L.A. Times: Counting evaporated water in Colorado R. dibs would be unfair to California; creative management needed

Arizona and Nevada have never used all their shares, the Times says.

The six Colorado River states that are not California came up with an idea to manage the river that was both clever and disingenuous, the Los Angeles Times says in an editorial: "When calculating the amount of water used by each state, include the amount that evaporates in the Lower Basin before it reaches its destination. The Colorado travels farthest to reach California, which uses the most water, so naturally — the argument goes — California should be on the hook for most of the evaporation."

The plan, offered in January, "was a public relations victory, because left unexamined, it sounds almost reasonable. California and the [L.A.] Metropolitan Water District had a different proposal, but the evaporation argument caught them flat-footed," the Times reports, then argues: "Federal regulators should not be swayed. Evaporation was not part of the formula when all seven states entered into the Colorado River Compact in 1922, nor in the subsequent treaties, agreements and court decisions that together form what is known as the Law of the River. It’s a questionable measure even for the long-term recalculation that the states face in 2026. It has no legitimate place in discussions of short-term emergency measures.

"All seven states need a more constructive approach that recognizes not merely the necessity of broad cuts all around, but of creative management of existing supplies. Nevada knew this when it wisely banned thirsty decorative lawns. The other states and their water agencies have likewise adopted smart strategies, none more so than the MWD, which is building a huge water-recycling plant, and which voluntarily banked much of its supply in Lake Mead to keep the reservoir operating."

The editorial concludes, "The Law of the River is complex and the peril of shrinking water supplies is serious. There are many painful decisions to make between now and 2026, debates about whether to restrict what farmers can grow and what developers can build, how to respect the water rights of Indigenous tribes and Mexico (where the river now dries up before it reaches the Gulf of California), whether and how to adjust the West’s first-come, first-served water laws. First, though, the states need a fair and workable survival strategy, and soon. Nature has its own timeline, and it’s short."