Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff you should know, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's
Speaker 2: Chuck and Jerry's here too. We're just a few river
Speaker 2: rats hanging out thinking about rivers and such.
Speaker 1: That's right. If you live in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada,
Speaker 1: New Mexico, Arizona, or California, this one's This one's for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Or if you're interested in water supply, this one's
Speaker 2: for you as well. If you like really difficult interstate treaties,
Speaker 2: I think you'll like this one as well.
Speaker 1: There's one person out there that's like, oh my god, guys, finally,
Speaker 1: So yes.
Speaker 2: We're talking about the Colorado River. We're talking about the
Speaker 2: compact of water sharing among those states, the basin states
Speaker 2: they call them, which is a pretty cool name of
Speaker 2: sharing the water that comes out of the Colorado River,
Speaker 2: which is about almost a fifteen hundred mile long river
Speaker 2: that winds through the southwestern US all the way into Mexico,
Speaker 2: and it helps feed all of those states, most of
Speaker 2: which should not have the populations that they have and
Speaker 2: wouldn't otherwise were it not for their ability to tap
Speaker 2: into the water from the Colorado.
Speaker 1: That's right. And by the way, I remembered halfway through
Speaker 1: your opening salvo that this was a listener suggestion. So
Speaker 1: I looked at up real quick, and this is from
Speaker 1: George Bouncin.
Speaker 2: Oh nice, Thanks a lot, George. This is a good idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agreed. So I bet George lives in one
Speaker 1: of those states. But like you said, the Colorado River
Speaker 1: very important. It provides I think Julia helped us with this,
Speaker 1: and it supports roughly ten percent of Americans and one
Speaker 1: point for trillion dollars economically. So it is a very
Speaker 1: very important river system that starts there in the Rocky
Speaker 1: Mountains and then flows generally southwest, and there are all
Speaker 1: sorts of tributaries and things that feed into it. As
Speaker 1: we'll see, that has become a bone of contention here
Speaker 1: and there, but a lot of it is there are
Speaker 1: bones of contention because this river compact that they forged
Speaker 1: in nineteen twenty two to say, hey, how are you
Speaker 1: going to divide this water up? Everybody wants to use
Speaker 1: this stuff. It's it's up now this year, right in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six. Yeah, and they're trying to figure out,
Speaker 1: you know, what to do about the next twenty years,
Speaker 1: and there's especially between California and Arizona. But a lot
Speaker 1: of the states have bones of contention with one another
Speaker 1: on how this water is used.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because there's almost a self defeating pickle that they've
Speaker 2: been in just from sharing this. By having access to
Speaker 2: that water, they've been able to boom like cities like
Speaker 2: Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson. The list
Speaker 2: just goes on. They are able to have these huge
Speaker 2: populations in golf courses, in industry, and agriculture in the
Speaker 2: Imperial Valley in California because of the Colorado River. So
Speaker 2: that's attracted more and more people, which means you need
Speaker 2: more and more water. So those bones of contention have
Speaker 2: grown over the years. And now that it's one hundred
Speaker 2: plus years old, Yeah, there's an issue. There's a problem
Speaker 2: with this that we're going to see because this river
Speaker 2: is like I can't take any more.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well yeah, and we're going to get into that
Speaker 1: stuff too, because there's not as much water as they
Speaker 1: thought there would be and it seems like it's getting
Speaker 1: it's not coming back to the boom days for reasons
Speaker 1: that we're going to talk about. But one thing we
Speaker 1: should talk about is why water is so important out there,
Speaker 1: And obviously one of the reasons is because there's not
Speaker 1: much of it. Highs out in the desert can reach
Speaker 1: over one hundred and twenty five degrees with great regularity
Speaker 1: annual rainfall. This is near the Hoover Dam, and you know,
Speaker 1: we did a great episode I think on the Hoover Dam.
Speaker 1: Between the Vata and Arizona. Annual rainfall there is about
Speaker 1: four inches. So the Colorado River is the thing. It's
Speaker 1: the most key thing that we have at our disposal
Speaker 1: to keep things alive.
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's mother, lifeblood, life giver, that's what they call
Speaker 2: it there. Yeah, so let's talk about the Hoover Dam.
Speaker 2: Not just the Hoover Dam that one gets all of
Speaker 2: the credit. There's also the Imperial Dam too. Yeah, that
Speaker 2: diverts water to the All American Canal, which is a
Speaker 2: very smart I think name, because it's one of those
Speaker 2: things where if you dispute the water going there, they
Speaker 2: could be like, well, you don't like the All American Canal?
Speaker 2: Do you hate America?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Sure.
