3 ms·
Each state has water rights assigned by a priority system within the state. So you know your priority level within Arizona. Arizona, Nevada, Utah and others sp
by HWR_14 4y ago
Each state has water rights assigned by a priority system within the state. So you know your priority level within Arizona.
Arizona, Nevada, Utah and others split up the Colorado river between them. That split does not use a priority system. So the person in Arizona in a bad year with a high priority is still behind people in other states with a lower priority, as long as that state doesn't use more than their water. And water rights cannot transfer between states.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIm not sure which of my points you are addressing. Water rights are state specific, so as you say, individuals know there priority within the state. Most interstate conflicts are between the states as entities, and have a different means of reconciliation: equitable apportionment adjudicated by the supreme court when necessary. prior utilization plays a large part in equitable apportionment, but is not the only consideration. If one state uses more than their water, they can be sued for damages by the harmed state. Im still not sure how this relates to your original claim that there are too many water rights, or what you mean by "too many". too many for what? too many for water to be left for the environment? too many to count on your fingers and toes?
- HWR_14 4y agoThe states have a 100 year old interstate compact dictating water distribution. It doesn't get readjusted every year or anything similar