Groups Call on Government to Save the Colorado River

• Environmental groups have called on the government to reduce water consumption from the Colorado River.
• Reducing water consumption may ensure the river's future stability.
• Dependence on the Colorado River affects 40 million people in the USA and Mexico.

LOS ANGELES — This year, several environmental groups submitted a petition to the federal government with a simple message: ensure that water from the Colorado River, which is under threat, is not wasted without benefit and is only supplied for "reasonable" and "beneficial" uses.

Organizations have called for Bureau of Reclamation to utilize their authority to limit water consumption in the Lower Basin states: California, Arizona, and Nevada. They assert that this is essential for solving the problem of water scarcity in the river.

The concept of "reasonable" and "beneficial" use is not new, but it is being discussed at a critical moment. Prolonged drought, heatwaves, and rising temperatures, linked to climate change, have reduced water flows. States that depend on the river are approaching the 2026 deadline for adopting new water distribution rules, and by mid-summer they must reach a previous agreement, or risk federal intervention.

Groups that submitted the petition believe that reducing water consumption could help ensure the river's future stability. However, others worry that such reductions could lead to difficulties for farmers and consumers.

The river supplies water to 40 million people across seven states in the USA, two states in Mexico, and Indigenous American tribes.

"We lack a strategy for managing the Colorado River, and this is quite alarming," said Mark Gold, adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "We need to urgently address this extraordinary situation of water scarcity, and in such a situation, we must first resolve the issue of water consumption."

The Bureau did not respond to the petition. In a statement to the Associated Press, the agency reported that it continues to operate under existing agreements and has other strategies for "reducing risk to critical levels" in the river's reservoirs.

Defining "beneficial" and "reasonable" use is not simple

The Bureau's code states that "water allocations from the Colorado River for each contractor shall not exceed those that are reasonably necessary for beneficial use."

However, Kera Horowitz, director of the legal clinic at UCLA’s environmental law program, was not convinced what this means. She and her students sought to clarify this, referring to governmental documents.

"As far as we know, these terms have not been defined, and they have not been applied in any meaningful sense when it comes to decisions regarding water allocations," said Horowitz, who represents the groups. They believe that the Bureau needs a reformed process to clarify whether they can eliminate wasteful consumption and unreasonable use of water.

Experts believe that defining what constitutes reasonable and beneficial use can be complex, but some argue that it is worth exploring. Others worry that defining allocations may have negative consequences.

"This could be a Pandora's box that requires very careful handling," said Sara Porter, director of the Water Politics Center at the University of Arizona. "Who gets the right to determine what is a reasonable amount of water for any specific user or community?"

Groups see the situation differently. For example, they argue that farmers should be encouraged to adopt "conservation" practices to reduce water use and develop more resilient crops, better suited to prevailing climatic conditions. An example of "unreasonable" use is circular irrigation in desert regions. In places with limited water resources, irrigation is deemed a decorative use of water rather than a beneficial use.

In 2003, the Bureau acknowledged this situation, when it indicated a reduction in water deliveries to the Imperial Irrigation District in California, the largest consumer of river water, after it was determined that the district could not reasonably allocate all the water. The district filed a lawsuit, and the dispute was eventually resolved.

Farmers and municipalities face challenges

The Imperial Valley of California heavily relies on Colorado River water. The mild winters in this region are ideal for growing two crops of winter vegetables, consumed in the country.

Andrew Limegruber, a fourth-generation farmer, is trying to reduce his water footprint through water economy programs. He grows crops such as melons, cucumbers, and primarily lettuce, which he often irrigates with recycled water, as it fills the deep-rooted system of the plant. Over a 60-day period, he generally does not irrigate it.

Reducing water through "unreasonable" use may lead to people not being able to eat Caesar salad in New York City in January, said Limegruber. He is concerned about short-term production deficits and the potential closure of farms.

Billy Hasenkamp, the water resources manager for the Colorado River Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said that the agency supports ongoing processes to ensure that beneficial water allocations are maintained, even if this definition changes, but he believes that it must resolve the existing crisis of the river. He warned that allocations of this instrument could lead to judicial reviews. "When a case goes to court, there is always a wild card that exists outside of any control whatsoever."

Some experts point to California's constitution as a potential model that could be applied to define reasonable and beneficial use. As it is interpreted, it is governed by state water regulators or courts.

"Yes, as this is written, it is really very adaptable to the times, so it applies to what is being wasted and reasonable use in a particular period," said Felicia Marcus, a research associate for the "Water in the West" program at Stanford University and former chair of the California Water Resources Control Board. "Rivers that were reasonable 50 years ago, are no longer so."

The state water board has also defined its position on beneficial and reasonable use during drought periods, for example, to encourage less wasteful water use in cities. It noted that some droughts or automobiles in yards are unreasonable. In another case, the water agency confirmed and argued that there was unreasonable use to maintain old rights to water, while fish could not swim to cold tributaries.

Water regulators also threatened to apply their authority regarding unreasonable use of water to force water rights holders to better manage their allocations. "This is an instrument that can be used as a threat, just like a stick," said Marcus.

Limegruber, a farmer from the Imperial Valley, said that increased population and expansion in desert areas may exacerbate the situation. John Boelts, a farmer and president of the Arizona Farm Bureau, reported more projects for desalinization. And Noa Harrison, a water researcher at UCLA, found in a recent study that states could recycle more wastewater.

However, as decades of drought diminish some basins, critical reservoirs are declining, some experts believe that the Bureau should be more proactive.

"There should be a water master on the river, unless it can be handed over to the Supreme Court, which takes years to resolve," said Marcus. "The petition regarding beneficial use is one of the ways to say: this is the instrument you have, use it."

Tags: USA/Ecology