Comments for jfleck at inkstain

Comment on Quoting Jeff Kightlinger and Jim Lochhead by Michael Carpenter

Michael Carpenter — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 18:32:53 +0000

Just sent this to the Sentinel:

In reply to “Time for states to reach consensus on the future of the Colorado River”

Colorado comes to the meetings with 1) refusal to take mandatory cuts, 2) the lie that the Lower Basin states are still taking more than their share, and 3) some sort of red herring, the most recent of which is that Arizona farmers are selling alfalfa to Saudi Arabia. (That seriously annoys me, an Arizona resident. My bet is that Upper Basin farmers are selling alfalfa to Saudi Arabia as well. You can’t control who buys your product. We are, essentially, sending Colorado River water to Saudi Arabia.)

The Upper Basin states have consistently taken 4 maf (million acre-feet). That’s why the Compact worked for 80 years and Lake Mead and Lake Powell were full in 2000. The Lower Basin States have reduced usage to 6 maf.

Here are my questions: 1) What is the graph of usage by state since 2000? It’s mainly California, Colorado and Arizona. 2) How accurate are the numbers in the Upper Basin for stream discharge, rating curves, withdrawals, and return flows? Acoustic Doppler instruments in use for 40 years approach 1%. 3) Why hasn’t the Upper Basin lost its appropriative right by non-use? and 4) Is Denver building infrastructure to take more Colorado River water?

The Law of the River is that the Upper Basin will deliver 75 maf/10 years to Lee Ferry. That’s the law, ratified by all the states.

It seems to me that they could reach an agreement based on current usage of the Lower Basin taking 6 maf and the Upper Basin taking 4 maf with a base of 4.5 maf and 3 maf, respectively, and equal proportional additional cuts, if necessary, based on the run of the river, considering that the water comes from the Upper Basin.

Michael Carpenter, hydrologist, USGS retired
[home address and phone for ID to newspaper]

worked on Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, and lower Colorado River

Comment on Quoting Jeff Kightlinger and Jim Lochhead by Douglas Blatchford

Douglas Blatchford — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:11:07 +0000

“In short, if the states fail to reach agreement, the federal government will be forced to impose an alternative that invites lawsuits and imposes economically and environmentally disastrous emergency operations. No one, in any part of the basin, will be spared from the consequences.”

Comment on Quoting Jeff Kightlinger and Jim Lochhead by Tom Kennedy

Tom Kennedy — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 12:40:15 +0000

Having watched this slow motion train wreck for most of the 30 years Jeff and Jim describe above, I concur that negotiations during this period (2007 Interim Guidelines, DCP) have been characterized by preservation of self interest above all. However, the river, and the hydrology that supports it, does not care about water rights established over a century ago. This is a watershed like any other watershed, and successful adjudications of watersheds are based on what the river actually delivers, not some ancient, inaccurate estimate. To that end, the Supply Driven Alternative in the DEIS is the only truly logical approach here. All others, it would seem to me, begin the negotiation with hydrological fiction and will lead us right back to where we are today.

Comment on In which my colleagues and I share thoughts on the future of Colorado River governance by Lisa Rutherford

Lisa Rutherford — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:15:59 +0000

Hey, I tried to buy you some coffee but it wouldn’t let me. Sorry!

Comment on In which my colleagues and I share thoughts on the future of Colorado River governance by Lisa Rutherford

Lisa Rutherford — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:11:43 +0000

Thank you for sharing comments by you and others. So insightful. I’ve shared the comments and key portions, in my opinion, particularly pertaining to Utah where I reside. We are water wasters generally and should be held to conserving more before BOR approves a management plan that actually affords Utah more water to waste! Again, thank you!

Comment on Upon the Retirement of Bob Snow, May 15, 2025 by Stephen Wolcott

Stephen Wolcott — Sun, 01 Mar 2026 20:02:08 +0000

Having worked with Bob for many years at the USGS and known him personally for many more years after, I leave this note to all “The guy is a legend”

Comment on In which my colleagues and I share thoughts on the future of Colorado River governance by Bill Hilton

Bill Hilton — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 01:28:22 +0000

Nobody asked me, but here is a take on “In critically dry periods, all alternatives have unacceptable performance.”
“Anticipating critically dry periods, bureaucrats are demonstrating unacceptable performance.”
It’s time to step up and perform.

Comment on In which my colleagues and I share thoughts on the future of Colorado River governance by Michael Carpenter

Michael Carpenter — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 22:17:56 +0000

The law is that the Upper Basin States deliver 75 maf/10 years. It’s my understanding that in some tier of shortage to Lee Ferry, the Secretary of the Interior decides how the water is divided.

I’ve asked this before: What is the accuracy of measurements of withdrawals in the Upper Basin? If they are taking 20% more than is reported, that’s nearly 1 maf. Do we really know the total discharge of the Colorado River in the Upper Basin? Acoustic Doppler has been around for about 40 years.

Nobody else will ask this: Is anybody in DJT’s administration who he has appointed even fractionally competent? Will distribution of Colorado River water be decided by bribes and extortion? Did you miss the action taken against universities and law firms for billions of dollars early in the administration?

Comment on In which my colleagues and I share thoughts on the future of Colorado River governance by Bert

Bert — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:46:29 +0000

We once had an engineer that would default to why an idea of management/supervision couldn’t work, shouldn’t be tried, or would otherwise fail for a multitude of reasons. We did it anyway, somehow things worked out.

It would seem that the basin states suffer from the same trip wire our engineer employed.

Comment on Colorado River news isn’t all bad! by Update

Update — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:03:11 +0000

“Colorado River states miss deadline, compromise nowhere in sight” (Source New Mexico, Feb 16, 2026) https://sourcenm.com/2026/02/16/repub/colorado-river-states-miss-deadline-compromise-nowhere-in-sight/ scroll down for Upper Basin governors’ statement