The water wars are coming
The water wars are coming
In some places, they've already arrived
Welcome to a big Monday edition of Progress Report.
It’s a crowded list of contenders, but for my money, there’s no better example of the government’s disconnect with reality than the way it reacts — or fails to react — to the increasingly urgent and existential problem of climate change.
In DC, the Supreme Court just neutered the EPA’s ability to regulate fossil fuel pollution, the federal government is thirsting for any barrel of oil it can drill up, and Joe Manchin is whittling away at what’s left of the clean energy provisions in the skeletal remains of the Build Back Better bill.
In the real world, we’re on track for an unprecedentedly scorching summer, electricity is shorting out everywhere, and in the southwest quarter of the United States, the natural water supplies are drying up at catastrophic, maybe even extinction-level rates.
The ripple effects of the disastrous dry spell touch every aspect of life. It is the focal point of wars between cities, developers, and individual residents. It is also likely to scramble the politics of states long known for their libertarian political ethos, with he only question being just how things will change.
Today, we turn to our policy expert, Natalie Meltzer, for an exploration of what’s happening, how state and local governments are trying to respond, and how the politics could shake out. Don’t worry, it’s not all bad news — a fair amount of action is being taken
Thank you to our latest crowd-funding donors: Ann, Liane, Ruth, and Diane!
On June 14, Camille Touton, commissioner of the US Bureau of Reclamation, gave a stern warning to the seven states and 30 federally recognized Tribal Nations in the Colorado River Basin: reduce your water usage by 30 percent in the next year or face federal intervention.
The region is in the 23rd year of a historic drought exacerbated by climate change, unsustainable water practices, and population growth that has pushed the water system to a tipping point.
Water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the nation’s two largest reservoirs, have dropped so low so quickly that they are at risk of hitting “dead pool,” a level when no water flows out of the dams.
The water crisis alters the political landscape for the 40 million people who rely on the Colorado River not only for their water supply but also to generate their electricity through hydropower.
Turf Wars
One of the most logical places to start conserving water is to replace thirsty grass lawns with less water-intensive greenery. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that about one third of all residential water use is for grass.
Lawns not only guzzle up massive amounts of water, the pesticides and fertilizers used to maintain them can poison pets, wildlife, and humans; the gas-guzzling lawn mowers used to shear them also spew pollution into the air. Each year, Americans’ lawns consume nearly 3 trillion gallons of water, 200 million gallons of gas, and 70 million pounds of pesticides.
But like everything in America, preserving access to the most essential human need can be a contentious issue.
For many people, lush, manicured lawns are a status symbol and a manifestation of the American Dream.
America’s obsession with lawns is so ingrained that many homeowners associations require residents to not only have luscious lawns but to routinely mow them, with strict penalties for violations. Some towns go so far as to fine residents for replacing their grass lawns with more environmentally friendly artificial turf.
But the ongoing drought is forcing change.
To reduce water use, a number of cities and water districts offer residents money to replace their grass lawns with native plants or artificial turf. Southern California pioneered such programs in 2014, resulting in the replacement of more than 165 million square feet of grass.
In response to the current water crisis, Colorado’s Assembly introduced a bill that would incentivize residents to replace irrigated turf with less water-intensive landscaping.
In Nevada, which has had a cash-for-turf program in place for years, waning participation made bolder measures necessary.
Last year the legislature completely outlawed “nonfunctional” turf in the southern part of the state, which relies on the Colorado River for nearly 90 percent of its water.
"We live in a desert," Colby Pellegrino, deputy general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said. "We live in the driest metropolitan area in the United States, less than 4 inches of rain a year. It's probably stuff that never should have been put in to begin with."
The legislation, which is the first of its kind in the nation, has the potential to reduce water use by up to 70 percent. It was also passed with bipartisan support, suggesting water conservation is the rare environmental issue that can unite lawmakers.
“There’s broad acceptance in southern Nevada that if we can take some grass out to preserve the water supply for our communities, then that’s something that we need to do,” said Nevada Assemblyman Howard Watts III, the bill’s sponsor. “This sends a clear message about what other states need to be looking at in order to preserve water.”
Water Wars
Not all states are heeding Nevada’s example.
In Utah, public supply customers use the most water per capita in the country: the average resident of Utah’s Washington County uses a staggering 306 gallons of water per day, compared to 111 gallons used by the average resident in Phoenix, AZ.
