The Brief

Thousands of homes have been lost in the Los Angeles fires. More have been damaged or coated in soot and ash.

Many of those who lost homes — temporarily, or permanently — are renters. What comes next for those tenant households has generated a lot of confusion. Other L.A. renters outside the burn areas are also worried about new rent increases or pressure to move out.

“We were already in a shortage of units, and now that shortage has just gotten even greater,” said Matthew Calcanas, an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. “There's a lot of tenants who are concerned.”

LAist reporters spoke with housing rights experts to produce this guide for tenants and landlords about the legal protections, responsibilities and next steps involved in recovering from the fires.

We are not lawyers, and this guide will inevitably miss some of the specific problems you may be encountering. If you need further help, tenant rights experts recommend you reach out to StayHousedLA.org, a publicly funded coalition of local legal aid organizations.

Rent and deposits

If I paid January rent, will I get it back? 

This will depend on the extent of the damage to your unit.

If your home was destroyed, California law says your lease is canceled. Your landlord can keep the portion of rent you paid for the days you were able to live in your unit. But the landlord must give back the rest of this month’s payment. The same applies if your unit was damaged to the point of uninhabitability, and you choose to terminate your lease rather than wait for repairs.

However, if your home suffered minor damage, you still owe rent. The L.A. County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs says you should push your landlord to make necessary repairs. But as long as the unit is livable, your obligation to pay rent stands.

Will I get back my security deposit? 

If your rental unit was destroyed in the fires, the rental contract is no longer valid and your landlord must give back your deposit.

“ Within 21 days of a tenant moving out, the landlord has to get the security deposit back to you,” said Abid Aziz, a tenants' rights attorney with the Aziz Yellin law firm. A landlord cannot reduce your deposit if the unit was destroyed, he added.

Aziz said if the landlord refuses to give back your deposit, you can sue them in small claims court.

Damage and relocation costs

Can I get help with relocation costs? 

This depends on many factors, such as your insurance coverage, your eligibility for federal aid, and any potential obligations your landlord may have.

If you have renters insurance, check your policy for what’s covered under loss of use and additional living expenses. Then file a claim to get what you're owed.

If you don’t have renters insurance, you can apply for federal aid through FEMA.

If neither of those options work, it's possible that your landlord may be required to cover your relocation expenses, but only in certain circumstances.

If your unit was completely destroyed, your landlord does not need to pay relocation assistance, according to the county Department of Consumer and Business Affairs.

If your unit was damaged, but able to be occupied after necessary repairs, your landlord may be on the hook for your temporary relocation costs.

Part of this depends on where you live. The city of L.A.’s rent control program exempts landlords from the obligation to pay relocation assistance in the event of a natural disaster.

Alisa Randel, an attorney with Public Counsel who works on housing issues, said it’s possible that in other areas, such as Pasadena and Altadena, landlords of certain properties may be legally obligated to cover a tenant’s relocation expenses while repairs are carried out.

“It's complicated,” Randell said. “All of these jurisdictions have similar, but different wording in important ways.”

Whatever situation you fall into, tenant attorneys say you should be keeping receipts for any temporary lodging and other additional expenses you incur as a result of being displaced.

What about damage?

If my home was damaged, who is responsible for repairs?  

Your landlord owns the property and is responsible for fixing damage to that property.

If your possessions — like your furniture, clothing, artwork or other personal items — were damaged, you’ll have to deal with those losses yourself. But damage to the building, and any issues from the fires that affect the home’s habitability, are up to the landlord to fix.

“Landlords are required to maintain their rental properties in habitable conditions,” said Amy Tannenbaum, an attorney with Public Counsel. “One of the requirements of the law is that the building grounds have to be kept clean, sanitary, free from accumulations of debris, filth, etc. We read that to cover things like ash and soot.”

If your landlord is telling you they don’t want to file a claim with their insurance company to fix smoke damage in your unit or clean up common areas full of soot — maybe because they’re afraid of their policy getting dropped in the future — that does not absolve them of their responsibility to maintain a clean, livable home in exchange for your rent.

“Insurance or pay out of pocket, that's on them,” Randell said. “That's a you problem for the landlord.”

Evictions

Are eviction cases on hold because of the wildfires?

No. The L.A. City Council has delayed voting on a proposed eviction moratorium connected to the fires. That proposal now faces an uncertain future at City Hall.

For now, if a landlord files an eviction lawsuit against you, including for unpaid rent during the wildfires, and you fail to respond to the filing or show up for hearings, your landlord could win the eviction by default.

“If there is an eviction case that a tenant is currently part of, they still do need to go to court,” Kaimi Wenger, an attorney with the Inner City Law Center, said. “If a tenant has been subject to an evacuation order, they could petition the court for a continuance.”

Tenant advocates say an online resource called the Tenant Power Toolkit can help you draft a response to any eviction filed against you.

Can I be evicted if I let new people and pets into my home?

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order Friday to temporarily prohibit L.A. County landlords from filing evictions against renters who take in new roommates who were displaced by the fires, even if their leases would normally ban those additional occupants. Newsom’s order will remain in effect until March 8, 2025. 

