The Colorado River Board of California (CRB) represents California’s rights to and interests in resources provided by the 1,450-mile-long Colorado River, and works with other state governments, Native American Indian tribes and federal agencies with a shared interest in the river. About 17 million Californians receive water and hydroelectric electricity energy from the Colorado River. The board is part of the Natural Resources Agency.

Colorado River Board (CRB website)

The Colorado River is 1,450 miles long, with headwaters in northern Colorado and tributaries throughout the Southwest. It flows all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Before the 20^th century, its waters could go from a trickle to raging torrent virtually overnight, but cooperation between the states eventually led to the taming of the river through the use of huge dams and an intricate system of controls that provide water to urban and agricultural customers alike.

The Colorado River Board of California was created by legislation in 1937, but disputes and opinions over who was entitled to access the river’s water date back decades before the board’s formation. At the heart of the issue was the fact that the river could not support uncontrolled access by the states within the river basin as well as Mexico to the south.

After years of contentious negotiations, the seven Southwest states signed the Colorado River Compact in 1922 as part of an agreement engineered by Congress, dividing the river basin into two parts and allocating water to its members. The Upper Basin included Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and a sliver of Arizona. The Lower Basin included California, Nevada and most of Arizona.

The strategy that was ultimately adopted doled out the water equally between the two divisions but left unanswered how the states themselves would divvy their shares. Arizona, fearing a greedy and thirsty California, was particularly unhappy with the compact and it was a major political issue. It was said at the time that Jesus may have walked on water, but  Arizona Governor W.P. Hunt ran on the Colorado River. (The state refused to sign the compact until 1944.)

An attempt to divide the water rights between the states failed in 1925 and in 1928 federal legislation was passed authorizing construction of Boulder Dam. The dam—which was actually built in Black Canyon, not Boulder Canyon as originally planned—was the subject of a name dispute that confounded map makers and the public for years before a consensus settled on Hoover Dam.

Arizona filed water allocation lawsuits against California and other states from 1931-1936. It lost the suits, but in response to the burden of protecting the state’s interests, California created the Colorado River Commissioner post—which reported directly to the governor—and the Colorado River Board to act as his advisor.

The duties of the commissioner were made subject to the direction of the board in 1940. The board’s six members were appointed by the governor but each appointee represented a major water agency, including Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, San Diego County Water Authority, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District and the Palo Verde Irrigation District.

The board was generally regarded as a creature of the special water interests that ran it and was heavily involved in state water policy. California is unique among the Colorado River basin states in that the U.S. Department of Interior signs contracts directly with the water agencies rather than with the state, to determine water allocations. 

In 1944, the U.S. signed a treaty with Mexico designating that 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water be delivered across the international border. In years of “surplus,” Mexico can have more water and in years of “extraordinary drought” it gets less. The CRB is charged with maintaining the resources impacted by the treaty through cooperative efforts with U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission and other states.

In 1952, eight years after Arizona reluctantly and belatedly ratified the 1922 compact, that state took its disagreements over water apportionment with California to the courts. One of the issues is whether Arizona’s taking of water from the Gila River, a Colorado River tributary, counted as part of its allocation. A special master was appointed to oversee a solution and the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Arizona v. California, settled the dispute (in Arizona’s favor on the tributary issue) and cleared the way for the 1968 Central Arizona Project which allowed that state to tap the river with a diversion canal and build the largest aqueduct system in the United States.

The board was chaired by one man, Ray Rummonds of the Coachella Valley Water District, from 1957-1998 except for the eight years Jerry Brown was governor. Brown not only selected his own board chairman from 1975-1983, he was instrumental in having the Legislature change the composition of the board by adding three public members, and the directors of the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Water Resources. The recomposition of the board was part of a compromise with Brown, who indicated his preference was to eliminate it. (The third public member was eventually dropped, forming today’s board makeup.)

The changes were generally regarded as instrumental in shifting the board’s focus from policymaking to a more informational, advisory role.

In January 2005, the CRB made Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s list of 100 boards he wanted eliminated. But the board survived. In May 2011, Governor Brown once again proposed eliminating the board. Although the board is self-funded, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office supported Brown, saying that the state pays administrative costs in dealings for the board. Brown eventually dropped the proposal.

