Water rights, river compacts, and legal-policy stationarity in the American West*

Abstract

This article examines static-data assumptions trapped in water rights and, separately, in larger interstate river compacts in the American West. These reflect assumptions of scalar stationarity embedded in water codes in western states. State water adjudications sort how much water is being used, but the resulting data are often publicly unavailable and unchanged. Interstate river compacts often divide fixed, erroneous river flow data. River compact data, based on early 20th century optimistic estimates of river flow, have not changed in policy language. At both the micro-and the macro-scale, these separate data remain fixed, complicating water management in the American West.

Exposing the myths of household water insecurity in the global north: A critical review

“…At the same time, how might we conceptualize informality as a site of struggle, as in the case of California water activists who use so‐called “illegal” or informal plumbing tactics to circumvent modernist water regulations (Meehan, 2012)? Greater attention to the legal geographies and contested spaces of water governance will offer grounded insights on how state–society interactions shape water insecurity, in ways that potentially transcend North–South binaries and open up new opportunities for analytical comparison and insight (Jepson, 2012; Perramond, 2020; Winkler & Flowers, 2017).…”

Wetland Conservation: Challenges Related to Water Law and Farm Policy

“…The federal government also plays a role in ratifying interstate agreements, or compacts, on shared water resources among states, which require adjudication in a judicial proceeding followed by Congressional approval (Getches et al 2015). A state's legal mandate to fulfill interstate water compacts can result in variable enforcement of existing state water laws or the development of new water laws (e.g., Griggs 2017;Perramond 2020). On the Lower Colorado River, the federal government administers all water rights as the result of the Colorado River Compact (Robison et al 2014).…”

“…Furthermore, groundwater pumping, which will generally peak at the same time as surface water irrigation, is unaccounted for and can reduce streamflow. In short, many states do not know how much water their state has, or the volume of water used and/or consumed, which hinders their ability to manage the resource locally and to meet interstate compact requirements (Perramond 2020). This not only negatively affects environmental sustainability, but also affects individual farmers.…”

“…In summary, water rights are state rights, with little direct federal control and high variability among states. Furthermore, the basic laws are largely the result of antiquated water management laws and structures developed at a time when ground and surface water resources were considered independent and, for surface water resources, often based on overly optimistic estimates of water availability (Owen et al 2019;Perramond 2020). Over the past two decades, water law and associated management strategies have been evolving to accommodate our new understanding of water.…”

“…Over the past two decades, water law and associated management strategies have been evolving to accommodate our new understanding of water. However, legal frameworks based on dated scientific information still present significant financial and legal challenges (Owen et al 2019;Perramond 2020) and the evolution of water law has not kept pace with the rapid expansion of irrigation demands, newer societal demands for healthy rivers and regionally diminished water supplies due to climate change. Thus, in spite of long-established water law, water shortages are commonplace in the west and increasingly common in the east.…”