Speaker 2: So there's the Boulder Dam, now, the Hoover Dam and
Speaker 2: the Imperial Dam. In both of those helped bank water
Speaker 2: for what we know as the lower basin states and
Speaker 2: the upper basin states are the ones responsible for essentially
Speaker 2: filling those water banks.
Speaker 1: That's right. So back when this, you know, in nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty two, when this thing was first enacted and ratified, well,
Speaker 1: I guess it was ratified a little more slowly over time,
Speaker 1: as we'll see, but California and Arizona were developing much
Speaker 1: more so than places like you know, Colorado and Wyoming.
Speaker 1: So as far as the upper and the lower basin,
Speaker 1: the lower basin areas were really exploding at the time.
Speaker 1: If you were closer to those headwaters, you didn't have
Speaker 1: those dams. There weren't opportunities to sort of divert that
Speaker 1: water to save up for the future maybe, So all
Speaker 1: of that water was going downstream where they were collecting
Speaker 1: it and using it, which is sort of where the
Speaker 1: animosity began.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, and the upstream states and grew that
Speaker 2: we're using that water. We're like, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: we want water too, Like what's going to happen? We
Speaker 2: need something. We need somebody to come in and figure
Speaker 2: out like how we can get our water too. And
Speaker 2: there was a supreme Court decision that really scared the
Speaker 2: upper states, the upstream states, which was the doctrine of
Speaker 2: prior appropriation, which was applied to water rights. And the
Speaker 2: prior appropriation basically means if you were the first one
Speaker 2: to start using something from that point on, you have seniority.
Speaker 2: So if you ever come up against the conflict between
Speaker 2: you and somebody else, if you're the senior one, you
Speaker 2: automatically get preference. And California and Arizona have been using
Speaker 2: this water through water projects before, say like Colorado or
Speaker 2: Wyoming or Utah, and that meant that they were going
Speaker 2: to get the short end of the stick no matter what,
Speaker 2: just because California and Arizona had these booming populations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. And you know, to be clear, that
Speaker 1: Supreme decision was basically that that first in time, first
Speaker 1: and right applied across the state lines.
Speaker 2: So yeah, yeah, good point.
Speaker 1: You're sharing this river, but they were using it, so like,
Speaker 1: sorry that you can't now take that away from them essentially,
Speaker 1: But like you said, Colorado and Wyoming and other states
Speaker 1: in New Mexico were like, well, we want to grow
Speaker 1: one day and do these big projects too. We're just
Speaker 1: not there yet. It's nineteen twenty two, give us a break.
Speaker 1: So they got together to negotiate this thing, the Colorado
Speaker 1: River Compact in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in November of
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty two. Nice nuts and bolts. Wise, it's kind
Speaker 1: of cool. It's the first time more than three US
Speaker 1: states divided water among themselves. And we're going to talk
Speaker 1: a little bit more about the law of the River
Speaker 1: because it's got a lot of like tendrils to it.
Speaker 1: But that established what would evolve over time as what's
Speaker 1: called the law of the River.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure. So here comes Herbert Hoover into our story.
Speaker 2: If you were waiting for Hoover to show up, by god,
Speaker 2: here he is president. No, he was the Secretary of
Speaker 2: Commerce under President Warren G. Harding, but he did such
Speaker 2: a good job he eventually became president and they renamed
Speaker 2: the Boulder Dam the Hoover damn thanks to Herbert, Yeah, right,
Speaker 2: or because of Herbert. So he steps in and says, hey, guys,
Speaker 2: we need to figure out what's going on here. We
Speaker 2: need to figure out how to basically let these water
Speaker 2: thirsty states do their projects, because these are great projects.
Speaker 2: We can all agree, but at the same time, we
Speaker 2: need to make sure that these upstream groups when they
Speaker 2: want to do their own projects, if they aren't do,
Speaker 2: they'll have the water that they need. But we want
Speaker 2: development throughout the system. That's the key, right. And most
Speaker 2: people don't know what Herbert Hoover sounds like, but that
Speaker 2: was an exact impersonation of what he sounded like in
Speaker 2: the way he talked.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, but here's the deal. He was like, you know,
Speaker 1: let's not divide it up by states. Let's not apportion
Speaker 1: it state by state, because that just makes too much sense.
Speaker 1: He said, Let's split it. Split up the Colorado River
Speaker 1: into two equal parts, and a lot equal amounts to
Speaker 1: each half. So you got the upper basin and your
Speaker 1: lower basin allotments and we'll talk about numbers here in
Speaker 1: a second, sure, but within those, then you distribute by state,
Speaker 1: like you've got the upper portion splitting it between I
Speaker 1: guess everything. But California and Arizona, right, aren't they the
Speaker 1: only two in the lower basin?
