The general manager of the West Slope’s Colorado River District is calling out California for its meager water conservation plan, and he is right on.

Andy Mueller made his comments in a memo to his district’s board of directors and during the board’s meeting earlier this month, according to reporting by The Daily Sentinel’s Dennis Webb. This was in response to an Oct. 5 letter by officials with California water entities using Colorado River water, which proposed conserving up to an additional 400,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Mead annually.

Mueller said in his memo, “California continues to take the position that it will do so only on a voluntary, temporary, compensated basis and that their participation is contingent upon the federal government paying their water users an acceptable level of compensation and the implementation of additional conservation measures from the other Basin States (including Colorado).

“It is important to recognize that California’s offer is less than a 9% cut in its water use and a far cry from what is needed from the system’s biggest consumptive users.”

He went on to explain that upper basin states, including Colorado, are subject to varying hydrology that in some years results in users coping with cuts in use. In some years, such as 2014, water users in Colorado reduced consumption by one million acre-feet, or about 28%, Mueller says.

It is stating the obvious, but 28 is greater than 9.

To be fair, that was only one year and California is proposing to sustain its cut annually for more than a decade. It is still not doing enough.

Frankly, every state is going to have to do more to solve this problem, but California should be stepping up the most. It’s the largest consumer of river water and the most distant from the headwaters, so it can have the biggest impact.

One area where we have a small disagreement with Mueller is around the idea of compensation for water users who make voluntary cuts. Mueller said California is proposing to cut use by 9% “if they get paid a ton of money from the federal government and if all the other states agree to take cuts.”

The idea of compensating Colorado River water users who cut their usage isn’t inherently bad. This is especially true for the agriculture sector, which makes up a significant portion of the water users. If we want them to voluntarily turn down the spigot, paying them to do so would work.

If we don’t want the federal government to strong-arm us into making cuts, then we’re going to have to figure out how we can make it enticing for users to use less water and invest in efficiencies. A compensation model, in which the federal government pays users for conserving water could work, as long as it is available to every state.

We’re glad to see a local leader standing up and pushing back against the idea that California’s action is significant. It’s not, but it needs to be. Hopefully this can be an opening for states to talk about more conservation. The opening gambit by California is a little weak, though.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board

Read the original article here