Comment On The Post-2026 Colorado River DEIS

SUGGESTED COMMENTS:

The DEIS Avoids A Hard Look At Cumulative Impacts

The document fails to consider the following:

• The DEIS ignores the complete geographic scope, and the impacts of that narrowed scope from curtailments, inaction, and limited action in directly affected communities in the Lower Colorado River Basin.
• Air quality impacts on communities are too narrowly reviewed in the Technical Appendices. The DEIS avoids addressing those direct impacts that will result from the alternatives in the DEIS.
• Water quality impacts on communities are too narrowly reviewed in the Technical Appendices. The DEIS avoids addressing those direct impacts that will result from the alternatives in the DEIS.
• Water availability impacts on communities in the Lower Colorado River Basin are too narrowly reviewed in the Technical Appendices. The DEIS avoids addressing those direct impacts that will result from the alternatives in the DEIS.
• Impacts on Lower Region MSCP (27 species including listed Endangered Species) are too narrowly reviewed in the Technical Appendices. The DEIS avoids addressing those direct impacts that will result from the alternatives in the DEIS.
• Socioeconomic impacts on communities are too narrowly reviewed in the Technical Appendices. The DEIS avoids addressing those direct impacts on Lower Colorado River communities that will result from the alternatives in the DEIS.
• Impacts on recreation facilities, refugia, park service units, federal infrastructure, and directly connected waterways of the Colorado River System are too narrowly reviewed in the Technical Appendices.

Three Alternatives Do Not Likely Comply With The Law Of The River. Programmatic Review Is Necessary And So Is Congressional Action

In Appendix C, the DEIS implies that modeling justifying three of the proposals “may not be implementable” because potential non-compliance with “laws, contracts, agreements, and other authorities that are part of the Colorado River legal and contractual framework referred to as Law of the River.” That is a reference to the Enhanced Coordination, Maximum Operational Flexibility, and Supply Driven Alternative. Without any deal in place among the states or congressional action, a Record of Decision supporting those alternatives poses legal challenges that may be insurmountable.

Therefore, according to the DEIS, the No Action Alternative and Basic Coordination Alternative are among the only options that could avoid a legal challenge after a Record of Decision.

Those options pose some of the worst outcomes for Lakes Powell and Mead. We believe that no course of action as put forth in the DEIS is a sufficient means of stabilizing the system under the current Law of the River framework. This is troubling considering Reclamation is predicting some of the most dire reservoir elevations ever in the coming two years.

Reclamation should undertake a programmatic review as the states continue negotiating. This year’s low flows will inevitably get people back to the negotiating table in a meaningful way. Congress will act when the reservoirs are in crisis. We have seen congressional, bi-partisan action multiple times in the past seven years.  When Congress is ready, enlist the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a programmatic review in partnership with the Department of Interior, Reclamation and other cooperating agencies. This document is not the beginning of the end. We believe it is merely the end of the beginning.

The DEIS Fails To Consider Impacts On Irretrievable Resources By Sanctioning The Repurposing Of Water Resources

The DEIS offers multiple alternatives that impose varying levels of cuts in the Lower Basin and no meaningful cuts in the Upper Basin. Some alternatives mention the possibility of Upper Basin “conservation” but those offerings do not describe who, what, where and when. There is nothing steadfast for cuts in the Upper Basin.

The DEIS also showcases a modified version of the 2016 Upper Basin Depletion Schedule that still assumes considerable new uses of water in the Upper Basin in the coming decades. Because of the limited resources available, there’s no doubting that cuts imposed on the Lower Basin will be repurposed by the Upper Basin. That repurposing defeats the intent of this analysis. Once that water is re-appropriated by Upper Basin regulators, waters with established beneficial uses will not return to where those uses were first proven in the Lower Basin. This is highly suspect.

Furthermore, we question how Reclamation can execute its recognized authority to force a curtailment in one basin but not even questioning how development of new appropriations in another part of the basin will impact the whole system and those who had to undertake curtailment.  Upper Basin reservoirs are subject to the “apportionments” among the two basins, seven states and Mexico (See Colorado River Storage Project Act, Pub. L. No. 84-485, § 4, 70 Stat. 107 (1956)).   Reclamation has a great deal of say in how certain rights are managed in the system. But how can regulators sequester the differences between the starting and end points of a highly connected system where some users have established decades worth of use? This gray area is at the heart of the ongoing conflict among the seven states, and we request more information on this in the FEIS.

We fear that it is an unacceptable practice to allow the Upper Basin to repurpose water from Lower Basin in the name of state-led permitting efforts in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Further declines in the system will challenge Reclamation’s mission to protect infrastructure, ecosystems, and communities. It means less water making its way through the southernly reaches of the system in the majority of years if current trends continue. Every state needs a curtailment plan on the Colorado River. This DEIS fails to compel the Upper Basin States to meaningfully consider how they will act to protect federal assets and resources.

Finally, this could also bring about conflict over tribal water rights in the Upper and Lower Basins — especially where settlements have been established. There must be consideration of reducing, at a 1-for-1 rate, junior non-tribal use for those senior tribal rights that have not yet been put to use. How Reclamation would undertake this matter in the Upper and Lower Basin must included in any FEIS. Also, there must be consideration of how Reclamation would prevent new Upper Basin appropriations put forth by non-native water users from using, in a de facto sense, settled and adjudicated rights of Lower Basin tribes.  

DEIS Ignores Glen Canyon Dam’s Antique Plumbing

The analysis in the DEIS fails to consider bypass, decommissioning, and other meaningful resolutions available at Glen Canyon Dam, which poses considerable concerns for water delivery and endangered species protections. We understand and respect the legal arguments for not including the One-Dam Alternative. But it is a mistake to not undertake comprehensive analysis on this matter. Keeping Lake Powell’s elevations above 3550’, 3525, and 3490’ are not realistic scenarios for the long-term. Failure to include greater analysis on Glen Canyon Dam’s river outlet works will ultimately cost us all — imposing direct impacts on Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, other federal infrastructure, metropolitan areas, agricultural hubs, tribal resources, sensitive species, National Park Service units, U.S. Fish and Wildlife units, and other conservation areas in the Lower Basin.

The DEIS’ Purpose-And-Need Is Too Narrow And Segments Requisite Reviews

Reclamation, admittedly so in its Purpose and Need statement, recognizes the grave uncertainties we face if conditions do not improve on the river system. Reclamation also recognizes the direct connections the DEIS makes with upstream infrastructure associated with the Colorado River Storage Project units and in Lower Basin units at Parker Dam, Davis Dam, Imperial Dam, and Palo Verde. The DEIS would benefit from greater analyses in the technical appendices dealing with directly related impacts at the dams during low-flow periods. The same can be said for analyzing impacts at all Colorado River Storage Project facilities in low-flow periods too. They will be essential for propping up Lakes Powell and Mead. What will operations look like if CRSP and Lower Basin Infrastructure are only operating collectively at 10-20 percent of normal? What can we expect? To say that management at Mead and Powell are not directly connected to that management is implausible.