Alternative management paradigms for the future of the Colorado and Green Rivers

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) | January 28th, 2021

The Colorado River is among the most extensively managed river systems in the world. The river’s headwaters are within the Rocky Mountains in the United States. From t

The Colorado River is among the most extensively managed river systems in the world. The river’s headwaters are within the Rocky Mountains in the United States. From there, it flows through the arid lands of the Colorado Plateau and the Basin-and-Range to its delta in northwestern Mexico. Here, the river is the only significant water supply in an otherwise starkly arid landscape and has long been called “America’s Nile.” It provides a critical water supply for nearly four million acres of irrigated land, municipal supplies for 30 million people located within and outside the basin, and more than 4,200 MW of hydropower generation capacity. The Colorado River and some of its tributaries also provide an existing or potential water supply for at least 15 Native American tribes. The river flows through seven National Wildlife Refuges, four National Recreation Areas, and five National Parks. Today, the annual consumptive uses and losses of streamflow in the basin typically exceed the amount of water available, and the river rarely flows into the Gulf of California. The impacts of climate change are likely to decrease future runoff and intensify droughts, thereby threatening current and future uses in the basin. Clearly, new ways of thinking about and managing the river need to be sought and implemented.

Alternative Water Transfers in Colorado: A Review of Alternative Transfer Mechanisms for Front Range Municipalities

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | November 1st, 2016

Alternative water transfers (ATMs) refer to various methods, activities, and frameworks that have been established to transfer water on a temporary or intermittent basis

Alternative water transfers (ATMs) refer to various methods, activities, and frameworks that have been established to transfer water on a temporary or intermittent basis, primarily from agriculture to other uses. They are labeled as “alternative” because they represent a type of water transfer that does not result in the permanent dry-up of agricultural land, which has been the primary form of water transfers in much of Colorado for decades. ATMs are a body of activities that represent general frameworks or concepts to be molded to the specific conditions of a place and need. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) obtained a grant opportunity to fund research, analysis, and outreach toward the development of ATMs with the potential to improve the financial returns and long-term viability of farming, maintain or improve streamflows which support environmental and recreational activities, and provide a cost-effective means for municipalities to maintain water supply reliability into the future. The purpose of this project is to develop a comprehensive financial comparison of the water supply development options currently pursued by municipalities to applicable ATMs and to develop recommendations that can increase the application of specific ATM structures with the potential joint benefits to municipal and agricultural water users.

Alternatives for Delta Water Transfers

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | November 1st, 1983

Alternatives in Water Management, Publication 1408

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | September 5th, 1966

The Committee on Water was appointed in 1964 by Frederick Seitz, President of the National Academy of Sciences. The Committee was to examine in some detail the important

The Committee on Water was appointed in 1964 by Frederick Seitz, President of the National Academy of Sciences. The Committee was to examine in some detail the important interactions between expanding knowledge concerning water resources and water use in the physical sciences, the social sciences, and engineering on the one hand, and increasingly complex decisions of public policy concerned with water resource management on the other.

Alternatives Report Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 17th, 2025

In December 2007 the Secretary of the Interior adopted coordinated operating guidelines for operation of Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam for an interim period that expires

In December 2007 the Secretary of the Interior adopted coordinated operating guidelines for operation of Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam for an interim period that expires in 2026. To address long-term Colorado River operations after the expiration of these guidelines, the United States Department of the Interior initiated a National Environmental Policy Act process on June 16, 2023, to develop and adopt successor domestic guidelines and agreements for the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam to take effect in mid-2026, before the current operational framework expires. On November 20, 2024, the Bureau of Reclamation published the range of alternatives planned for analysis in the draft environmental impact statement and committed to providing additional information in a subsequent report. This report describes these alternatives and the process for developing them in more detail. The alternatives were developed over the past year and incorporate considerable input received from the Colorado River Basin States, Colorado River Basin Tribes, conservation organizations, other federal agencies, and other stakeholders during that time. Throughout 2024, the Bureau of Reclamation worked extensively with these key partners to integrate their input into the range of alternatives. The alternatives identified in this report provide a reasonable and broad range of Colorado River operations that capture an appropriate range of potential environmental impacts from implementing new operational guidelines post-2026. Click here for USBR notes on the alternatives development process.

