Joint Briefing Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan June 28, 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
joint briefing lower basin drought contingency plan
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Joint Briefing Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan June 28, 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 06, 2022 259 likes •980 views

Joint Briefing Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan June 28, 2018 To submit a handwritten question: 1. Get a blue card from ADWR or CAP staff 2. Complete and return to ADWR or CAP staff prior to break To submit a question via text: 1. Text

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Joint Briefing Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

June 28, 2018

To submit a handwritten question: 1. Get a blue card from ADWR or CAP staff 2. Complete and return to ADWR or CAP staff prior to break To submit a question via text: 1. Text AZDCP to 22333 2. Reply to the automated text with your question To submit a question online: 1. Go to PollEV.com/AZDCP 2. Enter your name and submit your question For Wi-Fi Access: 1. Join the Copper network 2. User Name: Guest (case sensitive) 3. Password: SedonaSharks84

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Joint Briefing Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

June 28, 2018

Process Overview Colorado River: Current Hydrology and Hydrologic Risk to System Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan: Review of Key Terms Colorado River System Response Effects of the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan to Arizona Water Users Break Outline of Process for Stakeholder Engagement and Next Steps Questions and Answers

Arizona Department of Water Resources and Central Arizona Project

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Colorado River System

  • Provides water to seven US

states and two Mexican states

  • Supplies water for ~40

Million people

  • Supplies water to over 5

million acres of agricultural production

  • Capacity to store four years
  • f annual average inflow
  • Capacity to generate more

than 4,200 megawatts of hydropower

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Lake Powell and Lake Mead Combined Storage

10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 2017 Reservoir Storage (million acre-feet) Lake Mead Storage Lake Powell Storage Combined maximum capacity

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Colorado River: Current Hydrology and Hydrologic Risks to the System

Arizona Workshop – Drought Contingency Plan June 28, 2018 Phoenix, Arizona

slide-6
SLIDE 6

25 50 75 100 125 150 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep

Percent of Seasonal Median Snow Water Equivalent (inches)

Colorado River Basin Above Lake Powell

Median: WY 1981 - 2010 Previous Water Year: 2017 Current Water Year: 2018 PAST FUTURE

Seasonal snowpack for 2018 peaked at 73% of median

  • n March 30

Upper Colorado River Basin

Water Year 2018 Snowpack and Forecasted Inflow

Water Year 2018 Forecasted Unregulated Inflow (as of 6/18/18) 47% of average

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

1981 – 2010 unregulated flow average

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Colorado River Basin Storage

(as of June 25, 2018)

Reservoir Percent Full Storage (MAF) Elevation (Feet) Lake Powell 53% 12.81 3,611 Lake Mead 38% 9.80 1,077 Total System Storage* 51% 30.53 NA

*Total system storage was 56% or 33.56 maf this time last year

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

End of calendar year 2018 balances of U.S. ICS and Mexico’s Water Reserve, system conservation water, and other voluntary contributions to Lake Mead are provisional and subject to change.

Lake Mead End-of-Calendar Year Elevation

Powell WY Release (maf)

8.23 8.98 8.24 8.24 12.52 9.47 8.23 7.48 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 Annual Flow (MAF) Calendar Year

Provisional data, subject to change Estimated values for 2016-2018

Natural Flow Colorado River at Lees Ferry Gaging Station, Arizona

Water Year 1906 to 2018

10

Long-term running average (1906 – 2018 average = 14.8 MAF) 1988 – 2015 (“stress test” hydrology) average = 13.2 MAF 10-yr moving average

slide-11
SLIDE 11

900' 950' 1,000' 1,050' 1,100' 1,150' 1,200' 1,250' 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Historical Elevations Surplus Conditions

Historical and Future Projected Lake Mead End-of-December Elevations

Median “2007 Projections”

Figure notes: 2007 Projections from Interim Guidelines FEIS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2005 natural flow record. “Full” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2015 natural flow record. “Stress Test” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1988-2015 natural flow record.

