This story was originally published byGrist.
That equals around a trillion gallons, or roughly 13 percent of the states total water usage.
Most of the reductions are likely to come from farming operations.
A sprinkler system sprays crops with water from an irrigation canal set in Imperial Valley, an agricultural area that traditionally uses water from the Colorado River.Photo: Brent Stirton (Getty Images)
Many had anticipated a more painful resolution to the crisis.
This deal does not address the long-term water sustainability challenges in the region.
The basic blueprint of the deal is not new.
The other issue is that conserving water is expensive.
I think theres real concern that this is voluntary now, but it could come back and bite you.
Frisvold says these payments will be hard to maintain over the long term.
We have a bunch of IRA money to pay for this right now, he told Grist.
But is this going to be an ongoing thing?
Its kind of up in the air.
Until recently, these experimental conservation programs were just that experiments.
It is all but impossible to do that without using less water for agriculture.
The Biden administration kicked off the scramble last summer by delivering an ultimatum to the river states.
The administrationthreatened to impose unilateral water cutsif the states couldnt reach a deal on their own.
The states tangled for months over who should shoulder the burden of reducing water usage.
Who should use less water to account for the rivers decline?
How can the government make whole thetribal nations that still dont have their water?
Even amid the relief surrounding Mondays deal, some water officials were already looking ahead.
Theres a lot to do and its time to focus.
This article originally appeared inGristathttps://grist.org/drought/colorado-river-deal-arizona-nevada-california-conservation-agriculture/.
Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future.
News from the future, delivered to your present.