Utah residents’ outsized consumption is facilitated by artificially low utility rates.
“Utah is the second most arid state in the country, and we have the cheapest water in the U.S. It doesn’t make a lot of sense,” said Zach Frankel of the Utah Rivers Council.
The situation is so bad that the Salt Lake City region, where nearly three-quarters of the state’s population live, could turn into a toxic dust bowl as heavy metals like arsenic are exposed by the shrinking Great Salt Lake.
But instead of enacting policies that conserve water like increasing utility costs or outlawing grass turf, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox asked residents to pray for rain. Based on current returns, they will have to pray harder.
Water demand in Utah will only increase as the state’s population is projected to more than double by 2060.
But conservation efforts are stymied by powerful lobbying groups referred to as “water buffaloes” and the “water OPEC” that rely on faulty data and questionable cost estimates to support their claim that the state will run out of water without new dams and pipelines.
To ensure that supply keeps up with the growing demand, the lobbyists and state officials want to build a $2.4 billion, 225-kilometer pipeline to tap even more water from Lake Powell.
“Everyone realizes that reducing water demand and increasing water conservation is the cheapest source of new water for Utah’s future,” said Rep. Suzanne Harrison, a Democrat who proposed a water conservation bill that was opposed by the water buffaloes. “I learned really quickly as a freshman lawmaker that when you try to address water legislation, you’re quick to get burned.”
"The Utah State Legislature is still mired in an era of unreality," said Daniel McCool, a political scientist at the University of Utah. The state's commitment to the new infrastructure amounts to "a declaration of water war."
Elsewhere, residential communities, developers, and utility companies are waging passive-aggressive (and downright aggressive) battles over dwindling water sources. In Arizona, developers are building houses and attracting new residents by the tens of thousands to places where such growth is unsustainable, leading to battles with other municipalities.
Federal intervention in damaged environments as far north as Oregon has set off outrage from farmers and some rural residents. Such is one of the biggest challenges facing leaders that want to address the water crisis: no solution will be painless and certain interests and residents are likely to suffer more than others. But without taking action, everyone will lose.
A Chance to Act
The current guidelines which manage use of the Colorado River are set to expire in 2026, and states which rely on it are about to begin a new round of negotiations over the river’s future.
Despite the urgency of the situation, the talks are going to be thorny.
“No one wants to raise their hand and volunteer to take big cuts because then that makes it easier for everybody else,” said John Fleck, director of the University of New Mexico’s Water Resources Program.
The Bureau of Reclamation is currently seeking public input on the future of the Colorado River’s management. The Bureau is holding two meetings about the process next week and written comments can be submitted until September 1.
Alongside the negotiations, there are policies states can implement to ease demand.
One option is to recycle wastewater, sterilizing water from toilets and sinks and circulating it back into the system. Once derided as “toilet-to-tap,” the idea of recycling water for drinking is catching on.
Approximately two dozen communities currently use some form of recycled water for drinking, and that number is projected to grow.
Last year’s infrastructure included $1 billion for water reuse projects in the West, including a $3.4 billion project in Southern California that could help relieve other states.
"Everyone's gonna have to give a little,” said John Berggren, a water policy analyst with conservation organization Western Resource Advocates. “But if we can all come together and give a little, we can actually create a more sustainable pond river system that isn't facing these scary reservoir levels ... isn't potentially leading into a crisis.”
Wait, Before You Leave!
Progress Report has raised over $6.6 million dollars raised for progressive Democratic candidates and causes. We’ve also brought invaluable attention to issues in communities that are ignored by the national media. Isn’t that cool?
None of that money goes to producing this newsletter or all of the related projects we put out there. Not a dime! In fact, it costs me money to do this. So to make this sustainable, hire new writers, and expand to report out more stories, I need your help.
For just $5 a month, you can buy a premium subscription that includes:
Premium member-only newsletters filled with important news
Exclusive updates from candidates and interviews with other progressive leaders.
The satisfaction of financing new projects and paying new reporters
A new best friend (me).
A free subscription for a reader on a fixed income or a very tight budget
You can also make a one-time donation to Progress Report’s GoFundMe campaign — doing so will earn you a shout-out in an upcoming edition of the big newsletter!
 |
|
how much water do the tribal nations use compared to the non-tribal population?
Isn’t Texas selling water to Colorado ??