Normal or ICS Surplus Conditions Level 1 Shortage Condition Level 3 Shortage Condition Level 2 Shortage Condition 895’ is dead pool

11

Operations per 2007 Interim Guidelines

slide-12
SLIDE 12

900' 950' 1,000' 1,050' 1,100' 1,150' 1,200' 1,250' 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Historical Elevations

Historical and Future Projected Lake Mead End-of-December Elevations

Normal or ICS Surplus Conditions Level 1 Shortage Condition Level 3 Shortage Condition Level 2 Shortage Condition 895’ is dead pool Surplus Conditions

Operations per 2007 Interim Guidelines

Median “2007 Projections”

7 Figure notes: 2007 Projections from Interim Guidelines FEIS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2005 natural flow record. “Full” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2015 natural flow record. “Stress Test” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1988-2015 natural flow record.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

900' 950' 1,000' 1,050' 1,100' 1,150' 1,200' 1,250' 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Historical Elevations

Historical and Future Projected Lake Mead End-of-December Elevations

Median “Full” Hydrology Normal or ICS Surplus Conditions Level 1 Shortage Condition Level 3 Shortage Condition Level 2 Shortage Condition 895’ is dead pool Surplus Conditions

Operations per 2007 Interim Guidelines

Median “2007 Projections”

7 Figure notes: 2007 Projections from Interim Guidelines FEIS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2005 natural flow record. “Full” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2015 natural flow record. “Stress Test” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1988-2015 natural flow record.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

900' 950' 1,000' 1,050' 1,100' 1,150' 1,200' 1,250' 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Historical Elevations

Historical and Future Projected Lake Mead End-of-December Elevations

Median “Full” Hydrology Normal or ICS Surplus Conditions Level 1 Shortage Condition Level 3 Shortage Condition Level 2 Shortage Condition 895’ is dead pool Surplus Conditions Median “Stress Test” Hydrology

Operations per 2007 Interim Guidelines

Median “2007 Projections”

7 Figure notes: 2007 Projections from Interim Guidelines FEIS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2005 natural flow record. “Full” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2015 natural flow record. “Stress Test” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1988-2015 natural flow record.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

900' 950' 1,000' 1,050' 1,100' 1,150' 1,200' 1,250' 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Historical Elevations

Historical and Future Projected Lake Mead End-of-December Elevations

10th – 90th Percentile “Full” Hydrology Median “Full” Hydrology Normal or ICS Surplus Conditions Level 1 Shortage Condition Level 3 Shortage Condition Level 2 Shortage Condition 895’ is dead pool Surplus Conditions Median “Stress Test” Hydrology

Operations per 2007 Interim Guidelines

Median “2007 Projections”

7 Figure notes: 2007 Projections from Interim Guidelines FEIS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2005 natural flow record. “Full” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2015 natural flow record. “Stress Test” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1988-2015 natural flow record.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

900' 950' 1,000' 1,050' 1,100' 1,150' 1,200' 1,250' 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Historical Elevations

Historical and Future Projected Lake Mead End-of-December Elevations

Operations per 2007 Interim Guidelines

10th – 90th Percentile “Full” Hydrology 10th – 90th Percentile “Stress Test” Hydrology Median “Stress Test” Hydrology Median “Full” Hydrology Normal or ICS Surplus Conditions Level 1 Shortage Condition Level 3 Shortage Condition Level 2 Shortage Condition 895’ is dead pool Surplus Conditions Median “2007 Projections”

7 Figure notes: 2007 Projections from Interim Guidelines FEIS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2005 natural flow record. “Full” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1906-2015 natural flow record. “Stress Test” Hydrology from April 2018 CRSS. Future hydrology based on resampling of the 1988-2015 natural flow record.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

1,075’ 37% 9.6 maf

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015) 2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,075’

slide-18
SLIDE 18

1,050’ 29% 7.7 maf

9

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,050’

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015) 2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

1,025’ 23% 6.0 maf

10

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,025’

slide-20
SLIDE 20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

1,020’ 22% 5.7 maf

11

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,020’

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

1,000’ 17% 4.5 maf

12

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,000’

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Lake Mead, 2015 ~1,075’, 9.6 maf

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan: Review of Key Terms

Thomas Buschatzke Director Arizona Department of Water Resources June 28, 2018 Joint Briefing on the LBDCP

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

The Need:

The risk of Lake Mead falling below 1025’ in the year 2026 has doubled since the development of the 2007 Interim Guidelines. Under “Stress Test” hydrology, the risk is about six times larger.

The Goal:

Reduce the probability of reaching critical elevations that could cause draconian reductions in water deliveries

slide-26
SLIDE 26
  • In 2015, principal representatives from ADWR, CAWCD,

CA, NV, and USBR began negotiations to address the increased risks to Lake Mead elevations.

