BOARD01350

• Board Meeting Date: 1/24/2006
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Issues - Development of Opearations for Lakes Powell and Mead under Low Reservoir Conditions, including the Development of Lower Basin Shortage Criteria
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

..

.

Agenda Item 24
January 24.25. 2006 Board Meeting
Page 3 of3

it then starts to equalize storage with Lake Mead. Neither Upper Basin water users
nor Lower Basin water users have ever experienced a shortage under these operations,
but the past several years of drought have shown that such is clearly possible. Lake
Powell reached its low point in April 2004 with approximately 8.0 MAF aCtive
storage (elevation 3555.9 feet). This was approximately 4.0 MAF above minimum
power pool and considering Powell was losing between 2.0 and 3.5 MAF per year
during the drought represented the possibility the Powell could go below minimum
power in about 2-years if the drought had continued at that magnitude. Lake Mead is
still subject to further drawdown, which is dependent on how fast Powell recovers. If
average inflows to Powell occur over the next couple of years, Lake Mead should not
drop below elevation 1126 as Powell would go above the 602(a) storage level and
begin to equalize storage with Lake Mead.
Finally, there are obviously numerous modeling assumptions that should be
considered and those are being discussed with a Colorado technical workgroup to
assure that Colorado's constituents understand and are comfortable with those
assumptions. It is hoped that through this process that they can help the negotiating
team bener identify and explain the pro's and con's of the suggested 7-basin state
coordinated operations for Lakes Powell and Mead.

Negotiating Points

.

Attachment B hereto contains the Upper Division State negotiating points as
presented to the Lower Division States on January 5, 2006. Attachment C contains
the Lower Division States latest draft concept paper that outlines the Lower Division's
proposed "Guidelines for the Interim Operation of Lake Mead and Deliveries of
Colorado River Water to the Lower Division States." The Lower Division concept
paper is still being negotiated among the Lower Division States and may still undergo
some significant revisions as a result. We would emphasize that none of these items
han been formally agreed too by ao)'one and are still subject to change through
the negotiating process. \Vhile tbese documents have been shared witb
Colorado's major users of Colorado Rinr water, they are not ready for full
public distribution. The documents do represent the best indication of how the
negotiations are proceeding. We would note that the negotiations are moving in a
positive direction and hopefully they will result in a 7-state proposal for Reclamations
consideration during the current NEP A process.

Recommendations

Staff has no recommendations to offer at this time. Staff would be interested
in any comments or direction that Board Members would like to convey to Colorado's
negotiating team.

.

Attachments