Calif. offers Colorado River plan, saying lack of consensus means 'law of the river' rules; that law favors Golden State

The Colorado River flows near Hite Overlook, Utah, upstream from
Lake Powell. (Photo by Carolyn Cole, Los Angeles Times)

California has entered the Colorado River water battle royale with a counter-proposal that refutes plans from the other six states in the watershed and says their plan "would disproportionately burden farms and cities in Southern California," reports Ian James of the Los Angeles Times. Wade Crowfoot, the state’s natural resources secretary, told James, "It doesn’t seem like a constructive approach for some states to fashion a proposal that only impacts the existing water security and water rights of another state that’s not part of that proposal.”

The “consensus-based modeling alternative” plan offered by Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming included "an accounting for evaporation and other water losses along the lower portion of the river — a calculation that would translate into especially large reductions for California, which uses more Colorado River water than any other state," James writes. "Crowfoot said the other states had devised an approach that would go beyond anything established in the agreements and laws that govern how the Colorado River is managed and used. . . . The proposal by California water agencies, in contrast, lays out practical and achievable changes that can be made starting this year to stabilize reservoir levels."

California officials noted that the state has water rights that are senior to those of the other states, but “I don’t think there is disagreement on the magnitude of the reductions that are needed,” John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, told James. “We need this magnitude of cuts in order to stabilize the system. . . . he’s hoping “we can come up with something everybody can live with.”

J.B. Hamby, chair of California’s Colorado River Board, told James, the state’s alternative “provides a realistic and implementable framework by building on voluntary agreements and past collaborative efforts in order to minimize the risk of legal challenge or implementation delay. . . . California is not wavering from our legal position. We continue to look forward to developing a seven-state consensus if possible, but in the absence of that, it defaults to the law of the river.”