The Colorado River Agreement & What It Means For Our Water Future
There is a common misconception that California – and most of the Western United States – is no longer experiencing drought due to the extreme winter rain events. This assumption, however, is incorrect. In fact, the Western United States region is experiencing its driest period in more than 1,200 years. Just a few months ago, nearly three-quarters of California was in either extreme or exceptional drought, straining our already depleted and fragile water resources- including the Colorado River. Faced with a severe water crisis, the federal government pushed seven states, including California, to reach an agreement to cut 2 to 4 million acre ft. of water per year, or as much as 30% of their river water allocation. After tense discussions, a historic agreement was reached between Arizona, California, and Nevada to begin the process of conserving water.
CALIFORNIA VS. EVERYONE
For decades, the Colorado River Basin has provided drinking water to countless households in the Western United States. and even parts of Mexico, where the River (used to) end. Today, 40 million Americans across seven states rely on the Colorado River, which is divided into two regions: the Upper Basin, which consists of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and the Lower Basin, which consists of Arizona, California, and Nevada. In 1922, these states formed a cohort called the “Colorado River Compact.” The coalition was established to “responsibly” consume the River’s water and develop water rights. These water rights were based on the idea that the state that uses the most water gets the biggest share. While “those percentages haven’t changed in a century, (the) populations of the states and the amount of water to go around has- drastically.”
Drought conditions are not new to the Colorado River Basin. Still, with the climate crisis holding a firm grip on the nation, drought conditions in the last 20 years have led “reservoir levels to fall so low, the water would no longer reach the intake valves that control the flow out of the lakes, essentially drying up the river downstream.” Additionally, these conditions create “dead pools,” which means the soil cannot hold water, and a body of water will eventually cease to exist. Often, if a body of water experiences a dead pool, it will not be able to recover to its full potential.
Today, the lower basin states consume most of the River’s water. But since 1922, California has remained the highest consumer of the Colorado River and thus has senior water rights. Because California takes the largest share of Colorado River water, decisions about how to cut water usage became contentious. California remained adamant about maintaining the historic water-rights priority system while many states argued why they should consume less water when California is the biggest consumer.
In May, all the states but California submitted proposals on decreasing usage. The six-state plan proposed a 3.1 million acre ft. per year cut by accounting for water conservation and evaporation (of water that occurs during water transportation), requiring California to take a significant cut. Meanwhile, California simply stated it had senior water rights and aimed to maintain them. This led to an impasse, forcing the federal government to step in with its own recommendations. Unhappy with the federal government’s proposals, Arizona, California, and Nevada returned to the drawing board and came out with a historic short-term agreement proposing to cut back collectively 3 million acre-ft. of water from the Colorado River through 2026.
WILL THIS AGREEMENT HELP THE CALIFORNIA AND LOS ANGELES WATER CRISIS?
If approved, the proposal would primarily impact farmers in the Imperial Valley, who the federal government will reimburse through the Inflation Reduction Act. In addition, the Metropolitan Water District indicated it will also voluntarily leave 250,000 acre-ft. of water in Lake Mead, but it’s undetermined if they will also receive funding from the Inflation Reduction Act for cutting back. While this agreement is a significant step forward, it’s only a temporary solution. It may provide some relief, but not enough to save water supplies in the long run.
Approximately 10% of California’s freshwater resources are found along the South Coast region, and while a small number of Californians may be receiving water solely from one source, most Southern Californians receive a blend of local groundwater or surface water and imported water which can come from either the State Water Project or the Colorado River. Imported water is costly, and the price can fluctuate during extreme weather conditions like drought. This is notable in regions like Southeast Los Angeles, where communities receive about 40 percent local groundwater and 60 percent imported water, and have some of the highest water bills in the state.
Adding to the cost is the presence and concentration of toxic contaminants found in groundwater. Wells with extremely high levels of contaminants may be taken out of service for public health reasons, posing a threat to local water security. Due to the widespread contamination of wells in Southeast Los Angeles, it has become much easier (and safer) for water utilities to rely on imported water resources. Increasing dependency on imported water will, however, mean a rise in prices, leaving vulnerable communities without affordable clean water and straining external water supplies. So, for this deal to not only be successful but lay a precedent for the future of California’s water, there are a number of obstacles and challenges that still need to be addressed.
SAVING THE COLORADO RIVER BEYOND 2026
California’s population and economy have grown significantly in the past century, but its water resources have remained relatively the same, with some declining capacity. The ongoing effects of climate change and drought have forced water advocates to accept a harsh fact: large metropolitan hubs like Los Angeles and Phoenix were never designed to function at their current capacity. Failure to act may result in an even more widespread water crisis in the American West. In addition to reducing water consumption and cleaning up local groundwater, it is vital that state and local governments develop the infrastructure necessary to protect our scarce water resources.
One solution is California’s “Making Conservation a Way of Life” plan, which will regulate and encourage water conservation in various communities. Several studies have supported that conservation campaigns targeting children are crucial to influencing conservation at home. It is also important to make new California residents aware of the importance of water conservation, especially those who are not from drought-prone regions. The more communities are educated about the importance of water conservation, the more likely they are to make a lifestyle change. However, this drought mitigation plan lacks sufficient mechanisms to hold water guzzlers and polluters accountable.
California needs to take more significant steps to reduce toxic contaminants in its water supply. It needs to hold toxic industries accountable for removing toxins from its water because, as it stands, water customers bear that burden. An extended producer responsibility on sources of pollution could fill the funding gap necessary to ensure that water providers can comply with water quality standards and invest in their capacities to remain afloat and compliant during times of drought. Another solution to this, if California was bold enough, would be to limit water sent to toxic industries during times of water shortage; not only would this limit contaminants in wastewater, but it would also encourage industry to innovate (e.g., develop alternatives to toxic chemicals) and adapt (e.g., implement water-conserving technologies) to worsening climate conditions.
While we remain optimistic this agreement between states will begin necessary improvements, in the end, it is only by working together that we can usher in a new era of water management in Southern California that benefits both communities and the environment.
