California the only state refusing to sign agreement to protect the Colorado River system

While the level of the Colorado River remains low, policy makers in the seven states sharing the river were unable to reach a unanimous agreement on a plan to reduce water consumption. California was left out of a last-minute compromise that proposed a series of measures to which the other six states agreed.

The agreement sent to federal authorities by representatives from Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming lays a foundation upon which future negotiations can be developed. Those from California, which is the state that uses most of the river, point out that the ultimate purpose of the compromise is to put pressure on federal mediators after attempts to establish common ground between all seven states were unsuccessful.

Worst drought in twelve centuries

The primary reason the agreement was signed last Tuesday was to meet the Jan. 31 ultimatum that the Bureau of Reclamation had set for the seven parties to reach a consensus. Despite this, California authorities refused to accept an agreement in which evaporation and other water losses in the lower basin of the river would be included in the calculations when setting the final cutbacks. If both conditions were to apply, the Californians deemed that too much burden would fall upon their shoulders.

Bart Fisher, chairman of the board of the Palo Verde Irrigation District of California, acknowledged how difficult the situation was, and lamented that the negotiations had turned into a struggle. "In the situation that we face today, of course, the river is overallocated. We must adjust demand to fit supply," he noted. However, "it’s become combative and adversarial, rather than collaborative toward a consensus. Nobody wants their own ox to be gored. And so it’s become, everyone’s backed into their respective corners, and focused on the largest target, which is California."

California says other states are trying to take advantage

Fisher continued, claiming that "Other states are trying to advantage themselves by urging the federal government to disregard existing law and perform some reallocation of the river that would benefit themselves, as an alternative to collaborating toward a common consensus." The Golden State is preparing an initiative for the federal government in which it proposes compensation for agricultural landowners in the Imperial Valley in exchange for a reduction in their consumption.

Those affected, who have preferential rights and use most of the river's supply, were in favor of this proposal. However, they want to ensure that the priority system of water rights is maintained and respected. In addition, they noted that those who should take the biggest cuts are those with the lowest-ranking entitlements, for example: cities in Arizona.

California urged to join the river agreement

The representatives of the six states that signed the agreement indicated that it is an important step on the right path to reach a final agreement between all parties. This was stated by Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, who insisted on maintaining an "ongoing dialogue" among the seven states "as we continue to seek a collaborative solution to stabilize the Colorado River system."

John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, also insisted on this principle. "While our goal remains achieving a seven-state agreement, developing and submitting this consensus-based alternative is a positive step forward," he said. Meanwhile, federal officials are conducting an accelerated review of current rules affecting the river flow to address the shortage.

A reduction of around 25% of annual consumption

The Biden administration quantified these changes as a 15%-25% reduction in annual consumption of water from the river compared to June 2022. This amounts to between two and four million acre-feet each year. Forecasts have worsened over the course of the past year, prompting federal officials to announce that they may ask these states for extra efforts.

The agreement rejected by California is along these lines. In fact, it proposes reductions for Arizona, California and Nevada that are greater than those previously negotiated by the three states. This is because it includes 1.5 million acre-feet of water losses caused primarily by evaporation. In addition, the document signed by the six states calls for various efforts in the four upper basin states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, as well as "additional voluntary conservation measures." Representatives from these states claimed that their proposal would help protect water supply and hydropower production, as well as reduce the risk of reservoirs reaching a dead pool where water would stop flowing downstream.

Political battle

This battle carried over into the political sphere, with representatives from the six states, such as Senators Kyrsten Synema (D-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), urging California to step up and "help" solve a historic crisis caused by the worst drought in twelve centuries.