They are part of a 1940s treaty. But it’s more about what’s not being considered in the drought solution.
The US can back out if it chooses. That’s not the best first option, but if it comes down to it that should be considered. The water rights of the Colorado have been friendly up until now, as there’s always been enough water to go around.
Giving water to Mexico is only one driver, but it is a big one. The primary driver of water use is agricultural.
That treaty needs a refresh, but also maybe so does farming in the southwest. Chastising over-watering suburbanites just isn’t going to solve anything.
i don’t understand why a country on a natural river suddenly has no right to that river. if we were to dry up a river on purpose, to prevent another country from it is an incredibly hostile act.
i assume you see this climate thing as an emergency and therefore we must take extreme measures.
this argument is as flawed as “chastising over-watering suburbanites”, but instead of shifting the blame from agriculture to city dwellers, you’re allowing humans to suffer in another country so you don’t have to. shame
The US can back out if it chooses. That’s not the best first option, but if it comes down to it that should be considered. The water rights of the Colorado have been friendly up until now, as there’s always been enough water to go around.
Giving water to Mexico is only one driver, but it is a big one. The primary driver of water use is agricultural.
That treaty needs a refresh, but also maybe so does farming in the southwest. Chastising over-watering suburbanites just isn’t going to solve anything.