Article By David Lindfield
California’s failure to build enough water infrastructure for its growing population is putting increasing pressure on the Colorado River and threatening agriculture far beyond the Golden State, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) warned.
Hageman accused California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and state policymakers of allowing environmental regulations and bureaucracy to stand in the way of dams, reservoirs, desalination, and other infrastructure needed to secure the state’s water supply.
The consequences, she argued, are now being felt across the seven states that depend on the Colorado River.
“The system is now becoming very, very stressed because California has not kept up with the infrastructure demands and needs of its citizens,” Hageman told Fox News Digital.
“Pinedale, Wyoming, may be a long way removed from Southern California, but when there are calls on the river and when there are demands that we reduce the amount of water that we are able to use in order to meet a demand downstream, that isn’t fair.”
Hageman Blames ‘Parade Of Bad Decisions’
The Colorado River supplies water across much of the West, with its Upper Basin covering Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico and its Lower Basin serving California, Arizona, and Nevada.
But California’s population has expanded substantially while much of its major water infrastructure dates back decades.
Hageman argued that the failure to expand that infrastructure has forced California to make increasingly difficult choices between municipal, industrial, and agricultural demand.
She warned that sacrificing agriculture to satisfy other water needs could eventually become a national problem.
“California could grow almost all the food we need in the United States, but they’ve really decimated their Ag industry because they’ve taken irrigation water away from their Ag industry to try to meet municipal demand and industrial demand elsewhere,” Hageman said.
“So really it’s just, it’s a whole parade of bad decisions that are being made.”
Hageman said maintaining America’s ability to produce its own food should be viewed as a national security priority.
“Food independence is a national security issue,” she said.
“We do not want to become food dependent on Mexico or Central America or bringing all of our food in from other countries.”
“We have the resources to grow healthy, high-quality food right here while also protecting our environment.”
Environmental Groups Fight Dams and Desalination
Efforts to expand California’s water supply have faced opposition from environmental organizations that object to new dams and desalination projects.
Tell the Dam Truth has argued that California should reject new dams and even remove existing ones to restore ecosystems and reduce environmental damage.
“With its strong environmental laws, regulations, and policies, California has the opportunity to not only stop new dam construction, but also decommission dams to restore the biodiversity and carbon sequestration currently inundated in river valleys across the state,” the organization states.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have also opposed some desalination projects, which would convert seawater into freshwater.
Hageman dismissed that approach as fundamentally misguided.
“They’re very backwards people,” she said.
“I kind of look at them like flat-Earthers.
“They ignore the fact that humans are also part of the natural environment, and they ignore the benefits of what we can create by building this much-needed infrastructure.”
Trump Administration Forces Water Cuts
The dispute comes as the Colorado River system faces mounting pressure from water demand and changing climate conditions.
The seven basin states have struggled to reach a new long-term agreement governing how the shrinking supply should be divided.
With negotiations stalled, the Trump administration has stepped in with steep reductions for the Lower Basin states over the next two years.
Newsom welcomed the immediate plan but argued that California has already dramatically reduced its reliance on the river.
“This is a necessary step to protect a river that 40 million Americans depend on, at a time when climate change is driving a regional water crisis that makes every drop of water count,” Newsom said.
“California continues to lead the way forward, growing our economy while cutting our Colorado River water use to the lowest level since 1949.”
Newsom said the plan could not substitute for a permanent agreement.
“Any long-term solution must share responsibility fairly across all seven states in recognition of the new reality of the Colorado River,” he added.
California Pushes Back
California officials also rejected Hageman’s characterization of the state’s water policies.
A spokesperson for the California Natural Resources Agency said the state’s Colorado River consumption is at its lowest point in decades while urban water agencies have sharply reduced demand for imported water.
“California’s Colorado River use is at its lowest since 1949 – and our urban water agencies have reduced their demand for imports by 50% since 2000,” the spokesperson said.
“Even with that, we continue to invest billions of dollars to increase water supply as we face changing conditions driven by climate change.”
The state is moving ahead with a new reservoir project estimated to cost $6.8 billion and expected to be completed in the mid-2030s.
California is also investing in groundwater projects and other efforts to expand supply.
State officials dismissed the idea that desalination alone could solve California’s water challenges.
“Suggesting we move the world’s fourth largest economy entirely to desalinated water is a deeply unserious proposal that ignores the underlying issues facing all users of the Colorado River,” the spokesperson said.
“All Basin states must share the responsibility of caring for the Colorado River for generations to come – and that means real conservation from all seven states.”
Hageman’s argument, however, is that decades of failing to build sufficient infrastructure have already pushed the costs of California’s decisions beyond its borders.
And with tens of millions of Americans, major agricultural regions, and seven states competing for the same increasingly strained river system, the fight over who bears those costs is only becoming more consequential.
Be the first to comment