The absurdity of the Colorado River crisis

 

by Daniel M. Frey

Forty million people depend on the Colorado River. Some of its largest cities are facing real shortages. Yet nearly half of the water put to human use in the basin goes to growing feed crops such as alfalfa, hay and silage for cattle, with a meaningful share exported overseas.

This is not a hydrology problem. It is a political one.

The misuse of water

Growing alfalfa and hay to feed livestock consumes roughly 46% of all the water put to human use in the basin—more than every city and industry combined, and more than any other single use of the river. In the Imperial Valley, a material portion of alfalfa is exported. Foreign agribusinesses, including Saudi Arabia’s Fondomonte and the UAE’s Al Dahra, have leased Southwestern land to grow water-intensive feed and ship it home to countries that have banned the same crop domestically to protect their own water. Arizona’s governor already canceled state land leases with one of these companies over exactly this issue. We are draining a river that 40 million Americans depend on to grow low-value cattle feed.

This is not even a true market outcome. Between 2017 and 2023, the federal Crop Insurance Program paid $5.6 billion to farmers in the seven Colorado River states for drought-related losses, including more than $2 billion to alfalfa and hay growers alone. Separately, the federal government has committed $1.2 billion over three years under the 2023 Lower Basin conservation agreement to pay some of those same farmers to leave water in the river instead — and under “use it or lose it” water law, that money does not necessarily translate into lasting reduced consumption once the payments end. We are subsidizing the least essential, most water-intensive use of the river while barely funding a lasting transition away from it. These policies ignore urgent human needs and support the continued subsidized irrigation of low-value crops.

Because so much of this crop is exported, converting these acres would not meaningfully affect the U.S. or global food supply. Foreign and domestic buyers would simply source feed from places where water is not scarce. What we would lose is a low-value export that is consuming precious water.

Nobody needs Southwestern agriculture to disappear. Israel farms one of the driest landscapes on Earth and still exports produce because it rebuilt its water use around efficiency instead of volume.

Drip irrigation, which Israel pioneered in the 1960s, delivers water at 70% to 90% efficiency, compared with roughly 40% to 60% for the flood irrigation still common in the Colorado River Basin.

Israel recycles 85% to 90% of its municipal wastewater, supplying more than half its total agricultural demand. Israeli farming also shifted deliberately from low-value, high-water fodder crops to higher-value, lower-water produce such as tomatoes, peppers, dates and avocados. None of this is exotic or new.

Why the status quo persists

So why has nothing changed here? Under prior appropriation law, the oldest agricultural water rights, some dating to the 1800s, are legally senior to every city built afterward, including Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles. That seniority is the leverage in every negotiation.

The Imperial Irrigation District alone holds senior rights to roughly 3.1 million acre-feet a year — nearly a fifth of the river’s average flow, and on its own equal to Arizona’s and Nevada’s entire combined state allocations. That gives a handful of districts a permanent seat at every basin-wide deal because the law guarantees it. When $4 billion in federal conservation funding was distributed through the Inflation Reduction Act, much of it paid agricultural districts to conserve water they were under no legal obligation to relinquish, thanks to their senior water rights.

This is organized and specific, not a vague farm lobby. The Family Farm Alliance, representing irrigated agriculture across 16 Western states, has testified before Congress repeatedly over the past two decades and led a 2025 push for at least $2 billion in near-term drought funding to sustain current agricultural use, not reduce it.

What should change

None of this is an argument against private property or against farmers and ranchers as people. Water rights in the West are real property, built into land value, farm equity and family inheritance. Any transition worth pursuing must compensate people fairly for what the law actually gave them. Conservation is not agriculture’s job alone. Cities owe real cuts too, through tiered pricing, continued investment in water reuse, limits on ornamental turf and honest accounting of growth in already stressed areas.

But fairness among water users does not mean treating every use as equally necessary. Water for people—for drinking, sanitation and food—comes before subsidized hay exports. That ranking is not radical. It is what “beneficial use” was always supposed to mean before the term became a shield for the status quo.

The technical plan is not the missing piece; versions of it have circulated for years. What is missing is the political will to say, plainly and before the next crisis, that human need outranks irrigated hay, even when the institutions built to avoid that choice are loud, organized and well funded. The reservoirs will not wait for a more comfortable moment. Neither should we.

The 40 million people who depend on the Colorado River should demand that political and business leaders protect their most precious, life-sustaining resource.

Daniel Frey is a Boulder resident, non-practicing CPA and Certified Energy Manager (CEM). He researches and writes on energy and sustainability issues Top photo: A windrower cuts alfalfa for drying prior to baling in the Imperial Valley of California in June 2007. Photo by Timothy Hearsum/AgStock.