Saving Water for Rivers
What American Western Water Managers Can Learn from Australia Geneva Faulkner LDAR 6686: Water in the West Professor Ann Komara 13 May 2013
Saving Water for Rivers: What American Western Water Managers Can Learn from Australia Geneva Faulkner Colorado River water is highly sought after, legally contested, polluted, regulated,
dammed, diverted for irrigation of the vast Californian Imperial Valley, and used to fuel the rapid expansion of sunbaked Southwestern cities. The 7.5 million acre feet appropriations
delegated to the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states in the 1922 Colorado Compact are no longer sufficient to meet increasing water demand in the west. 1
The property rights-based prior appropriation doctrine of allocating water in the
American West is an inappropriate and inflexible procedure of water allocation for
addressing current and looming water shortages in the West. How can western water
managers implement systematic changes in the Colorado River Basin that will prioritize the human and environmental right to water? Australiaâ€™s water permitting system and
innovative water management strategies provide a fascinating context in which to study western water rights. The Murray Darling River Basin in southeastern Australia has
experienced many of the same ecological problems in the Colorado River Basin. 2 The
Australian governmentâ€™s response to the water crisis will provide a legislative and
programmatic framework for discussing water reform in the Colorado River Basin.
(Colorado River Compact, 1922) (Australian Government: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office)
Stretching from the lush Rocky
Mountain headwaters to the parched delta at the Sea of Cortez, the Colorado River spans 1,450 miles and its basin covers 246,000 square miles of land. It irrigates about 2
million square miles of agriculture land and provides drinking water for 40 million
Americans, about 12% of the entire US
population. 3 The Colorado River historically
had highly variable flows. In its natural state it Source: National Parks Conservation Association
returned about 15.7 maf into the Gulf, which
averages to about 21,700 cubic feet per second. At its peak, the river exceeded 100,000
cubic feet per second (cfs) during spring and summer high flow events and dropped to less than 2,500 cfs during low flow months. In its dammed state, however, flows rarely exceed 35,000 cfs and rarely drop below 4,000 cfs. 4
The lack of variability of in-stream flows has compounded several mounting
ecological concerns in the Basin. The dry Colorado Delta, low water levels, sedimentation,
salinity, threatened and endangered species, and climate change have all contributed to the ecological destruction of the Basin.
The Colorado Delta used to be a true biological oasis featuring brackish, freshwater,
and saltwater wetland systems that housed thousands of species. 5 The delta is now dry, 3
(Baltz) (Kammerer) 5 (Sonoran Institute) 4
and species that used to thrive in the wetlands have also vanished. Low water levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead are threatening hydroelectric capacity and drinking water
supplies for the cities that most depend on Colorado River water. The Scripps Institute of Oceanography predicts that there is a 50% chance that hydroelectric will be functionally impossible at Lake Mead by 2017 and Lake Mead will be dry by 2021 if current use and climate trends continue unchecked. 6
Of the water that still makes its way through the Colorado River system, salinity and
sedimentation are becoming increasingly problematic. Manmade sources of salinity include leaching of coal materials, oil and gas production, consumptive use of high quality water, as well as municipal and industrial use of water. 7 Salts are becoming more concentrated in
the water as water levels continue to decrease. Also, due to the damming of the Colorado,
sediment can no longer be evenly distributed throughout the Basin. “The Colorado delivers
enough sediment to Lake Powell to fill 1,400 ship cargo containers each day. The dam traps it all, leaving the water below clear as air and starving plant and animal species in Grand
Canyon of the sediment they need for habitat and spawning.” 8 Increasing temperatures due to climate change will not be kind to the Basin. Snowmelt accounts for 75% of the
Colorado’s flow, which totals about 15 maf. A two degree Celsius temperature raise with no precipitation decrease could result in runoff decrease by 4-12%. The more likely scenario
is a 1-6% decrease in precipitation rates coupled with a 2 degree Celsius temperature raise.
