Colorado River Basin: Policy Analysis via Awareness Theory and Environmental Justice
Background
In 1922, the compact for the Colorado River was drawn, splitting the river into the upper and lower basin. Nestled between the two basins, Lake Powell and Lake Mead were allocated to act as a reserve for Northern states and as a storage node for states in the south, respectively. In the following century, new policies delegated specific amounts of water to each state, administered a transfer of 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico, and permitted the construction of various projects and dams that enabled easier water usage and access to hydroelectricity. The success of the utilization of the Colorado is tremendous; However, the river has stretched its limits. Due to anthropogenic climate change and years of overconsumption, strain has been put on the river, leading to relentless droughts and heavy dispute between stakeholders. These arguments were unproductive in making improvement, thus, the federal government has stepped in to allocate specific cuts to different regions for the sake of future access to clean water and energy. Policymakers, sociologists, and river users have pondered the causes of such a substantial and elongated drought. Awareness theory allows for deeper analysis of the causes for such a drought and offers an explanation as to how past policy solutions have failed in securing the future of the river. Moreover, this theory, coupled with an environmental justice frame provides insight into the difficulties of allocating water while maintaining access to clean water for marginalized communities and areas of concentrated poverty. Lastly, these concepts aid in understanding how the history of the river set modern day citizens up for an unsustainable relationship with the river. It is vital to analyze the past water usage policies to update criteria to adapt to the changing environment.
Awareness Theory
According to Max Liboiron, awareness theory states that awareness often creates minute change due to its focus on individual behavior and solutions rather than problems. It is an overall ineffective conservation tactic, yet provides a clarification for how current environmental topics are generating controversy without any evidence of productivity. The issue lies in the delivery of awareness, as an increase of attention towards an environmental problem does not drive change. Instead, the history and background of the policy will ultimately facilitate pinpointing where the issue arose and explain failures of environmental advocacy in modern environmental problems, such as the water crisis of the Colorado River.
Awareness theory states that social, economic, and political systems drive environmental problems rather than individual intent and behavior. To hone in and clearly define the issue behind the Colorado River crisis, a narrative of the history of the river must be drawn to understand how the allocation process underestimated the amount of water states would consume. To start, the River follows a long and complex history of usage, possessing a complicated give and take relationship with users and the government. As mentioned, the compact was drawn in 1922, during which anthropogenic climate change was unheard of. At this time, the river was experiencing an exceptionally wet year due to the climate of the time, generating a flow of 18 million acre-feet that year. However, these numbers are incomparable to recent years, which have hosted flows as low as 8–10 million acre-feet per year. Thus, when interim guidelines for critical water levels were drafted, foreseeing heavy drought due to climate change was impossible, rendering critical levels much lower than what the modern day demands.
It is unclear where the drought began. Yet it is evident that policymakers could not predict the current drought levels that are threatening modern day water users and did not factor in the possibility of over allocating water. For example, the Colorado River storage project of 1956, arguably the most dire project related to over-allocation, showcased the government biting off more than they could chew. This project provided a comprehensive upper basin wide water resource development plan and authorized the construction of Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Curecanti dams for river regulation and power production as well as projects for irrigation and other uses. It was not until the Criteria for Coordinated Long-range Operation of Colorado River Reservoir of 1970 was drafted and published that true measures enforcing the sustainability of the river were established. This criteria provided for the operation of reservoirs and set conditions for releases from Lake Powell and Lake Mead, including critical water level restrictions to manage (at the time) potential drought threats.
Moreover, the increase in population due to improved medicine and overall economic development caused movement towards the west coast. According to Charlies Wilson, the executive director and CEO of the Southern California Water Coalition, the greatest issue that California will have to face prior to implementing water cuts is overpopulation. In fact, the past decade has brought upon a population increase of 2.3 million people in the state of California. This tremendous expansion had consequences that policymakers could not anticipate. Therefore, it is vital that updates are implemented to adapt to these changes.
When analyzing the history of the Colorado River policy, it is clear that drought levels were not a concern until the past decade or so. Nevertheless, various solutions have been generated in response to the lowering volume. Such solutions include advocating for renewable hydrological systems such as drip irrigation and desalination plants, and promoting water conservation. These solutions have been met with criticism, as renewable water systems are high in cost and low in efficiency. In addition, there has been no real improvement in the sustainability of the river, which is explained through Awareness Theory.
In the past century since the compact was drawn, water consumption and climate change has rendered the river with water levels so low that any sort of water saving tactic today is too little too late. According to the Upper Colorado River Commission, even if every river water user was made aware of the current crisis, for water conservation to make a difference, every user would have to cut their usage by two thirds, meaning water would be completely shut off for four days of the week. The impossibility of this reflects Awareness Theory’s statement that awareness can only make small-scale change. Furthermore, it is evident that drought solutions that have circulated in the past have all resulted in a failure to increase water storage levels. Raising awareness and constructing solutions is extremely inefficient in using time and citizen finances that should instead be allotted to updating the compact to adapt to the modern day water usage, climate change, and population. Additionally, part of Awareness Theory explains that change is impossible through independent action. Liboiron explains that though the effects of awareness are hindered by the lack of change, it does not render awareness as completely unnecessary. Instead, individual ethics can be improved through becoming aware of environmental issues and feeling a moral obligation to better daily routines for the sake of the environment. Be as it may, the focus of the Colorado river crisis must be shifted from raising awareness regarding water conservation towards the problem of drafting the compact and over-allocating water. According to Liboiron, “without [a] robust and validated definition of a problem, solutions will be shot in the dark”. Thus, for the lifeline of the Colorado, it is vital that interim guidelines are updated to administer less water to over-consuming states and to raise critical water levels in lieu of anthropogenic climate change and further increases in population.