Speaker 2: No, Nevada, I think is as well.
Speaker 1: Oh, Nevada, that's right. Okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the one proposal that they initially came up with,
Speaker 1: though kind of one of the key early things was
Speaker 1: they promised the lower basin, all right, you're going to
Speaker 1: get some extra water here because you've already got these projects.
Speaker 1: You're kind of grandfathered in because you've got these projects
Speaker 1: and developments underway, so you're going to get some extra water.
Speaker 1: And nobody really liked it. The lower Basin didn't even
Speaker 1: like this idea to begin with.
Speaker 2: No, Julia helped us with this, and she turned up
Speaker 2: a quote from one of the men who was involved
Speaker 2: in this compact in nineteen twenty two. He was the
Speaker 2: one from the representative from New Mexico. He said, I
Speaker 2: will register my vote as a yes, but I do
Speaker 2: it only because to my mind it is the least
Speaker 2: objectionable of the attempts that have been made to frame
Speaker 2: the idea expressed in it, and not because I approve it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he held his nose and voted yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And he apparently was not the only one who
Speaker 2: did that. So they met twenty seven times. Yeah, they
Speaker 2: finally signed the Colorado River Compact. And another great Hoover
Speaker 2: quote is that this was a problem of more extreme
Speaker 2: complexity than will ever be appreciated by the outside world.
Speaker 2: And just after researching this for a little bit, I
Speaker 2: kind of understand where he's coming from, the amount of
Speaker 2: stuff that you would have to take into consideration to
Speaker 2: do this even remotely fairly. Yeah, your eye on development
Speaker 2: is just I can't imagine keeping all that stuff together
Speaker 2: and coming up with it, let alone coming up with
Speaker 2: one that you could get seven different states to finally
Speaker 2: sign on.
Speaker 1: There's no way. I mean, they all signed on, but
Speaker 1: like he said, no one really thought it was super fair.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So the compact, like I said, divided things up into
Speaker 1: the upper and the lower basin. And that divide actually
Speaker 1: has a place, like a physical place, which is Lee
Speaker 1: Ferry l.
Speaker 2: E E f E r r Y, not Lee Perry, not.
Speaker 1: Lee scratch Perry. That is at the border where the
Speaker 1: river passes from the upper watershed to the lower watershed,
Speaker 1: And that is where there's really unique place, quite frankly,
Speaker 1: where all the tributaries upstream come together in this one
Speaker 1: beautiful single stream before splitting back up again to other
Speaker 1: branches on the other side. So they looked at that
Speaker 1: and said, hey, Lee Faery, looks like probably a pretty
Speaker 1: good spot to divide this into Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico,
Speaker 1: and Utah. And then like Joshua, one day say, Arizona, California,
Speaker 1: and don't forget Nevada.
Speaker 2: Chuck for sure. So yeah, it's also just for you
Speaker 2: Grand Canyon fans. It's not the same Lee's Ferry. This
Speaker 2: is lee Faery and it's nowhere near it.
Speaker 1: I think if you're a Grand Canyon fan, you got
Speaker 1: to know that by now.
Speaker 2: You'd hope. So, but what if you're new to being
Speaker 2: a fan of the Grand Canyon. You know you don't
Speaker 2: want to and I don't want to set them up
Speaker 2: to make fools of themselves around the campfire.
Speaker 1: So they this is one of the problems. And we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about this later too, but they did
Speaker 1: a little bit of research on waterflow because they had
Speaker 1: to figure out, like, all right, how much water is
Speaker 1: that even And what they measured was sixteen point four
Speaker 1: million acre feet, splitting that up into almost fifty percent
Speaker 1: of each seven point five million acre feet per basin
Speaker 1: in perpetuity, with the rest leftover for Mexico. And we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about that, but just so you know,
Speaker 1: a water a one acre foot of water is enough
Speaker 1: water to submerge an acre of land to the depth
Speaker 1: of one foot.
Speaker 2: I came up with that one.
Speaker 1: I knew I wasn't gonna have to make the Joe.
Speaker 2: I knew that. You knew I was gonna make that joke.
Speaker 1: You can't read that without thinking, what Josh, How Josh
Speaker 1: waters is lawned.
Speaker 2: That's how I would farm too. I would just submerge
Speaker 2: the acres of land in the depth of a foot
Speaker 2: and be like, Wow, I'm done with the irrigating for
Speaker 2: the year.
Speaker 1: That's right, here's your rice and crayberries. So an acre
Speaker 1: of land at the depth of one foot or three
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty eight hundred and fifty one gallons of water.
