Water Scarcity and the Politics of Plenty in the Four Corners States

ECISIONS made within states will determine future allocations of water resources in the West. Recent attempts by the federal government to exert stronger influence over the uses water is to serve largely have failed. Shortly after coming to office, the Carter Administration embarked upon a comprehensive review of water resources policy, aimed in part at finding means to force states to change what the administration viewed as antiquated water rights systems. The water policy document finally issued after prolonged study and political conflict provided for much less federal interference in water matters than Western politicians feared and fought. While federal water projects will be more difficult to fund in the future, and states must share more of the cost, the preeminence of states in determining how water is to be allocated was specifically recognized, and states are to have even an enlarged role in federal water planning.2 Further, a recent attempt by the United States Department of Justice to expand the reserved water rights of National Forests to protect instream water for fish and wildlife was rejected by the Supreme Court on the grounds that such federal claims infringed upon the historic role of states in water allocation. According to the governor of Utah, United States v. New Mexico chills the influence of a previous line of precedent that asserted federal supremacy in water.3 An inscription on the wall of the Colorado State Capitol proclaims, Here is the land where life is written in water. Historically Westerners have believed that economic development and quality of life depend upon securing an abundant water supply. Since states have successfully asserted their independence in determining water allocation, the sort of water policy that states are likely to pursue becomes an important policy question. The allocation of water resources is particularly significant in fastest growing and most arid states. Consequently, the focus of this article is upon the Four Corners States of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. At least theoretically, state legislatures are well positioned to respond to demands for water policy. Therefore, our analysis will concentrate upon the role of state legislatures in water allocation. In the argument that follows we will describe first the constraints that growing demands and the physical realities of limited water supplies place on decisionmakers. Without new, large-scale, federally sponsored water projects augmenting supply, which now appear unlikely, the only reasonable course would seem to be reallocation of existing water among users. Since irrigated agriculture is the largest water user, it appears logical that its water supplies will be sacrificed to serve energy, cities, and other emerging demands where water would have a higher economic value. However, as data from public and legislators' opinion surveys