(Mission 2012 Clean Water) (Mission 2012 Clean Water) 8 (Powell) 7
If this scenario were to occur, the reduced snowfall and rain could reduce in-stream flows by 4-18% over the next 50 years. 9
Several of the environmental problems plaguing the Colorado River stem from one
important fact: the Colorado River is overallocated. Its management is based on the Law of the River, a complex set of laws, treaties, and court cases that govern the use of the river. 10
The Colorado River has been overallocated from the outset, as the annual flow of the river was overestimated at the time the Colorado River Compact was written. 11 Parts of
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona comprise the Upper Basin states above
Lee’s Ferry, Utah while the Lower Basin states are California, Nevada, and Arizona below Lee’s Ferry. The Upper Basin and Lower Basin were each allocated 7.5 maf per year with
1.5 maf remaining for Mexico. 12 These fixed allocations have remained in place to this day
and cannot be easily adapted to account for variability of in-stream flows during drought conditions, despite coordinated efforts between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior to develop interim guidelines for Lower Basin water shortages. 13
The perennial question of who gets water first in the west is decided by prior
allocation water law. The prior appropriation doctrine governing the river is based in old California and Colorado mining rights dating to the mid-nineteenth century. 14
In a rugged mining environment where staking claims were important to ensure
rights to mine, the “first in time, first in right” method of establishing rights was completely 9
(Mission 2012 Clean Water) (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) 11 (Walkoviak) 12 (Colorado River Compact, 1922) 10
(Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation)
(Tarlock, The Future of Prior Appropriation in the New West)
reasonable. Prior allocation rights reward pioneering spirits and speak to principles of
justice. The central tenet of the prior allocation system for water rights is changing a public resource, water, into a private resource in perpetuity.
Prior allocation rights are quite simply private property rights, of which Americans
have historically been quite fond. â€œ [Prior appropriation] create[d] private rights in a
historic public resource, running water . . . by imposing minimal sharing rules through the beneficial use doctrine, providing at least the illusion of a clear allocation rule in times of shortage.â€? 15 The Doctrines of Beneficial Use, Abandonment, and Forfeiture are key elements of prior appropriation law. Through the Doctrines of Forfeiture and
Abandonment water rights can be stripped if the user is not putting the water to beneficial
use. 16 The prior appropriation doctrine has held strong throughout myriad court cases and
a handful of treaties, agreements, and acts over the last ninety years since the Colorado
Compact was adopted. This means that the prior appropriation doctrine has not significantly evolved to meet increased demand placed on the Colorado River Basin.
The Murray-Darling River Basin
reaches north into Queensland and
covers covering most of New South
Source: Sustainable Soils and Farms
Wales as well as parts of Victoria and
(Tarlock, The Future of Prior Appropriation in the New West) (Schempp)
South Australia. Its principal rivers, the Murray and Darling, converge just north of the
border of Victoria and end their journey at the Southern Ocean. The rivers measure 2,097
combined miles in length with a basin that covers 409,835 square miles of arid Australian bush.
Unlike the Colorado System that drops over 10,000 feet over the course of its
journey, the Murray-Darling River Basin is characterized by a relatively shallow gradient.
Most of the Basin is below 650 feet and has extremely limited runoff and wildly varying instream flows. Around two million people reside in the Murray-Darling River Basin—about 9% of Australia’s population— and it contributes about A$22 billion gross domestic
product. 17 Though larger in basin size and length, the Murray-Darling River Basin shares enough climactic and ecological similarities with the Colorado River to ensure an interesting comparison in management practices.