Speaker 1: So they measured sixteen point four million acre feet of
Speaker 1: that and split it in half, with the rest going
Speaker 1: to Mexico.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Mexico is like, hey, what about us, And they're like,
Speaker 2: you get one point five million acre feet just from
Speaker 2: us for friends. As friends, Mexico, we love you guys,
Speaker 2: and they're like, oh, we love you back. So I
Speaker 2: think they split Mexico's allotment between the upper and the
Speaker 2: lower basin equally.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Right. There was also another group of stakeholders that kept
Speaker 2: getting overlooked and there's still overlooked to some degree, and
Speaker 2: that are the Native American tribes whose reservations draw water
Speaker 2: from the Colorado River, and the only appearance they made
Speaker 2: in the compact was nothing in this compact shall be
Speaker 2: construed as affecting the obligations of the United States of
Speaker 2: America two Indian tribes.
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 2: It means that the Indian tribes are going to have
Speaker 2: to fend for themselves in court if they want any
Speaker 2: of this water. And apparently every time they did, the states,
Speaker 2: the seven Basin states, at least some of them would
Speaker 2: lobby behind the scenes, use their clout to try to
Speaker 2: get the Native Americans to get them denied their access
Speaker 2: to the water. Of course it is I think there
Speaker 2: are thirty tribes that have a claim on it, and
Speaker 2: right now I think twenty three are legally drawing water
Speaker 2: from the Colorado to fulfill their needs. But that means
Speaker 2: that seven have not had a chance to in over
Speaker 2: one hundred years.
Speaker 1: That's right. So as far as how this actually works,
Speaker 1: over a ten year period, the upper basin has to
Speaker 1: deliver at least seventy five million acre feet of water
Speaker 1: to the lower basin, and they measure it there at
Speaker 1: leaf aerry. That's like, that's why the dividing point is
Speaker 1: say they're actually measure this water, and the upper basin
Speaker 1: can store whatever they have left over after they've delivered
Speaker 1: that to the lower basin and their portion to Mexico.
Speaker 2: And then one other thing you kind of already mentioned
Speaker 2: it those projects that were already underway were really close
Speaker 2: to being developed. Yeah, they were allotted extra water until
Speaker 2: I think Lake Mead reached five million acre feet the reservoir.
Speaker 2: So yeah, after that it was like, nope, you get
Speaker 2: your water from the same allotment as everybody else.
Speaker 1: That's right. And once those projects are done, like for
Speaker 1: all new projects, if you're in the lower basin, you
Speaker 1: got to start using your reserve or your alitment rather.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that fan of complex interstate treaty is
Speaker 2: really happy right now.
Speaker 1: I imagine, so you want to take a break, then yeah,
Speaker 1: let's do it.
Speaker 2: Okay, we're taking a break. So you can imagine that
Speaker 2: there was a lot of problems once they came up
Speaker 2: with this proposed plan to get everybody on board, and
Speaker 2: in fact, Arizona didn't sign on until nineteen forty four,
Speaker 2: like a couple decades later. Yeah, and the other six
Speaker 2: were like, okay, we need to just rewrite this a
Speaker 2: little bit so this can proceed forward without Arizona. And
Speaker 2: I guess Arizona and California have always had this stand off,
Speaker 2: this angry kind of tiff a row something like that.
Speaker 2: Over water rights in California typically wins that one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what I couldn't find out is what did they
Speaker 1: do in the meantime?
Speaker 2: I guess they just took as much water as they wanted.
Speaker 1: Okay, it's not like they said, that's my guess. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, That's the one thing I couldn't quite find.
Speaker 2: Because I mean, they wouldn't go like twenty years without
Speaker 2: what They'd be like, Wow, we're just gonna go without water?
Speaker 2: I would think not. I would guess they'd just take
Speaker 2: whatever they wanted. What I don't understand then is if
Speaker 2: they did that, why did they finally sign on if
Speaker 2: they had unlimited water? You know?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that listener who is really into the river projects
Speaker 1: they're going to write and I'm.
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah, we need to hear from them.
Speaker 1: All right, So now I promise talk the law of
Speaker 1: the river. That is the more complex set of laws
Speaker 1: and compacts in court decisions and contracts and all these
Speaker 1: guidelines and stuff that have been issued over the years.
Speaker 1: It's all together called the Law of the River, but
Speaker 1: the color Rudder River Compact is sort of the spine
Speaker 1: of this. Yeah, but we do have to mention these
Speaker 1: because a lot of them have popped up over the years.
