HISTORY73 - The Colorado River is in Crisis

There have been numerous reports lately about how the Colorado River, which supplies water for 40 million people in seven states, has shrunk during the Southwest’s 23-year megadrought, with its major reservoirs, Mead and Powell, approaching record lows and expected to eventually run out of water unless user states cut back on water.  That sounded like a worthy subject to investigate and blog about.

  

So, in this article, “The Colorado River is in Crisis,” I will start with an introduction to the Colorado River, then discuss the roots of the West’s water system, next the start of river water management with the historic Colorado River Compact, followed by the subsequent development of the Colorado River dams and aqueducts, evolving policy to provide adequate water, and the river’s status today.  I will end with a snapshot of options that have been proposed to sustain the Colorado River water resource in the future.

My principal sources include: “Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact,” wrrc.arizona.edu; “A Century Ago, This Water Agreement Changed the West. Now the Region Is in Crisis,” smithsonianmag.com; “Let’s talk about the biggest cause of the West’s water crisis,” vox.com; “United States Bureau of Reclamation,” Wikipedia.com; “Feds propose options for managing Colorado River water shortage: Failure is not an Option,” dnbc.com; “US unveils options for cutting California’s Colorado River water,” calmatters.org; plus, numerous other online sources.

Introduction to the Colorado River

The Colorado River is the principal river in the Southwestern United States.  The 1,450-mile-long river drains an expansive, arid watershed of 246,000 square miles that encompasses parts of seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and two Mexican states.

The name Colorado derives from the Spanish language for "colored reddish" due to its heavy silt load.  Starting in the central Rocky Mountains of Colorado, the Colorado River flows generally southwest across the Colorado Plateau and through the Grand Canyon before reaching Lake Mead on the Arizona-Nevada border, where it turns south toward the international border.  After entering Mexico, the river approaches the Colorado River Delta at the tip of the Gulf of California, between Baja California and Sonora.

The Colorado River supplies water for 40 million people.

 

Known for its dramatic canyons, whitewater rapids, and eleven U.S. National Parks, the Colorado River and its tributaries are a vital source of water for 40 million people.  An extensive system of dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts divert its flow for agricultural irrigation and urban water supply.  Its large flow and steep gradient are used to generate hydroelectricity for much of the Colorado basin.  The river is also important for fish and wildlife, and recreational uses.

Native Americans have inhabited the Colorado River basin for at least 8,000 years.  Starting around 1 AD, large agriculture-based societies were established, but a combination of drought and poor land use practices led to their collapse in the 1300s.  Their descendants include tribes such as the Puebloans, while others, including the Navajo, settled in the Colorado Basin after the 1000s. In the 1500s, Spanish explorers began mapping and claiming the watershed, which became part of Mexico upon its independence in 1821.  Even after most of the watershed became U.S.  territory in 1848, much of the river's course remained unknown.  Several expeditions charted the Colorado in the mid-19^th century - one of which, led by John Wesley Powell, was the first to run the rapids of the Grand Canyon.

Large-scale settlement of the lower basin began in the mid- to late-1800s, with steamboats sailing from the Gulf of California to landings along the Lower Colorado River that linked to wagon roads to the interior.  Starting in the 1860s, gold and silver strikes drew prospectors to the upper Colorado River basin.

Serious management of the Colorado River basin’s water supplies began in the early 1900s, with major guidelines established in a series of international and U.S. interstate agreements.  The U.S. federal government constructed most of the major dams and aqueducts on the Colorado between 1910 and 1970.  Numerous water projects have also involved state and local governments.  With all of its waters fully allocated for use, the Colorado is now considered among the most controlled and litigated river systems in the world.

Today, demands for Colorado River water, exceed the water supply from river flow; the Colorado River is in crisis.

Roots of the West’s Water System

The West’s water system has its roots in the 1862 federal Homestead Act, which gave Western settlers up to 160 acres of land for free if they agreed to improve it and stay on it for at least five years, and later offered even more land at a reduced price if they agreed to farm it.

But because there was so little water, and irrigation was shoddy, Congress passed the Reclamation Act in 1902 to “reclaim” arid land in the West for agriculture.  The federal government sold tracts of land to fund massive irrigation damming projects to divert rivers and streams to farms.  Armed with cheap land and water backed by federal price guarantees - and aided by a warm climate that permitted an expanded growing season - Southwestern settlers began to farm cotton and alfalfa.

The issue of water rights - and how they were obtained - would set the stage for constant conflict in the Southwest.

