Wyoming’s water is worth more than we think

Representative Harriet Hageman and I disagree on almost everything politically, but on one issue she is absolutely right. Wyoming needs to protect its water. It is our most valuable natural resource. It keeps our communities alive, supports our ranches and sustains our entire economy.

Long after coal and oil decline, water will still matter. And if other states want more of it, they should pay for it.

The recent debate over the Colorado River shows why. More than a hundred years ago, the western states signed the Colorado River Compact. At the time, the population of the West was small, and no one could imagine the growth that would come later.

The compact split the river into two groups. The Upper Basin consists of four states: Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. The Lower Basin includes California, Arizona and Nevada. Each group was given an equal amount of water based on what the river was producing back in 1922.

The problem is that the river no longer produces that much water. Long droughts, climate change and massive demand have shrunk the Colorado River. Yet the Lower Basin, especially California, continues to use more than its share.

California still relies on aqueducts built in the 1960s and has delayed costly upgrades like desalination, recycling and modern irrigation. Instead of fixing the problem at home, the Lower Basin keeps pushing the Upper Basin to send more water downstream.

Wyoming has done the opposite. We have modernized agriculture, improved efficiency and used far less than our legal allocation. But that restraint has created an unhealthy expectation that we will always be the ones to sacrifice.

This needs to change.

If California wants more water than the compact provides, then they should pay for it. Wyoming should treat water like we treat other natural resources. We would never hand billions of dollars in oil or natural gas to another state for free. Water should be no different.

Putting a real price on our unused allocation would do two things. First, it would bring significant revenue into Wyoming, money that could strengthen our schools, repair infrastructure and build savings for the future.

Second, it would force California to conserve, because buying extra water would finally cost more than fixing their outdated systems.

But Wyoming cannot do this alone. All four Upper Basin states share similar challenges and similar responsibilities under the compact. If we stand together, we can insist on fair treatment and protect what the agreement guarantees us.

A united Upper Basin can push back against the assumption that shortages should always come from upstream. Together, we can make it clear that water has value and that any state wanting more of it must be willing to pay.

Wyoming has an opportunity here. Hageman’s view should push the conversation forward. Our water is a renewable, long-term asset. If we protect it, manage it and price it fairly, it can secure our future in ways no boom-and-bust commodity ever has.

The first step is simple: recognize its worth and stand with our neighboring states to defend it.