“If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it.” — Albert Einstein

The way we formulate a problem is often part of the problem itself. And the way that we have formulated the problem of California’s drought is hindering prospects of solving it. That’s because this drought isn’t California’s to begin with.

This drought neither obeys state lines nor results exclusively from California state policy. It has not been caused solely by the actions of Californians nor will it be solved by their austerity alone. While Governor Jerry Brown’s executive orders are a good start, they are just the beginning of where the entire region needs to go in order to have a solution to the bigger problem. The water crisis in California is a regional crisis that has existed for over two decades. It’s not just a water supply issue. There are other issues that play into the crisis at hand.

For example, the waters of the Colorado River, which irrigate everything from the farms of the Central Valley to the lawns of Beverly Hills, are governed by the Colorado River Compact of 1922, which is signed by seven US states. That policy is 93 years old. It was a different time, different economy, different population and certainly different needs. The Compact of 1922 governs the distribution of water between every basin state and the country of Mexico. Most of these states are experiencing drought along with California, though some less than others. Particularities of the Colorado River allocation prohibit states with a surplus of water from helping those with a shortage.

Furthermore, the responsibility for managing California’s water resources doesn’t even rest with Californian authorities. All major water infrastructure west of the Mississippi is controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation, a federally-funded agency under the Department of Interior.

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell recently distributed $50 million to drought relief, with the majority slated for federally-controlled complexes like the Central Valley Water project. Meanwhile, waters east of the Mississippi, where many states experience extreme surpluses of water, are managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Water navigation laws for the Mississippi River were established in 1928 following the massive flood of 1927, giving the Army Corp of Engineers oversight and management of the river. One could ask why is the Department of Defense is in the water business in 2015? The defense department has a lot on its plate these days. Is it sound water policy to have the defense department in the water management business in a global economy? One could ask: Are the water policies of the 1920’s efficient and effective in 2015? The world has changed significantly in the past 90 plus years.

We find ourselves focused on one state dealing with drought when nearly every state West of the Mississippi River is experiencing some form of drought. Yet we find ourselves with some States experiencing water surpluses in the Spring runoff with no strategy around massive flooding except to have a reactive strategy rather than a proactive strategy to save the water for a “rainy day” — or, rather, a dry day.

Watersheds and economies do not hew to state boundaries nor do they conform to the disparate agencies that currently manage water in the United States. Localities, states, regions, and federal agencies may collaboratively address specific solutions for specific water problems, but we have not yet established the larger, systemic problem.

This “California Drought” is in fact a national water crisis, caused in part by national water policy and international demand for agricultural products made in California. This national crisis demands a national solution. It is time to step back and begin to reconsider this water problem. As Albert Einstein said, “if I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it.” Until we do a better job of defining the problem, we will be trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong solutions. We have tried that already, and it’s not working.