Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#2My understanding is that right now Colorado River water rights are defined in terms of absolute volume. So when there isn't enough water to satisfy the water rights, it leads to conflict.
It seems like a natural alternative is to define water rights as being relative to the amount of water available in the river. that way water rights would scale with the drought.
but, I fully appreciate that I am a novice, and can appreciate that it's likely not that simple.
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#3“The federal government and its Bureau of Reclamation – the agency responsible for managing the West’s complex system of reservoirs, rivers and dams – has legal authority over the lower basin but not the upper basin under the current law of the river”
The upper basin (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming) proposal puts mandatory cuts on the lower basin (California, Arizona and Nevada) and only voluntary cuts of unspecified amounts on themselves.
“the lower basin plan would spread cuts ranging between 1.5 million to 3.9 million acre-feet across all seven states, plus the country of Mexico – which also uses river water.”
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#4Whatever we do, let's be sure to add another 100 million people to the area in the next 10 years! That will clearly help the situation.
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#5States should charge market rates for water, so that a liter is a liter is a liter regardless of its destination. For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-us...
Prices work. They are an incentive wrapped in a signal.
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#6States should charge market rates for water, so that a liter is a liter is a liter regardless of its destination. For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-us... Prices work. They are an incentive wrapped in a signal.
A liter of untreated water in a canal or tap water plumbed all the way to your home?
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#7States should charge market rates for water, so that a liter is a liter is a liter regardless of its destination. For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-us... Prices work. They are an incentive wrapped in a signal.
Being more market-based would be better, but the market for water is never going to be that simple. Water is heavy compared to what people pay for it. Pumps exist, but it costs less to deliver it downhill. Pipelines don't go everywhere.
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#8Whatever we do, let's be sure to add another 100 million people to the area in the next 10 years! That will clearly help the situation.
Nah it's fine. Arizona doesn't use more water than it did in 1957.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environme...
and 74% of that goes to agriculture.
Western water does need to be managed and there are lots of silly water rules that should be changed. But the Mountain West drying up is just a fantasy. For weather, economics, and governance it's probably the region with the brightest future over the next 30 years.
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#9Whatever we do, let's be sure to add another 100 million people to the area in the next 10 years! That will clearly help the situation.
It would work out fine provided that more food is imported and less exported, at least for crops that require lots of water.
Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts
#10States should charge market rates for water, so that a liter is a liter is a liter regardless of its destination. For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-us... Prices work. They are an incentive wrapped in a signal.
> For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible.
We don't live in a society where the govt allocates the best land for farming as farmland (yet). Normally, I am a proponent for agriculture...as long as it serves as supply for the US.
What's worrying, is how much of the agriculture is foreign owned, then shipped overseas.
https://www.azfamily.com/2022/12/28/wells-are-running-dry-dr...