  • The principal representatives sought to:
  • Improve sustainability through increased storage – and a

“backstop” – to protect Lake Mead elevations; and

  • Incentivize Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) creation

by increasing flexibility and minimizing the risk of stranding conserved water during shortages.

26

Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • The principal representatives developed the LBDCP as

an overlay on the 2007 Interim Guidelines to improve sustainability and increase ICS flexibility.

  • Lower Basin representatives (and USBR) are continuing

to refine the details and to draft the LBDCP documents.

  • The LBDCP is one component of a Basin-wide approach

that will ultimately incorporate Mexico’s participation in parity and alignment with the LBDCP, as well as an Upper Basin DCP.

27

Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

slide-28
SLIDE 28
  • In Minute 323 (executed in September 2017), Mexico

committed to a Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan (BWSCP) “in parity and alignment” with a Lower Basin DCP.

  • Minute 323 provides for Mexico to conserve defined

volumes of water at specific elevations “in parity and alignment” with DCP contributions, upon the authorization

  • f a Lower Basin DCP within the U.S.
  • Mexico will also benefit from the same flexibility provisions

applicable to ICS in the Lower Basin.

28

Mexico’s Participation in LBDCP

slide-29
SLIDE 29
  • DCP Contributions
  • DCP ICS Recovery (to avoid stranding conserved water)
  • ICS Flexibility (to incentivize conservation)
  • Commitment to protect elevation 1020 feet in Lake

Mead (i.e., the “backstop”)

  • Allows interstate banking during shortage years

29

Lower Basin DCP Components

slide-30
SLIDE 30
  • DCP Contributions may be made by:
  • Converting ICS to DCP ICS
  • Simultaneous creation of ICS and conversion to DCP ICS
  • Reductions in delivery of Colorado River water to create

system water

  • California parties intend to make DCP Contributions

through the conversion of ICS to DCP ICS.

  • All states will make DCP Contributions even if ICS is not

available.

30

DCP Contributions

slide-31
SLIDE 31

2007 Interim Guidelines Shortage Reductions and Incremental DCP Contributions

31

Lake Mead Elevation AZ 2007 AZ DCP AZ TOTAL NV 2007 NV DCP NV TOTAL CA 2007 CA DCP CA TOTAL BOR DCP MX Min 323 MX BWSCP MX Total TOTAL

≤1090 >1075 192K 192K 8K 8K 100k 41k 41k 341k ≤1075>1050 320K 192K 512K 13K 8K 21K 100k 50k 30k 80k 713k ≤1050>1045 400K 192K 592K 17K 8K 25K 100k 70k 34k 104k 821k ≤1045>1040 400K 240K 640K 17K 10K 27K 200K 200K 100k 70k 76k 146k 1,113k ≤1040>1035 400K 240K 640K 17K 10K 27K 250K 250K 100k 70k 84k 154k 1,171k ≤1035>1030 400K 240K 640K 17K 10K 27K 300K 300K 100k 70k 92k 162k 1,229k ≤1030>1025 400K 240K 640K 17K 10K 27K 350K 350K 100k 70k 101k 171k 1,288k ≤1025 480K 240K 720K 20K 10K 30K 350K 350K 100k 125k 150k 275k 1,475k

slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • DCP ICS is created by conversion of ICS.
  • DCP ICS is only accessible under certain conditions –

meaning it will remain in Lake Mead longer to support reservoir elevations.

  • To ensure that DCP ICS is not stranded in the reservoir,

DCP ICS is recoverable through 2057.

32

DCP ICS

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Through 2026:

  • Recovery when Lake Mead is above elevation 1110 feet
  • Between 1025 – 1110 feet elevation, may “borrow” DCP ICS for
  • ne year (i.e., take delivery of DCP ICS for one year with the
  • bligation to repay full volume in the following calendar year).
  • No DCP ICS delivery at or below 1025 feet.

33

DCP ICS Recovery

slide-34
SLIDE 34

2027 through 2057:

  • Recovery when Lake Mead is above elevation 1110 feet
  • Between 1025 – 1075 feet elevation, may “borrow” DCP ICS for one

year.

  • Between 1075 – 1110 feet elevation, may “borrow” with 5-year

repayment OR recover with additional 20% deduction in account. Must decide whether to repay or to take additional 20% deduction by the end of year 4.

  • No DCP ICS delivery at or below 1025 feet.
  • DCP ICS is subject to 3% assessment per year.

