{"id":1427,"date":"2023-05-23T09:23:11","date_gmt":"2023-05-23T13:23:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/?p=1427"},"modified":"2023-05-23T09:23:11","modified_gmt":"2023-05-23T13:23:11","slug":"california-emerges-as-big-winner-in-colorado-river-water-deal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/education\/california-emerges-as-big-winner-in-colorado-river-water-deal\/","title":{"rendered":"California emerges as big winner in Colorado River water deal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Monday\u2019s historic Colorado River agreement<\/a> represents a big win for California, which only months ago was embroiled in a bitter feud with Arizona, Nevada and four other Western states over how to dramatically reduce their use of water supplies in the shrinking river<\/a>.<\/u><\/p>\n

The proposition, which came after months of tense negotiations<\/a>, would see the three states in the Colorado\u2019s lower basin conserve about 3 million acre-feet of water from the river by 2026 \u2014 a 14% reduction across the Southwest that amounts to only about half of what could have been imposed by the federal government had the states not come to an accord.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a win for California, but it\u2019s a win for the entire basin that, once again, after a year of acrimony, we are at least now on the same page going forward,\u201d said Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River resources for the Metropolitan Water District.<\/p>\n

Though some details have yet to be disclosed, the plan would see the majority of the cuts, about 1.6 million acre-feet, come from California. The remainder would be split between Arizona and Nevada, with the former taking the lion\u2019s share of those losses.<\/p>\n

California\u2019s reductions are similar to those the state\u2019s water managers have offered for several months, Hasencamp said. The plan also is in line with California\u2019s proposal to focus on voluntary reductions rather than opening a door for the federal government to dictate cuts proportionally across the region.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m pleasantly surprised,\u201d said James Salzman, a professor of environmental law at UCLA and UC Santa Barbara. \u201cI thought this was going to go to the courts, but I think two big things have happened: The record snowpack has made the choices less painful<\/a>, and, to be honest, California and Arizona have played nicer with each other than I expected.\u201d<\/p>\n

Only weeks ago, the states were at an impasse over how the cuts should be apportioned. California argued for voluntary reductions while adhering to the water-rights system under the body of agreements known as the Law of the River<\/a>, which would favor its seniority. Arizona and Nevada \u2014 with support from the upper-basin states of New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming \u2014 argued for proportional cuts across the board in the lower basin.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not obvious how it would have played out, but California really would be rolling the dice\u201d by leaving it up to the federal government or litigation, Salzman said. \u201cThey\u2019ve reached an agreement now that they obviously must feel that they can meet, that they can satisfy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more from Hayley Smith<\/a> and Ian James<\/a> of the LA Times<\/em>:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/california\/story\/2023-05-23\/colorado-river-deal-represents-a-big-win-for-california<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Monday\u2019s historic Colorado River agreement represents a big win for California, which only months ago was embroiled in a bitter feud with Arizona, Nevada and four other Western states over how to dramatically reduce their use of water supplies in the shrinking river. The proposition, which came after months of tense negotiations, would see the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1865,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1427","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1865"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1427"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1427\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1428,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1427\/revisions\/1428"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/environmental-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}