Speaker 1: There was the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which we previously
Speaker 1: mentioned in nineteen twenty eight that officially ratified the River Compact.
Speaker 1: But that's where the Hoover Dam came from. Boulder Dam
Speaker 1: at the time, and that all American Canal And that's
Speaker 1: when they officially apportioned everything out within that seven point
Speaker 1: five million for each Arizona got for the lower basin,
Speaker 1: that is, Arizona got two point eight million, California got
Speaker 1: four point four, Nevada got point three million. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: the upper basin went with a percentage, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think Colorado got the most at fifty one percent,
Speaker 2: in Utah twenty three, New Mexico eleven, and Wyoming fourteen.
Speaker 2: Right right, So that was that's how they finally got
Speaker 2: it a portioned that upper basin. That wasn't until nineteen
Speaker 2: forty eight when they finally divided it all up.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And one reason that that could wait is because even
Speaker 2: still today, those upper basin states use way less than
Speaker 2: their allotment of water. I think California uses more water
Speaker 2: than all of the upper basin states combined, even though
Speaker 2: the allotment is different. Yeah, and I think that the
Speaker 2: upper basin states have basically had to bow to the
Speaker 2: idea of progress and just let the lower basin states
Speaker 2: use more than their allotment of water.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. There was another and like you said,
Speaker 1: that was nineteen forty eight for the Upper Compact. Nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty three comes along. You have Arizona v. California, where
Speaker 1: the decision was handed out. They were basically like, what
Speaker 1: do we do with the surplus water in the lower basin,
Speaker 1: And this decision said California Arizona split it at fifty
Speaker 1: to fifty. But also these five Native American reservations and
Speaker 1: some wildlife refuges and recreational areas, like they get some
Speaker 1: water too.
Speaker 2: Yeah. There's also you kind of mentioned how tributaries can
Speaker 2: become its own bone of contention or point of contention.
Speaker 2: I guess California was using tributary water before it got
Speaker 2: to the Colorado River, because, like you said, all those
Speaker 2: tributaries branched together and come together at Lee Ferry and
Speaker 2: then brant out again. I guess California is just tapping
Speaker 2: into one like do do do don't mind us. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we're just taking upper basin water from one of the tributaries.
Speaker 2: And the court was like, that's fine, that doesn't count
Speaker 2: as Colorado River apportionment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was nineteen sixty four, right with that decree.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in Arizona one California.
Speaker 1: There was the Colorado River Basin Project Act in nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty eight that basically just green lit a bunch of
Speaker 1: projects on both sides, you know, both basins, upper and lower.
Speaker 1: But the key part of this one, I think was
Speaker 1: it said, all right, if there are any overcap reserve
Speaker 1: during water shortages, California gets the rights to those.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because they had the earliest projects, so they had
Speaker 2: that first in first right thing. Also, that act created
Speaker 2: the Central Arizona Project, which brought water to Phoenix and Tucson,
Speaker 2: and the population of Arizona doubled since nineteen ninety three
Speaker 2: when the Central Arizona Project was finally complained. Doubled because
Speaker 2: of the water that was diverted to Arizona from the
Speaker 2: Colorado River.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean it's gorgeous out there. I lived out there.
Speaker 1: People always loved Arizona, but they were thirsty, so this
Speaker 1: really helped out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, it gets kind of dry out there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I lived in Yuma, and you know that's where well,
Speaker 1: we'll see Yuma plays a part, huge part. Surprise pop
Speaker 1: up appearance by Yuma coming up everybody.
Speaker 2: Yep, let's see. There's also review mandated reviews every five years.
Speaker 2: The Department of the Interior was directed to take over
Speaker 2: managing this thing. And then in nineteen seventy three, thanks
Speaker 2: to the Knicks Administration of all People, the Endangered Species
Speaker 2: Act basically said you need to prioritize environmental protection over
Speaker 2: development projects when they conflict, which wow, like is that
Speaker 2: still in force?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Probably not. One thing they decided to do in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy four was give Mexico better water. So the
Speaker 1: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act said, all right, let's
Speaker 1: get some salinity control going over the water that we're
Speaker 1: sending down to Mexico, so you know, they need good
Speaker 1: water down there.
