Six States Should Have Water Rights

Conflict can also occur within a country, for example the states situated within the Colorado river basin have been constantly squabbling over who owns the water supply and who should be allocated the most water. In the 1920s the ‘Law of the River’ established the division of water amongst the upper basin states, it also defined their responsibility to supply water to the lower basin states. This division had been based on an estimated annual flow of 21 billion m3/yr in 1920, however this was a time of above normal flows, recent studies have indicated that long term average flows are around 18 billion m3/yr. The deficit between the flow and the allocation has become more apparent as the population in the clorado basin states continues to rise. As a result of this deficit tensions are rising between the states, California receives a large percentage of the water as a result of its large population and political power even though the river does not directly flow through it. This has heightened tensions with the states

6.The California Water Project takes water from northern California to the south through various means. The two sides have disagreements on how the water should be used. Northern Californians argue that if they sent more water to the south, they would waste it, resulting in the Sacramento River being degraded. However, southern Californians still want more water, because they feel that their growing populations and agricultural needs require the water.

The upper basin states (including Colorado) were allocated a much greater percentage of the water than the lower basin states, while the upper basin states were developing at a much slower rate than those in the lower basin, notably California. Nevada (as of 1997) anticipated being unable to rely just on this water by 2015, while in 1997 California was already exceeding its originally allocated supply by diverting unused water from the upper basin states (Arizona.edu, 1997). It goes without saying that this legislation from the early twentieth century is not going to be sufficient in coming years as the development of these regions has progressed at a much faster rate than originally anticipated, and it is the responsibility of state and federal governments, water management companies, as well as appeals from farmers and non-farming residents alike to come to an agreement on how to apportion water and how to implement secondary hydration plans due to the rapidly declining resource that the once-magnificent Colorado River was able to supply us

The Colorado River Basin starts in the Rocky Mountains and cuts through 1500 miles of canyon lands and deserts of seven US states and two Mexican states to supply a collection of dams and reservoirs with water to help irrigate cropland, support 40 million people, and provide hydroelectric power for the inland western United States [1,2]. From early settlement, rights over the river have been debated and reassigned to different states in the upper and lower basin; however, all the distribution patterns lead to excessive consumption of the resource. In 1922, the seven US states signed into the Colorado River Compact, which outlined the policy for the distribution rights to the water [3], however, this compact was written during an exceptionally

Thesis: Georgia should be able to continue their withdrawals from Lake Lanier and the water basins because of their water supply needs for irrigating its crops in the south, flood control, and sustaining its rapidly growing population in the metro Atlanta area.

One of the main consumers of water are farmers, they account for 80 percent of water usage in California (Skelton). The problem with cutting water to farmers is money; the amount of money that California farmers generate is around 46.4 billion (Fox). Cutting water to farmers will cause unemployment to increase and a decrease in the amount of taxable income. Along with the loss of money and jobs an increase in the price for produce will be expected. Many of the smaller farmers will not be able to make ends meet with the increase price of water. Sure many of the mega farms will get by without a huge

The controversy over water rights has been a long battle that the Navajo Nation has endured for decades. This controversy which is complicated by numerous issues has only been increasing in recent years. For example the Navajo Hopi Little Colorado Water Settlement that has been in litigation for 33 years. Of particular note Navajo people and their elected officials are struggling to balance expectations with reality including legally mandated coordination with state and federal governments. As a result there has been notable conflict in resources associated with water management. These fundamental issues have been exasperated by a host of concerns: (1) deceased water availability due to drought or water development; (2) long

Moving on, there are some issues with the legislation that has been passed in order to conserve the water, especially concerning the Clean Water Act. People are having opposition with the rules of the Clean Water Act. Small business owners feel that this act is restricting the way that they tend to their property. For example, several farmers use pesticides, herbicides, and other fertilizers to keep harmful insects and other animals off of their crops, so they can grow properly. These pesticides eventually end up in our local rivers, lakes, and oceans which are making humans and animals very ill. However, they make money by the crops they sell, and to them, the Clean Water Act has a very negative economic impact on them (Landers). Although

