How did we pass plan yet still fail?
Did the goalposts just move on us? We’ve known for quite some time that not every I would be dotted and T would be crossed by the feds’ Jan. 31 deadline to join the Drought Contingency Plan, which aims to keep Lake Mead from tanking to critical levels.
The gamble was that if we passed the plan legislatively by then, the federal Bureau of Reclamation would recognize what a monumental action that was and give us a pass.
Yet media reports suggest that Reclamation is lumping Arizona with California, which clearly did not meet the deadline, in its reasoning for taking an action that we had all hoped to avoid.
It’s easy to feel betrayed by that, to conclude that Arizona was asked to move mountains and then when we did, we were told it still wasn’t good enough.
Particularly given how cagey Reclamation has been in explaining what it meant by “done.” Officials have been loath to offer specifics since the deadline was set.
Commissioner Brenda Burman told reporters in a conference call Friday that “neither California nor Arizona have completed all of the necessary work,” and that “close isn’t done.”
Yet Reclamation praised Arizona for meeting the Jan. 31 deadline in a tweet, noting that “with this huge step forward, we are more optimistic than ever that all seven Basin states will put a plan in place to protect the Basin this year.”
It remains unclear if the agency is happy with us for getting legislative approval, if it’s holding our feet to the fire for not having buttoned up an agreement with the other states to let us store more water in Lake Mead, or if it thinks we’re not done because there are still a slew of agreements to complete the implementation plan — which doesn’t preclude our joining the three-state deal but rather affects how we dole out its cuts within Arizona. That’s unfortunate.
Arizona should be celebrating one of the most important votes lawmakers have made in years. Instead, we’re left scratching our heads over what more — if anything — Reclamation wants from us.
The agency issued a notice in the federal register Feb. 1 saying it intends to solicit comments from the seven Colorado River basin states on what kind of actions it should take — a nuclear option that no one wants to see.
Such comments would likely tear apart working relationships among states, because things would be said that can’t be unsaid about who deserves water and who doesn’t. Arizona stands to lose the most in that process, partly because it has junior water rights and partly because the perception persists (incorrect as it is) that Arizona remains a holdout on this deal.
The good news is Reclamation isn’t planning to collect comments until March 4, and it has said it will cancel things entirely if states button up all the details before then.
I’d still like to see Reclamation clarify that the pressure’s largely on California now, considering that several signatories haven’t given the final authorization our Legislature just did.
That doesn’t mean Arizona is off the hook to finish the agreements that will make our implementation plan tick.
But it’s not fair that we are once again doing damage control, reminding our basin brethren about just how much work Arizona has done. No other state has agreed to take the level of cuts we have. No other state was required to get legislative approval to join the deal. No other state has done the level of planning we have to implement its cuts.
And despite all that, we still weren’t the last to sign.
Because perception often clouds reality, and it’s so hard to kill the idea that Arizona just doesn’t want to play ball, I suspect we’ll be repeating those words a lot over the next few weeks.