It’s tempting to breeze past the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Colorado River.

The Arizona Department of Water Resources and Central Arizona Project were quick to condemn the plan in separate written statements, saying its provisions were both “unacceptable” and contained “fundamental legal flaws.”

Both expect the first 2-year operating plan, which has yet to be released, to more closely resemble a workable reality for the state.

But it would be a mistake to ignore the hundreds of pages of technical documents that flesh out what Reclamation is planning to impose over the next decade, presuming the seven river basin states cannot agree to something different.

It does not paint a pretty picture for Arizona, farming or the affordable hydropower on which many farmers rely.

This plan is Lower Basin-heavy

First, it’s important to acknowledge the elephant in the room: 

The FEIS spells out in detail how mandatory cuts could impact the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada.

But it carefully dances around what role the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming will play in stabilizing the river. 

The plan contemplates “potential maximum use” of the Upper Basin’s upstream reservoirs to protect Lake Powell, based on release triggers that Reclamation has yet to identify.

It creates an accounting pool in Lake Powell for Upper Basin states and tribes to store and trade among themselves up to 3 million acre-feet of water.

And it includes up to 200,000 acre-feet of voluntary conservation from Upper Basin water users each year in its modeling, though Reclamation makes no assumptions about who might save this water.

Expect a lot less water in Lake Mead

Meanwhile, Lake Mead’s new line in the sand — the water level that Reclamation does not want to reach — is a much lower 975 feet of elevation.

Projections show Lake Mead on a steady trajectory down as upstream water releases decrease to keep Lake Powell above 3,500 feet.

According to Reclamation’s modeling, Lake Mead would remain above this new line about 90% of the time if average river inflows remain roughly where they’ve been since 2020. 

But if it gets markedly drier, Lake Mead could fall below this critical protection barrier in about half of modeled years. 

The nation’s largest water reservoir could also flirt with “dead pool” — the point where water can no longer flow past Hoover Dam — about 15% of the time under this scenario.

Whether or not we hit that point, it’s telling how many times the plan references “dead pool-related reductions,” a set of even larger but for now unspecified cuts that would be required to stave off such a calamity.

Arizona doesn’t fare well long term

Unlike the first 2-year operating plan, where California is expected to shoulder a larger share of the cuts than legally required, cuts after 2028 would be doled out based on the priority of a user’s water rights.

Arizona would have to shoulder more than half of a maximum shortage in this scenario — 1.96 million acre-feet, or enough water to zero out about 70% of the state’s annual appropriation.

Central Arizona Project does not fare well in this timeline.

There are “no potential futures” where users in its municipal and industrial pool receive a normal water delivery through 2039 if cuts are made strictly by priority. 

Yuma irrigation districts with higher third-priority water rights fare better initially, receiving more than 80% of their appropriations about half of the time through 2039.

But they also could face much deeper cuts starting in 2029 that could fallow more than 40% of Yuma farmland.

Such a prospect could put some farms out of business, the FEIS explains, particularly if cuts persist for multiple years, with cascading impacts on the local economy.

Work remains to avoid a bleak future

The prospects for hydropower are similarly grim.

Reclamation projects that Lake Mead will remain below 1,035 feet — the point at which 12 of its 17 turbines can no longer safely operate — 75% of the time from 2027-39.

That would reduce Hoover Dam’s ability to produce electricity significantly and persistently, creating higher costs that could price many irrigation districts out of the market — and raise yet another roadblock to continue farming in Arizona.

The caveat, of course, is that modeling is only as good as its assumptions.

Our long-term prospects could change, depending on what’s in the first 2-year operating plan and how well it helps to insulate our state from the worst of the worst.

But it’s important to understand what life could look like afterward.

If nothing else, it underlines the work Arizona now faces to avoid such a future.


Joanna Allhands writes about water, land use and other issues important to the Arizona Farm Bureau. Reach her at joannaallhands@azfb.org.