Like the United States and other countries featuring river systems in arid regions,
Australia has battled extreme drought, overallocation of water, political struggles, lack of public awareness of water as a finite resource, and the complex web of problems that
accompany the management of a river system in an arid climate. 18 Unlike the United States
in particular, Australia has completely reworked the legal framework of water allocation
and now boasts what some consider the most sophisticated water allocation scheme in the world. 19
To appreciate Australia’s dramatic water law changes in recent years it is first
important to understand the riparian water law system on which Australian water law was 17
(Haisman) (Australian Government: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office) 19 (Huang) 18
founded. Riparian water rights are derived from common pool resource allocation and
English common law. They allow property owners adjacent to any given water body to make reasonable use of the water. The rights of one owner are not considered more
important than any other user, and in times of drought water rights are determined based
on landowners’ amount of frontage to the water source. At the core of riparian water rights is the principle that water is a publicly owned resource, a fundamentally different cultural view that of American settlers. 20 It did not take long, however, for Australians to realize
that riparian rights are more aptly suited to areas that receive significantly more rainfall and areas that have less variability in river flows. By the early twentieth century it was
clear that the riparian system wouldn’t suffice and a revision of water law was needed. 21 The Water Act of 1912 was the answer Australians needed to ensure water
availability. While the New South Wales Water Rights Act of 1896 predates the Water Act, the Water Act was the first piece of comprehensive legislation that replaced riparian law
with a statutory framework of administrative permitting system. 22 The Water Act of 1912 was amended several times throughout the years until 2000 when it was replaced by the Water Management Act. The Water Act’s administrative system vested the Crown—
effectively the NSW government—the “use, control, and flow” of surface and ground
water. 23 Instead of using prior appropriation tenets of senior and junior water rights
granted in perpetuity, the Australian administrative system was based on a hierarchy of needs in times of drought. Users were allowed to water livestock and use water for
(Haisman) (Harris) 22 (Commonwealth of Australia) 23 (Haisman) 21
domestic purposes but any other extraction or diversion depended on the granting of a license that allowed users to divert water from a lake, river, or aquifer.
The most important feature of these licenses, especially when analyzing Australian
water law in conjunction with Western water law, is the fact that these licenses were
temporary, with a limited duration. Not only were time limits attached to permits, but
permits came attached to a variety of other limitations such as pollution caps and flow rates, as well as limits to the size of irrigated land. 24
Despite Australiaâ€™s improved administrative permitting system, intergovernmental
strife persisted in the Basin largely resulting from the decentralized governmental
structure. The River Murray Waters Agreement of 1914 was passed two years after the Water Act of 1912. The River Murray Waters Agreement required intergovernmental
agreement between all Basin states in all water-related decisions. The requirement led to
intense disagreement between Basin states as each state tended to pursue its own agenda. The Murray-Darling Basin Agreement was adopted in 1982 as an attempt to rectify
inter-state disagreements. Its opening paragraph states that the purpose of the Agreement
is for the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia to â€œpromote and co-ordinate effective planning and management for the equitable efficient and sustainable use of the water, land and environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin.â€? 25 The
updated plan signals a shift in governance toward a more coordinated, cooperative effort in water management which also coincides with severe droughts that struck Australia in the
(Haisman) (Commonwealth of Australia)
1980s and 1990s that resulted in over A$12 billion in damages, mostly in the agriculture sector. 26
Drought and increasing awareness of climate change-related riparian issues led the
Australian government to reform water law. While Australia has maintained their signature administrative water rights permitting system, the Australian government has introduced new initiatives, legislation, and programs to augment the permit system.
The focus of this paper is on a few key pieces of legislation, initiatives, and programs
to conserve water. At the heart of Australian water reform since 2000 is its centralized
management in the form of the Murray Darling Basin Authority. The MDBA was created in
2007 and is the principal government agency responsible for managing the Murray-Darling Basin in an integrated and sustainable manner. 27
The Water Act of 2007 established the MDBA and set forth a water market
regulatory scheme and established a management system for water entitlements that can be used to protect wetlands and streams. 28 The National Water Initiative of 2004
emphasizes intergovernmental cooperation and aims to create a regulatory, market
scheme to manage surface and groundwater that takes into account economic, social, and environmental factors. 29
As established in the National Water Market Initiative, Australia’s water market
scheme allows users to sell water rights—referred to as “trading” water rights—in
accordance with the type of water right they own. Many of the water rights in Australia are 26
(Australian Government) (Australian Government: Murray Darling Basin Authority) 28 (Australian Government: Murray Darling Baisn Authority) 29 (Australian Government: National Water Commission) 27
not connected to the physical land, which means that the rights can be easily traded. 30
Water trading exemplifies microeconomic reform by ensuring that water resources are more efficiently allocated.