34

DCP ICS Recovery

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

Through 2026 2027 - 2057

Mead Projections > 1110 on Jan 1 Mead > 1025 but ≤ 1110 Mead ≤ 1025 Mead > 1110'

  • n Jan

1 Mead projections > 1075 but ≤ 1110 Mead > 1025 but ≤ 1075 Mead ≤ 1025 Delivery of DCP-ICS

✔ ✔

Borrow for 1 year, must repay by end of next year

✔ ✔

Borrow with 5 year repayment or recover with additional 20% deduction in account

✔

Delivery of DCP-ICS not allowed

✔ ✔

slide-36
SLIDE 36

DCP ICS recovery and “borrowing” (in any year through 2057) are subject to existing annual maximum ICS delivery volumes for each state: Arizona: 300,000 AF California: 400,000 AF Nevada: 300,000 AF

36

DCP ICS Recovery

slide-37
SLIDE 37

2007 Interim Guidelines established maximum annual ICS creation volume for each State.

Existing ICS creation volume: Arizona: 100,000 AF California: 400,000 AF Nevada: 125,000 AF

Under LBDCP, States may “share” unused annual ICS creation

  • capacity. If one state is not creating its maximum amount, another

state could “borrow” the unused creation volume in that year, allowing for additional storage in Lake Mead.

37

ICS Flexibility

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Consistent with the need to incentivize additional conservation, each state will receive an additional 200,000 acre-feet of accumulated ICS (including DCP ICS) capacity. Increased maximum capacity: Arizona: 500,000 AF California: 1,700,000 AF Nevada: 500,000 AF

38

ICS Flexibility

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

ICS Flexibility

DRAFT

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

  • 5% assessment in the

year of creation (for system benefit)

  • 3% assessment every

year thereafter (for evaporation)

  • One-time, 10% assessment (for system

benefit and evaporation)

  • For existing ICS, assess to bring up to 10%,

then no additional assessment through 2026

  • No assessment if repaying ICS delivered in

previous year (to encourage contractors to replace ICS)

slide-40
SLIDE 40
  • Under 2007 Guidelines ICS cannot be delivered when Lake Mead

falls below elevation 1075

  • Under LBDCP, ICS may be delivered during shortage years under

the following conditions:

  • Between elevations 1045-1075 in Lake Mead, deliveries of ICS,

including DCP ICS borrowing, limited by annual state maximums

  • Between elevations 1025-1045, deliveries of ICS, including DCP ICS

borrowing AND conversion of ICS to DCP ICS for DCP Contributions, limited by annual state maximums

  • Below 1025: No ICS delivery
  • Allowing California to take delivery of more than 4.4 MAF during

shortage will require federal legislation.

40

ICS Flexibility

slide-41
SLIDE 41
  • The Lower Basin parties commit “to individual and collective action

in the Lower Basin to avoid and protect against the potential for Lake Mead to decline to elevations below 1,020 feet.”

  • Commitment is implemented through the following provision:

“In any 24-Month Study when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be at or below 1,030 feet any time within the succeeding two Years, the Parties agree to consult and determine what additional measures will be taken by the Parties to avoid and protect against the potential for Lake Mead to decline to below 1,020 feet.”

  • Volume, timing, and contributors to additional reductions will be

determined through the consultation process.

41

Commitment to Protect Elevation 1020 Feet in Lake Mead

slide-42
SLIDE 42
  • In the past, Reclamation has made projections of the additional

volumes of water (above the reductions under the 2007 Guidelines) that would be needed to protect elevations 1025’ and 1000’ in Lake

  • Mead. In those projections, reductions of 1 MAF, 2 MAF, or larger

would be required to stabilize Lake levels.

  • It is unclear how such reductions would be applied and to whom.

Some parties assert that a strict interpretation of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, which assigns CAP a junior priority, could put all CAP supplies at risk prior to reductions to more senior users.

42

Need for Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43

Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

  • We recognize that the LBDCP would have different incremental

impacts on different water users within Arizona, as CAWCD will discuss.

  • The LBDCP significantly reduces the probability of Lake Mead

reaching critical elevations, as will be shown by Reclamation.