Speaker 2: And then along came a drought, a drought that lasted
Speaker 2: from the year two thousand. In the year two thousand
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty three, and by two thousand and seven,
Speaker 2: the basin states were like, hey, hey, the river's not
Speaker 2: flowing quite as much as it used to. So they
Speaker 2: got together and they basically like, we need to coordinate
Speaker 2: these discharges from Lake Mead and Lake Powell down to
Speaker 2: the lower basin states because these allotments were not the
Speaker 2: river's not keeping up with the allotments anymore. We need
Speaker 2: to rethink this. And they started to really take notice
Speaker 2: of this change that the river was undergoing starting in
Speaker 2: two thousand and seven, and since then it's just gotten
Speaker 2: worse and worse and become more and more critical.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. That led to twenty nineteen with a
Speaker 1: drought Contingency Plan, which is basically just like, hey, we
Speaker 1: all need to work together with conservation here because this
Speaker 1: drought is murdering us.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That meeting was like when they cut to the
Speaker 2: control tower and airplane and everybody's just losing their minds. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's what that meeting looks.
Speaker 1: Yeah for sure, Chuck, I feel like.
Speaker 2: We've reached another great place for a break. What say
Speaker 2: you about taking a break?
Speaker 1: Let's do it all right, So we're back. We mentioned,
Speaker 1: you know, that long drought and conservation efforts that were
Speaker 1: happening and are happening, but aren't nearly enough, and we
Speaker 1: need to talk about some of the reasons why it's
Speaker 1: not enough and what's going on out there. And one
Speaker 1: of the problems is that you know, I mentioned early
Speaker 1: on when they calculated the flow of the river at
Speaker 1: sixteen point four million acre feet per year, this was
Speaker 1: one hydrology study that was done in Yuma, Arizona. Of
Speaker 1: all cases up, it's very strange they went down to Yuma.
Speaker 1: It was based on a single set of measurement measurements.
Speaker 1: This is if you don't know where Yuma is, it's
Speaker 1: hundreds of min downstream from Lee F. Ferry.
Speaker 2: Some people are like, oh, oh, okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So it didn't make a lot of sense to
Speaker 1: do right there, and much less just do one. So
Speaker 1: they had another available study. Even at the time, there
Speaker 1: was a survey from a hydrologists named Eugene Clyde LaRue
Speaker 1: who hiked hundreds of miles all up and down the
Speaker 1: Colorado River taking measurements all over the place. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: that had about a million and a half gallons less.
Speaker 2: Per year acre feet even, And.
Speaker 1: They said let's go with that other one because sixteen
Speaker 1: point four million is a higher number, and we think
Speaker 1: that's just the one we should go with. And that
Speaker 1: was a big mistake.
Speaker 2: That's ultimately what they did. I saw that there was
Speaker 2: a total that LaRue study was widely available. People knew
Speaker 2: about it, and they were like, nah, that was That
Speaker 2: means that the agreement overstretched the water supply from the
Speaker 2: Colorado River. From the very first day. It was never
Speaker 2: able to supply the all of the water that was
Speaker 2: being divided among the states.
Speaker 1: That was a huge, huge.
Speaker 2: Problem from the outset right. And in fact, scientists have
Speaker 2: estimated that the basin states have been taking about a
Speaker 2: million acre feet per year over what the river can
Speaker 2: supply for decades, and right now they think that the
Speaker 2: river's producing about thirteen million acre feet per year. So
Speaker 2: even if they had gone with LaRue's estimate a fifteen
Speaker 2: million acre feet, it would be producing less now. And
Speaker 2: not all of it is because more water is being
Speaker 2: drawn from it than it can provide. And a lot
Speaker 2: of that instead has to do with the fact that
Speaker 2: seventy percent of the Colorado River's water flow comes from
Speaker 2: snow melt from the rockies. And I don't know what
Speaker 2: to tell you if you don't believe in climate change.
Speaker 2: But the Rockies ain't been getting nearly as much snow
Speaker 2: every year year in general as it used to, and
Speaker 2: as a result, the Colorado River is shrunk to eighty
Speaker 2: percent of its flow compared to I think the nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that's a big problem. Another problem is how
Speaker 1: this water is being used and how it's always been used.
Speaker 1: If you're talking residential use, commercial use, industrial use, it's
Speaker 1: only about twenty to twenty five percent of the Colorado River.
Speaker 2: Yeah, get this.
Speaker 1: The rest of that is agriculture, and specifically agriculture to
Speaker 1: mainly grow alfalfa and hay to feed cattle. And if
Speaker 1: you're wondering why in the world did anyone ever decide
Speaker 1: to raise cattle out in the middle of the desert,
Speaker 1: it's because of the eighteen seventy seven Desert Land Act.
Speaker 1: I think you can walk us through that. But Julia
Speaker 1: found a quote though from a guy from a vox
Speaker 1: Media article named Kenny Terrella. He said, if policymakers and
Speaker 1: agricultural researchers were to start our food system from scratch,
Speaker 1: they probably wouldn't put a bunch of cows in the
Speaker 1: middle of a desert.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's there's a lot of reasons for that.
