The U.S. federal government unveiled a plan on Friday that calls for significant restrictions to address the chronic drought affecting the Colorado River, a vital water resource for 40 million people that is threatened by climate change, according to AFP, as reported by Agerpres.

The seven U.S. states that depend on the Colorado River have been at odds for several years over how to allocate the river’s water, without managing to reach an agreement. The deadlock in these negotiations has forced the Trump administration to step in as an arbitrator.

The new plan allows the federal government to impose restrictions on California, Arizona, and Nevada, requiring these states to reduce their collective water use by 3.7 billion cubic meters by 2028—the equivalent of 1.5 million Olympic-sized swimming pools.

“That represents 20% of the amount to which these three states are technically entitled,” explained Sarah Porter, an expert on this issue at Arizona State University (ASU).

The effort is immense and has major implications.

The Colorado River, which flows to Mexico’s Pacific coast, not only supplies drinking water and electricity to major cities such as Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. It also helps feed the United States: most of the vegetables consumed in the country during the winter are grown in California and Arizona.

But U.S. authorities have no choice: for over 25 years, droughts have become a recurring problem in the American West, exacerbated by climate change.

This year, the situation is once again alarming. The combined water level of the country’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, is currently at its lowest point in 60 years.

“Unacceptable Restrictions”

The new U.S. federal plan proposes a 10-year framework agreement and calls for a reassessment of restrictions every two years. It does not impose major measures on Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico, the other states that depend on this river.

This imbalance could lead to a legal battle.

Arizona’s Department of Water Resources lamented on Friday that the government “is doing nothing to bolster hopes for a coherent plan that involves a sharing of sacrifices among the seven states” crossed by the river.

The plan, which paves the way for additional cuts beyond those already agreed upon for the next two years, contains “unacceptable restrictions” that would have “devastating consequences for Arizona’s water users and its economy,” the U.S. agency insisted.

The state of Arizona has already set aside several million dollars for potential legal challenges.

Historically, most of the states involved view negotiations over the Colorado River as “a matter of survival,” noted Doug Kenney of the University of Colorado.

The American West has always been arid, leading to “water wars.”

The allocation of Colorado River water was formalized as early as 1922 through a treaty based on the “first come, first served” principle—allowing California farmers to draw more water than those in neighboring states.

Each party thus claims its rights, citing that treaty, which was flawed from the very beginning: even back then, the treaty allocated more water than was actually available in the riverbed.

Agriculture Under Threat

Inevitably, overconsumption is now being exacerbated by climate change, Doug Kinney summarized.

“All climate studies indicate that the river’s flow will continue to decline over the coming decades,” he insisted.

For this American expert, a legal challenge to the new federal plan is “a certainty.” He fears that the states will end up suing each other in court and that the case will reach the Supreme Court.

“Disputes of this kind can take several decades to resolve, and in the meantime, the water crisis will not go away,” he warned.

Agriculture currently consumes about three-quarters of the river’s water. The situation is unsustainable, according to most experts, but “politically sensitive.”

In the long term, “we therefore need massive federal investment, either to improve agricultural efficiency or to encourage people to move away from farming” in the region, says Doug Kenney.

This view is shared by Sarah Porter, who laments the shortcomings of the current plan.

“I don’t think anyone believes this plan is enough to save the Colorado River. We know that’s not the case,” she added.

source – AGERPRES