In the Eastern U.S., water rights were determined using what’s called the riparian doctrine - everyone who lives near a body of water has an equal right to use it, and is entitled to a “reasonable use” of it.

Water rights in the West were determined - under state laws - by what’s called the prior appropriation doctrine, which gives senior water rights to whoever first uses the water, a right they retain so long as they continue to use it.  And those rights were mostly snatched up by miners during the California Gold Rush era of the mid-1800s and farmers in the following decades who came to the West after the Homestead and Reclamation Acts (and some of that water and land was taken from Indigenous tribes).  Even in times of shortage, senior water rights holders - many of them farmers - get priority over latecomers, like those millions of Western urbanites.

Note:  Remember that because of the 1849 Gold Rush, prospectors from the East rushed to California, ignoring (in terms of settlement) the vast area of land between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California.  Thus, California was settled well before the rest of the West.  That created repeated conflict.  In terms of water rights along the Colorado River, it was, and still is, the Golden State versus everyone else.

Colorado River Compact

By the early 1920s, the Colorado Basin states were anxious about their share of the Colorado River.  Then, as now, California's growth was viewed with concern.  Burgeoning growth meant increased water demand, and the other Colorado Basin states feared California would establish priority rights to Colorado River water.  That California contributed the least amount of runoff to the river, added gall to the situation.

Colorado proposed that the Colorado River states negotiate a compact to determine individual state's rights to the river water.  At the time, interstate compacts to resolve water disputes were an untried, untested strategy.

Delegates from the affected states took 11 months to reach an agreement: the 1922 Colorado River Compact.  The adopted strategy was to divide Colorado River water equally between Upper and Lower Basin states, with the demarcation line set at Lee's Ferry, located in northern Arizona's canyon country close to the Utah border.  Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico were designated Upper Basin states, and California, Arizona and Nevada Lower Basin states.  Each basin was to receive 7.5 million acre-feet (maf) per year, holding 1.4 maf in reserve.

The 1922 Colorado River Compact allocated 7.5 maf of water annually (in perpetuity) to the Upper and Lower Basins.

 

Note:  The delegates relied on data that indicated that the annual Colorado River flow at Lee’s Ferry to be 16.4 maf.  In truth, however, Colorado River flow is a good deal less than that.  Data from three centuries indicate an average flow of about 13.5 maf.  Also, flows are highly erratic, ranging from 4.4 maf to over 22 maf.  (7.5 maf is 2.22 cubic miles.)

The states in each basin were left to figure out how to allocate the 7.5 maf of water among themselves. 

The compact was signed by delegates from all seven state as well as a representative from the federal government, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover.  It was the first time so many states had come together to make an agreement - a momentous occasion in U.S. history. 

The 1922 Colorado River Compact allocated 7.5 maf of water annually (in perpetuity) to the Upper and Lower Basins.

  

But while Native Americans had been using water in the river for millennia, and had legal rights to it, per a 1908 Supreme Court case, they were left out of the agreement, as was Mexico.

All states ratified the compact except for Arizona, arguing that the compact put Arizona at a disadvantage, because it would be forced to compete directly with California for water.  Arizona later joined the agreement in the early 1940s, and the two states still face bitter disputes over water today.  (See below)

The Upper Basin states proved more amenable to a cooperative settlement.  (By reaching accord among themselves, they avoided the more intrusive federal role that the quarrelsome southern states brought upon themselves.)  A contract was signed in 1948 assigning 51.75% to Colorado, 23% to Utah, 14% to Wyoming and 11.25% to New Mexico.  Percentages were given rather than actual amounts because by this time, the Upper Basin states were unsure of the amount of water that would be available.

Development of the Colorado River

Also in 1922, the federal Bureau of Reclamation was formed, under the U.S. Department of the Interior, to oversee water resource management, specifically the oversight and operation of the diversion, delivery, and storage projects to be built throughout the western United States for irrigation, water supply, and attendant hydroelectric power generation. 

The Bureau of Reclamation immediately began to exercise its mission on the Colorado River.  By 1970, the Colorado River had more dams than any other river in the United States.  In total, there are 15 dams on the Colorado River, all of which are used to pool water for irrigation and municipalities, and generate electricity - to generate a steady water supply for crops and people.

The two largest dams, providing the most water storage capacity, are Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam.

