Global Environmental Assessment Project - Belfer Center for ...

It appears that the primary effect of the SSD was to clarify the goals of competing water uses on the
Colorado River, particularly between consumptive and non-consumptive (or instream) uses and between
the Upper and Lower Basins. As highlighted in the summary chapter of the SSD:
"Existing operating rules ... favor consumptive water uses over such non-consumptive
uses as hydroelectric power generation, environmental protection, salinity control, and
recreation. The extent of this favoritism... is out of all proportion to what are, arguably,
the public values involved." (Lord et al., 1995, p. 942).
Three of the eight Advisory Council members interviewed found SSD principal investigators to be
predisposed to protecting instream uses. In one case, an AC member recalled that the study helped him
clarify the agenda of instream water use advocates. Furthermore, recommendations such as creation of a
basin-wide commission and the establishment of interstate water banks had been previously suggested in
other venues with limited positive reception from the basin states. With positions on these issues already
established by groups represented in the AC, the SSD recommendations clarified different agendas - in
the words of one AC member "we went in with stated positions on these issues, and study results weren't
likely to change them".
Timing
The SSD study was published in 1995. Since this time, levels in Lakes Mead and Powell have been near
capacity (Figure 2). 11 Together, these two reservoirs can hold more than three times the annual flow the
of the Colorado River - when they're full, the concern for drought tends to be low. Rather than being
focused on long- or short-term drought, the Colorado Basin states are currently preoccupied with
allocating surplus water, driven by increasing demand rather than decreasing supply. Interviews across
the three groups in Table 3 indicate that drought isn't a current concern in the Colorado Basin, let alone
one that lasts nearly 20 years, and that the timing of SSD assessment seems to have prevented it from
having a greater impact.
If a severe-drought crisis had coincided with the publication of the study, the result may have been
significantly different. Indeed, in "closing water systems" such as the Colorado, crisis appears to be
necessary to promote recognition of interdependent uses and negotiation of agreements amongst basin
states (Pulwarty and Melis, 2000). As discussed in the next section, the crisis of declining salmon
populations in the Columbia River Basin has led to the consideration of alternative management
approaches, including recognition of the ocean's role in salmon mortality, and the once-radical idea of
dam removal. Given the lack of a crisis event in the Colorado Basin, it may be premature to evaluate the
effectiveness of the SSD assessment, as its findings and recommendations could yet be used in future
drought scenarios.
Although the timing of SSD publication coincided with abundant water supply in the Colorado Basin,
much of the West was in the grip of drought during the Advisory Council meetings in 1991 and 1992.
During this time, water levels in Lake Powell were at their lowest since the initial filling of the reservoir
and storage in Lake Mead dropped by nearly 4 million acre-feet compared to the wet years of the mid-
1980's (Figure 2). Both Arizona and California, for example, faced limits to surplus water from the
Colorado River, and strict conservation programs were enacted in southern California and Las Vegas
(Fradkin, 1995). Thus, discussion of long-term drought was quite timely, as the impacts of drought were
occurring in the states represented by AC members. If timing was a primary determinant of the
8