In the West, it is required to calculate the loss of water as a result of evaporation.

Under the scorching sun and hot, dry air, more than 10% of the water carried by the Colorado River evaporates, leaks, or spills as the West’s 1,450-mile power plant flows through dams, reservoirs, and open-air canals.

For decades, key river managers have ignored the massive water loss, instead giving Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico their share of the river without deducting what has evaporated.

But that 10% can no longer be ignored, hydrologists, government officials and other Western water experts say.

A multi-year drought in the West has resulted in unprecedented low water levels in key reservoirs along the river. Officials from Nevada and Arizona say they, along with California, now need to calculate how much water is actually in the river.

The challenge is to find a method that California can agree on.

“It’s very difficult to reach consensus,” says Sarah Porter, director of the Kyle Water Policy Center at Arizona State University. She thinks it’s unlikely that the states will come to terms on their own without federal intervention.

Unlike Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico, the upstream or Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming already account for evaporative losses.

Now, as the federal deadline approaches for the Colorado River basin states to say how they will use at least 15% less water from the river, Arizona, California and Nevada once again urgently need to consider what is being lost to evaporation.

One proposal came from Nevada: States at the end of the river would see their portion of the Colorado River shrink based on the distance it traveled to reach users. The further south a river flows, the more water is lost as temperatures rise, and the longer the water is exposed to the elements.

The Southern Nevada Water Authority estimates that approximately 1.5 million acre-feet of water are lost each year in Arizona, Nevada, and California due to evaporation, transportation, and inefficiency. That’s 50% more than Utah uses in a whole year.

Nevada and Arizona can support this plan.

Nevada has the least to lose under this plan, as Lake Mead—the man-made body of water from which Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico—is in the backyard.

Tom Bushacke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, called Nevada’s proposal fair.

“The loss calculation proposed by Nevada is probably the most fair and corresponds to the real physical world,” said Busatzke. “The farther, the greater the loss.”

But most importantly, California disagrees. Officials there have said that Nevada’s plan likely runs counter to Western water law. California has rights to the largest share of the Colorado River’s water. Just as importantly, during times of water shortage, water cuts occur later than for other users, based on the so-called Law of the River, a series of overlapping agreements, court decisions, and contracts that govern how the river is divided. Its basic water rights mean it hasn’t been cut so far.

California water managers have stated that evaporation and system losses should be accounted for based on this existing system. In a December letter to federal officials, Christopher Harris, executive director of the California Colorado River Board, said any other approach could “face significant legal and technical challenges.”

For Arizona, this could mean such a significant loss that some experts say Phoenix’s drinking water supply could be in jeopardy from supply cuts to the Central Arizona Project, a 336-mile aqueduct system that brings water from the Colorado River to the metro area. and Tucson.

Under the Nevada plan, California will pay a heavy price. In addition to using more water from the river than any other state, its water travels some of the longest distances. The Imperial Irrigation District of California, the largest user of the Colorado River, will lose about 19% of its share. Many winter vegetables and alfalfa are grown in the region, and Imperial said it does not agree at all with limiting water based on evaporative loss.

Tina Shields, water manager for the Imperial Irrigation District, said Arizona and Nevada, whose water rights are smaller than California’s, favored the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s plan because it would benefit them to share the losses.

“When you have a junior, that’s what you do,” Shields said. “You are trying to share a problem with other users.”

According to John Fleck, a researcher at the University of New Mexico Water Resources Program, the Lower Basin states have avoided recognizing these losses for so long in part because it hasn’t been necessary in past decades. Water was plentiful, and some states did not take all the water they were legally entitled to.

In many cases, the infrastructure needed to deliver water—vast canals, dams, and streams—did not exist.

“The problem goes back to a time when… no one needed to care about it,” Fleck said.

Complicated politics have also made the issue inviolable, Fleck said.

“No one wanted to take it on,” Fleck said. “It all boils down to the same thing: less water needs to be taken out of the system.”

Content Source

California Press News – Latest News:
Los Angeles Local News || Bay Area Local News || California News || Lifestyle News || National news || Travel News || Health News

Related Articles

Back to top button