EDITORIAL: All states should share in Colorado River cutbacks

It takes two to tango — and to reach a compromise.

The federal government’s Valentine’s Day deadline for an agreement on the Colorado River has come and gone. The seven states connected to the river failed to reach a deal on future water allocation. They also missed a deadline last November. Previous agreements will expire at the end of the year.

A new arrangement is essential because there isn’t enough water to meet demand. The river was over-allocated in the Colorado River Compact of 1922. An extended drought has further reduced the amount of available water.

This winter’s snowpack isn’t helping. Despite recent precipitation, the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center projects the amount of water might be 38 percent of normal. The 1922 compact allocated 7.5 million acre-feet of water to the Lower Basin states, Nevada, Arizona and California. This year, Lake Powell might receive only 2.4 million acre-feet.

The three Lower Basin states offered significant concessions in negotiations with their Upper Basin counterparts.

“To secure a seven-state agreement for post-2026 management of the river, Arizona has offered to reduce its Colorado River allocation by 27 percent, California by 10 percent, and Nevada by nearly 17 percent,” a joint statement from Lower Basin state Govs. Katie Hobbs, Gavin Newsom and Joe Lombardo said. “Our stance remains firm and fair: All seven basin states must share in the responsibility of conservation.”

Even though Nevada’s giveback percentage is high, it doesn’t amount to much water. Despite Lake Mead’s proximity to Las Vegas, Nevada receives a pittance from the Colorado River. The biggest water users in the Lower Basin are California farmers.

Upper Basin states argue that they shouldn’t accept mandatory shortages because the amount of water they receive varies year to year. Reserves in lakes Powell and Mead have ensured a steady supply of water for Lower Basin states.

Without a consensus agreement, the Department of the Interior will put forward a new plan. It has already put out a handful of alternatives and is currently accepting comments on them. The downside of a federal alternative is that it is almost certain to be subject to extended litigation.

That will probably be a major problem because the need for water won’t wait for a court resolution. Having water rights on paper doesn’t mean the water exists to fulfill those rights. This is why the best solution here is to identify and fund ways to increase the region’s water supply.

Even in the midst of bad options, inaction stands out as the worst one. The Interior Department should ensure that both Upper and Lower Basin states share the pain that is to come.