TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
21.08.2008
McCain's Water-Grab Gaffe

"Hello, I'm John McCain. I'm from Arizona and I'm here to take your water." It's a line the Republican presidential candidate has reportedly used as an opening joke at appearances in Colorado, a state that doesn't take too kindly to suspected water thieves. But after McCain told the Pueblo Chieftain that the Colorado River Compact, which governs the allocation of the river between Colorado, Arizona, and the five other states in the watershed, "obviously needs to be renegotiated," the Obama camp went into hyperdrive trying to convince Coloradans that the man from Arizona was never really joking. Colorado governor Bill Ritter denounced McCain's remarks on an Obama-organized press call, emphasizing that renegotiation would almost certainly reduce Colorado's share of the river's water. A McCain p.r. flak has since "clarified" his boss's statement, but re-winning the trust of Colorado voters may be about as easy as getting water to flow back uphill.

That's a shame, because McCain's suggestion is by no means absurd on its merits. True, he failed to mention that the seven Colorado basin states recently negotiated a plan for how to deal with extreme droughts—an omission that calls into question whether the Western senator spends any time keeping up with Western issues. But it's also true that a lot has changed since 1922, when the Colorado Compact divided the river's water more or less equally between the "upper basin" and "lower basin" states, and 1928, when the Boulder Canyon Project Act divided the lower basin's water between Arizona, Nevada, and California. Nevada had only 77,000 residents at the 1920 census, and it got the rights to just 300,000 acre-feet per year, about 4 percent of the river's water. Now it has a population of 2.5 million, the vast majority of which lives in the Las Vegas metro area. Las Vegas is desperate for water, and if it can't get more from the Colorado, the alternatives aren't pretty.

If there's a fatal flaw in McCain's suggestion, it's that none of the seven states—not even Nevada or Arizona, which have the most to gain—have shown much interest in renegotiating the compact. They worry that negotiations could descend into expensive, time-consuming lawsuits—lawsuits that, due to the interstate nature of the dispute, would have to be argued before the Supreme Court. And the states, unlike McCain, have a sense for staying out of trouble.

--Rob Inglis, High Country News

Posted: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:49 PM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

sdemuth said:

"Nevada had only 77,000 residents at the 1920 census, and it got the rights to just 300,000 acre-feet per year, about 4 percent of the river's water. Now it has a population of 2.5 million, the vast majority of which lives in the Las Vegas metro area. Las Vegas is desperate for water,"

There is a real question in my mind whether Las Vegas should be rewarded with more water from anywhere for pursuing a growth path that is simply ecologically unsustainable.   Perhaps the compact should be renegotiated for the benefit of those who are already in Las Vegas, but the new agreement should at very least set real limits on water use growth in this desert area.  If that means Las Vegas can't grow, so be it.  There are limits to how many people you can plop into a desert.

August 21, 2008 11:28 AM

Nari224 said:

"Las Vegas is desperate for water, and if it can't get more from the Colorado, the alternatives aren't pretty."

Then perhaps fewer people should live there?  The city truly is a monument to perseverance (amongst other things), but seriously, it's in the middle of a desert!  As I've posted here before I was stunned with the Gallons Per Flush rate printed on the urinals in Vegas, substantially higher than we are allowed in Chicago, which happens to be next to one of the biggest inland lakes in the world.

As for the plan to suck more water out of the ground - aren't parts of Pheonix now settling a number of feet down because the water table is being depleted much faster than replenished?

August 21, 2008 12:12 PM

singlespeed said:

I'm at a loss as to how exactly the renegotiation of the Colorado River Pact would actually end up resulting in Nevada getting more water from either the Upper Basin (never, ever going to happen) or getting Arizona or California to give up water for Las Vegas. Considering the fact that the flow rates of the original pact were during an anomalous wet period of high flows, the river has and continues to be over-partitioned. Instead of trying to suck more water out of an exhausted source and this includes the aquifers that Nevada, Arizona, NM and Colorado sit on, perhaps it's better to limit growth based on water source scarcity.

IF the water flow rates of the CRP were updated to the actual historical flows of the last 60 years, the new CRP would result in the Lower Basin getting less water than it does now. As it stands, the states are entitled to more than what the river actually provides with drought shortages and profligate use by agriculture and municipal industrial uses only exacerbate the issues.

The lower basin needs to do a better job of managing this scarce resource and what's been allocated to them. If that means less people living in the desert or God forbid, the end of cotton farming in Arizona so be it.

August 21, 2008 2:16 PM

Environment and Energy said:

The New Yorker 's Ryan Lizza pointed to Colorado's Front Range as a window into the political

August 29, 2008 7:01 PM