Utah, Nevada officials criticize California water proposal

In addition to increased exposure of shorelines at two of the country's most popular recreation areas, pollution would increase in Nevada's primary source of drinking water, Nevada and Utah officials said. Under the California plan, Lake Mead's water level would drop by more than 120 feet leaving marinas and boat ramps as far as two miles from the new shoreline.

"This is just not acceptable," said Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. "Where does the need stop and the greed begin?"

Some California officials call the plan necessary protection for farmers required to cut back on Colorado River water under a landmark settlement reached last month between the state's urban and agricultural users.

Others say the proposal, unveiled at a Nov. 15 meeting of river states in Ontario, Calif., is a bargaining position that could easily change in coming months.

Contentious negotiations have long marred water politics in the region. But the stakes in the talks that began last week are particularly high for Nevada.

Reservoir water freed up for California also would go to Southern Nevada, providing 15 years of vital supply for a Las Vegas Valley population expected to reach 2.17 million people by 2020.

"Using surplus is an integral part of our water resource picture, but we have to do it in a fashion where we don't destroy our own environment," Mulroy said.

In recent years, California has been using as much as 800,000 acre-feet more than its apportionment of the Colorado River. Its additional supply comes from higher than average snowmelts in the Rocky Mountains and from Nevada and Arizona's unused portions of their allotments.

An acre-foot of water is enough to serve a family of five for a year, about 326,000 gallons.

California has been pressured to stop using the extra water because of increased water needs in fast growing neighboring states.

California officials have agreed to cut back, on the condition they will have 15 years worth of water above and beyond the state's allocation, so they can slowly ease in conservation measures in a process informally known as a soft landing.

The seven states along the Colorado River agree the soft landing should be facilitated in dry years by releasing water from Lakes Mead and Powell, causing the reservoirs to drop.

But the differing plans detailing when and why the lakes would be lowered are causing ill will among river users.

Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada have proposed lowering Lake Mead from its current level of 1,212 feet to 1,145 feet only if municipal and industrial needs in the lower basin states require it. Some users would be cut off when the lake reached 1,145 feet, and artificial surplus would be stopped entirely if the level dropped to 1,125 feet.

But under the California proposal, artificial surplus also could be used to irrigate the fertile but highly arid Coachella and Imperial valleys. And Lake Mead could drop as low as 1,088 feet, meaning the current shoreline would recede by about two miles, Nevada officials said.

Lake Powell could potentially drop by hundreds of feet, exposing an unsightly white "bathtub ring" of bleached sandstone and driving away visitors, who annually generate $500 million in recreation revenue in Utah, state officials said.

"How do you explain that the farmers in California have extra water to put on their crops while farmers in the upper basin could be in a drought and short of water?" said Larry Anderson, director of Utah's Division of Water Resources. "That doesn't sell politically in the upper states."

archive