More Equitable Water/Power Distribution in the American West?

Delta Force

Banned
California disproportionately benefits from water and power projects in the American West. California receives more water draw rights from the Colorado River than any other state under the Colorado River Compact (more than Nevada and Arizona combined), and it also receives more power from Hoover Dam than Nevada and Arizona combined. This is despite the fact that California is barely within the Colorado River Basin and the Hoover Dam site straddles the border between Nevada and Arizona. At one point in the 1940s California even tried to get the Columbia River diverted to meet its water needs, but the Pacific Northwest and other states in the Bonneville Power Administration service area were able to band together to prevent that from happening. The Pacific DC Intertie was established to trade power between the BPA and California, but water has never been diverted.

Nevada and Arizona obviously benefited greatly from the development of their water resources, but they are being held back now by the old arrangements made when they were much less populous states. California benefits disproportionately from the Colorado River Basin that it is barely even part of. Would a more equitable/fair distribution of water and power have been possible either at the start or later on? What impact would there be on the American West if that had occurred?
 

Delta Force

Banned
The Colorado River Basin:

Coloradorivermapnew1.jpg
 
The dam wouldn't have been built if at least the bulk of the power didn't go to California. Building such a massive project in the middle of the desert was expensive, and California was the place that could use all the output.

IMO, if the dam were primarily for water/flood control, and California wasn't part of the Compact (say), or at least didn't throw their weight behind the project, then it would be a much smaller project, and probably not have nearly as much hydro power generated. You'd probably see more, smaller dams.
 

jahenders

Banned
California disproportionately benefits from water and power projects in the American West. California receives more water draw rights from the Colorado River than any other state under the Colorado River Compact (more than Nevada and Arizona combined), and it also receives more power from Hoover Dam than Nevada and Arizona combined. This is despite the fact that California is barely within the Colorado River Basin and the Hoover Dam site straddles the border between Nevada and Arizona. At one point in the 1940s California even tried to get the Columbia River diverted to meet its water needs, but the Pacific Northwest and other states in the Bonneville Power Administration service area were able to band together to prevent that from happening. The Pacific DC Intertie was established to trade power between the BPA and California, but water has never been diverted.

Nevada and Arizona obviously benefited greatly from the development of their water resources, but they are being held back now by the old arrangements made when they were much less populous states. California benefits disproportionately from the Colorado River Basin that it is barely even part of. Would a more equitable/fair distribution of water and power have been possible either at the start or later on? What impact would there be on the American West if that had occurred?

Dathi THorfinnsson is right that the power of CA helped drive the approval for lots of water projects out West.

The biggest changes would probably require a pre-1900 POD where water rights are periodically reviewed/reprioritized (vs the current system of many labyrinthine 'grandfather' clauses that give valuable precedence to the oldest users of a water source). That would substantially change how a lot of ranches, towns, and cities evolved.

Other than that, the biggest change would be changing water rights on a true dollar for dollar basis. This could essentially make water a major economic resource of the states with the main sources / bodies of water. CA and NV have both boomed economically and wouldn't have been able to do so to the same degree without that water. If they had to pay more for it, that might have constrained them a bit and helped CO, UT, and AZ economically. It would arguably also promote more efficient water usage -- fewer golf courses in the dessert, etc.
 
Top