Can Trump violate the Water River River River River Deal? | Opinion

The pressing of President Donald Trump in the long-standing conflict in California for the management of waters-in essence that favors farmers over the habitat of wildlife-enters the mass media and political attention.

Trump ordered federal water managers to release more water For farmers, but increased flows have been largely symbolic so far because farmers use some water in the winter, but they need more during the growing season.

Trump’s action is given by environmental groups that have long sought to improve river flows for salmon and other species, with tacit support from the governor of Gavard Gavin New.

However, NEWSOM directs state water managers to maximize detention From a ballot of recent rains to raise water levels in the tank, an action that some environmentalists have criticized as imitation of Trump.

These events are not only a sequel to the internal conflicts of California over the water, but also raised where Trump left during his first stay in the White House.

Meanwhile, The other water conflict in California has earned much less public attention, but is also affected by Trump’s victory.

For years, California and other Western states have been arguing how to reduce the deviations from the Colorado River, whose streams decrease and whose reservoirs, especially Mid Lake, are shrinking.

Former President Joe Biden’s reclamation bureau has pressed countries from reducing consumption and threatened to impose mandatory cuts if they were unable to reach an agreement.

In a macro sense, he earns the “upper pool” countries Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico, where Colorado originates, against the United States, the “lower pool” Arizona, Nevada and California, which were historically its main users.

The four upper states want to keep more water while the three lower conditions seek to minimize the reductions. However, there is also friction between California, whose supply of water on the Colorado River is used most for the irrigation of crops in the imperial valley, and Nevada and Arizona, whose populations increase dramatically (think in Las Vegas) and need water for this Expansion.

On November 20, 16 days after Biden lost to Trump, leaving Commissioner at the Reclamation Bureau Camille Tutton, released a list of “necessary steps” Conflict parties must undertake to comply with a deadline to reach an agreement to reach an agreement.

It is essentially a series of management alternatives, but does not indicate which of them prefers the federal authorities.

“Today we are showing our collective work,” Tuton said of the four action proposals and an alternative “No Action” that Biden will leave for the Trump incoming administration. However, what Trump has chosen as Taton’s heir is not obliged to take where she stopped. The new administration can start from scratch, even rejecting the main assumption that something must be done to restore the health of the river.

“We still have a very wide precipice between us,” said Tom Bushar, the main negotiator of Arizona on the Colorado River, in a conference conversation with reporters.

Meanwhile, Buscake has asked Arizona’s law for $ million to fight if the negotiations fail. “I don’t want lawsuits,” he said. “It’s not good for anyone. But if we go back to one corner and this is our only choice, it was the context of this budget request. “

The conflict over the Colorado River, in many ways, resembles an internal conflict in California, including uncertainty about whether governments can overturn or ignore water rights extending until the 19th century.

For example, Irrigation area for irrigation Not only has it a huge right to use the share of California for irrigation, but there is also the largest share of each user in the seven states. Its right dates back to more than a century to when its farmers were the first diverting – although the Imperial County contains a small part of nearly 40 million residents of the country.