Groups oppose surplus status for river

Greg Harman and Jace Radke

Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2000 | 11:17 a.m.

A coalition of regional conservation groups is questioning the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's proposed declaration of a water surplus in the Colorado River basin for 2001.

The groups -- including Southwest Rivers, Environmental Defense and the Center for Biological Diversity -- are asking that only normal shares of river water be allocated instead of surplus-sized shares because of dry conditions that have increased the risk of shortages.

But Pat Mulroy, general manager for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said that failure to declare a surplus and release more water would result in "panic on the river system."

That panic would center in Southern California, where the state is using more than a million acre-feet of water above its annual allotment to provide for municipal water demand, she said.

An acre-foot of water is equal to 325,851 gallons -- or just about the water needs for a family of four for one year.

Without surplus water, Southern California cities stretching from Santa Barbara to San Diego would be forced into emergency drought conditions.

"There's no way the secretary can not declare a surplus," Mulroy said.

In Southern Nevada the extra water could be stored to provide for future demand.

A surplus is declared whenever it is determined there is more than enough water to meet the shares of the various river compact members, Bob Walsh, spokesperson for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

The environmental groups contend that the amount of water flowing into Lake Mead -- one of the criteria to determine a surplus, normal or drought year -- is not what it should be, with river flows at only 62 percent of normal levels.

"Surplus should mean that there is extra water in the river and reservoirs to meet additional needs," Southwest Rivers spokeswoman Pamela Hyde said.

"Trying to squeeze extra water out of the system in drier years just because the demand for it exists is an unwise and potentially dangerous course of action."

Walsh conceded that in-flow for 1999 was below normal -- about 7 million acre-feet compared with a normal year of 15 million acre-feet. But he pointed out that precipitation this year is already at 86 percent.

"It's considerably better than it was last year, but that can change," Walsh said.

Pat Mulroy also defended the proposal to release more water to river compact member states such as Nevada, Arizona and California, saying: "There's no dry conditions. There's already snowfall in Utah ... The lake is still pretty healthy. It's full."

By far, the biggest winners in a surplus year are Arizona and California.

Under current calculations Nevada, whose annual allotment is 300,000 acre-feet of water, will get 4 percent of any deemed surplus waters.

Meanwhile, Arizona, whose annual share is 2.8 million acre-feet, and California, whose share is 4.4 million acre-feet, will split the difference. Arizona will take 46 percent of surplus waters and California will take 50 percent.

California routinely exceeds its annual allotment, generally requiring 5.2 million acre-feet of water, Mulroy said.

Also at risk, according to environmental groups, are delta ecosystems that have become more and more scarce along the Colorado River.

It's estimated that 95 percent of former delta wetlands have been eliminated, endangering plant and wildlife, Hyde said.

Mexican deltas have been most affected by the river use. In fact, the Colorado River no longer reaches the Gulf of California in Mexico.

Mulroy said that United States users can't be blamed for the reduction in waters reaching Mexico.

She complained of illegal "diverter" wells that already draw more than the Mexican allotment.

If surplus conditions are declared, Mexico will probably not benefit under the current formula.

The country is allowed 1.5 million acre-feet annually of Colorado River water and an additional 200,000 acre-feet when available in a surplus year.