Hoover Dam is a 726-foot high concrete arch-gravity dam in Black Canyon, on the border between Nevada and Arizona.  It was constructed between 1931 and 1936 during the Great Depression, and was dedicated on September 30, 1935, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Its construction was the result of a massive effort involving thousands of workers, and cost over one hundred lives.  It was referred to as the Hoover Dam after President Herbert Hoover in bills passed by Congress during its construction; it was named the Boulder Dam by the Roosevelt administration.  The Hoover Dam name was restored by Congress in 1947.  The reservoir behind Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, has a maximum capacity of 26.1 maf of water.

Hoover Dam forms Lake Mead, the largest reservoir on the Colorado River, with full capacity of 26.1 maf of water.

 

Glen Canyon Dam is a concrete arch-gravity dam in northern Arizona, near the town of Page. The 710-foot-high dam was built from 1956 to 1966 and forms Lake Powell, one of the largest man-made reservoirs in the U.S. with a capacity of 24.3 maf of water.  The dam is named for Glen Canyon, a series of deep sandstone gorges now flooded by the reservoir; Lake Powell is named for John Wesley Powell, who in 1869 led the first expedition to traverse the Colorado River's Grand Canyon by boat.

Glen Canyon Dam forms Lake Powell, the second largest reservoir on the Colorado River, with full capacity of 24.3 maf pf water.

 

Note:  Before the 1930s, the Colorado River flowed from its Rocky Mountain origins and emptied into the northern Sea of Cortez.  In the last century, the river has been dispersed throughout the West for farms, cities, and industries, and it no longer reaches the sea, except in the wettest years.  Depending on your perspective, this is a triumph of engineering, bolstering human prosperity, or an ecological tragedy, diminishing ecosystem health.

Evolving Water Policy

Mexico.  In 1944, a Mexican-U.S. Treaty guaranteed Mexico 1.5 maf of water per year from the Colorado River.  Water rights then totaled 16.5 maf annually.

Lower Basin Litigated Allocations.  In the early 1940s, Arizona began to reassess its water strategy.  To effectively use its Colorado River apportionment, the water would need to be delivered to the growing population in the south-central part of the state.  Arizona leaders realized that support for such a reclamation project would be contingent upon Arizona's ratification of the Colorado River Compact.  So, on February 3, 1944, Arizona unconditionally ratified the compact, 22 years after it was negotiated.  Negotiations for a Central Arizona Project to deliver Colorado River water to south-central Arizona commenced.

Formal approval for such a project, however, was not likely until California and Arizona resolved their allocation dispute over Colorado River water use.  Lingering animosities prevented any agreement between the two states, and so in 1952, Arizona asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a judicial apportionment.

Eleven years later, in 1963, the mammoth and complicated case concluded.  The decision in Arizona v. California resulted in major power shifts, between the states and between the states and the federal government.  Colorado River water was apportioned, with California receiving 4.4 maf, Arizona 2.8 maf, and Nevada 0.3 maf, with each state also awarded all the water in its tributaries.  Arizona was a big winner, gaining almost all the advantages it sought in the 1922 compact.  A nagging water supply problem was resolved.

Indian Water Rights. The neglected issue of Indian water rights returned with a vengeance in the 1963 Supreme Court decision Arizona v. California.  Along with determining the Colorado River water rights of Arizona, Nevada, and California, the decision also quantified federal reserved rights of the five Indian reservations along the lower Colorado River: Chemehuevi, Cocopah, Colorado River, Mohave. and Quechan.

The court granted the reservations enough water to irrigate all practicably irrigable acreage within their boundaries.  The water was to come from the Lower Basin states' Colorado River apportionments.  Under this standard, five Indian reservations, with a total population of about 10,000, were granted approximately 0.9 maf of water.  Because of this landmark case, these tribes have the best water rights along the Lower Colorado River.  From neglected interests or parties, Indians became major players.

Indians of the Upper Basin states do not have a comparable court case to define their water rights.  Through federal legislation and court cases, however, the Upper Basin tribes have acquired about one maf of water.

Along with the above-mentioned tribes, other Arizona tribes have potential claims to Colorado River water.  The Walapai and Havasupai claim to have rights, although neither has taken any legal action.  About 180 miles of the Havasupai reservation borders on the Colorado River.

Still unquantified, and conceded to be potentially huge, the Navajo tribe's water rights claim could cut into the Colorado River apportionment of four states: Arizona in the Lower Basin, and New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah in the Upper Basin, with the major burden on Arizona.  The reservation area is 25,000 square miles, and is located entirely within the Colorado River basin. 