Under the water trading scheme, water may be returned to the environment via the
Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, David Papps, and the Commonwealth
Environmental Water Office. 31 Environmental water is a key component of Australian
water reform. Recognizing the necessity of maintaining ecological health, Commonwealth
environmental water is managed by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office and a network of environmental water advisory groups, state governments, river operators, scientific organizations, and other partners. 32 Through the efforts of the CEWH and
partners, about 60% of Murray-Darling water remains in the rivers which helps reduce salinity and algal blooms as well as increase native fish and bird species and improve wetland health. 33
The Murray Darling Basin Authority provides centralized management of the Basin
and holds enforcement powers to ensure that water resources are protected. The Act also requires that the MDBA prepares a Basin Plan, an integrated and strategic method for achieving sustainable in-stream flows in the Basin. 34
Two main principles can be distilled from Australian water reform policies:
centralized management and environmental consideration. These are guiding principles
that should be adopted to usher in a new era of management in the Colorado River Basin. 30
(Australian Government: National Water Market) (Australian Government: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office) 32 (Australian Government: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office) 33 (Australian Government: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office) 34 (Australian Government: Murray Darling Basin Authority) 31
The United States hasn’t faced drought as severe as the Australian droughts of the 1980s— 1990s. Yet. Climate models predict severe drought in the west and water shortages will be inevitable unless water can be returned to the Basin to help maintain in-stream flows. 35 The central question of this paper asks: how can western water managers
implement systematic changes in the Colorado River Basin that will prioritize the human
and environmental right to water? While it may be extraordinarily difficult to rewrite the
prior appropriation doctrine on which western water law is based, certain revisions could be introduced over the span of fifty to seventy-five years that would result in significant changes in water administration in the west.
Western water reform should begin with the creation of a regional, basin-wide
management agency in the Colorado River Basin. Differences in individual states’
management priorities lead to a competitive attitude where each state tries to maximize its
allocation. Australian water reform was hampered by competing states’ individual interests until the creation of the Murray Darling Basin Authority. The key to creating a successful basin authority, as Australia has done, is to ensure scientific and political objectivity as
much as possible. The basin agency would be responsible for unifying divergent users and interests as well as developing water policy.
Central to riparian ecological health is the necessity for water to be returned to
riverine systems. Three changes that western water managers could implement are a water trading scheme, revision of the doctrines of forfeiture and abandonment, and a revision of the definition of beneficial use to include environmental returns as a beneficial use.
(Mission 2012 Clean Water)
First, a water trading scheme is essential to create a market for water rights. Luckily,
water rights are already unconnected to land in prior allocation law, which means an
economic incentive is needed to “downgrade” water rights by selling them to organizations that will keep the water in riparian systems. The Commonwealth of Australia is partnered with myriad organizations that return water to streams, including local organizations in specific catchments. 36
Implementing a water trading scheme would almost certainly prove difficult in the
Colorado River Basin, as it is governed by the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and Colorado already have state-specific water trading programs, but they do not extend to the Colorado River due to its interstate governance through the Colorado Compact. 37 Extending these rights to the Colorado River would be a legislative
challenge, but one that could open up the possibility of environmental organizations and agencies buying water rights to return water to riparian systems.
Also critical to encouraging the returning of water to the Colorado River is a revision
of the doctrines of forfeiture and abandonment and the definition of beneficial use. As prior allocation law is written, the doctrines of forfeiture and abandonment are included to ensure that water is put to beneficial use and isn’t hoarded for future use. In the early
twentieth century when overallocation wasn’t such a pressing problem, the doctrines of forfeiture and abandonment made sense.
Settling the land required water, and those who could use the water received
priority. Overallocation is an enormous problem in the 21st century, however, and
doctrines of forfeiture and abandonment are no longer necessary. Abandonment of a water 36 37
(Australian Government: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office) (Citron and Garrick)
right generally requires intent to not use the water right. Forfeiture is different in that it can occur regardless of intent to use the right if the right is not used within a specific timeframe, generally 5 to 10 years depending on the state. 38
Because of the threat of losing a water right if the water is not used, the doctrine of
forfeiture especially is a disincentive to conserving water. Revising or completely removing the doctrines of forfeiture and abandonment could remove the water conservation
disincentive by allowing users to leave their allocations in stream during periods where it is not needed without risk of losing the water right altogether.
