Overview of The Moving Forward Effort Urban Water

Overview of The Moving Forward Effort Urban Water Institute’s Spring Water Conference February 10 -12, 2016 Palm Springs, CA

Topics • Current Drought and Reservoir Conditions • The Colorado River Basin Water Supply & Demand Study • The Moving Forward Effort

Overview of the Colorado River System • 16. 5 million acre-feet (maf) allocated annually - 7. 5 maf each to Upper and Lower Basins - 1. 5 maf to Mexico • ~ 16 maf average annual “natural flow” (from historical record) - 14. 8 maf in the Upper Basin and 1. 3 maf in the Lower Basin • Inflows are highly variable year to year • 60 maf of storage (~ 4 X the annual inflow) • Operations and water deliveries governed by the “Law of the River”

Current 16 -year Drought (2000 -2015) Natural Flow at Lees Ferry 21 Historical Long-term Average (1906 -2015*) 20 19 Current 16 -year Drought Average (2000 -2015) Paleo Record (1200+ years) Lowest 16 -year period 18 17 Million Acre-Feet 16 15 14 13 12 11 Climate Projections (2016 -2099) Approximately 25 th percentile of 16 -year periods 10 9 8 7 Calendar Year *2013 -2015 natural flows are provisional 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 5 1999 6

Lake Powell and Lake Mead Operational Diagrams According to the 2007 Interim Guidelines 2/1/16: 3596 ft, 11. 41 maf Lake Mead Live Storage in million acre-feet (maf) Lake Powell 1 Whenever Lake Mead is below elevation 1, 025 feet, the Secretary shall consider whether hydrologic conditions together with anticipated deliveries to the Lower Division States and Mexico is likely to cause the elevation at Lake Mead to fall below 1, 000 feet. Such consideration, in consultation with the Basin States, may result in the undertaking of further measures, consistent with applicable Federal law. 2/116: 1084 ft, 10. 33 maf

Water Year Snowpack and Precipitation as of February 2, 2016 Colorado River Basin above Lake Powell Water Year 2016 Precipitation (year-to-date) 108% of average Current Snowpack 115% of median

Percent of Traces with Event or System Condition Results from January 2016 MTOM/CRSS 1, 2, 3 (values in percent) Event or System Condition 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 7/6 22 21 29 30 Equalization – annual release > 8. 23 maf 7/6 22 21 29 29 Equalization – annual release = 8. 23 maf 0 0 1 93/94 52 56 51 45 Upper Elevation Balancing – annual release > 8. 23 maf 87/89 46 43 39 34 Upper Elevation Balancing – annual release = 8. 23 maf 6/5 6 12 10 11 Upper Elevation Balancing – annual release < 8. 23 maf 0 0 1 2 0 0 26 20 11 18 Mid-Elevation Release – annual release = 8. 23 maf 0 0 0 1 1 Mid-Elevation Release – annual release = 7. 48 maf 0 26 20 10 17 Lower Elevation Balancing Tier 0 0 3 9 7 Shortage Condition – any amount (Mead ≤ 1, 075 ft) 0 17/37 59 60 59 Shortage – 1 st level (Mead ≤ 1, 075 and ≥ 1, 050 ft) 0 17/37 49 41 35 Shortage – 2 nd level (Mead < 1, 050 and ≥ 1, 025 ft) 0 0 10 16 18 Shortage – 3 rd level (Mead < 1, 025 ft) 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 5 7 14 0 0 0 1 2 100 83/63 36 33 27 Equalization Tier Upper Basin – Lake Powell Lower Basin – Lake Mead Upper Elevation Balancing Tier Mid-Elevation Release Tier Surplus Condition – any amount (Mead ≥ 1, 145 ft) Surplus – Flood Control Normal or ICS Surplus Condition 1 To 7 address future hydrologic uncertainty CRSS uses 107 hydrologic inflow sequences derived by resampling the observed natural flow record from 19062012. MTOM uses a 30 -member ensemble unregulated inflow forecast provided by the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center. Results from both modes are provided in 2016 and 2017 due to the hydrologic uncertainty that exists this early in the year. 2 Reservoir initial conditions based on actual December 31, 2015 conditions. 3 Percentages shown may not be representative of the full range of future possibilities that could occur with different modeling assumptions.

Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study • Study Objective – Assess future water supply and demand imbalances over the next 50 years – Develop and evaluate opportunities for resolving imbalances • Conducted through the Water. SMART Basin Study Program • Conducted by Reclamation and the Basin States, in collaboration with stakeholders throughout the Basin • Began in January 2010 and completed in December 2012 • A planning study – does not result in any decisions, but provides the technical foundation for future activities

Projected Future Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand • Average supply-demand imbalances by 2060 are approximately 3. 2 million acre-feet • This imbalance may be more or less depending on the nature of the particular supply and demand scenario • Imbalances have occurred in the past and deliveries have been met due to reservoir storage

The Moving Forward Effort “…all that rely on the Colorado are taking initial steps — working together — to identify positive solutions that can be implemented to meet the challenges ahead. ” • Initiated in May 2013 and consists of the formation of 4 multi-stakeholder groups • Brings wider stakeholder group with expertise to address topics identified in the Basin Study • More detailed analysis and discussion than was considered in the Basin Study Coordination Team M&I Water Conservation & Reuse Workgroup Agricultural Water Conservation, Productivity, & Transfers Workgroup Environmental & Recreational Flows Workgroup

Moving Forward Participants • • • • • • • • Bureau of Reclamation National Park Service US Fish and Wildlife Service US Forest Service US Geological Survey Western Area Power Administration Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Public Service California Department of Water Resources Colorado River Board of California Colorado River Commission of Nevada Colorado Water Conservation Board New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Upper Colorado River Commission Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems Utah Department of Natural Resources Utah Division of Water Resources Western Governors' Association/Western States Water Council Wyoming State Engineer's Office City of Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities City of Flagstaff City of Santa Fe Colorado Springs Utilities Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority Central Arizona Project Salt River Project Coachella Valley Water District Colorado River Water Conservation District Denver Water Eastern Municipal Water District • • • • • • • • Green River - Rock Springs - Sweetwater County Joint Powers Water Board Imperial Irrigation District Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Palo Verde Irrigation District Public Service Company of New Mexico San Diego County Water Authority San Juan Water Commission Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Southern Nevada Water Authority The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 10 Tribes Partnership Colorado River Indian Tribes American Rivers American Whitewater Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Colorado River Energy Distributors Association Colorado Water Users Environmental Defense Fund Family Farm Alliance Front Range Water Council National Parks Conservation Association National Young Farmers Coalition Rio Grande Restoration The Nature Conservancy Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited Colorado State University CH 2 M Hill Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP Zebre Law Offices

Phase 1 Report • Published in May 2015 • Contains 6 chapters with 1 contributed by each workgroup. • Contains listing of opportunities for potential future actions identified by each workgroup. • Phase 2 will commence in early 2016 and will consist of the selection and implementation of pilot projects.

M&I Water Conservation & Reuse Workgroup • Water providers in the major metropolitan areas that receive Colorado River water have implemented a wide range of water conservation and reuse measures. • On average, per capita water use has decreased by 10 to 26% since 2000. • More than 700, 000 af/year of additional conservation and 400, 000 af/year of additional reuse is planned by 2030.

Agricultural Water Conservation, Productivity, & Transfers Workgroup • The types of water conservation measures and the extent of implementation vary extensively among producers and geographies. • Water use per acre has remained relatively constant historically while productivity has increased by about 25% since 1980. • Increases in on-farm efficiency may improve productivity but may not result in consumptive use reductions.

Environmental & Recreational Flows Workgroup • Environmental, recreational and hydropower resources are increasingly vulnerable through time. • Many critical and effective programs exist that focus on the recovery and protection of species while allowing for continued water deliveries. This important work should continue. • Cooperative multi-interest voluntary mechanisms have proven to be successful and garner broader support among competing interests than regulatory mechanisms do.

From the Moving Forward Phase 1 Report – Executive Summary

For further information, please visit our websites: http: //www. usbr. gov/lc/riverops. html http: //www. usbr. gov/lc/region/programs/crb study. html

1, 219. 6 ft Lake Mead Capacity 26. 1 maf Surplus Conditions 1, 145 ft Normal or ICS Surplus Conditions 136 ft 1, 084 ft 1, 075 ft Shortage Conditions 1, 050 ft 34 ft 16. 2 maf 10. 33 maf (40% of Live Capacity) Min Power Pool Inactive Pool (7. 7 maf) 1, 000 ft Lower SNWA Intake 895 ft Dead Pool Elevation Dead Pool (2. 5 maf) Not to scale As of Feb 1, 2016