The legal framework behind the Colorado River’s division between the states is predicated on flawed assumptions compounded by unforeseen conditions.
The “Flawed Assumptions:”
1) When the Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922, the Colorado was assumed to flow in an average year over 16.5 million acre feet. The science behind that was predicated on a review of a snapshot of a few decades that turned out to be among the wettest in over 800 years.
2) Arizona cut a deal in Congress in the late 1960s to secure funding for a billion dollar canal system that brought its share of the Colorado inland to the cities of Phoenix and Tucson. In return for funding, Arizona agreed to take a junior priority assuming a prolonged reduction in flows would never occur.
The “Unforeseen Conditions:”
1) Climate change has decreased the flow of the river and increased evaporation and crop demand by as much as 20%.
2) With the advent of air conditioning and abundant real estate, the shift in population to the Southwest has increased its population by ten times since the Compact was signed.
Agriculture in Arizona has been cannibalized. Lawns and parks have been ripped out in Nevada. Water utility bills in Las Vegas can reach $1,000/month. Golf courses are universally supplied with effluent and state of the art metering and low water fixtures have been mandated. Communities in Arizona are buying-up groundwater they know has a finite lifespan (under 100 years or three mortgage terms). Band-Aids that surely will hurt when removed.
It’s not enough. Hard questions loom. Should growth be curtailed? Why should California agriculture (that uses nearly half of Colorado’s entitlement) be fallowed for the benefit of Arizona and Nevada? And what would that agricultural disruption do to the nation’s food supply?
Climate change is having an exponential effect, none of it positive. In the past quarter century only about a quarter of the years resulted in average or above average water years. 2026 threatens to be the driest of record. And with those successive years of drought, soil moisture is at an all-time low. At this point, it would take decades of successive high water years to replace the loss and the climate models all show a hotter, drier future.
Options exist with cooperation and massive funding. Desalination is looked at. Ideas floated are to have Arizona and Nevada fund billions in desal in California in return for California allowing Arizona and Nevada to take a portion of California’s entitlement (No one is ever going to bring a pipeline to Arizona or Mead, that is a “duh” thought when an exchange is far easier and cheaper). A decent idea but if anyone has ever observed the California Coastal Commission, they know running pipes from the ocean is a pipe dream.
Our President blames politics for western water woes, claiming all that that needs to be done is throw a valve and water will flow down from Northern California and Oregon. NEWS FLASH: North on a map does not mean uphill. Another “duh” thought.
No, there’s no easy and cheap solution. It will require creative minds, cooperation, and money. Lots of money. America has always thought of water as a social good. Utilities are structured to pass water on to the consumer without profit at the lowest rate possible. A household pays $300-400 a month for electricity but screams when their water bill is raised to $50/month. Our future will require water to be viewed at least in part as a commodity that costs money to develop, treat and distribute. Water rates will need to rise.
We also need to stop thinking politically and parochially. It’s not left and right. It’s not “my water.” We need to think less in terms of Californian’s versus Arizonians, Coloradoan’s versus Arizonians, or Oklahomans versus Texans. We’re all in the same damn boat. We are Americans and history has shown that when we get together, we usually can solve big problems.
It’s going to take that mindset.