Hard choices for the Colorado River

By Quinn HarperMark Squillace

The seven Colorado River states – Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming – face a daunting mid-August deadline. The federal government has asked them to come up with a plan to reduce their combined water usage from the Colorado River by up to 4 million acre-feet in 2023.

That is a massive reduction for a river system that currently produces about 12.4 million acre-feet. The Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Colorado River, warned that it will “act unilaterally to protect the system” if the states cannot come up with an adequate plan on their own.

The seven states have worked cooperatively over the past two decades to identify solutions to a shrinking river. But their response now, much like the global response to climate change, seems far from adequate to the enormous challenge.

In a recent letter to BuRec, the Upper Colorado River Commission, speaking for the four Upper Basin states, proposed a plan that adopts a business-as-usual, “drought-reduction” approach. They argue that their options are limited because “previous drought response actions are depleting upstream storage by 661,000 feet.”

The Commission complains that water users “already suffer chronic shortages under current conditions resulting in uncompensated priority administration, which includes cuts to numerous present perfected rights in each of our states.”

This leads the Commission to conclude that any future reductions must come largely from Mexico and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, because they use most of the water. 

But the Lower Basin states have already taken a significant hit to their “present perfected rights,” and if BuRec makes good on its promise to act unilaterally, they will face another big reduction. The cooperative relationship among the Basin states will not endure if the Upper Basin refuses to share the burden by reducing its consumption. 

A good place to start might lie with two Colorado projects to divert water from the Colorado River basin to the Front Range. Both began construction this summer. The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project will triple the size of one of Denver Water’s major storage units. Denver Water’s original justification for this project – to serve Denver’s growing urban population – seems odd given that water demand in their service area over the past two decades has shrunk, even as its population rose by nearly 300,000. 

Similar questions have been raised with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s Windy Gap Firming Project, which plans to store Colorado River water to support population growth in Front Range cities.

These two projects suggest that Colorado is prepared to exacerbate the current crisis when the opposite response is so desperately needed.

Abandoning these two projects would signal that Colorado is serious about giving the Colorado River a fighting chance at survival. It might also jump-start good-faith negotiations over how Mexico, the states, and tribes might work to achieve a long-term solution to this crisis.

The homestead laws of the 19th century attracted a resilient group of farmers to the West who cleverly designed water laws to secure their water rights against all future water users. “First in time, first in right” became the governing mantra of water allocation, because, except for Tribal Nations, the farmers were first.

That system worked well for many years. As communities grew, cities and water districts built reservoirs to store the spring runoff, ensuring that water was available throughout the irrigation season. 

Climate change and mega-droughts have upended that system. Nowhere have the consequences been as dire as in the Colorado River Basin.  America’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead – key components of the Colorado River’s water storage system – have not filled for more than two decades. They now sit well below 30% of their capacity. 

Hotter temperatures, less mountain snowpack, and dry soils that soak up runoff like a sponge have brought us to this seven-state crisis. All seven states must now share the pain of addressing this crisis. 

The Upper Basin Commission’s anemic response to BuRec’s plea is not a serious plan. We can do better and we must.

Mark Squillace and Quinn Harper are contributors to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. Mark Squillace is the Raphael J. Moses professor of natural resources law at the University of Colorado Law School. Quinn Harper is a graduate student pursuing a master’s degree in natural resource policy at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

This column was published in the following newspapers:

08/08/2022 Vail Daily Vail CO
08/08/2022 Montrose Daily Press Montrose CO
08/09/2022 Glenwood Post Independent Glenwood Springs CO
08/09/2022 Lake Powell Chronicle Page AZ
08/10/2022 Yahoo sunnyvale ca
08/10/2022 St. George Spectrum St. George UT
08/10/2022 Delta County Independent Delta CO
08/10/2022 Canyon Echo Bluff UT
08/11/2022 Carlsbad Current-Argus Carsbad NM
08/11/2022 Gunnison Times Gunnison CO
08/12/2022 Wyofile WY
08/12/2022 Greeley Tribune Greeley CO
08/13/2022 Boulder Daily Camera Boulder CO
08/14/2022 Bandon Western World Bandon OR
08/18/2022 Curry Coastal Pilot Brookings OR
08/17/2022 Montana Standard Butte MT
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hard choices for the #ColoradoRiver — Writers on the Range #COriver #aridification – Coyote Gulch
1 year ago

[…] the link to read the article on the Writers on the Range website (Quinn Harper and Mark […]

Jamie Sudler
1 year ago

Is there any likelyhood in the views of the authors that Denver Water would abandon Gross Reservoir expansion, or that Northern would walk away from Windy Gap firming project? If there is none, then maybe the authors could come up with other suggestions for the Upper Basin.

Ronal Larson
1 year ago

Nice article. Thanks also for it appearing in today’s Denver Post. I hope you will look into one way to at least make the water shortage problem smaller – if not solving it: biochar. Plenty of articles on how biochar can save up to 50% of irrigation water – while giving increased agricultural yield. Not once but for decades. Because it is also taking carbon out of the atmosphere, it seems to be the most promising of the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options. Federal funding for CDR should be available soon. The URL below for USBI will give a good introduction. to biochar. I write as a member of the USBI Board. First annual conference in 3 years is going on today in West Virginia. The first and last conferences were both in Colorado. CSU has many experts on biochar.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Once a week you’ll receive an email with a link to our weekly column along with profiles of our writers, beside quirky photos submitted from folks like you. Don’t worry we won’t sell our list or bombard you with daily mail.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x