Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts | Hacker News Reader

Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts

cnn.com

26 pointsmooreds13 comments

States should charge market rates for water, so that a liter is a liter is a liter regardless of its destination. For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-us...

Prices work. They are an incentive wrapped in a signal.

A liter of untreated water in a canal or tap water plumbed all the way to your home?

Being more market-based would be better, but the market for water is never going to be that simple. Water is heavy compared to what people pay for it. Pumps exist, but it costs less to deliver it downhill. Pipelines don't go everywhere.

> For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible.

We don't live in a society where the govt allocates the best land for farming as farmland (yet). Normally, I am a proponent for agriculture...as long as it serves as supply for the US.

What's worrying, is how much of the agriculture is foreign owned, then shipped overseas.

https://www.azfamily.com/2022/12/28/wells-are-running-dry-dr...

That’s not entirely true. Zoning laws designate parcels intended for agricultural use. My farm land has zoning restrictions that prevent pretty much any kind of business activity other than farming. For example, I can’t host events like weddings more than four times a year.

However, your point about exports is accurate. I can’t find affordable alfalfa for my animals, because it’s all being shipped overseas where it fetches a higher price.

Actually, AZ's desert has some shocking benefits for agriculture.

* Lots of sun, so you can get many growing seasons.

* No pests (there's nothing else for them to live on)

* Few weeds to compete with what you are growing.

I know, I was surprised too.

This podcast goes into more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owieQnPYfT8

My understanding is that right now Colorado River water rights are defined in terms of absolute volume. So when there isn't enough water to satisfy the water rights, it leads to conflict.

It seems like a natural alternative is to define water rights as being relative to the amount of water available in the river. that way water rights would scale with the drought.

but, I fully appreciate that I am a novice, and can appreciate that it's likely not that simple.

One big problem with implementing new ideas like yours — and like many potential solutions to problems with current laws — is quite simply: how do we get from here to there without effectively screwing over all of the current players in the game? And if you are willing to screw them over, why should they trust that they will not get screwed by the new scheme at some point?

Some of the current players are already screwed. There is less water available than is desired. The government isn't supposed to come in and screw everything up they're supposed to spread the hurt around "fairly" or in some other way compatible with the national interest. This isn't some arbitrary reorganizing of water rights for political ends, there just isn't enough water in the American West for old ways to continue.

Whatever we do, let's be sure to add another 100 million people to the area in the next 10 years! That will clearly help the situation.

Nah it's fine. Arizona doesn't use more water than it did in 1957.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environme...

and 74% of that goes to agriculture.

Western water does need to be managed and there are lots of silly water rules that should be changed. But the Mountain West drying up is just a fantasy. For weather, economics, and governance it's probably the region with the brightest future over the next 30 years.

It would work out fine provided that more food is imported and less exported, at least for crops that require lots of water.

“The federal government and its Bureau of Reclamation – the agency responsible for managing the West’s complex system of reservoirs, rivers and dams – has legal authority over the lower basin but not the upper basin under the current law of the river”

The upper basin (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming) proposal puts mandatory cuts on the lower basin (California, Arizona and Nevada) and only voluntary cuts of unspecified amounts on themselves.

“the lower basin plan would spread cuts ranging between 1.5 million to 3.9 million acre-feet across all seven states, plus the country of Mexico – which also uses river water.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com