The best way to directly address the problems associated with forfeiture and
abandonment is through explicit exemptions. Quite simply, the rules of forfeiture and
abandonment would not apply to a user who has decided to turn his or her water rights over to a water bank or organization that returns water to the riparian system. 39
Revising the term â€œbeneficial useâ€? to include leaving water in stream for ecological
purposes would allow users to forego using their allocations or portions thereof during times when the full allocation isnâ€™t needed. Revising the doctrines of forfeiture and
abandonment as well as a revision of the definition of beneficial use could be easier steps to implement than a water trading scheme or a permitting system.
A water permitting system, such as the license and permitting system adopted in
Australia, would be extraordinarily difficult to implement in the United States in a prior allocation framework. Australia had the good fortune and foresight to implement an
administrative permitting system as early as 1912, before overallocation became such a
monstrous problem. While a permitting system in the United States would help shift water
use to users who need it most and thus help eliminate the “use it or lose it” concept that
underpins prior allocation water law. It would also be extremely expensive to administer and track permits, which is something the United States government would have to be willing to fund.
Even without the adoption of a full-scale administrative permitting system, a water
trading scheme coupled with revisions of the doctrines of forfeiture, abandonment, and beneficial use could begin to improve water volume in the Colorado River Basin. The doctrine of prior appropriation, the basis of water law in the American west, is an inappropriate and inflexible method of water allocation in the west. Even though
historically the prior appropriation doctrine has worked to ensure fairness and use of water, this method is not sufficient to address looming water shortages in the west.
The future of the Colorado River Basin rests in attending to the ecological needs of
the Basin. Using elements of Australia’s model of water management could prove useful to Western water managers in revising elements of the prior appropriation doctrine that has defined western law.
The Colorado River Basin is suffering a multitude of ecological and hydrological
issues that can be traced back to one problem: there simply isn’t enough water in the Colorado River Basin. Establishing a basin-wide agency responsible for sustainable
management of the Colorado River Basin will be vital in implementing other water policy.
Similarly, introducing water trading and revision of key elements of the Colorado Compact can begin to address these problems. It will take a concerted effort on the part of multiple
agencies, water users, and the United States government to solve water shortage problems Geneva Faulkner
in the Colorado Basin, but this effort is essential in ensuring that Colorado River water is available for human and ecological needs for decades.
Bibliography Australian Government. Natural Disasters in Australia. 30 April 2008. 23 March 2013 <http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/natural-disasters>.
Australian Government: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office. Commonwealth Environmental Water Office. n.d. 20 April 2013 <http://www.environment.gov.au/ewater/>. —. Delivery Partners. n.d. 20 April 2013 <http://www.environment.gov.au/ewater/partners/index.html>.
—. What is Commonwealth environmental water? n.d. 23 March 2013 <http://www.environment.gov.au/ewater/about/about-water.html>.
Australian Government: Murray Darling Baisn Authority. Restoring Wetlands and Rivers to Life. 2013. 23 March 2013 <http://www.mdba.gov.au/what-we-do/environmentalwater/restoring-rivers-wetlands>. Australian Government: Murray Darling Basin Authority. Steps in the Development of the Baisn Plan. n.d. 20 April 2013 <http://www.mdba.gov.au/what-we-do/basinplan/development/steps-in-the-development-of-the-basin-plan>. —. Working with Others. 2013. 23 March 2013 <http://www.mdba.gov.au/what-wedo/working-with-others>.
Australian Government: National Water Commission. National Water Initiative. n.d. 23 March 2013 <http://nwc.gov.au/nwi>. Australian Government: National Water Market. Water Rights. n.d. 23 March 2013 <http://www.nationalwatermarket.gov.au/about/rights.html>.
Australian Water Government: National Water Commission. Strengthening Australia's Water Markets. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2011.