The Colorado River is shared by several states due to the large capacity of water that it holds and its proximity. These states include California, Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. The Colorado water compact is a 1922 agreement that was signed by seven states within the US to govern the sharing or water resources along the Colorado River. Since the development of the compact, California has been the most disadvantaged state since it uses water that has been already used up by other states. Before the compact, most of the states that use the water were in conflict due to the unfair allocation of the water resources. The allocation led to the development of the upper and the lower basin with the division point at the Lee Ferry. Some of the states got more allocation than the others while some did not get any fresh water (Sally, 2012). The Colorado water compact is ruled by many contracts and rulings that were signed by the states that use the water.

The Red River Compact Commission was created and signed by 1978 by 4 states Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The Red River, the northern boundary of a lot of the state, is a major water source for all four of these states and was being fought over until this commission was made to help solve many of the disputes that could come up. Similarly, Texas has more agreements with other states including the Sabine River Compact Commission and the Rio Grande Compact. These commission serves the same purpose as the other commission, to make sure that all states receive the correct amount of water and that neither state ruins the water for any other one. The United States has an agreement with Mexico regarding the Colorado River that helps decide what should be done with a river that gives water to more than 33 million people across the two nations. The agreement is made to help the Colorado River make it back to the Ocean which will in turn help refill Lake Mead, the main source of water for the city of Los Vegas. The major treaty between the US and Mexico that Texas has a large hand in is the Treaty of February 3, 1994. This treaty restricts the water that the other country can take from the Rio Grande river, and guarantees the US one-third of the water from 5 tributaries in Mexico, and guarantees Mexico all of the water from two other tributaries. This treaty also allows both nations to dam parts of this

Texas, with its abundances of natural resources, is facing a new demon, one that doesn’t even seem possible, a shortage of water. Water, without it nothing can survive. Texas is the second largest state for landmass in the nation and ninth for water square miles. Within the borders of Texas are more than 100 lakes, 14 major rivers, and 23 aquifers, so why has water become such an important issue for the state? Politicians and conservationists all agree that without a new working water plan, the state could be facing one of the most damaging environmental disasters they have ever seen. The issues that shape the states positions are population growth, current drought conditions, and who actually owns the water.

The northwest suburbs should not impose water restrictions on residents. One reason that the northwest suburbs should not impose water restrictions is because Illinois does not have a water shortage at the moment. Right now Illinois has enough water than any other state in the west coast. Rain and snow keeps on coming down in Illinois which helps with more water, not like in the west coast who hasn't had snow or rain in the past years in which the result is that they have severe drought at the moment. Water restrictions can be helpful for the future, but there is not a water shortage at the moment. Everyone agrees that saving water can help in the future and save us when a water shortage occurs, but right now there is no reason as to why

One person named Smith said it was a national debate. One person even said that it is not an easy fix and that it is very legal. California would not have any cutbacks dew to the agreement in 1968 with arizona. Also yamma was just an expansion but Arizona would keep their steep cuts. Farmers in Yamma have the oldest water rights in Arizona.

International law allows individual states the right to utilize rivers, lakes, and aquifers in an equitable and reasonable manner (Haftendorn, 2000, p.51). Of course, reasonable and equitable are open to interpretation and each sovereign nation has its own ideas about what is best, especially when other nations are adversely affected by that nation's actions. Conflicts can arise related to pollution, usage, or distribution of the water source.

Water is a precious resource. It is the lifeblood of every living thing on Earth. California is in the midst of a water crisis. Combined with a three (plus) year drought and many people moving into the state there is not enough water to support the crops the farmers need to grow. There is also a tiny little fish that is causing a mess in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta water pumps were turned off to prevent the extinction of the tiny little fish. Some farmers have to let their fields sit idle for the fall and spring planting season. This is causing a lot of problems in California. The pumps need to be turned back on. The needs of the people should come before that of a fish.