All eyes on Utah Part I: The Lake Powell Pipeline

By Andie Hall

The Colorado River is over-appropriated. The demands that users place on the river far exceed its natural flow. This is primarily because of the Colorado River Compact of 1922, which determined how much water each of the seven basin states and Mexico will receive from the river annually and was based on data that showed uncharacteristically high water levels. The population that relies on the Colorado River is astoundingly larger than when the Compact was signed and only continues to grow. The only way in which those populations can sustain themselves is through collaboration.

Because there is simply not enough water to go around, the seven basin states have come together time and time again to find a solution. Most recently, the states have agreed to the 2007 Interim Guidelines, which clearly defines a strategy for water shortages and conservation. These guidelines are set to expire in 2026, so Colorado River Commissioners from each basin state and other interested parties such as tribes, are preparing for the next round of negotiations. It is through these collaborative efforts that the states that rely on the Colorado River for population centers and agriculture have avoided significant litigation.

That could change in the near future, however. Utah, seeing its population skyrocket, has been working on a project for around twenty years, the Lake Powell Pipeline. The project has gained recent attention because project managers are currently drafting an Environmental Impact Statement, one of the last phases of permitting before construction can begin. The pipeline, if completed, would pump over 26 billion gallons of water through a 140-mile-long pipeline to the desert community of St. George. The Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency currently in charge of the permitting process after Utah switched from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission after being encouraged to pursue a less water consumptive option, has produced studies that show that the demand from the Colorado River Basin began to exceed its available supply in 2000. Opponents to the project assert that this would unnecessarily divert water away from an already drying river.

But Utah is entitled to that water under the Colorado River Compact, so what’s the big deal? Because all of the river’s users face water scarcity and uncertainty from drought, collaboration continues to be the best way to allocate such a scarce resource. Utah’s continuance of this project has created fear amongst the other basin states that they will have to resort to litigation. With the interim guidelines renegotiation on the horizon, the other states are concerned about less water, a drier climate, and even more demand. These are all concerns that would be exacerbated by significant withdrawals from the Lake Powell Pipeline. The other basin states, however, are not necessarily opposed to the project, noting in their joint letter that it could achieve similar results as did the Navajo-Gallup Supply Project in New Mexico.

What appear to be the primary concerns, however, are the speed and process through which the project is moving. The Colorado River was originally appropriated according to the 1922 compact but has its own area of the law, “The Law of the River” that is composed of compacts, court decisions, federal laws, and contracts that govern how water is truly allocated today. The Law of the River has countless details and intricacies that require the same collaboration that the basin states practice so well. The other basin states believe that addressing these intricacies in a way that will help the pipeline be a success is best done outside of the permitting process: “The Lake Powell Pipeline’s prospects for success are substantially diminished if we are compelled to address such issues in the context of the current [permit] process rather than through the collaborative, seven-state process we have developed. . . . [The] probability of multi-year litigation. . . is high, and that certain Law of the River questions properly left to discussions and resolution between the states are likely to be raised in such suits.” This letter illustrates the widespread fears over this scarce resource and its importance to those who rely on it.

While the Bureau of Reclamation has not openly published a response, the Utah Division of Water Resources released a response that attempts to reassure the other basin states that Utah will continue to be a part of the collaboration on the Colorado River. Until the Bureau of Reclamation releases its Environmental Impact Statement moving the project forward, all eyes will be on Utah and how it works within the Colorado River Basin team.