Speaker 2: They suck up a lot of water because that half
Speaker 2: of that water going to just grow. Hey, that doesn't
Speaker 2: include all the water the cattle drink themselves. Their hoofs
Speaker 2: compact the arid soil more so that soil is less
Speaker 2: able to hold moisture when it does get water. And yeah,
Speaker 2: the reason that it happened is that that Desert Land Act,
Speaker 2: like you said, that was essentially created to send people
Speaker 2: out to improve the desert, go figure out good stuff
Speaker 2: to develop the desert. And the idea in and of
Speaker 2: itself was good. You could just go up and be like,
Speaker 2: I want some land please, and they would give you
Speaker 2: some land and you would go farm it. There were
Speaker 2: two keys. One you didn't have to live there, and
Speaker 2: two corporations got a bunch of people to go in
Speaker 2: and act as their agents dummies essentially, and get the
Speaker 2: land that they then turned around and sold to the
Speaker 2: corporation for next to nothing. The corporation put huge amounts
Speaker 2: of land together and started raising cattle on it. So
Speaker 2: corporations cattle corporations have had a stranglehold on this area
Speaker 2: for a very long time. And they've been able to
Speaker 2: dictate a lot of the water policy, which is why
Speaker 2: agriculture is such a huge part of water consumption in
Speaker 2: this area.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. And you know, like you mentioned earlier
Speaker 1: that the snow melt not happening. There's been such a
Speaker 1: drop that basically we're in danger of what's called the
Speaker 1: deadpool state, which is water flowing into a dam but
Speaker 1: not enough water coming in to flow back out. So
Speaker 1: they're basically saying that what is this Lake Powell later
Speaker 1: this year, I guess this is twenty twenty six, the
Speaker 1: water level might drop so low that it's not even
Speaker 1: going to spend those turbines anymore. And that means you're
Speaker 1: not generating hydropower at Glenn Canyon Dam anymore. And that's
Speaker 1: a big, big problem.
Speaker 2: And then the next problem beneath that is that the
Speaker 2: water level isn't even high enough to make it through
Speaker 2: the pen stocks, which basically are like, we're not even
Speaker 2: messing with the turbines anymore, we're just trying to get
Speaker 2: water out of the reservoir down to the lower basin states.
Speaker 2: If the water levels go below those penstocks, that means
Speaker 2: the water's not going to make it downstream, which means
Speaker 2: that all of those areas have been choked off from
Speaker 2: their source of water, which is really really bad, like
Speaker 2: catastrophic level bad. The electricity is bad enough, but the
Speaker 2: water is just will that would do it for those.
Speaker 1: Areas, Yeah, for sure. So they're trying to figure this
Speaker 1: out obviously, because this is a big problem as the
Speaker 1: River Compact is coming due for reupping or renegotiating or whatever.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four, the basin states got together and
Speaker 1: they were like, all right, here's our proposals for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six to deal with what we're dealing with now
Speaker 1: and also to try and safeguard against the future and
Speaker 1: do it maybe in a more fair way. And the
Speaker 1: lower basin approach, California, Nevada, and Arizona. They said, all right,
Speaker 1: let's have conservation measures that are triggered based on average
Speaker 1: capacities of everything combined, like not just our portion, and
Speaker 1: we all share these reductions together as well, and we're
Speaker 1: committing to being, you know, a part of that.
Speaker 2: Yes, And the upper Basin said, nah, we're not going
Speaker 2: to go along with that. Is in fact, we're not
Speaker 2: going to commit to any cuts whatsoever because frankly, you
Speaker 2: guys have been using all the water up to this time,
Speaker 2: and we are sick of it. We're not going to
Speaker 2: do anything what it seems like, right, yeah, and so yeah,
Speaker 2: they're like California, Arizona. They're like Nevada, You're okay, sorry,
Speaker 2: you're wrapped up in this. But California and Arizona have
Speaker 2: been using way more water than was their share, and
Speaker 2: so now we have this conflict between the lower basin
Speaker 2: approach and the Upper Basin approach and the stalemate. It
Speaker 2: keeps getting kicked down the road, and they just blew
Speaker 2: past their most recent deadline of February thirteenth, twenty twenty six. Yeah,
Speaker 2: which was a Friday the thirteenth, which is also my
Speaker 2: anniversary too. Oh yeah, yeah, but this was a bat
Speaker 2: late anniversary. Thank you very much. But as far as
Speaker 2: the basin states were concerned, it was not a happy
Speaker 2: Friday the thirteenth.
Speaker 1: No, it wasn't. How long you've been married, by.
