WATER POLITICS

We have a good story to tell about the Colorado River (I know. Since when have I typed those words?)

Consider where we are:

Lake Mead and Lake Powell — the nation’s two largest water reservoirs — remain relatively stable, despite only average runoff this year.

That’s largely because Arizona, California and Nevada — the Lower Basin states that rely on Lake Mead — have put their water use on a heavy diet, consuming 5.8 million acre-feet of water in 2023.

That’s the lowest in 40 years and well below the 7.5 million acre-feet of water to which they are entitled.

(For context, 7.5 million acre-feet is enough to put the city of Phoenix under more than 22 feet of water. It’s a lot.)

Lake Mead is stable, which helps Lake Powell

Meanwhile, the three states are well on their way to leaving an additional 3 million acre-feet feet of water in Lake Mead by 2026, a commitment they made to the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the lakes.

California’s Imperial Irrigation District, which is entitled to more Colorado River water than all of Arizona, inked the latest and largest deal, agreeing to leave 700,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Mead through 2026.

These savings are critical because they essentially eliminate the “structural deficit” that has caused Lake Mead to steadily decline, even when we’ve had decent runoff.

This deficit is largely driven by evaporation and other losses that aren’t accounted for in the Lower Basin’s water allocations.

And because Lake Mead survives only because of releases from Lake Powell, those losses also have drained the upstream reservoir.

Eliminating the structural deficit won’t build back the water we’ve lost. But it has stopped the decline for now, and that’s good news, indeed.

We’re spending billions to temporarily save water

Except … (you knew that word was coming, didn’t you?)

We’re achieving these savings largely because billions of dollars in federal money are funding them.

Most of that cash is simply paying people to temporarily not use water. Proposals to find more permanent water savings are still being vetted.

And the commitments to temporarily not use water are only good through 2026.

Which is a problem, considering what we are facing in 2027 and beyond. That’s when the current operating rules for the reservoirs expire.

It’s anyone’s guess what the next round of rules will entail.

The major parties are deadlocked on a rudimentary point, which is whether the Upper Basin states that rely on Lake Powell should be expected to contribute extra water when the reservoirs fall to dangerously low levels.

We bought time, but we’re not using it wisely

But there is wider agreement that Arizona, California and Nevada should continue to own the structural deficit past 2026 — meaning we’ll need to continue leaving at least as much water in Mead as we are now.

We’re going to have to live with a lot less water. Probably permanently.

And we’re not going to have billions of dollars in federal money to pencil it out.

How do we do that?

That’s what worries me. The point of shoring up Lake Mead through 2026 was to buy time so we didn’t have to make last-minute deals and emergency decisions.

We need time to fully think through the unintended consequences of our actions.

But we’re deadlocked on who must contribute and not talking nearly enough about how we sustain lower water use without billions in federal largesse.

And the clock is ticking.