S. California, Nevada face water shortages

SAN FRANCISCO -- Even with the landmark federal agreement in October on use of the Colorado River, millions of residents in Southern California and Nevada face the possibility of sharp cuts in water supplies in about a year, the Bush administration said on Thursday.

The culprit would not be the traditionally warring water interests in the seven states that draw from the Colorado, but Mother Nature.

Projections by the Department of Interior show that a drought in the Rocky Mountains, now in its fifth year, could cost the Colorado so much runoff next year that federal officials would be required to suspend deliveries of so-called surplus water to Nevada and Southern California.

The agreement signed two months ago, which required the transfer of farm water to municipal users in Southern California to help ease water shortages, was designed to give water agencies in California about 10 years to wean themselves from the surplus Colorado supplies.

In past years, the water agency that serves Las Vegas and southern Nevada has drawn about 30,000 acre-feet of water beyond its regular allotment of 300,000 acre-feet. In Southern California, water agencies have drawn as much as 800,000 acre-feet of water beyond their allotment of 4.4 million acre-feet.

An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons, or enough on average to provide for two households a year.

Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, who oversees water policy on the river, has described the gradual reduction as a "soft landing" for Californians. But in a speech to be delivered on Friday at a water conference in Las Vegas on Norton's behalf, Bennett W. Raley, the assistant secretary of interior for water and science, will warn that "a hard landing" is possible as soon as January 2005, Raley said.

In a telephone interview, Raley said projections of expected water levels in Lake Mead, the large reservoir of Colorado River water near Las Vegas, indicated that if the drought persists the lake level would fall to 1,127 feet by next December. That is 12 feet below the current level of 1,139 feet and just 2 feet above the level where the federal government would be required under the October agreement to suspend deliveries of surplus water.

"Despite our best efforts to provide California with a soft landing, Mother Nature may force a hard landing," Raley said. "Two feet of water is a lot of water, but with a hot, dry summer, we could see the hard landing in 2005."

Adan Ortega Jr., a vice president for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the largest urban water district in the state, said the water agency was not surprised by the projection and had already begun planning for an even worse scenario by storing large amounts of water.

If Lake Mead were to reach 30 percent capacity, or a level of 1,083 feet, the federal government could begin cutting the basic allocations of river water, including 550,000 acre feet to the Metropolitan district, Ortega said.

Ortega said hydrologists predicted just a 1 percent probability of Lake Mead dropping so low. But he added, "It was also projected a 1 percent probability that we would be where we are today, and here we are."

Copyright C 2003 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.