Environmental Justice
Another issue of alternative water systems is cost. Through the environmental justice frame, comprehension as to why renewable hydrological systems is not the answer to solving the River Crisis is established. Responsible policymaking ensures that all voices are heard before a final agreement is reached. Unfortunately, marginalized voices are typically excluded from conversations due to their lack of financial backbone and liable accountability.
The spotlight for much of the impending cuts is on California and Arizona. As a senior water rights holder and the largest user of the river, California has yet to face any cuts and is under scrutiny by stakeholders of other states, all of whom have already made voluntary cuts. California’s senior water rights come from the Arizona v. California Supreme court ruling, which allowed Arizona to proceed with building the Central Arizona project in order to utilize their full allotment through the Gila River, while granting California full seniority over the Lower Basin (meaning that they would be exempt from any future cuts). For a while, this was ideal for the economy, as agriculture in California bloomed. The imperial irrigation district in Southern California uses 3.1 million acre-feet of California’s total share of 4.4 million acre-feet per year, making it the largest district of River usage. This water provides heavily for agriculture in about 800 square miles of the Imperial Valley in the southeast portion of the state. Imperial Valley farms are allocated nearly 80% of California’s water from the river and report a couple billion dollars in sales each year, led by cattle and lettuce as well as two-thirds of the vegetables consumed in the U.S. during winter months. Over half of the farmlands is dominated by water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and other forage grasses, necessary to feed dairy cows and cattle.
In the past decade, policy makers in California began combating drought concerns by pushing for water conservation through restrictions and requiring renewable irrigation systems for farmers, such as drip irrigation. Yet, sustainable technology is expensive, and farmworkers in Southern California are unable to keep up the expenses that are coupled with climate change and water overconsumption. Mark McBroom, a local farmer near the town of Brawley explains that farmers are “all squeezed out”. This issue has been stewing for quite some time now, as drought concerns have been circulating in southern California for the past decade or so. The environmental justice frame provides insight and offers an explanation for the failure of premature solutions in implementing sustainable hydrological technology. By emphasizing the voices of farm workers who otherwise would not have a say in political discussions, it is clear that providing innovative engineering solutions is not enough in reprimanding the water lost to consumption.
According to Michael Mascarenhas, environmental justice refers to the fair and equitable distribution of communal and ecological benefits and burdens, regardless of social or geographic positions. Through the failures of technological encouragement in Southern California, it is clear that environmental justice encompasses a prolonged concern regarding the river. In addition to the impact of water scarcity on disadvantaged communities, there is a risk that low-income and minority communities in Arizona will be disproportionately impacted by water shortages.
On the other side of the lower basin debate, Arizona has argued that seniority may be too traditional a concept to incorporate when future cuts are allocated. Their land houses many indigenous groups, which through the environmental frame is a strong argument to avoid cuts to their state. There are 29 total tribes that utilize the water of the river. All tribes hold seniority to state rights. This means that if cuts are allocated to states, tribes residing in those states are not held accountable or responsible for decreasing their water usage. In total, tribes are allotted 20% of the river or 2.9 million acre feet. There are 14 tribes residing in the lower basin, with 10 specifically in Arizona and 5 tribes in the upper basin. Amidst tensions regarding the river, as part of the 117th Congress’ closing activity involved discussing Indian water rights settlements to secure tribes’ rights to water. As a result, the Colorado River Indian Tribes Water Resiliency Act of 2022 authorized the Colorado River Indian Tribes to lease, exchange, stores, or conserve parts of their water rights located in Arizona to off-reservation users, allowing for increased participation and collaboration between tribal nations and local residents of the state. This implies that cutting Arizona’s water will leave this act redundant, as Tribe water rights decrease. “Indian settlement water rights are the most important part of understanding Arizona’s river usage”, explains Lauren Vernon, assistant in the U.S. House of Representatives, “Arizonians are against cuts for their state because they know that so much of their water goes to tribal groups who should not give up their water just because the government tells them to. They are taking back their power.” Due to this, the main argument that Arizona has presented is the trust obligation built between the government and tribal nations and the fact that cuts will be amplified for community members outside of tribes.
Coupled with the fact that Arizona already has made several voluntary cuts and is allotted far less than California, the environmental justice frame provides additional insight into the protections of Arizona’s water allocations from the river. The inclusion of indigenous groups in conversation regarding the river is productive for the government and represents more good than they have done for tribal nations in history. However, this equity is disappointing because it hinders the rest of Arizona’s citizens in providing them with less water. Unfortunately, if one marginalized community does not take the brunt of political water allotments, another will. In this case, it is the underrepresented groups and areas of concentrated poverty in Arizona that will be heavily impacted by even the most incremental cuts. By securing senior Indian water settlements, water cuts received by Arizona will be magnified among its non-tribal citizens. Farmworkers who held senior water rights since the compact was ratified will lose seniority and many will be forced out of work. Environmental justice presents water cuts as a concern and emphasizes the difficulties of rectifying century old policies.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s notice announcing the potential changes to reservoir options stated that the draft supplemental EIS would be released in spring 2023, with a final decision in late summer 2023.
