President Donald Trump’s executive order regarding California water rights is simplistic and foolish. But it does highlight an issue that requires urgent and thoughtful action throughout the western United States.
With climate change leading to extended droughts and drying forests — and with population growth increasing demand for hydropower in exchange for electricity generated from fossil fuels — water usage will be a significant point of debate in coming decades. The major rivers of the West, particularly the Columbia River, are likely to be the subject of political conflicts between states and municipalities.
That is beyond the purview of an executive order, and Trump cannot be expected to solve extensive issues with the stroke of a pen. Congress should begin discussions regarding what promises to be a generational problem.
With that said, the executive order issued on the first day of Trump’s return to office demands attention. The order — titled “Putting people over Fish: Stopping Radical Environmentalism to Provide Water to Southern California” — directs federal fish and water managers “to route more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to other parts of the state for use by the people there who desperately need a reliable water supply.”
The directive comes during severe wildfires throughout Southern California, which have been exacerbated by a lack of water to prevent the blazes and to fight them. The order would circumvent federal and state laws governing California’s water system, providing one of many examples of how Congress has abdicated its duties and allowed presidents of both parties to wield imperial powers.
It also provides an example of how Trump embraces nonsensical approaches to complex issues.
“Los Angeles has massive amounts of water available to it,” he said. “All they have to do is turn the valve.” He added that California Gov. Gavin Newsom “can release the water that comes from the north” and said, “there is massive amounts of water, rainwater and mountain water that comes through with the snow, comes down as it melts. There’s so much water they’re releasing it into the Pacific Ocean.”
As Tom Holyoke, a water politics expert at Fresno State University, told The Washington Post: “The president is injecting himself into a difficult, complex situation that people have been working on for years. There is no ‘valve.’ ”
During his campaign for the 2024 election, Trump vaguely recommended diverting water from the Columbia River to Southern California. It is an absurd, unmanageable proposition, but it reflects broader issues that are growing in importance.
The Colorado River, for example, provides a significant portion of the water supply for seven states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California and Nevada. Media reports Monday detailed that Arizona officials are seeking state funding for “a possible legal battle as it negotiates a new multistate agreement over how Colorado River water is allocated in the event additional cuts are needed.”
That presages coming legal battles throughout the West as states seek water for irrigation, consumption and fighting wildfires. Decisions made in the coming years will have a long-term impact on agriculture and development throughout the West.
That will require significant legislation rather than an executive order at the whim of a president. Trump’s dictum is not expected to pass legal muster, but it should grab the attention of lawmakers.
