ROARING FORK BROADCASTING COMPANY
Two groups of states submitted conflicting proposals in March describing how federal officials should manage reservoirs on the Colorado River after 2026. Former Colorado River Water Conservation District General Manager Eric Kuhn, along with two other water experts, have their own idea to pitch.
Kuhn and his co-authors, University of New Mexico professor John Fleck and Utah State University professor Jack Schmidt want to add more flexibility to dam operations to address environmental and recreation concerns in the Grand Canyon below Glen Canyon Dam (the dam that forms Lake Powell).
Kuhn presented what has been called the “academic proposal” during a Colorado Basin Roundtable meeting in Glenwood Springs on Monday. He said the document is not a “proposal” akin to the states’ proposals, describing it as more of an “approach” that can be incorporated with other proposals.
“What we’ve proposed is a one-speed bicycle with pedal-back brakes,” Kuhn said. “What all of the parties are likely to negotiate for an actual accounting system is more like a Mars rover.”
The two alternatives submitted by the states propose regulations that will layer on top of the 1922 Colorado River Compact to regulate how federal officials release water from major reservoirs after current regulations expire at the end of 2026. One proposal, submitted by the “Upper Basin” states (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming) would regulate releases from Lake Powell, while the “Lower Basin” states (California, Arizona and Nevada) proposal reaches farther to affect releases from Powell, Lake Mead and five other reservoirs spread across both basins.
The two basins can either sort out their differences and submit a unified proposal or the federal government can implement its own solution, which would likely involve elements from both of the competing proposals. Whatever the outcome, Kuhn and his colleagues have something they think should be included.
Both basins' alternatives, Kuhn pointed out, direct officials to use existing water levels in reservoirs each fall to set fixed releases for the following year. Considering these guidelines could be in place for decades, Kuhn and his colleagues say that idea doesn’t allow enough flexibility to address changing environmental and recreational concerns in the Grand Canyon.
Kuhn said concerns about invasive fish species and sediment distribution in the Grand Canyon change frequently depending on hydrological conditions, water demands and the fish themselves. While the invasive fish “du jour” is small-mouth bass, he said that fish has only been a top concern for about five years. In another few years, the focus could switch to walleye.
“Our concerns next year or 10 years from now are going to be very different from what they are today,” Kuhn said.
Kuhn added that dam managers may need to adjust releases to protect Glen Canyon Dam itself, which is nearly 60 years old.
Kuhn’s, Fleck’s and Schmidt’s solution, Kuhn said, is to allow the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to adjust Glen Canyon releases when necessary to address these diverse and changing issues.
Every time managers adjust for environmental or other concerns, though, it will mean that Powell (which is in the Upper Basin) or Mead (in the Lower Basin) ends up with a different amount of water from what the guidelines officially dictate. To deal with this disparity, the authors propose setting up a special “account” of water in one reservoir that compensates for unexpected losses in the other.
If managers choose to release more water from Powell than expected, it means the Upper Basin lets more water flow to the Lower Basin than is obligated. Therefore, that water would be held in an “account” in Lake Mead, and it would count against Powell’s future releases to the Lower Basin. The reverse would be true if managers release less water from Powell than expected — they would set up an account in Powell that would later add on top of future releases to Mead.
Other attendees at the meeting were quick to point out that the academic proposal gives significant discretion to the Secretary of Interior.
“What makes me uncomfortable about the proposal is that it basically comes down to the Secretary of Interior, so it’s going to be a very politically charged decision,” April Long, Colorado Basin Roundtable chair, said. “And politically we lose to California.”
Kuhn pushed back, saying the accounts in each reservoir would keep states like California from getting hurt.
The academic proposal is one of several documents produced by groups other than the two basins regarding dam operations after 2026. A group of seven environmental and conservation organizations has submitted a wide-ranging proposal on dam operations, and a group of 16 tribes has also submitted a “letter of principles” that calls for a greater tribal role in establishing the new guidelines. The tribes hold the most senior water rights on the river, though exclusion from water negotiations and a lack of infrastructure have prevented them from using those rights.
During a later presentation, the river district Director of Science and Interstate Matters Dave Kanzer noted that the tribal letter calls on the U.S. government to “actively protect tribal water rights” and to “provide for a permanent, formalized structure for tribal participation in implementing post-2026 guidelines, and in any future Colorado River policy and governance,” among other things.
“They seem like fair principles that most of us can probably get behind,” Kanzer said.