Water is TOO important for Rhetoric

Summary: The Colorado River is the Southwest’s lifeline. Protecting it requires leadership grounded in law and reality—not rhetoric.

Please note: EZCIVICS.org does not endorse or oppose items on your ballot. The following is the opinion of the author.

By Amanda Monize, EZAZ.org Grassroots Strategy Director (AKA Grassroots Glow-Up Guru)

OPINION - As a native Arizonan, I understand the political appeal of criticizing California. Around here, “Don’t California my Arizona” is practically a reflex.

But when it comes to the Colorado River, applause lines are no substitute for facts.

Recently, Congressman David Schweikert  criticized California’s allocation on the river and introduced H.R. 7078, the “Equal Access to the Colorado River Act,” which would force Lower Basin states to share shortages on the same scale based on their original apportionments. His framing correctly notes that Arizona is bearing disproportionate pain to protect the river, but it misleadingly blames California for Arizona’s current shortages by suggesting California is simply “hanging onto” its full 4.4 million acre‑feet.

There is a kernel of historical truth in that claim — but it is incomplete, and in today’s negotiations, it is misleading.

The Colorado River is governed by the “Law of the River,” a century’s worth of compacts, federal statutes, contracts, and Supreme Court decisions anchored by the 1922 Colorado River Compact. One of the most consequential was Arizona v. California, which confirmed that California is entitled to 4.4 million acre‑feet of mainstream Colorado River water, Arizona to 2.8 million acre‑feet, and Nevada to 0.3 million acre‑feet.

When Congress passed the Colorado River Basin Project Act in 1968, authorizing construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP), Arizona accepted that CAP water would be junior in priority to California’s mainstream rights in times of shortage. That decision was not made lightly. It was a calculated tradeoff to secure the federal investment needed to bring Colorado River water to central Arizona.

That history explains why Arizona has taken deeper cuts under the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan: because CAP water is junior, Arizona agreed to reductions at higher reservoir elevations than California. Those choices reflected Arizona’s long‑term strategy to secure and use Colorado River water, not California’s indifference.

But history is only part of the story.

Over the past several years, as Lake Mead and Lake Powell reached crisis levels, the Lower Basin states — Arizona, California, and Nevada — have negotiated intensely to stabilize the system. These negotiations have not been easy, but they also have not resembled the simplistic “Arizona versus California” storyline that plays well on social media.

In 2023, the three Lower Basin states submitted a joint conservation proposal committing to conserve at least 3 million acre‑feet of water through 2026 to protect the Colorado River system, a plan supported by all seven basin states. California agreed to contribute a substantial share of that total — roughly half of the 3 million acre‑feet under the near‑term consensus‑based plan. These reductions are real. They are measurable. And they reflect cooperation, not indifference.

Those negotiations are ongoing under the oversight of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as the basin states work to develop post‑2026 operating guidelines that will determine how shortages are managed for decades to come.

It is also important to understand that the Lower Basin states have, in many respects, been negotiating as a bloc in discussions with the Upper Basin states. The dynamics of those conversations are complex and sensitive. Publicly portraying California as an adversary may generate headlines in Arizona, but it does not reflect the collaborative reality of recent years — and it risks undermining Arizona’s position at the negotiating table.

None of this is to suggest that Arizona’s position is easy. It is not.

Because of priority structures embedded in federal law and court decrees, Arizona’s Central Arizona Project remains more vulnerable in times of shortage. That vulnerability affects farmers in Pinal County, cities in Maricopa County, tribal communities with hard‑won water settlements, and the broader economic engine of central Arizona.

The Central Arizona Project delivers Colorado River water hundreds of miles to support nearly six million Arizonans and a major share of the state’s economy. It underpins housing growth, industrial expansion, and long‑term economic planning. Water policy in Arizona is not theoretical — it is foundational.

That is precisely why the conversation must be grounded in the full legal and practical context, not in convenient villains.

California’s 4.4 million acre‑feet allocation is not a casual entitlement. It is the product of federal statute and Supreme Court decree. H.R. 7078 would override that priority framework by directing the Interior Secretary to impose pro‑rata reductions “without preference to present perfected rights,” fundamentally reshaping how shortages are shared in the Lower Basin. Changing that structure is not a simple matter of “fairness”; it would reopen settled law that has governed the basin for generations, with consequences for every state — including Arizona.

If Congress wants to help Arizona, it should focus on measures that strengthen conservation funding, support tribal and agricultural resilience, and provide tools to implement whatever new post‑2026 operating guidelines the basin states ultimately agree to — not on bills drafted to relitigate century‑old allocations in a press release. Any durable solution must start from the reality that the 1922 Colorado River Compact and the broader Law of the River are the legal foundation of this system, and they must be front and center in negotiations over how the river is managed after 2026.

The Colorado River is not a partisan issue. It is not a convenient vehicle for scoring points against a neighboring state. It is the lifeblood of the American Southwest, and Congressman Schweikert should not be playing politics with our future.

Arizona has every right to advocate fiercely for its interests. We should. But effective advocacy requires accuracy. It requires acknowledging both historical inequities and present‑day cooperation. And it requires recognizing that the Lower Basin states are, in many respects, navigating this crisis together in difficult conversations with the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

The path forward will demand continued conservation, infrastructure investment, legal precision, and sustained interstate collaboration. It will require Congress to support durable, legally sound solutions rather than symbolic gestures. And it will require elected officials to communicate with clarity about how the system actually works.

Water security is central to Arizona’s economic vitality and environmental stability. It deserves leadership rooted in fact, law, and long‑term thinking — not legislation drafted for a talking point.

The Colorado River’s future will be determined by negotiation tables, operating guidelines, and binding agreements, not by social media posts. Arizona’s prosperity depends on getting that right.

As someone who serves as an elected member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, I am acutely aware of how consequential these negotiations are. The views expressed here are my own and do not reflect those of the District, its Board, or any organization I serve.

But I believe it is important to speak candidly about what is at stake.

About the Author: Amanda Monize, Grassroots Strategy Director at EZAZ.org, is a former teacher and Science Instructional Specialist. She joined EZAZ as an Arizona citizen seeking to understand local government, later volunteering in statewide grassroots campaigns and running for office. She designed and led civic education trainings across Arizona and serves as an elected official. Now leading EZAZ initiatives, she empowers citizens through organizing, education, and advocacy—believing an informed, active citizenry secures liberty.

________

EZcivics.org is funded by our readers. If you found this news brief educational, consider chipping in to fuel our work by going HERE.