More than two decades of drought have not prevented the region from diverting more water than flows through it, depleting key reservoirs to levels that now jeopardize water supplies and hydropower generation. Cities and farms in seven U.S. states are bracing for cuts this week as officials watch for a deadline to propose unprecedented reductions in water use, setting up the most important week for Colorado River politics in years. The US Bureau of Reclamation in June told the states – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – to determine how they will use at least 15 percent less water next year or face restrictions. The bureau is also expected to release hydrology forecasts that will trigger additional cuts already agreed upon. Tensions over the extent of the cuts and how to spread them fairly have flared, with states pointing fingers and clinging stubbornly to their water rights despite the looming crisis. Representatives from the seven states gathered in Denver last week for last-minute closed-door negotiations. Those discussions have yet to yield concrete proposals, but officials involved say the most likely targets for cuts are Arizona and California farmers. Rural districts in those states are asking to be paid handsomely to shoulder that burden. The proposals being discussed, however, fall short of the Bureau of Reclamation’s requirements, and with negotiations stalling, state officials say they hope for more time to negotiate details. “Despite the apparent urgency of the situation, the past sixty-two days have produced absolutely nothing in terms of meaningful collective action to avert the looming crisis,” John Enzminger, CEO of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, wrote in a letter Monday. . . He called the rural district’s demands “drought speculation.” The Colorado River cascades from the Rocky Mountains to the arid deserts of the Southwest. It is the main water supply for 40 million people. About 70% of its water goes to irrigation, sustaining a $15 billion-a-year agricultural industry that supplies 90% of the United States’ winter vegetables. Water from the river is shared between Mexico and seven US states under a series of agreements dating back a century, back when more flowed. But climate change has transformed the river’s hydrology, providing less snowmelt and causing warmer temperatures and more evaporation. As the river yielded less water, states agreed to cuts tied to the levels of the reservoirs that store its water. Last year, federal officials declared a water shortage for the first time, prompting cuts to Nevada, Arizona and Mexico’s river share to prevent the two largest reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead — from falling to threaten hydropower generation. and stop water from their dams. Proposals for additional cuts expected this week have caused disagreements between the upper watershed states – Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – and the lower watershed states – Arizona, California and Nevada – over how to spread the pain. The lower basin states use most of the water and have so far shouldered most of the cuts. Upper watershed states have historically not used their full allocations, but want to maintain water rights to plan for population growth. Gene Shawcroft, president of Utah’s Colorado River Authority, believes the lower watershed states should make the most cuts because they use the most water and their full allocations. He said it was his job to protect Utah’s allocation for growth projected for decades to come: “The direction we’ve been given as water suppliers is to make sure we have water for the future.” In a letter last month, representatives from the upper basin states proposed a five-point conservation plan they said would save water, but argued that most of the cuts should come from the lower basin. The plan did not commit to any number. “The focus is putting the tools in place and working with water users to get as much as we can instead of projecting a water number,” Chuck Cullom, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission, told The Associated Press. This position, however, is unsatisfactory for many of the lower watershed states that are already facing cuts. “It will come down particularly if the upper watershed states continue their negotiating position, saying, ‘We’re not making cuts,’” said Bruce Babbitt, who served as interior secretary from 2003-2011. The lower basin states have not yet gone public with plans to contribute, but officials said last week that the states’ proposal under discussion falls slightly short of the federal government’s request for a cut of 2 million to 4 million acres. One acre of water is enough to serve 2-3 households per year. Bill Hasencamp, director of Colorado River resources at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said all of the state’s districts that draw from the river have agreed to contribute water or money to the plan, pending approval by their respective boards. Water districts, particularly the Imperial Irrigation District, are adamant that any voluntary cut should not curtail their high-priority water rights. Southern California cities will likely provide money that could fund fallow in places like Imperial County, and water managers are considering releasing water they’ve stored in Lake Mead as part of their contribution. Arizona will likely be hit hard with cuts. The state in recent years shouldered many of the cuts. With its growing population and robust agricultural industry, it has less wiggle room than its neighbors to take on more, said Arizona Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzke. Some Native American tribes in Arizona have also contributed to Lake Mead’s support in the past and could play a large role in any new proposal. Irrigators around Yuma, Arizona, have proposed taking 925,000 acre-feet less of Colorado River water in 2023 and leaving it in Lake Mead if paid $1.4 billion, or $1,500 per acre-foot. The cost is much higher than the current rate, but irrigators defended their proposal as fair considering the cost of growing the crops and getting them to market. Wade Noble, the coordinator for a coalition representing Yuma water rights holders, said it was the only proposal publicly submitted that includes actual cuts, rather than theoretical cuts to users allocated on paper. Some of the conservation compensation funds could come from $4 billion in drought funding included in the Inflation Reduction Act being considered in Washington, U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona told the AP. Sinema acknowledged that paying farmers for conservation is not a long-term solution: “In the short term, however, in order to meet our daily needs and annual needs, ensuring that we create financial incentives for non-use will help us succeed” , he said. Babbitt agreed that the money in the legislation won’t “miraculously solve the problem” and said water rates need to be reasonable to avoid disaster because most water users will be affected. “There’s no way all these cuts are going to be paid for at an exact price for years and years,” he said. __ Fonseca reported from Flagstaff, Arizona. Associated Press reporter Kathleen Ronayne contributed from Sacramento, California.