Aluminum- and iron-based coagulation for in-situ removal of dissolved organic carbon, disinfection byproducts, mercury and other constituents from agricultural drain water

Journal of Geochemical Exploration (Elsevier) | May 9th, 2019

Agricultural production on wetland soils can be significant sources of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), disinfection byproduct precursors, mercury and nutrients to downst

Agricultural production on wetland soils can be significant sources of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), disinfection byproduct precursors, mercury and nutrients to downstream water bodies and accelerate land subsidence. Presented as a potential solution for in-situ water quality improvement and land subsidence mitigation, chemically enhanced treatment wetlands (CETWs) were used to leverage both coagulation and wetland processes. In this study, we evaluated the performance of coagulants ferric sulfate (Fe dosing) and polyaluminum chloride (Al dosing) to remove pollutants from agricultural drain water using the coagulation system designed for CETWs. Both coagulation treatments removed over 70% DOC from source waters, resulting in removal efficiencies (mg-DOC removed per mg-metal dosed) of 1 under Al dosing and 0.5 under Fe dosing. Coagulation by both treatments preferentially removed UV254 active compounds compared to the bulk DOC concentration, suggesting coagulation targeted aromatics more effectively. Phosphates and haloacetic acids were also removed more readily, whereas trihalomethanes, dissolved organic nitrogen and filtered mercury species were removed at similar or lower rates than DOC. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen was not amenable to coagulation and removal was not observed. Freundlich, Langmuir and Monod models explained 33% of the variance in DOC removal for Al dosing and 78–89% of the variance for Fe dosing. All three models indicated Al dosing had higher removal efficiency and affinity for DOC than Fe dosing under study conditions, but when used to predict maximum removal efficiency there was no cohesiveness between the three models due to different model assumptions. Consideration of fluorescence dissolved organic matter and UV254 as surrogates for DOC concentration showed both were equally suitable before coagulant application, but as surrogates after coagulant application, neither could be deemed more fit as a surrogate since both were shown suitable for different treatment scenarios.

Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Basin 14-230 Groundwater Pumpage Inventory Water Year 2015

State of Nevada | July 31st, 2015

Ambient noise differential adjoint tomography reveals fluid-bearing rocks near active faults in Los Angeles

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | October 28th, 2023

Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Tri-County Water Authority - Tule Subbasin

Tri-County Water Authority | July 27th, 2022

The Tule Subbasin submitted six GSPs, including one for the Tri-County Water Authority, in January 2020 to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR was required to de

The Tule Subbasin submitted six GSPs, including one for the Tri-County Water Authority, in January 2020 to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR was required to determine whether the GSPs conformed to the specific requirements of SGMA. DWR issued a single determination letter for the Tule Subbasin commenting on all six GSPs. In a letter dated January 28, 2022, DWR determined that that the GSP is incomplete. DWR stated that the GSP was considered incomplete as “it does not define undesirable results or set sustainable management criteria for groundwater levels, subsidence, and water quality in the manner consistent with SGMA and the GSP regulations.” Upon receiving the incomplete determination, the Subbasin had 180 days to address the identified deficiencies and submit revised GSPs by July 27, 2022. The TCWA is submitting this 2022 Amended GSP to address the three deficiencies outlined in the determination letter. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9

Amended Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for Certain Lands Overlying the Kern County Subbasin

Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Agency | July 27th, 2022

This GSP has been prepared by the Olcese GSA, which is the GSA for the portion of the Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Department of Wate

This GSP has been prepared by the Olcese GSA, which is the GSA for the portion of the Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Department of Water Resources [DWR] Basin No. 5-022.14, referred to herein as the “Kern Subbasin” or “Basin”) that underlies the Olcese Water District (“OWD” or “District”). The area that is covered by this GSP is referred to herein as the “Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Agency Area” or “Olcese GSA Area” and is located in the eastern portion of the Kern Subbasin. The Kern Subbasin is one of 21 basins and subbasins identified by the DWR as being critically overdrafted, a designation that triggers an accelerated timetable for GSP development by 2020 and achievement of sustainability by 2040. As of June 2022, a total of 14 GSAs, including the Olcese GSA, have been formed within the Kern Subbasin and a total of six GSPs have been prepared by these various GSAs. This Olcese GSP has been developed in coordination with the other GSPs for the Kern Subbasin to meet SGMA regulatory requirements1 while reflecting the unique hydrogeologic conditions within the Olcese GSA Area and preserving local control over water resources. Pursuant to the SGMA GSP submittal deadline, the Olcese GSP was originally submitted to DWR in January 2020; this amended Olcese GSP is in response to DWR’s 28 January 2022 letter entitled Incomplete Determination of the 2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plans Submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Kern County Subbasin. Together, the Kern Subbasin GSPs provide a path to maintain the long-term sustainability of locally managed groundwater resources now and into the future. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2