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Colorado River System Response to the DCP

Arizona Workshop – Drought Contingency Plan June 28, 2018 Phoenix, Arizona

slide-45
SLIDE 45

1,075’ 37% 9.6 maf

45

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015) 2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,075’

slide-46
SLIDE 46

1,050’ 29% 7.7 maf

46

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,050’

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015) 2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

slide-47
SLIDE 47

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

1,025’ 23% 6.0 maf

47

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,025’

slide-48
SLIDE 48

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

1,020’ 22% 5.7 maf

48

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,020’

slide-49
SLIDE 49

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,000’

1,000’ 17% 4.5 maf

49

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

slide-50
SLIDE 50

50

Lake Mead, 2015 ~1,075’, 9.6 maf

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Effects of the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan to Arizona Water Users

Ted Cooke, General Manager Central Arizona Project

ADWR & CAP Joint Briefing on the LBDCP, June 28, 2018, Tempe, Arizona

slide-52
SLIDE 52

52

On-River CAP

Arizona Colorado River Priorities

1.2 MAF 1.6 MAF

2.8 MAF P1-3 P4 P4 P5 P3

Current Use

(estimated available)

slide-53
SLIDE 53

53

Arizona Shortage Sharing

  • CAP’s unquantified 4th Priority

contract is co-equal to 164,652 AF

  • f on-River P4 diversion contracts
  • The Director’s 2006

Recommendation for 4th Priority shortage sharing is calculated on available supply and entitlements

  • Based on current on-River use,

shortage reductions to Arizona will fall almost exclusively on CAP through 2026

4th Priority On-River

(Current Use)

M&I Use

36 KAF

Agricultural Use

59 KAF

164,652 AF Diversion Entitlements

2016 Use: 95,436 AF Diversion (59,210 AF CU)

slide-54
SLIDE 54

54

  • Annual CAP water deliveries first meet Long-term

Contract demands, in priority order

  • P3, then Indian and M&I, then NIA priority
  • Then Excess demands can be met
  • Excess includes the Ag Pool, and Other Excess for

underground storage and replenishment

  • Note: LBDCP reductions would be implemented based on

Arizona and CAP priorities, unless opportunities for alternatives, based on voluntary agreements among contractors, are developed.

CAP Priority Pools

slide-55
SLIDE 55

55

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre Feet

Indian Priority M&I Priority NIA Priority Ag Pool Other Excess

Priority 3

CAP Priority Pools (current use, estimated available)

Long-Term Contracts Excess

Cities & Industry Tribes

slide-56
SLIDE 56

56

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre Feet

Indian Priority M&I Priority NIA Priority Ag Pool Other Excess

Priority 3

CAP Priority Pools – ‘07 Guidelines

320,000 (Tier 1) 400,000 (Tier 2) 480,000 (Tier 3)

2007 Guideline Reductions to AZ

slide-57
SLIDE 57

57

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre Feet

Indian Priority M&I Priority NIA Priority Ag Pool Other Excess

Priority 3

CAP Priority Pools – LBDCP

192,000 512,000 (T1 + 192k) 640,000 (T2 + 240k) 720,000 (T3 + 240k) 592,000 (T2 + 192k)

‘07 Guidelines + LBDCP Contributions by AZ

slide-58
SLIDE 58

58

Implications to CAP Rates

  • As CAP deliveries are reduced, the Fixed OM&R and
  • verall water delivery rates will increase

– For example, 2020 CAP published rates: Fixed OM&R = $98/AF, and delivery (including Fixed OM&R and Pumping Energy) = $152/AF

  • Current CAP rates assume about 192 KAF of

contribution to Lake Mead, equivalent to the first level

  • f the LBDCP
  • The 2007 Guidelines reductions are estimated to

increase the Fixed OM&R rate by ~10 to 25%, and the

  • verall water delivery rate by ~7 to 17%
  • The incremental LBDCP contributions are estimated to

increase the Fixed OM&R rate by an additional ~20 to 30%, and the overall water delivery rate by ~13 to 20%

slide-59
SLIDE 59

59

Status of NIA Priority Supplies

Recommended NIA Reallocation,

47 KAF

Municipal, Current Municipal, Pending Municipal, Future Tribal, Current Tribal, Pending Tribal, Future Industrial, Pending CAGRD, Pending

7 Valley Cities*

52 KAF

2 Tribes

149 KAF

Pending WMAT

24 KAF

Future Tribal Settlements

44 KAF

6 Industrial CAGRD 12 Muni

Future M&I Reallocation

50 KAF

slide-60
SLIDE 60

60

P3 Indian and M&I NIA Priority Ag Pool Other Excess

Average Supply

LBDCP vs. Guidelines

Stress Test Hydrology (1988—2015)

