A tale of two rivers: Comparing water management strategies at the Jordan and Colorado rivers

The Jordan River in the Middle East and the Colorado River in the western United States are exceptionally similar.  Both rivers are crucial water resources to growing populations living in the surrounding low rainfall landscapes, areas of the world that climate change models predict will become warmer and dryer in the future. The Lower Jordan River stretches between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea and serves as the border between Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This stretch of river experiences minimal in-stream flows. Extremely over-allocated by extensive diversion projects, the river is constrained by increasing water demands from the agricultural, industrial, and domestic sectors. Like the Jordan, the Colorado River, which provides water to the southwestern U.S. and northwestern Mexico, is tremendously over-allocated and faces additional constraints from an increasing population. Most of Arizona is situated within the Lower Colorado River Basin. Irrigation for farming operations consumes most, 70 percent, of the total water allocated to Arizona.
 
In a recent study published in The Journal of Arid Environments, a team of researchers from the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Tel Hai College in Israel and the University of Arizona compared the two river basins and addressed the driving forces that influence water management in each location. By focusing on Israel, in the Lower Jordan River Basin, and Arizona, within the Lower Colorado River Basin, the authors argue that policy decisions affecting each river root from similar driving forces. Understanding these driving forces is essential to evaluating future policy possibilities that decision makers could implement to improve water management.
 
The authors identify common external drivers that constrain and define water management policy tools in the Jordan and Colorado River Basins. These drivers include: (1) over-allocation to users; (2) the nature of regulatory bodies governing water distribution; (3) problems that arise between countries and states that share the resource; and (4) in-stream water demand for environmental services. Each driver is evaluated in the context of both river basins to better understand current regional water policy strategies. The authors suggest that water governance is the most critical driving force, and that differing forms of regulation between regions leads to site-specific water management choices.          
 
Israel's water governance is characterized by a centralized water management system. This means that the Israeli government is in charge of providing clean water to its citizens as a public good (as opposed to defining water as private property). Due to this type of water governance, the most important water policies to emerge in Israel are characterized by "hard path" solutions. "Hard path" solutions include large-scale infrastructure projects such as desalination and wastewater treatment plants that have the ultimate goal of increasing water reserves, thereby satisfying the demand of Israeli citizens.
 
The U.S., on the other hand, allows individual states like Arizona to construct their own rules and regulations. Arizona water is managed under the "Law of the River," a series of court rulings and laws that dictate how water is to be distributed to users. Specifically, water rights in Arizona are prioritized first to senior users (those who, during the days of western settlement, diverted and used water first) and then to junior users. Under this system distribution of water to all users becomes difficult when supplies dwindle. In response, Arizona uses both "hard" and "soft path" policy options to ensure water access. ("Soft path" solutions include water conservation, rainwater collection, and the use of less water intensive crops.)
 
The study also evaluates how the driving forces and resulting policy approaches affect future efforts to allocate water for environmental purposes. The authors suggest that in Israel, political conflict between Middle Eastern countries sharing the Lower Jordan River will challenge efforts to restore the ecological integrity of the river. On the other hand, river restoration in Arizona is obstructed by high economic costs and rigid water rights; it is very expensive to pipe in surface water to water scarce areas and doing so for environmental purposes is a low priority. To reach future river restoration goals, it is important for Israel to engage in peaceful resolutions to Middle Eastern conflict, while it will be important for Arizona to legally identify and prioritize in-stream flows.
                 
Future climate change impacts and constant population growth will continue to challenge both the Jordan and Colorado River Basins. This study acknowledges the importance of understanding the drivers behind water policy decisions in Israel and Arizona in order to develop feasible pathways for the future. The importance of this type of analysis, however, stretches beyond the watersheds discussed in this report. The ability of water managers from around the world to understand this cause-and-effect relationship within their own river basins is crucial in order to develop appropriate and effective water management solutions.