[ad_1]
Babbitt, 85, remains a vocal activist about the river and will attend the Colorado River Water Users Association annual meeting, where many of the most important discussions will be out of public view. In an interview ahead of the meeting, Babbitt said it appears many have learned from recent fights about who gets the most water and time and, more importantly, who take the weight of the discounts.
The Biden administration is in the middle of finalizing an emergency plan — hoping to improve the system that introduced a day trial for Arizona, California and Nevada last year — and starting on a plan operate long to lead the basin for 20 years.
The results will affect the lives of more than 40 million people who depend on the river, as well as determining whether the West can support both cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas and more the 5.5 million acres of some of the country’s most productive. agricultural land.
The short-term plan agreed to by the state and local water bodies earlier this year – after pressure from the Biden administration – comes with clear motivations. The pain will be relieved by $ 1.2 billion to support conservation programs or payments to reduce the use of water thanks to the Law of Reducing Inflation last year. It is not certain that a refund will be made.
Even with more money, funding fights are sure to continue. Babbitt said the federal government has agreed to pay farmers in California’s Imperial Irrigation District, which alone draws as much water from the Colorado River as Arizona and Nevada combined, $624 million. by 2026, more than farmers in Arizona.
“There is no policy, it’s just spending money without thinking,” he said.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Why should the management of the Colorado River matter to everyone outside the seven-state basin of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming?
There are two reasons. The first is the economic impact of agriculture. Especially in Arizona and California, where most of the seasonal products have a national market, it definitely has an impact there. Another reason that should be mentioned is the fact that the Congress now, (through) the Ministry of the Interior, is interfering to try to solve these issues by spending a lot of money. They have already done so and are spending over a billion dollars of federal money to pay for a temporary solution. This will probably be the model for annual appropriations from Congress for many years of billions of dollars.
Could anyone have predicted exactly how bad conditions would be on the Colorado River?
Scientists have been predicting this for over 10 years now. Their predictions are somewhat uncertain, but there is a clear message for at least 10 years. The shortage, the drought, on the Colorado River will continue.
Politicians, generally, in American culture do not respond to future predictions, whether it is about the state of the Social Security Trust fund or how much water is in the river. . Politicians only worry about the next election.
Another long-term action plan for the Colorado River is currently being drafted and could guide water use for 20 years. What are the most important issues to monitor?
You start by looking at what’s in the short-term agreement … because that’s the way forward in 2026.
The main issue that caused a lot of controversy, of course, was the distribution of the shortage between California and Arizona in the Lower Basin. That is the crux of the dispute.
The differences are related to a concept called “proportionality.” Arizona and California, in the past, have not been able to reach any kind of agreement about the percentage of the deficit that should be made by California and how much by Arizona. At the heart of that dispute are the stakes in the Colorado River Compact.
Current agreements have California 32 percent and Arizona 65 percent. The interesting part of SEIS, the short-term agreement, is that California has made a major concession because … California has increased its share of 53 percent versus Arizona’s 37 percent.
That’s a big change in the case of a California permit that hasn’t been made public.
That is the best thing about this new covenant. That sets the stage for Arizona and California to continue negotiations that have narrowed the gap significantly.
Another issue is money.
We are looking at 3 million acre-feet: 2.3 million of that is being paid for by the Interior, while the balance of 700,000 acre-feet is being paid for by the state. In fact, it sets a precedent that states will be required to pay the same amount in water purchases every year for the foreseeable future. And that’s a dubious idea.
The more than a billion dollars that Indiana has pledged to pay is coming from the IRA ratio, which is clearly a one-time federal expense. The question going forward is, “Is the Treasury willing to pay that amount of money forever?” which asks if Congress will continue to use it.
But by the time of the new work plan, the 2024 election will come and go. How much influence does an administration have on this? Does the Biden administration need to act quickly?
All these plans and agreements are already in place so that they avoid the need for further decisions before the 2024 elections. The SEIS, the existing agreement, is being finalized this year. Of the series of long-term agreementswhich was published by the Interior, a (draft environmental impact statement) is needed at the end of 2024. However, the result is that there will be no need for decisions – any conflicting decisions – a the federal government within the next year, until the end of the election and 2024.
Is there really a way to reduce dependence on the Colorado River without hurting one group of users, be it water users or taxpayers?
The basic answer is no. The real question in all of this is the definition of comparison. The best way to deal with all these problems is for everyone to share the pain based on how much water they use from the river.
The meeting of the Colorado River Water Users Association is a very important event for the Colorado River Basin, both in the events on the agenda and in the meetings between the participants. Who are the most interesting players next week?
I don’t think there will be much public discussion on this. The reason for that is understandable. People want to take a deep breath and let it all settle. The players – the decision makers – we all know who they are. They are principals from the state, from large water districts such as the IID (Imperial Irrigation District) and participants from the Interior.
Is there anything you would like to add, either about CRWUA or the Colorado River?
The scoping report from the Interior, which they presented summarizing all the discussions for the agreement that is on the table, I think, is interesting for the weight of the emphasis on public participation in the leading to the final decision in the closed-term agreement. I think that is very important. The scoping report summarizes all the information received and emphasizes the need for public participation and public consultation, which is important.