The tentative agreement was reached on May 22. This deal avoided a near-term disaster and the predictions that the Colorado River could stop. The deal, which is still awaiting federal approval in the drought-stricken area, marks a significant breakthrough in negotiations over water. Professor Buzz Thompson discusses the agreement and the challenges that still face the millions of people who depend on Colorado River water.
What is the importance of Colorado River?
The Colorado River is a vital part of the Southwest United States. It is smaller than the Mississippi or Ohio but it provides water to seven states: Colorado, New Mexico Utah and Wyoming (the Upper Basin) and Arizona California and Nevada (the Lower Basin). The majority of water is used to support the agricultural sector in these states, but it also provides water for Denver, Las Vegas Los Angeles Phoenix San Diego and Tucson.
What is the current water situation in the Colorado River? Was the Colorado River in danger of drying up? The water levels of Lake Mead, Lake Powell and other important reservoirs on the river were reported to have fallen so low, that hydropower production was in danger.
The Colorado River has a “structural deficit” because water rights are greater than the amount of available water. Herbert Hoover and others believed that the average annual flow of the Colorado River was 18 million acre feet (An acre foot equals enough water for two or three western U.S. households to use in a year). In the Colorado River Compact, 7.5 million acres-feet were allocated to each of the Upper Basin States and Lower Basin States. Mexico was awarded another 1.5 million acres-feet in a subsequent treaty. Indian tribes in the area also have large rights, which are yet to be quantified. These allocations would have been acceptable if the river had 18 million acre feet of water. The average annual river flow in the second half 20 th was 14.5 million acres-feet. Since 2000, the Colorado River Basin is suffering from drought. This has reduced its average flow to 12 million acre feet. Scientists predict the Colorado River’s flow to drop further with climate change.
The Southwest never faced an immediate water shortage, even though the demand for water has outstripped supply. Water users instead have drawn down the water in the two federal reservoirs along the river, Lake Mead & Lake Powell. The two reservoirs are now at less than 30% of their maximum capacity, and have been rapidly shrinking until this year’s heavy snowfall. The federal government was concerned that the reservoir levels would soon fall below the “minimum pool level” and prevent the dams from producing hydroelectric power, which is a major electricity source in the Southwest. In the near future, there was also the risk that reservoir levels would fall below the “dead-pool” level, below which dams are unable to release water stored.
What is the most significant aspect of the new accord?
Three things are important about the new agreement that the federal government has yet to accept and evaluate. First, Arizona signed the agreement on the bottom-line. The states have been fighting over the last few months about how to reduce the water diverted from the river. California argued that it had superior water rights. Arizona and Nevada argued they were more equitable because their domestic users depended more on the river. The agreement between the three Lower Basin States is a significant achievement in and of itself.
The agreement also provides for voluntary cuts. The federal government said it would cut divertions by the Lower Basin States unilaterally if necessary. The agreement stipulates that the states will take the necessary short-term measures, and avoid the need for immediate regulatory action by the federal government. Instead of letting federal officials decide their fate thousands of miles away, the states took control of their destiny.
Third, the agreement stipulates that the federal will compensate both tribal regions and agricultural regions for reduced water use. Tribes and agricultural users of the river have the most senior water rights, so it is only fair that they receive payment for reducing water consumption. Congress allocated $4 billion to reduce Colorado River consumption through the Infrastructure Reduction Act. The agreement stipulates that the federal funding would be used to compensate the reductions.
If the deal is approved, will all parties be forced to reduce their water consumption?
All three Lower Basin States would reduce their water usage. California would reduce its water usage the most but also have the largest share in Colorado River rights. Upper Basin States would not contribute, but have maintained from the beginning that they shouldn’t have to make a cut since they already use less water than the Lower Basin. Nobody expected the Upper Basin to offer any cuts.
The federal taxpayers will also share the pain because the agreement stipulates that the federal governments would compensate some of the reductions. Many have questioned the government’s contribution to solving the problem. Urban areas in the Lower Basin, which have the youngest water rights, are the major beneficiaries of this agreement. They could lose water supply if water was allocated based on seniority. According to critics, it is these urban areas who should pay for compensation, and not the federal government.
What is the importance of historical water rights?
When you discuss western water rights, history is crucial. The first American settlers who diverted water from the Colorado River were agricultural users in California and Arizona. They therefore hold the senior rights. Indian tribes were the original inhabitants of this region. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized their senior water rights long ago, dating back to when they created their reservations. They were able to use these legal claims as leverage in negotiations with the federal government and other water users.
What is your opinion about the long-term solution to this problem?
If the current agreement is accepted by the federal governments, it will only solve the water imbalance for the next 3 years. On a longer term, Colorado River users will have to retire their water rights permanently in order to balance the supply and demand. It is possible to do this in a number of ways. Urban areas could offer payments to agricultural users who permanently reduce their water usage. The federal government can pay them for this. Or, the federal government can order water reductions. Last option almost certainly would result in a lawsuit by the federal government, possibly before the U.S. Supreme Court. The second option again would raise the question whether taxpayers in federal funds should subsidise a solution.
All of these options will result in a decrease in agricultural production. In order to balance the Colorado River, the region will have to be economically restructured away from agriculture. It will be a difficult transition and no one has talked about it. The U.S. never did a great job of minimizing the effects of economic transitions. The federal government should begin to think about ways it can assist the Southwest in transitioning away from agriculture, and towards other economic options such as renewable energies.
Is this agreement a reason for optimism?
The agreement has given me more hope than I did a month earlier. In the past, the Colorado River states always came together to solve their water problems. Now they have shown that they are capable of doing it again. It will be harder to find a permanent solution than a temporary deal.
The current agreement is not addressing other issues. Since over 35 years, the Colorado River hasn’t reached its historic end, the Sea of Cortez. The Colorado River, for example, has not reached its historic terminus at the Sea of Cortez since over 35 years. This agreement was primarily focused on meeting the needs of humans, and not those of the environment. In order to restore the river, and to ensure a future of sustainability for the region, the governments will have to decide how to satisfy the needs not only of the local cities and farms, but also that the environment. It will be necessary to work together with Mexico and the Colorado River States.
Barton “Buzz” Thompson, JD/MBA ‘76 (BA ‘72), is a global expert in water and natural resource management. He focuses his efforts on improving resource management by leveraging legal, institutional and technological innovations. He is the co-author of Liquid Asset, How the Private and Government Sectors Can Work Together to Solve Our Freshwater Crisis. He is the founder Perry L. McCarty director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment where he continues to be a Senior Fellow, and directs the Water in the West Program. He was also a Senior Scholar (by courtesy), at Stanford’s Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies and a visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He established the Environmental and Natural Resources Program at the law school. He is also a member of Stanford’s Emmett Interdisciplinary Program for Environment and Resources. Professor Thompson was the Special Master of the United States Supreme Court for Montana v. Wyoming in an interstate water dispute that involved the Yellowstone River System. He is also a former member the Science Advisory Board for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. He is the chair of the Stanford Habitat Conservation Board and Resources Legacy Fund. He is also a California trustee for The Nature Conservancy and a member of American Farmland Trust.