WATER SECURITY Feds’ Colorado River Choice: California’s Rights or Arizona’s Future?
Almost half of all the water that flows through the Colorado River each year is consumed by just two states: Arizona and California. For the Biden administration to stabilize the river, one of the two states will have to lose big.
Almost half of all the water that flows through the Colorado River each year is consumed by just two states: Arizona and California. Over the past year, as the Biden administration has scrambled to respond to a decades-long drought that has sapped the river, these two states have known a reckoning is coming. In order to stabilize the river, both of them will have to use less water.
At a press conference overlooking the Hoover Dam on Tuesday, the administration unveiled two plans to achieve those cuts, promising to reach a final conclusion by August. One plan would divide future cuts equally between Arizona and California, a potential violation of California’s stronger legal rights to the river. The other plan would recognize the Golden State’s seniority and reduce Arizona’s water allocation by more than half its current size during the driest years.
Both scenarios would be unprecedented in scale and severity, requiring at least some big reductions from both states as well as neighboring Nevada. The mandatory cuts would force farmers in these states to take land out of service and would raise water prices in cities and suburbs. They might also hinder industries such as mining and semiconductor fabrication.
In Arizona’s case, the risks are existential. The pro-California plan would all but dry up the federal canal that moves water to Phoenix and Tucson, eliminating a primary water supply for millions of people in those areas. Under that plan, Arizona’s labor market would lose around half a billion dollars in wages thanks to job loss in agriculture and other industries, and the state would also lose millions in tax revenue. Meanwhile, in the plan that spreads cuts evenly between the states, California’s economy would lose around $170 million as major vegetable and alfalfa farmers in the state’s Imperial Valley planted fewer crops.
Tommy Beaudreau, the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, hinted during the press conference that the pro-California plan — the plan that most fully complies with legal precedent for dividing up the river — was not likely to prevail.
“I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone advocate straight priority,” he said. “But it’s important for everyone to see what that would look like.” The administration can still consider options beyond the two plans it published Tuesday.