Federal Government Actions.  The federal government has led multiple efforts to improve the Colorado River basin’s water supply outlook, resulting in collaborative agreements in 2003 and 2007, and a 2019 drought contingency plan (DCP) for the Upper and Lower Colorado River basins.  The DCP required new cutbacks to Lower Basin water deliveries based on specified storage levels in Lake Mead, committed the Bureau of Reclamation to supporting water conservation efforts, and put in place plans to coordinate Upper Basin operations to enhance Lake Powell storage levels and prevent the loss of hydropower generation. 

Status Today

The hydrologic outlook for the Colorado River basin has deteriorated further since approval of the drought contingency plan, and there remains widespread concern about the basin’s long-term water supply.  On June 14, 2022, the Bureau of Reclamation called on basin states to conserve an additional 2-4 maf of water in 2023 and 2024. 

When these commitments failed to materialize, the Bureau of Reclamation initiated a process to revise its current operational guidelines for 2023 and 2024; this process could lead to additional unilateral delivery curtailments without state input.  In addition to these short-term water management decisions, decisionmakers face longer-term questions, such as whether to renew basin water management agreements (including the DCP) expiring in 2026, and whether major changes to basin water management are warranted.

Higher Usage, Less Water.  Conditions have shifted drastically in the 100 years since the Colorado River Compact was signed.  President Hoover predicted that the basin’s population, which was about 457,000 in 1915, would quadruple.  Today, the river serves 40 million people - more than 20 times his prediction. 

And states are now using more water than is sustainable.  The 1922 negotiations allocated water use based on data from an unusually wet period in history.  Now, with reduced water in the river and its reservoirs, these allocations are outdated. 

Total annual water usage today is somewhere on the order of about 15 maf.  The historical flow since 2000 is around 12 maf, producing a 3-maf imbalance.

Meanwhile, a sustained drought since 2000 is reducing the mountain snowpack that feeds the river, and it’s also causing more evaporation.  

Since 2000, the basin has been in a state of profound imbalance.  As a result, the Colorado River’s largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, have declined by roughly 70%. 

Heavy snowfall in the Rocky Mountains this past winter should give Lake Powell a modest boost as it melts, but not enough to assuage fears over the lake’s reaching what’s termed “dead pool” status, when water levels drop too low to flow through the dams. 

The water shortage has forced the federal government to take drastic action - it has ordered cuts to water usage and reduced downstream releases from Lake Powell and Lake Mead.  But even these measures haven’t been enough.

Jack Schmidt, director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University, says the situation is dire.  “One more extremely dry winter - on par with the record-breaking dry conditions that occurred in 2002 - will either drain Lake Powell or force the government to take unprecedented emergency action,” he says.

State Usage of Colorado River Water.  The states vary to the extent they are currently using their Colorado River water allocation.  Development is occurring much more slowly in the Upper Basin states than in the Lower Basin, and as result Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico have not yet used their full allocation of Colorado River water.  Arizona, in the Lower Basin, in recent years, used only part of its allocation.

Meanwhile at the end of the line, is thirsty southern California.  California long has profited from other states not using their full allocations.  Conveniently located downriver, California has been diverting unused water apportioned to other states.

Each of the Lower Basin states has somewhat different goals in managing its Colorado River water.  In response to a directive from the Secretary of the Interior, California is working on a plan to limit its use of Colorado River water to 4. 4 maf per year, its legally apportioned amount.  Nevada is seeking to obtain additional Colorado River water for the rapidly growing Las Vegas area, and Arizona is devising plans to use its entire entitlement, by banking or recharging water not presently needed.

Farming Uses Most of the Colorado River Water.  Despite news stories about drought-stricken Americans in the West taking shorter showers and ditching lawns to conserve their water supply, those efforts are unlikely to amount to much - residential water use accounts for just 13% of water drawn from the Colorado River.  According to research published in Nature Sustainability, the vast majority of water, 79%, is used by farmers to irrigate crops.

79% of Colorado River water is used to irrigate crops.

 

Seventy percent of the water used for crops goes to alfalfa, hay, corn silage, and other grasses that are used to fatten up cattle for beef, and cows for dairy.  Some of the other crops, like soy, corn grain (corn harvested when fully mature), wheat, barley, and even cotton, may also be used for animal feed

More than half of Colorado River water is used to irrigate crops that feed beef and dairy.

 

California takes more water from the Colorado River than any other state, and most of it goes to the Imperial Valley in the southern part of the state.  It’s one of the most productive agricultural regions in the U.S., producing two-thirds of America’s vegetables during winter months.  But the majority of the Imperial Valley’s farmland is dedicated to alfalfa and various grasses to feed livestock.