Chronology (U.S. Department of the Interior–Bureau of Reclamation)

Colorado River Law and Policy: Frequently Asked Questions (Colorado River Governance Initiative) (pdf)

Inventory of the Records of the Colorado River Board of California (Online Archive of California)

Oral History – Douglas Noble (Colorado River Water Users Association)

Oral History – Duane Georgeson (Colorado River Water Users Association)

Arizona v. California (US Supreme Court Center)

Something for Everyone (by Ben Preston, Miller McCune)

Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact (by Joe Gelt, Water Resources Research Center)

2011 Review: Water Quality Standards for Salinity Colorado River System (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum)

Governor Gets Support From Both Parties (by Rudy Yniguez, Imperial Valley Press)

Gov. Jerry Brown May Restructure Water Boards, Throwing Ag Rules Into Doubt (by Jason Hoppin, Santa Cruz Sentinel)

Summary of LAO Findings and Recommendations on the 2011-12 Budget (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

The 10-member Colorado River Board is comprised of six major water authorities in California, two state agencies and two at-large citizens. Its 2011 chairman, Dana Bart Fisher, Jr., was from the Palo Verde Irrigation District, and other board members hailed from the Los Angeles Water and Power Department, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District of  Southern California. Representatives from the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Water Resources are non-voting ex-officio members.

The board represents California’s interests in and rights to Colorado River water, and works with other state water agencies, as well as California natural resource agencies and federal agencies, to aim for optimal use of the river. Most of the water from the Colorado used by Californians is for agricultural or urban use in Southern California.

The board represents California in discussions about the river with the federal government, Indian tribes and other states in implementing joint programs to protect the environment and maintain water availability. Among its chief concerns is the river’s salt content. The board works to implement already agreed upon state and federal standards of water salinity.

The board also serves as administrator for the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project in California. This project requires the board to review and approve or deny usage of the water form the Colorado River for subcontractors.

The CRB is funded by its six member water agencies. All of the board’s 2011-2012 budget of $1.6 million was spent on employee salaries and benefits and operating expenses.

2011-12 Budget (Ebudget)

3-Year Budget (pdf) 

Sharing With Mexico

The landmark Colorado River Pact of 1922 did not include Mexico, located at the tail end of the Colorado River, other than to say that water would be taken equally from the upper and lower basin “should a deal with Mexico be negotiated in the future.”

That future deal was the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico that stipulated a set amount of water to be shared subject to drought or “surplus” conditions mostly determined by the United States. But despite this treaty and a host of other  negotiations, litigations and agreements, serious ambiguities have left bodies like the Colorado River Board struggling to resolve ongoing issues.

The Colorado River is the main source of water for the state of Baja California. After a major earthquake in April 2010, an aqueduct that starts in Mexicali and heads west toward Tijuana and other cities was damaged along with other aqueducts and canals that fan out and supply the region. Mexico at first considered trying to strike a deal to temporarily store water in Lake Mead (at Hoover Dam) and tap it during 2011 if needed.

The proposal was discussed at the June 2010 meeting of the CRB in preparation for the board’s participation of the Bi-National Consultive Group meeting later that month. Early in 2011, the U.S. and Mexico reached agreement on three areas of collaboration, including the Lake Mead storage pact that would run through 2013 when irrigation system repairs are hopefully completed.

Not everyone was happy. The Imperial Irrigation District Board, which operates near the border, argued that it too wanted reserves stashed at Lake Mead and should be accorded the same considerations as Mexico.

An alternative plan has also been broached in anticipation of future such problems that would involve tapping the All-American Canal that parallels the U.S.-Mexican border, mostly to its north. It would be completed by 2014 if pursued.

The All-American Canal has been a point of contention between the two countries since its construction in 1942. Seepage from the canal provided significant water to aquifers in Mexico until six years ago when, with financing from the San Diego County Water Authority, a lining was placed on an earthen portion of the canal. The project affected wetlands as well as farmers and drew protests from both sides of the border, including the Mexican government. The U.S. declined to do an environmental impact report.

“The U.S. played hardball on the All-American Canal,” said Stephen Mumme, a water-rights expert at Colorado State University.   

But playing hardball with Mexico over Colorado River Water far predates the All-American Canal. Before the U.S. dammed up the river, the Colorado created a vast delta at its terminus in Mexico, encompassing 2.5 million acres of wetlands and providing habitat to an estimated 400 species of plants and animals. After the damming, Mexico was doled out a relatively small amount of water that in a normal year falls short of reaching what had been its natural termination in the Gulf of Mexico.

When the federal Bureau of Reclamation was developing an environmental management plan for the Lower Colorado River in 1999, two environmental groups quit the project in protest of a refusal to even consider the needs of the Mexican delta. The CRB passed a resolution that recommended excluding the delta from discussions.

“It was the board's opinion that with the limited time and money available to us, what we need to do now is focus on developing the LCRMSCP [the plan] within the U.S.,” said Gerald Zimmerman, executive director of the Colorado River Board of California.