Baltz, Tripp. Colorado River Study Looked to Future But Did Not Open Up 'Law of the River'. 20 March 2013. 23 March 2013 <http://www.bna.com/colorado-river-studyn17179872874/>. Geneva Faulkner
Citron, A. and D. Garrick. Benefitting Landowners and Desert Rivers: A Water Rights Handbook for Conservation Agreements in Arizona. Tucson: Arizona Land and Water Trust, 2009. "Colorado River Compact, 1922." 22 November 1922. 23 March 2013 <http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf>. Commonwealth of Australia. "Murray-Darling Basin Agreement." 1992.
â€”. "Water Act of 1912." 8 January 2010. New South Wales Consolidated Acts. 2 April 2013 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/wa191283/>. Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation. Record of Decision: Colorado Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Mead. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, 2007.
Fleck, John. What Seven States Can Agree to Do: Deal-Making on the Colorado River. n.d. 19 March 2013 <http://www.stanford.edu/group/ruralwest/cgibin/drupal/content/what-seven-states-can-agree-do-deal-making-colorado-river>. Haisman, Brian. "Impacts of Water Rights Reform in Australia." Haisman, Brian. Impacts of Water Rights Reform in Australia . n.d. 113-150.
Harris, Edwyna. "The Persistence of Correlative Water Rights in Colonial Australia: A Theoretical Contradiction?" November 2008. Monash University Business and Politics. 2 April 2013 <http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/papers/2008/1108persistence harris.pdf>. Huang, Yee. A Tale of Two Countries: Lessons from Australia for Water Law in the United States? 22 March 2010. 24 March 2013 <http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=860CB207-02D4-BB7AB891B40E9ECFF220>. Kammerer, J.C. Largest Rivers in the United States. 1990. 30 March 2013 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/ofr87-242/>.
McMillon, Scott. Watered Down: Can the Mighty Colorado River Reach the Sea? n.d. 1 April 2013 <http://magazine.nature.org/features/watered-down.xml>.
Mission 2012 Clean Water. Colorado River. n.d. 24 March 2013 <http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2012/finalwebsite/problem/coloradoriver.s html#geology>. Geneva Faulkner
National Parks Conservation Association. Park Friends in the Colorado River Basin. n.d. 10 April 2013 <http://www.npca.org/about-us/regional-offices/southwest/coloradoriver-program-office/park-friends-colorado-river.html>. Powell, James. Calamity on the Colorado . July 2010. 24 March 2013 <http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5617/>.
Schempp, Adam. Western Water in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute, 2009. Schneider, Keith. Australia's Food Bowl, Like the World's, Is Drying Up. 9 March 2009. 23 March 2013 <http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2009/world/australiadrought-water-warning/>.
Sonoran Institute. Colorado River Delta Restoration. n.d. 23 March 2013 <http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/where-we-work/northwest-mexico/coloradoriver-delta/381-colorado-river-delta-restoration-.html>. South Australia Government. Water, Energy, and Environment. n.d. 21 April 2013 <http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/water%2C+energy+and+environment>. Sustainable Soils and Farms. Murray Darling Basin Overview. n.d. 10 April 2013 <http://ssaf.com.au/murray-darling-basin/>.
Tarlock, A. Dan. "Prior Appropriation: Rule, Principle, or Rhetoric?" North Dakota Law Review (2000): 881-910. â€”. "The Future of Prior Appropriation in the New West." Natural Resources Journal (2001): 769-793. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Law of the River. March 2008. 30 March 2013 <http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html>.
USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Colorado Basin Salinity Control Program. n.d. 3 April 2013 <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/alphabeti cal/?cid=stelprdb1044198>. USGS. "Sediment Delivery by Ungaged Tributaries of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon." 2001. Walkoviak, Larry. Transmittal of the Basin Study Proposal -- Colorado River Basin States. Memorandum. Salt Lake City: U.S. Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation, 2009. Geneva Faulkner
Published on May 13, 2013
A paper analyzing solutions to Australia's water crisis and possible solutions to address the looming western United States water crisis.