Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000378 <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />After the 1995 AOP consultations, the Lower Basin states and Lower <br />Colorado River Indian Tribes formed the Lower Colorado River Basin <br />Technical Committee (TC) in September 1994 to find solutions and <br />compromises for surplus, shortage, and many other issues. <br />Reclamation was also invited to participate and to provide technical <br />assistance. ' <br /> <br />After investigation of many operating strategies, the TC issued a <br />draft ,report on a more narrow selection of strategies titled <br />"Alternative Operating strategies For Determining Surplus and <br />Shortage Conditions For The Lower Colorado River Reservoirs" dated <br />April 11, 1995. Basically, one general type of shortage strategy and <br />two types of surplus strategy were presented in addition to the base <br />case of 70% assurance of avoiding flood control releases. From the <br />strategies presented, an even more narrow selection of strategies was <br />to be chosen for further detailed evaluation. <br /> <br />The basic shortage strategy presented was that proposed during the <br />earlier CRMPS studies: 80% assurance of keeping Lake Mead at or <br />above elevation 1050 feet. Also presented was a refinement of this <br />basic shortage strategy which would reduce this trigger by using <br />system water to offset 50% of any surplus water used in earlier <br />years. Another modification presented was for California to share <br />shortages with Arizona and Nevada. <br /> <br />One of the two basic surplus strategies presented was that proposed <br />during the earlier CRMPS studies: 80% assurance of protecting <br />against triggering a shortage. The other surplus strategy was to <br />determine the volume of surplus water based on different elevations <br />of Lake Mead and to make less surplus water available. as Mead <br />declined through these elevations from elevation 1140 feet down to <br />1120 feet. <br /> <br />Findings <br /> <br />One important finding was that, for the next 20 years, there are no <br />significant differences in Lake Mead storage and Arizona and Nevada <br />average uses between any of the strategies, even though some <br />strategies allow significant increases in California's uses over the <br />base case. Differences in Lake Mead storage were found to become <br />significant by 30 years, without significant changes in Arizona and <br />Nevada uses. After 30 years, the changes in Lake Mead storage would <br />begin to carryover to future years and affect Arizona and Nevada <br />deliveries. No strategy was found to affect Upper Basin water use or <br />to significantly affect the Lake Powell minimum release objective of <br />8.23 million acre-feet. <br /> <br />From the findings above, for the next 20 years any of the studied <br />surplus and shortage strategies makes better use of water in the <br />United States than does the base case, by reducing excess deliveries <br />to Mexico. It should also be noted that the long-range operating <br />