Deciding About the Colorado River Delta (by S. Joshua Newcom, Water Education Foundation)

Canal Plan Spells Trouble for Mexican Crops (by Sandra Dibble, San Diego Union-Tribune)

Mexico Might Receive Colorado River Water Via the All-American Canal (by George J. Janczyn, Groksurg’s San Diego)

CRB June 2010 Meeting (CRB website) (pdf)

U.S., Mexico Boost Collaboration on Colorado River (by Sandra Dibble, San Diego Union-Tribune)

IID Wants a Say in Mexico Request (by George Gale, KXO radio)

California vs. Arizona

Arizona and California have not gotten along on water issues since the Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922. Even after the Colorado River Board was formed in 1937, Arizona’s representatives in Colorado River matters were worried about having to give the lion’s share of their 7.5 million acre-feet to California, which was a bourgeoning economic powerhouse. The fact that California contributes the least amount of runoff to the Colorado River reinforced Arizona’s antagonism.

Building of the Hoover Dam during the Great Depression intensified Arizona’s fears about losing river water to California, as the law that enabled construction of the Boulder Canyon Project included language about increasing California’s access to the river. Arizona took to the courts, hoping to have the bill overturned, but was unsuccessful. It sued to stop construction of the Parker Dam in 1934 and lost, prompting the Arizona governor to briefly send troops to the site before relenting. Arizona sued California eight more times over water issues during the next 70 years, and had its greatest success in 1963 when the U.S. Supreme Court  divvied up the water in a fashion that was favorable to the state.

Arizona Fends Off a Water “Invasion” (by Timothy Farrington, The Daily)

Something for Everyone (by Ben Preston, Miller-McCune)

Sharing Colorado River Water: History, public policy and the Colorado River Compact (by Joe Gelt, Water Resources Research Center)

Hoover Dam (Water Encyclopedia)

To Cut or Not to Cut

Governor Jerry Brown tried to eliminate the Colorado River Board the first time he was elected governor back in 1974. He settled for adding three members of the public and two state officials to the board. Brown didn’t waste any time going after the board in his second go-round as governor. Just months after his 2010 election, Brown put it on his list of 40-plus state entities he wanted axed, but quickly backed off.   

For Elimination

The Colorado River Board functions as a state agency, but is essentially run by six officials from independent water agencies in Southern California. Their interests are parochial and they don’t answer to the broader electorate in any fashion. Yet, they weigh in on matters of the gravest importance for the state at large.

California is unique among the seven states in the Colorado River Basin in not having a direct state government role in Colorado River matters. Colorado River water issues don’t exist in a vacuum. Any discussion of water use necessarily demands a consideration of a range of issues including conservation, the environment, urban vs. agricultural needs, relations with other states, relations with Mexico and interaction with the federal government.

California has a number of state entities that deal with water issues and are better positioned to carry out the board’s functions. The Department of Water Resources could absorb the board’s staff, which already conducts most of the board’s business. The department’s director has sat on the board since Governor Brown’s forced reorganization in 1975.

Although the Schwarzenegger administration calculated only a $9,500 a year savings in board member expenses when it proposed eliminating the CRB in 2005, the 2011-12 Revised Budget’s chapter on Reducing State Government now estimates an $800,000 saving through redirection of administrative support.

Against Elimination

It’s not 1975 and the Colorado River Board is no longer an insular, parochial fiefdom making critical decisions about water rights without state input.

Its members are appointed by the governor and its role is primarily advisory. The six board members who come from water agencies bring with them years of varied experience with a perspective not generally appreciated in Sacramento. The water agency members aren’t crass political appointees looking for a lucrative cubbyhole from which to plot their next career move. They are established professional with deep experience in water issues who tend to stick around in the job.

They not only know the issues; they know the players. And they have the contracts. As Association of California Water Agencies Executive Director Stephen K. Hall pointed out in 2005 when Governor Schwarzenegger tried to eliminate the board, California contracts for Colorado River water are administered by the water agencies, not the state. If the board disappears, a very complicated adjustment in the contractual arrangements with federal and power contract holders will have to be made.

Many environmentalists worried that eliminating the boards would also eliminate regional agriculture rules. This, they argued, would allow farmers to do as they pleased with water and runoff, and leave the people around farmlands with impure drinking water. Those opposing the elimination saw the potential loss of the Colorado River Board as an open door for more pollution in the water supply.

Others argue that losing the Colorado River Board would ultimately water down California’s strong voice in the discussions with out-of-state agencies. Consolidation would cause the governing body to focus on more than just the Colorado, and cause a more general, widespread focus, rather than a concentrated effort. Some feared the loss of local control, as well.

Summary of LAO Findings and Recommendations on the 2011-12 Budget (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Gov. Jerry Brown May Restructure Water Boards, Throwing Ag Rules Into Doubt (by Jason Hoppin, Santa Cruz Sentinel)

Reforming California’s Boards and Commissions (A letter from Association of California Water Agencies Executive Director Stephen Hall) (pdf)

Reducing State Government (pdf)

Lloyd W. Allen, 2002 – 2006

Virgil Jones, 1998 – 2002

Ray Rummonds, 1984 – 1998

Patricia Nagle, 1975 – 1983

Ray Rummonds, 1965 – 1974