Across the 17 Western states, at least 10% of alfalfa is shipped to Asia and the Middle East, where meat and dairy consumption is low compared to the U.S., but on the rise.

We can point to drought and over allocation for drying up the water supply that is the Colorado River, but we can’t ignore the fact that the West’s already limited water is primarily used to grow alfalfa for livestock, while cities are left to spend heavily on water-saving infrastructure to keep the water running and ensure reserves. 

The Future

Allocation Options for the Future.  Last summer, federal officials warned the states that if they failed to reach an agreement to reduce water use by 2-4 maf each year, the government would impose its own measures.  Early this year, six of the states pulled together a plan, with California offering up a separate proposal.  The multi-state plan would have meant a cut of more than a maf per year for California, while California’s plan offered to cut back by 0.4 maf per year, with the Imperial Irrigation District taking on 0.25 maf of that. 

Federal officials said the draft plans followed “months of intensive discussions and collaborative work with the Basin states and water commissioners, the 30 Basin Tribes, water managers, farmers and irrigators, municipalities, and other stakeholders.”  Since there was no consensus among the seven Basin states, in April 2023, the Biden administration proposed three alternatives for cutting Colorado River water allocations.

In one option presented in the federal report, California would retain their century-old senior water rights, and allocation cuts would be proportional to existing water rights. This option would go easy on the Imperial Irrigation District, which has the most senior water rights, while cities in Arizona and Nevada would be hit hard by the cuts.  This first-come, first-served water rights system remains a hot point of contention among water users.

Another option would override the historically bulletproof rights held by the Imperial Valley.  In that option, the cuts in allocations “would be distributed in the same percentage” across the three Lower Basin states.  It includes “progressively larger additional shortages as Lake Mead’s [water] elevation declines” and “larger Lower Basin shortages in 2025 and 2026 as compared with 2024.”  Under that option, California would be hurt the most and have to give up the most water.

The third option presented by the federal government is a “no action” plan, staying with the status quo for water use and exports, which is considered an unlikely choice given the emergency conditions.

“Alternatives that skirt around long-standing water rights, as well as the agreements and laws put in place to address this situation, have the potential to jeopardize existing long-standing California water agency partnerships, and billions of dollars of long-term planning investments that have provided water supply resilience within the state for more than two decades,” the statement declared.  Obviously, this is not a simple problem.

The federal government stated that their plan "is a powerful indication of what could come if we don’t reach a consensus.  We must keep working to develop a consensus short-term plan, while also collaborating to build long-term solutions that will ensure the river’s lasting sustainability," such as increasing farm and urban water efficiency.

A final decision by the Interior Department is expected in August, 2023, after a public comment period, and will affect the 2024 operation of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams.

In 2026, several current agreements regarding water usage will expire, forcing new compromises to be made about water allocation.  So far, though, no one has decided what those new rules will look like.

A number of short-term solutions should be enough to help Colorado River states get through the next few years, but in the long term, policymakers and food producers - and us - around the world will need to rethink how we farm and eat in a changing climate.

We must, as a nation, reduce our long-term water use rates to be consistent with the supply.

Options to Reduce Water Usage.  As the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reduces the water supply for several states and Mexico, a patchwork of federal and state initiatives has moved forward to compensate farmers to reduce water use.

Late last year, the Biden administration announced it will use some of the $4 billion in drought mitigation from the Inflation Reduction Act to pay farmers - as well as cities and Indigenous tribes - to cut their water use.  Farmers in Southern California have been paid to skip planting some of their fields.  Some experts want to see farmers have more leeway to transfer, sell, or lease their water rights to cities.

Policymakers have been hesitant to make any real major changes, because this stuff is very politically fraught.  There’s a whole lot of different stakeholders to keep happy.

Change Crops and Eating Habits.  Another option to reduce water usage, is altering the demand side of the water supply-demand equation, and shifting diets globally to foods that use less water, which ultimately means less meat and dairy, as well as fewer water-intensive tree nuts like almonds, pistachios, and cashews (nut milks, however, require much less water to produce than cow’s milk).

Agriculture isn’t just the largest user of water in the Southwestern U.S., it’s the largest globally, consuming 70% of freshwater withdrawals.  What we may need in the Southwest and beyond isn’t just climate adaptation, but dietary adaptation.

We should consider changing crops and our diets to save water.

 

American policymakers are mulling and potentially making hard choices about water use, pitting crops for cows against water for people.