assessment and implementation of the above listed initiatives. 

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

The Colorado River is a critical resource for the long-term health and economic 

welfare of the State of Arizona and its citizens. The Arizona Department of Water 

Resources (ADWR) is charged with promoting, protecting, and managing Arizona’s 

annual apportionment of 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water. ADWR represents all mainstem water users including the Central Arizona Project (CAP). Arizona’s apportionment is used for municipal, industrial, agricultural, Tribal, and 

wildlife refuges purposes. Annually, the mainstem Colorado River users utilize approximately 1.2 million acre-feet of Arizona’s apportionment. The CAP diverts the 

remaining 1.6 million acre-feet of Colorado River water for its customers in Central 

Arizona (Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties). 
78 

Arizona, in particular CAP and many mainstem users, is unique among the Basin 

States due to its vulnerability to the impacts of shortages from its junior priority 

status consistent with the Law of the River. In total, 6.2 million Arizonans, most 

of whom live within the CAP service area, and nearly 800,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land rely on Arizona’s Colorado River allocation. Therefore, Arizona, especially CAP and other mainstem entitlement holders, are vitally interested in enhancing the current and future reliability of Colorado River system through augmentation and other means to meet current and future Arizona water needs. 

APPROVED: 

SANDRA FABRITZ-WHITNEY, 

Director. 

COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

The Colorado River Board of California has authority under California law to investigate, coordinate, collate, and preserve information, facts, and data bearing upon 

the Colorado River System and to confer with representatives of other States in the 

Colorado River Basin, representatives of the United States, and other concerning 

the development of water within the Colorado river Basin and the use of the water 

of the Colorado River System. 

APPROVED: 

BART FISHER, 

Chairman. 

COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) was established in 1937 to guide 

the development and protection of water resources for the benefit of present and future Coloradans. Through policy implementation, financial support for water 

projects, and participation in statewide as well as nationwide programming, the 

CWCB strives to most effectively utilize this valuable resource. This fifteen member 

Board and professional staff work with the federal government, neighboring states, 

and water users within Colorado to strike a balance between necessary development 

and environmental protection. The CWCB serves as Colorado’s primary guide for 

water policy in all of the state’s river basins, as well as administration of major compacts, decrees, and treaties. 

APPROVED: 

JENNIFER GIMBEL, 

Director. 

COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF NEVADA

SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY

The State of Nevada participants in the Colorado River Basin Study include the 

Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). The CRCN is a State authorized agency responsible for securing 

and protecting Nevada’s rights and interests in the Colorado River and in electric 

power generated by the river. The SNWA is a political subdivision of the State of 

Nevada and is responsible for addressing Southern Nevada’s water needs on a regional basis. The SNWA represents seven member agencies including the Big Bend 

Water District, the City of Boulder City, the City of Henderson, the City of Las 

Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, Clark County Water Reclamation District, and 

the Las Vegas Valley Water District. The CRCN and the SNWA work cooperatively 

to effectively manage Colorado River water resources for the State of Nevada and 

water users in Southern Nevada. 

APPROVED: 

JAYNE HARKINS, 

Executive Director, Colorado River Commission of Nevada, 

PATRICIA MULROY, 

General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority. 

NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION

The New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (NMISC) is authorized by statute 

to do any and all things necessary to protect, conserve and develop the waters of 

the state, including representing the state of New Mexico’s interests in the allocations made to New Mexico under the Colorado River and Upper Colorado River 

Basin compacts. In addition, the NMISC looks after the interests of all Colorado 

River water users within the State of New Mexico. The use of Colorado River water 
79 

is vital to the economic health and public welfare of the state of New Mexico and 

its citizens and includes water used for municipal and industrial, irrigation, and 

tribal purposes while providing fish and wildlife, recreational and environmental 

benefits within the San Juan, Little Colorado, Gila and Rio Grande basins. 

APPROVED: 

ESTEVAN LOPEZ, 

Director. 

UTAH DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

The Utah Board of Water Resources (Board) and the Division of Water Resources 

(Division) were established to develop and protect the water resources of the State 

of Utah for the benefit of present and future citizens of Utah. Through policy implementation, water resource planning, and financial assistance for water projects, the 

Division and the Board work to effectively utilize this precious resource. As the Governor’s representative for interstate streams, The Division represents Utah to coordinate work with the federal government, neighboring states, and water users 

within Utah to achieve the goals of protecting our scenic natural environment while 

maintaining the vital use and development of water to promote the wellbeing and 

economic vitality of Utah on behalf of its citizens. 

APPROVED: 

DENNIS J. STRONG, 

Director, Utah Interstate Stream Commissioner. 

STATE OF WYOMING

Water in Wyoming belongs to the State. The Wyoming State Engineer is a constitutionally-created office and is Wyoming’s chief water official with general supervisory authority over the waters of the state, and of its appropriation, distribution 

and application to recognized beneficial uses. The State Engineer is entrusted with 

the duty to preserve Wyoming’s water allocations to safeguard the State’s current 

and future water supplies. The Wyoming legislature has conferred upon Wyoming 

officers the authority to cooperate with and assist like authorities and entities of 

other states in the performance of any lawful power, duty or authority. Wyoming 

and its State Engineer represent the rights and interests of all Wyoming appropriators with respect to other states. 

APPROVED: 

PATRICK T. TYRRELL, 

State Engineer. 

Æ