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

slide-61
SLIDE 61

61

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

LBDCP vs. Guidelines

Example: Run #16 (of 28)

Ag Pool: “A Lot More Supply”*

* “A Lot” >= 30% ** “A Little” < 30%

Stress Test Hydrology (1988—2015)

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

P3 Indian and M&I NIA Priority NIA: “A Little Less Supply”** Ag Pool Other Excess NIA: “A Lot Less Supply”

slide-62
SLIDE 62

62

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

LBDCP vs. Guidelines

All Model Runs Stress Test Hydrology (1988—2015)

P3 Indian and M&I NIA Priority Ag Pool Other Excess

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet

2007 Guidelines LBDCP

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Acre-Feet 2007 Guidelines LBDCP

slide-63
SLIDE 63

63

LBDCP vs. Guidelines

slide-64
SLIDE 64

64

Assumptions

  • Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)
  • USBR’s April 2018 DCP CRSS Model
  • 2019 through 2026
  • Slice Size = # of occurrences
  • “A Little” < 30%
  • “A Lot” >= 30%

A Lot More A Little More No Change, No Supply No Change, Full Supply A Little Less A Lot Less

Available Supply

LBDCP vs. Guidelines

Legend

slide-65
SLIDE 65

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Stress Test Hydrology (1988-2015)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Full Hydrology (1906-2015)

1,020’ 22% 5.7 maf

65

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

2007 Projections

(1906-2005 hydrology)

No DCP

(April 2018 Projections)

With DCP

(April 2018 Projections with Upper & Lower Basin DCPs & Binational WSCP)

Risk of Lake Mead < 1,020’

slide-66
SLIDE 66

66

Summary

  • On average, LBDCP results in a lower available

supply to CAP

  • The impacts to CAP priority pools vary by time

and depth of shortage, which are influenced by Colorado River hydrology

  • Through 2026, all priorities could be affected,

but the NIA priority supplies are particularly heavily impacted by the incremental reductions

  • f the LBDCP
  • LBDCP reduces the risks of falling below critically

low Lake Mead elevations through reductions in demands by AZ, CA, NV, and Mexico

slide-67
SLIDE 67

Questions?

To submit a handwritten question: 1. Get a blue card from ADWR or CAP staff 2. Complete and return to ADWR or CAP staff prior to break To submit a question via text:

  • 1. Text AZDCP to 22333
  • 2. Reply to the automated text with your question

To submit a question online:

  • 1. Go to PollEV.com/AZDCP
  • 2. Enter your name and submit your question (questions are

anonymous)

slide-68
SLIDE 68

Next Steps within Arizona

  • Follow-up Meeting (July 10th) to address questions arising

from this briefing and to delve deeper into modeling, analyses, and LBDCP terms and operations

  • Convening a Steering Committee of Arizona water users,

stakeholders, and legislative leaders to discuss and recommend how to adopt and implement the LBDCP in a way that is acceptable to Arizona water users.

  • Representatives will be invited jointly by ADWR and CAWCD
  • Public will be invited to attend meetings and to contribute to

the process

  • First meeting is tentatively scheduled for July 26th
  • Notice of meetings will be provided on ADWR and CAWCD

websites

slide-69
SLIDE 69

Next Steps

  • Complete the Arizona Steering Committee process
  • Basin States resolve remaining issues to finalize agreement

documents

  • Arizona legislation to authorize ADWR Director to agree to

LBDCP agreements

  • Other necessary parties obtain appropriate authorizations
  • Federal legislation directing the Secretary to implement

LBDCP

slide-70
SLIDE 70

Conclusion

  • Risks to the Colorado River System have increased, and the risk of Lake Mead

falling to critical elevations is real.

  • At critical elevations there is greater uncertainty for Arizona’s water users.
  • The tools in the 2007 Interim Guidelines are insufficient to address these

risks.

  • The LBDCP significantly reduces these risks of falling below critically low

elevations in Lake Mead.

  • The LBDCP requires contributions from water users in AZ, CA, NV, and Mexico

and incentivizes additional conservation.

  • The LBDCP could impact all CAP priorities, with the most significant impacts

to the NIA Pool users.

  • The Arizona Steering Committee will discuss and recommend how to adopt

and implement the LBDCP in a way that is acceptable to Arizona water users.

slide-71
SLIDE 71

Stay Informed

For more information after today’s briefing: www.azwater.gov

  • r

www.cap-az.com/AZDCP