Choices over time
Where we go from where we have been.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about time—as much in philosophical terms and as in terms of economics, physics, and the law. How we make choices, how we defer costs, and how we consider what is “right.” What do we value today against past and future?
Time is one of the many invisible weights on water management and decision-making.
We are haunted by the past, and it is there that I’ll begin with a foreboding Colorado River update. Earlier this week, KUNC reporter Alex Hager confirmed that top state negotiators for a river that supplies 40 million people will not speak at an upcoming conference in Colorado, as is the norm. This might not seem like such a big deal, but these public panels are an important avenue for accountability and transparency.
In the Colorado River Basin, as Hager notes, “policymakers work in a space that does not involve a mandate for public access. Their meetings are often held behind closed doors, are not listed publicly and do not yield minutes or records that can be viewed by the public.” (This, I’d argue, is an issue not limited to the Colorado River, but water management more generally). What the future of the Colorado River looks like rests on a long, uncertain and surprisingly untested legal framework that is being tested today by climate change. Untested how? Some of the major disputes today, in 2025, revolve around questions of interpretation from documents agreed to a century ago.
The lack of public engagement is, as Colorado River expert and University of New Mexico’s John Fleck notes, a sign of faltering negotiations over how to share the river in an era of shortages, where it is so apparent—physically, visually apparent in half-empty reservoirs—that past assumptions no longer hold. Another sign is Arizona’s rhetoric, pledging again that it will “signal that we’re prepared to defend out water.”
The Colorado River gets a lot of attention (and still probably not enough), deservedly so. But the issues facing the Colorado are reflected in watersheds across the West: It’s in part the problem of reconciling present priorities and values with past decisions, assumptions and frameworks, many of which are codified in law, contracts and policy.
In many places, above and below ground, in rivers and aquifers, there are more rights to use water than there is water to go around, a reality worsened by climate change.
I thought about this when reading a new white paper on Indigenous water rights in California. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in the landmark Winters v. U.S. ruling that Tribes had the legal right to access water on land reserved by the federal government. Yet, as the authors of the paper note, “the Winters decision, however, did not quantify or create water rights for tribes. As a result, surface water resources in western states were fully appropriated for off-reservation use without regard for tribal water needs or prior uses.” The result has created systemic barriers and costs for Tribes who are seeking their legal entitlement to water. Most Tribes in the West still have still not adjudicated their rights, despite the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
The situation is especially stark in California. The paper by UC Davis’ Leslie Sanchez and Eric Edwards importantly looks at how past decisions around land use as well as barriers around cost in adjudicating claims has affected the tribal water settlements.
“Diminishing tribes’ land rights effectively reduced future Winters claims and skewed bargaining power in later settlement negotiations in favor of nontribal interests.”
Another interesting tidbit on costs and the role of historical documentation in these water law cases: “Smaller, later-established reservations incur higher bargaining costs when they lack historical documentation to support their claims.”
More here: Sanchez, Leslie and Eric C. Edwards. 2025. “Bargaining for Tribal Water in California.” ARE Update 28(4): 12–15. University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
What we do with our past knowledge matters today…
A number I’m watching this week. “Bloomberg News found that about two-thirds of new data centers built or in development since 2022 are in places already gripped by high levels of water stress. While these facilities are popping up all over the country, five states alone account for 72% of the new centers in high-stress areas.”
This is going to be important to watch from a governance perspective. Like so many booms that shape and reshape local life, the AI headwinds are being driven by deep economic changes and national priorities. But how this all actually happens—in a physical way—is dictated at the local level. It’s at the local and state level (to some extent) where the consequences of planning make a huge long-term difference. When I say physical, I mean: Where is the energy going to come from? Where is the water?
Local officials and community members should be thinking about this, and in some places they are. See Reno. And back to Arizona for a moment. It’s one of five water-stressed places where new data centers are going. So kudos to the reporter who asked Gov. Hobbs if the state plans to do any accounting of water use for data centers.
Here’s the telling exchange, as reported by Arizona Capitol Times:
Hobbs also said she has no answer to a question of whether the state should be more transparent in disclosing the amount of water used by certain industrial users, including data centers.
That would allow for a greater public discussion about whether such development should be a priority. Currently, the state does not keep track of how much each uses.
“That’s a good question, not something that I’ve thought about,” the governor said. “And certainly something we can look at doing more about.”
The good news is there are tools and solutions for addressing decisions of the past. One of the proposals I’ve been following are strategic approaches to retiring water rights to pump groundwater in places where states have allocated more rights to use water than there was water to go around sustainably. Last month, the Journal of the American Water Resources Association published an article looking at reducing water use through coupling groundwater retirement with agrivoltaics in Nevada:
Transitioning previously irrigated land to solar energy production with agriculture (i.e., agrivoltaics) can provide simultaneous benefits of reducing water use while increasing renewable energy generation on already disturbed land. We share a study of the viability, benefits, and tradeoffs of transitioning previously irrigated land to agrivoltaics in Diamond Valley, Nevada, where a mandated groundwater management plan will inevitably result in land coming out of irrigated production. Nevada is committed to 50% of electricity sold being from renewable energy sources by 2030 and 100% by 2050, so there is strong interest in developing renewable energy infrastructure, including on previously disturbed lands such as those used for agriculture near transmission lines. We found that while soils and sunlight in arid places like Diamond Valley are suitable for incorporating agrivoltaics with little to no irrigation, transmission capacity is a limiting factor. Additional studies are needed to determine system upgrades required for solar, and effective solar leases are important to protect landowners from financial risks.
More here: Saito, Laurel, et al. “Rethinking Water Scarcity, Energy, and Agriculture: Coupling Agrivoltaics With Addressing Groundwater Depletion.” JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 61, no. 2, 2025, p. e70021.
Closing out some other tabs:
Groups call on administration to curb wasteful use of Colorado River (LA Times)
New rules for using recycled indoor water in Arizona (Cronkite News)
Kern River opinion appealed to state Supreme Court (SJV Water)
A Republican push to sell public lands in the West is reigniting a political fight (AP)
Trump “emergency” fast-tracks Utah uranium mine (Land Desk)
Torturing California’s almonds and pistachios to survive climate change (KCRW)
Four water suppliers are suing over the Eaton Fire in Pasadena (Business Wire)
Nevada court rules on golf course rates in Virgin Valley (Mesa Valleys Progress)
A law firm view of the Sustainability Groundwater Management Act
NOAA will stop updating database on costliest weather disasters (Washington Post)
Hello!
Apologies for my absence the last few weeks. I had intended to write more this past month but I’ve been holed up between work, classes and taking care of some other responsibilities.
Feel like things are slowly starting to slow down for a bit with summer on the horizon, and dispatches should commence again soon, even if they are a bit shorter. I’ve got some topics and research I really want to unpack once I have a little more time to sit down and write. There is a lot going on right now. I feel like I only scratched the surface with this edition.
As always, message me with any suggestions or feedback.
Cheers,
Daniel
Texas is experiencing a "data center boom" right now, with very little accounting of water demand. The state is in the process of developing our 5-year water plan, so it will be interesting to see if/how they account for this new water demand. Good thing climate change does not exist in Texas.
Up to half of California's water, directly or indirectly, is used to raise cattle. Growing hay and alfalfa under the blistering desert summer sun in Imperial/Colorado River/San Joaquin Valleys makes no sense, especially when said feed is shipped to other countries. Only 20 percent of the state's water is used for residential/industrial/commercial/golf courses, etc. I'd guess Arizona's water is similarly disproportioned. The cattle feed farming needs to move east, maybe use the ethanol corn farmlands for that purpose. That's where I'd start the discussion anyway.