The Colorado River is running dry. Can it be saved?

“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.

What’s happening

The Colorado River, which supplies water to 40 million people in the Western United States, is running dangerously low. The seven states that rely on it all know that drastic change is needed to keep it from drying up, but so far they’ve failed to come to an agreement on what that change should look like — and who will have to make the biggest sacrifice.

Late last month, the states missed a deadline to reach a deal that would satisfy the federal government’s demands for significant reductions in water consumption after California refused to sign on to a plan brokered by the six other states in the Colorado River basin — Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The key point of contention is over which states should shoulder the greatest burden for slashing their water usage.

California, which uses far more water from the river than any of the other states, released its own proposal that calls for other states to make greater cuts than they would under their own plan. The core of the disagreement centers around a series of compacts dating back more than a century known as “Law of the River.” According to those laws, California has senior water rights, meaning major population centers in Arizona and Nevada could be cut off entirely before the vast farmlands in Southern California cut their usage at all. The federal government has said it may be forced to step in to impose its plan for the states if no agreement is reached — a step that would likely lead to a lengthy legal battle.

States have been overtaxing the Colorado River for generations, but the problem has become a crisis in recent years due to an extraordinary drought that has persisted for the past two decades. Water levels have dropped so dramatically that the river’s two largest reservoirs — Lake Mead and Lake Powell — are at risk of reaching a level known as “dead pool” where water would effectively stop flowing downstream. Were that to happen, tens of millions of people would be at risk of losing access to their drinking water, entire regions of farmland would run dry, and dams that support the region’s power infrastructure would go dark.

Why there’s debate

There’s no shortage of ideas for saving the Colorado River, but disagreement over which one to follow has meant none of them have been enacted. Meanwhile, the river continues to dry up.

Many experts say the solution has to start with abandoning the antiquated and broken rules laid out in the Law of the River. It makes no sense, they argue, for places like California’s Imperial Valley — home to massive and water-intensive farmland — to have first dibs over cities that are home to millions of people.

There’s little doubt that a significant share of the cuts will have to come from agriculture, which consumes about 80% of the river’s water. But the political power of those farmers and the importance of their crops to the nation’s food supply mean that simply cutting their water supplies may not be a viable option. Proposals for getting around this problem include helping farmers transition to crops that require less water, improving irrigation so less is lost in transit, and even paying farmers to not grow anything.

Cities will also have to become more water-efficient, experts say, and may have to make unpopular choices like limiting water usage for nonessential things such as grass yards and swimming pools. Others have called for communities to curb the growth of suburban sprawl by passing laws that incentivize denser housing that uses less water.

The most vocal advocates, though, aren’t pushing any one plan, but rather urging the states to stop wrangling over the details and get serious about addressing the problem. They make the case that every day that goes by without a cohesive plan means the situation becomes more severe — and the steps that will be needed to solve it become more painful.

What’s next

The Department of Interior is reportedly considering a variety of options for meeting necessary water usage cuts if the states can’t come to an agreement on their own. A final decision from the federal government is expected to come this summer.

Perspectives

Everyone, from farmers to regular citizens, will have to make sacrifices

“Averting a crisis in the West is possible, but will require killing some sacred cows. The water going to grass, swimming pools, and golf courses will have to be cut. New housing will have to be denser and much more water efficient. More than half of Colorado River water currently irrigates crops fed to animals — a lot of those crops will have to go, reducing the amount of land and water in agriculture. … The consequences of these actions, for farmers, farm workers, agricultural suppliers, communities, and for wetlands that rely on agricultural runoff, must be addressed.” — Michael Cohen and Peter H. Gleick, Time

States have to get past their myopic focus on short term

“We can't continue to operate from crisis to crisis in perpetuity; we need to begin addressing now the foundational interstate agreement that got us into this situation. Because the region's water managers are now engaged in high stakes discussions with dramatic consequences, it is hard to get anyone to focus on the bigger-picture, longer-term challenges. But it is imperative that we do so.” — Katharine Jacobs, Newsweek

Water-rights laws need to be remade from scratch

“In my view, the 1922 compact is now an albatross that can only inhibit innovation. Eliminating fixed rights to water that doesn’t actually exist could spur members to negotiate a new, science-based agreement that is fairer, more inclusive and more efficient and sustainable.” — Daniel Craig McCool, Conversation

We have the tools to move and clean water effectively

“We can help nature compensate for climate change disruptions and destructive drought caused by humans. We can use nature’s own example to usefully redistribute life-sustaining ocean water. We have the know-how and the tools to move water across mountains, just as nature does.” — Don Gale, Salt Lake Tribune

Farmers should be paid to reduce their water usage

“Water conservation in our cities is necessary but not sufficient. Agriculture uses the vast majority of water in the Colorado River Basin, which means agriculture must be part of the solution. If we act now, we can ensure that agricultural water conservation is voluntary, compensated, and temporary. If we wait too long or refuse to act, we face an involuntary, uncompensated, and permanent reality.” — James Eklund, Colorado Sun

California will only make things worse for itself if it refuses to partner with other states

“I think California is playing with fire here. This issue is bigger than any group of water rights holders. The implications of not addressing this issue could affect the economy of the entire state of California.” — David Hayes, environmental law expert, to CNN

No plan will work if climate change is allowed to keep getting worse

“As long as the world keeps warming, there will be less and less water in the Colorado River and across the region for people to use. Climate change is aridifying the West and shrinking the Colorado River as it does.” — Jonathan Overpeck, The Hill

Even if an agreement is reached, it may not be enough

“Let’s say a miracle happens and the seven states agree to this or some other plan to divvy up the cuts. The only target anyone talks about anymore … doesn’t even begin to build back water levels. Nor does it leave much of a buffer should conditions worsen.” — Joanna Allhands, Arizona Republic

The states need to quit their squabbling and make a deal now

“​​Unilaterally imposing cuts would be politically tricky for any administration. A voluntary agreement, on the other hand, would guarantee buy-in from locals and be more likely to reflect their needs and expertise. But every day without an agreement is another in which too much water is drained.” — Editorial, Washington Post

The suburbs can’t keep growing forever

“Curb the sprawl. Housing developments spreading like wildfire through the Southwest add to the strain on the Colorado’s resources. … There is a physical limit to all this growth: If there is no water, then there can’t be people.” — Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg

The false promises that inspired the settlement of the West must finally be reckoned with

“It took a web of policies to build the system we have today, and it will take a web of guidelines, investments and coordination to reframe our relationship with the river. If ‘developing’ the West was once an imposition of brute will, bolstered by unrealistic water forecasts, today’s work is just the opposite: a reality check about our climate and our need to make do with less water.” — Daniel Rothberg, New York Times

Is there a topic you’d like to see covered in “The 360”? Send your suggestions to the360@yahoonews.com.

Photo illustration: Jack Forbes/Yahoo News; photos: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images