The petitioning groups argue reducing water waste could help ensure the river has a sustainable future. But others worry cuts could bring hardship to farmers and consumers.
The river supports 40 million people across seven U.S. states, two states in Mexico and Native American tribes.
The bureau has not responded to the petition. In a statement to The Associated Press, the agency said it continues to operate with the agreements and rules in place and has other strategies to “reduce the risk of reaching critical elevations” at the river’s reservoirs, Lakes Powell and Mead.
But Cara Horowitz, director of UCLA’s Frank G. Wells Environmental Law Clinic, wasn’t sure what that meant or how it’s applied. So she and her students sought to find out with government records.
“As best as we could tell, it’s never defined the phrase and it does not use the phrase in any meaningful way as it’s making water delivery decisions,” said Horowitz, who is representing the groups. They believe the bureau needs a reformed process to determine whether states are avoiding wasteful and unreasonable use. In the petition, the groups urged the bureau to address those issues and perform periodic reviews of water use.
Experts say that defining reasonable and beneficial use could be challenging, but some argue it’s worth a try. Others worry that allowing an authority to determine what’s wasteful could have negative impacts.
“It’s potentially a whole can of worms that we need to approach very carefully,” said Sarah Porter, the Kyl Center for Water Policy director at Arizona State University. “Who gets to be the entity that decides what’s an appropriate amount of use for any particular water user or community?”
The groups see it differently. For example, they think farmers should be incentivized to change “wasteful” irrigation practices and consider growing crops better suited for certain climates. An example they gave of “unreasonable” use is year-round flood irrigation of thirsty crops in deserts. In cities and industries, wasteful use includes watering ornamental turf or using water-intensive cooling systems.
In a 2003 case, the bureau invoked the provision when it ordered water reductions to California’s Imperial Irrigation District, the largest river water user, after determining it couldn’t beneficially use it all. The district sued and the dispute eventually settled.
Andrew Leimgruber, a fourth-generation farmer here, has tried to reduce his use with water-savings programs. He grows crops like carrots, onions and mostly alfalfa, which he often flood-irrigates because it fills the plant’s deep root system. For up to 60 days in the summer, he doesn’t water it at all.
Water cuts because of “unreasonable” use could mean people won’t be able to eat a Caesar salad in New York City in January, Leimgruber said. He worries about short-term food shortages and putting farmers out of business.
Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River Resources for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said the agency supports an annual process to ensure water is being beneficially used, even as that definition changes, but he doesn’t think it’s meant to solve the river’s existential crisis. He worries invoking this tool could result in litigation. “Once things go to court, there’s always a wild card that’s sort of out of anyone’s control.”
“The way it’s written is actually very adaptable to the times, so it’s actually about what is wasted and reasonable use in a given time,” said Felicia Marcus, fellow at Stanford University’s Water in the West program and former chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board. “So things that would have seemed to be reasonable 50 years ago, no longer are.”
Water regulators have also threatened to apply their unreasonable use authority to get the holders of water rights to better manage their use. “It’s a tool that gets used as both a threat and a backstop,” said Marcus.
Still, as decades-long droughts plague parts of the basin and with critical deadlines approaching, some experts say it’s time for the bureau to be more assertive.
“There’s responsibility here to be the water master on the river or it gets thrown to the Supreme Court, which will take years to work its way through,” said Marcus. The “beneficial use petition is one way to say, ‘Here’s a tool you have, step up and consider it.’”
___
