The American West is breathing a collective sigh of relief after Colorado River basin states resolved months of tensions with a pivotal plan for water consumption cutbacks earlier this week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet both state officials and water experts are raising concerns that this conservation proposal may just be a short-term solution to a long-term crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI think they needed to do something, and this is what they could agree to,\u201d Jay Lund, director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California, Davis, told The Hill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThey agreed to ask the federal government to pay them to use less water,\u201d Lund added, chuckling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heated talks produce results<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following a year of fiery negotiations, the Colorado River\u2019s Lower Basin states \u2014 California, Arizona and Nevada \u2014 announced on Monday that they had finally agreed to a joint plan for water consumption cutbacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a proposal submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, these three states offered to conserve at least 3 million acre-feet of water, or about 13 percent of their total allocation, by the end of 2026. At that point, the river\u2019s current operating guidelines are set to expire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
More than three-quarters of that conservation would be funded by about $1.2 billion dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act. The rest would be voluntary commitments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While the exact breakdown among states is not yet available, California has agreed to give up about 1.6 million acre-feet \u2014 slightly more than half of the total. For reference, a typical suburban U.S. household uses about one acre-foot of water each year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sharon Megdal, director of the University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center, said that although many details are currently unavailable, she finds the proposal to be \u201cencouraging.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe goal remains to avoid a crash of the system \u2014 or even approaching as closely as we did a crash of the system,\u201d Megdal told The Hill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Allocating more water than there is<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The over-tapped Colorado River watershed, which serves about 40 million people, is divided into a Lower and Upper basin, which respectively include California, Arizona and Nevada, and Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A 1922 compact allocated 7.5 million acre-feet to each basin annually, while a 1944 treaty then allotted another 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico. But these generations-old allocations ended up far exceeding the river\u2019s actual flow \u2014 a situation made worse by years of severe drought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Meanwhile, cuts agreed upon in the past have proven insufficient to preserve the levels of the basin\u2019s two main reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As it became increasingly apparent that there wasn\u2019t enough water to keep these reservoirs stable, officials began strategizing about Lower Basin reductions in 2005.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They ultimately signed an agreement in 2007, known as the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages. But these guidelines expire in 2026 and will require new negotiations that focus on long-term planning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Last June, however, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Touton called upon the states to find a way to cut annual consumption already by about 2-to-4-million-acre feet \u2014 a request that led to nearly a year of heated deliberations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What ended up materializing were two competing offers at the end of January: a joint document from six states that sought to distribute evaporation losses and a separate proposal from California, which favored the state\u2019s status as a senior water rights holder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With the collapse of any unified agreement, the Bureau of Reclamation in April presented a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement with a set of alternatives that the federal government could impose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But on Monday, with the support of all seven states, California, Arizona and Nevada submitted their consensus-based proposal to the agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018A now 22-year-long mega-drought\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a useful short-term solution,\u201d Lund said, noting, however, that there is a real need to reduce consumption by about 2 to 4 million acre-feet per year in the Lower Basin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAnd this is not that. This is the federal government paying $1.2 billion to get about 3-million-acre feet of conservation over three years,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
David White, an Arizona State University water policy expert, characterized the proposal as both \u201cpositive\u201d and including some drawbacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis is an important but an incremental adaptation to environmental changes that are occurring as a result of a now 22-year-long mega-drought in the region,\u201d White said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut clearly, our policy changes are not keeping pace with environmental change,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
White identified a need for \u201cmore transformative adaptations,\u201d such as the restructure of the agricultural sector, which accounts for two-thirds of the Lower Basin\u2019s Colorado River demand and is replete with water-intensive forage crops such as alfalfa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Also important to White is the integration of \u201cradical efficiency\u201d tools, including drip irrigation, satellite imagery and laser leveling \u2014 smoothening land to minimize runoff. He also called for continued conservation in the industrial and municipal sectors throughout the West.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This past unusually wet winter has given Colorado River states \u201cjust enough breathing room\u201d to turn their \u201cfocus on the longer-term structural imbalance in the basin,\u201d according to White. But he warned against complacency, stressing that environmental changes tend to outpace policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAs we shift to 2026, we really need to think about a process for operating the reservoirs on the Colorado River system in ways that give us more adaptability, more flexibility,\u201d White said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe need to think about creating a system where we\u2019re allocating more like 11 or 12 million acre-feet a year instead of allocating 15 to 18 million acre-feet a year,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Planning for 2026 and beyond<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heading into the future, Lund likewise had some qualms about how negotiations will unfold. He expressed concerns that the Inflation Reduction Act funding \u201cmight become a precedent\u201d for the idea that all reductions need to be paid for by the federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThat basically puts the Feds on the hook for a billion dollars a year, indefinitely. And that\u2019s a lot of money,\u201d Lund said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such a precedent could reach beyond the Colorado River basin to other areas of the American West that need to cut back on water consumption, according to Lund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe bottom line of it, though, is there\u2019s water law in the West that is set up so that if there\u2019s not enough water, users have to reduce their water use,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAnd these payments are just a convenient way of avoiding the litigation and the discussions that would have to go with implementing water law-based reductions,\u201d Lund argued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One possible solution that Lund said he would support heading into 2026 would be approval from the federal government for water rights holders \u2014 such as cities, tribal nations and other users \u2014 to be able to sell and exchange water across state lines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWater law in the basin basically divides the water up by states and California has superior rights,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But if, say, the city of Phoenix was able to buy sufficient water from Imperial Water District in California, there would be no need for the federal government to compensate conservation, according to Lund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How the Supreme Court\u2019s wetlands ruling could impact pollution, flooding<\/p>\n\n\n\n
US, Saudi Arabia call for warring sides in Sudan to extend \u2018imperfect\u2019 cease-fire<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI would like to see some provision where the states all agree that they can buy and sell water from other states, maybe from Mexico,\u201d he said, acknowledging, however, that this would require a change to historic treaties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When it comes down to it, Lund characterized the current proposal as \u201ca temporary deal\u201d that works \u201cfor this kind of purpose\u201d in the short-term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut there\u2019s not enough money there to do this in perpetuity,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n