Speaker 2: The way, let's see, fourteen years now.
Speaker 1: That's Josh Mathough. What would you me say?
Speaker 2: She would say, that's close at fourteenth fourteen.
Speaker 1: That's nice, nice work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you. I didn't have to come up with
Speaker 2: a percentage or anything right.
Speaker 1: Right or big max. So in January of this year,
Speaker 1: I mean that was February. They blew past the deadline.
Speaker 1: But the Feds basically said in January of this year, like, hey,
Speaker 1: like this is getting tiresome and basically sort of like
Speaker 1: the parents walking in the room and saying, Hey, if
Speaker 1: you guys don't get a framework together yourselves and work together,
Speaker 1: we're going to do it for you. And we know
Speaker 1: nobody wants that. They released a sixteen hundred page report
Speaker 1: with options basically saying, hey, this is we're going to
Speaker 1: do this for you if you don't work it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and remember that prior appropriation doctrine. Yeah, that's essentially
Speaker 2: what will be enforced. That's like the basic option that
Speaker 2: the federal government would probably choose if the states don't
Speaker 2: come up with their own plan. Yeah, And that means
Speaker 2: Arizona is toast and California is going to be just
Speaker 2: fine because California has the oldest projects and I think
Speaker 2: or Arizona has some of the youngest projects. That's that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't know what's going to happen with that. Again,
Speaker 2: they just blew past their deadline. I saw that California
Speaker 2: is trying to figure out how to do desalination projects. No, yeah,
Speaker 2: which would help a lot of stuff, but that's I mean,
Speaker 2: they're going to have to build I think forty billion
Speaker 2: dollars worth of infrastructure to do it, which I don't
Speaker 2: think they have that in their pockets right now.
Speaker 1: Didn't we do a desalination episode like fifteen sixteen years ago?
Speaker 2: I don't know if it was that long ago, but
Speaker 2: we definitely did one. It was about desalination saving the
Speaker 2: world basically because of the impending water crisis.
Speaker 1: It feels like a long time ago.
Speaker 2: It does that COVID It really messed time up, didn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, also just lots of time passing that too, that
Speaker 1: really messed up time.
Speaker 2: You got anything else from a man?
Speaker 1: I got nothing else. Sytems a little shorter, but I
Speaker 1: hope we cleared it up some for the basin states,
Speaker 1: get tracked together. Everybody, you gotta work together. The Feds
Speaker 1: are gonna step in and slap your wrist.
Speaker 2: There you go. Well, since Chuck talked about Fed slapping wrists,
Speaker 2: of course it's time for a listener mail.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this one goes back. I don't know if we
Speaker 1: read something like this or not. But I know what,
Speaker 1: during the Julia Child episode, we couldn't think of the
Speaker 1: name of the pants, the short pants. A lot of
Speaker 1: people said cigarette pants. You said cool lotts.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: The word I think I might have been looking for,
Speaker 1: Vicky points out, was probably caprice. Oh yeah, for clam
Speaker 1: digger pants.
Speaker 2: Sure, I've heard that too.
Speaker 1: That's what Vicky says. And funny story, guys, I heard
Speaker 1: about capriepants on TV. When Mary Tyler Moore was selected
Speaker 1: as Rob's wife and The Dick Van Dyke Show, she
Speaker 1: specifically didn't want to be wearing pearls and a petticoat
Speaker 1: and a dress like Missus Cleaver and Donna Reid, so
Speaker 1: producers finally gave in and said, all right, you can
Speaker 1: wear those capri pants, which he really had to fight for.
Speaker 1: But the pants were considered risque at the time, and
Speaker 1: they said that she could never be filmed from the
Speaker 1: backside wearing those pants.
Speaker 2: Huh. I've long thought, wow, you never see Mary Tyler
Speaker 2: Moore's bottom in the Dick Van Dyke Show.
Speaker 1: Now I know why, And that's from Vicky Reid.
Speaker 2: She I've always thought she dressed so adorably in that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: adorable in that show. What a great show too.
Speaker 1: Mary Tyler Moore is a treasure. She is?
Speaker 2: Who is that? Vicky?
Speaker 1: Vicky read?
Speaker 2: Thanks a lot, Vicky Read. We appreciate you. Capri pants, clamdiggers,
Speaker 2: whatever you call them, they're pants and they're shorter than normal.
Speaker 2: If you want to be like Vicky and get in
Speaker 2: touch with us and help us out. We love being
Speaker 2: helped out. You can send it via email to stuff
Speaker 2: podcast at iHeartRadio dot com. Stuff you Should Know is
Speaker 2: a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.