Aridzona's day of water reckoning has come; or has it?

(My Photoshopped version of Glen Canyon Dam, above.)

Or, at least, the day of reckoning has come for the Valley of the Sun. Or has it?

The climate change deniers and minimalists will probably try to poo-poo this, starting with saying it's only for two years. Which moves back to the rhetorical question ending the paragraph above.

But, Aridzona losing one-third of its Colorado River water rights in the next two years, per the official Department of the Interior announcement, is serious. It takes the largest haircut among the three Lower Basin states as the price it paid to get the Central Arizona Project, which delivers water to Phoenix and Tucson.

Per a link in that story and discussion elsewhere, will the state actually sue? If so, between "slim" and "none," what are the odds of success? 

Beyond that, the day of water reckoning isn't enough. Per this New York Times piece:

The river’s flow is diminishing and reservoirs are drying up, but communities and farms still use unsustainable amounts of water.

That's the bottom line. 

Another version?

"The water usage is still too damned high." 

On the suits? The current proposal just makes firm, that same piece says, voluntary offers already on the table. 

Beyond that, as I said 15 years ago, Obama blew a chance to further cut water usage. He could have made Phoenix and Las Vegas recent homebuyers "whole" by letting them out of mortgages if they moved (back) to where the water is — Cleveland, St. Louis, Omaha, et. And, he could have done the same for homebuilders, mortgage brokers etc., to make them whole IF they took a "haircut" on how many houses they could build in places like Phoenix with federal mortgage guarantees. 

Beyond that? "Water banking" is semi-fraudulent in my opinion, and in some day will have an unpayable real bill to be paid. Sorry, California's Colorado River water sherpa, but be more honest than this.(At least he admitted California is way behind Nevada on cutting water use, while also saying nothing about WHY it’s way behind.)

Interestingly, on the issue of lawsuits, the first one has been filed — by Nevada. The reason they’re suing? No mandatory cuts for the Upper Basin.

Fully fraudulent? The Big Oil companies as climate denialists, who took a page from Big Tobacco. A new Inside Climate News piece says that Big Oil is responsible for half the Colorado River basin’s water loss in 2014-24 due to climate change causes. 

As for Aridzona? Per the second link, I have little doubt that groundwater pumping will only accelerate more, and that alfalfa farmers will beg the state for monetary help to pay for deeper and deeper wells. Soil subsidence will continue, and homeowners will ask for help on that.

Sadly, a super El Niño may provide enough snowpack for the seven basin states to continue to dodge a long-range new deal on the river. Per this story, that's why we're at where we are now — a two-year imposition by Interior based on a ten-year planning document. 

I've written before, most recently a few months ago, about the reality of the seven Basin states willing to continue to deny reality. 

Of course, Glen Canyon Dam was itself built on a lie, a lie that's inside the visitors' center:

Oops! And, maybe we should call the refusal to be skeptical about the water flow numbers used to create the Colorado River Compact a century ago a lie themselves.

If "water's for fighting over," per the old western bon mot, in modern terms, and contra Kumbaya John Fleck, who doesn't like my comments on his site. it's also for suing over. 

Per Nevada’s lawsuit, another thing Kumbaya John gets wrong is being wedded to the Upper Basin/Lower Basin division. If there’s going to be a lawsuit rumble over basin supply anyway, elect me president and my federal government will knock heads on this issue.