 The L.A. City Council also voted this week to draft a new ordinance that would enact new protections against eviction for renters who take in unauthorized roommates and pets who were displaced by the fires.

 Even with those protections, Wenger said, some landlords could try to serve you with a notice, which is why it’s critical to know your rights.

“ There are definitely unscrupulous landlords who have dollar signs in their eyes and who are thinking, 'If I can evict my existing tenant for any particular reason that I can find, then I can jack up the rent and rent to one of these new displaced people for a larger amount of money,'” Wenger said.

Can my landlord evict me to rent to someone willing to pay more? 

No, they cannot. Under various state and local tenant protections, landlords need “just cause” to evict you, Aziz said.

“ They can't just evict you just because somebody's willing to pay more,” he said. “That's not a just cause.”

Landlords can always begin eviction proceedings against you if you do not pay rent, violate your lease agreement or use the unit for illegal activity.

Can my landlord evict me to bring in someone displaced by the fires? 

This is one possibility that tenant rights attorneys are anticipating. Landlords generally have the ability to evict existing tenants when they intend to move into a unit themselves, or to move in a relative. If the landlord, or one of their family members, was displaced by the fires and now wants to occupy your unit, this does generally constitute a “just cause” for eviction.

However, your landlord most likely cannot demand that you leave immediately. Local tenant protection laws, and the state’s Tenant Protection Act, provide timelines for owner move-ins. Under the state law, tenants who have lived in their units for at least one year must be given at least 60 days’ notice of any owner move-in.

In this situation, your landlord will also likely owe you some amount of relocation assistance. Under the state law, you’re entitled to one month’s rent. Under local rent control laws, that amount can be much higher — as high as $25,700 in the city of L.A.

Be sure to get the name of the person your landlord plans to give your unit. If the landlord or their relative doesn’t move into your unit within 90 days of you leaving, and stay there for at least one year, the eviction is illegal under the state law and you are entitled to return at your previous rent.

Rental rates and rights

Can my landlord raise my rent because of the fires?

The short answer is no — your landlord cannot massively jack up your rent because of the fires. Under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s emergency declaration, any rent increase of more than 10% from pre-disaster levels constitutes illegal price gouging.

However, your landlord can still raise your rent by smaller amounts, as they normally would be allowed to do in any given year — at least for now (more on that below).

How much your landlord can raise your rent depends on whether you’re covered by local rent control, a state tenant protection law or other legal limits. Read LAist’s guide to local rent hikes to find out what rules apply in your home.

The L.A. City Council recently delayed voting on a proposal to freeze rent increases for the next year because of the impacts of the fires. It is possible, but by no means guaranteed, that in the near future, state or local lawmakers could pass further restrictions on rent increases.

What are my rights as I look for new housing? 

There’s no way to sugar coat this: Your search for new housing will likely be difficult.

Landlords are allowed to ask for market rate rents on vacant units under the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. If you haven’t had to search for a new rental home in a long time, those market rates may appear shockingly high.

Then there’s the issue of rampant spikes in asking rents — well above typical market rates — despite the ban on price gouging that was triggered by Newsom’s declaration of a state of emergency around the Palisades Fire.

To be clear, it is illegal for landlords to be demanding double-digit increases from the rents they were asking before the fires. Under the governor’s emergency declaration, any price increase of more than 10% compared to pre-disaster prices is illegal price gouging.

Tenant rights advocates have been collecting hundreds of examples of listings with massive post-fire jumps in asking rent.

The state attorney general says he is preparing cases against landlords who are allegedly breaking the law. If you see instances of suspected rent gouging in your search for a new home, read this LAist story to learn how to report it to prosecutors.

Housing vouchers and rent control

What if I’ve been using a housing voucher? 

Programs like the federal Housing Choice Voucher program (also known as Section 8) help low-income tenants cover the cost of housing they otherwise could not afford. If you’re a voucher holder and your rental home just burned down, the good news is that you should be able to use that voucher to pay for another unit elsewhere.

“They're what we call portable,” said Tannenbaum, the Public Counsel attorney. “You can take them to different landlords.”

However, finding a landlord who will take your voucher could be a drawn-out process. Because many landlords are hesitant to rent to voucher holders, tenants can search for months without success.

But you should know that discrimination against voucher holders is illegal in California. If landlords ever turn you away because of your voucher, or tell you they do not take Section 8, tenant rights advocates say you can file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department.

What if my home was rent controlled? 

Under various local rent control ordinances, specific protections against evictions and large rent increases apply to the unit — not to the tenant.

“Unfortunately, yes, if that unit is lost then you're also losing those protections that you had in that particular residence,” said Calcanas, the attorney from Legal Aid Foundation of L.A..

Housing policy experts in L.A. say tenants who lived in their units for many years, paying below market rates, are likely to struggle paying for the going rents in other units today.

“They may be looking at a possibly over $1,000 difference in the amount they're paying in rent now versus the amount they'll need to pay in the future,” Calcanas said.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

More than 100 Boyle Heights and East L.A. residents packed a boardroom Wednesday in Diamond Bar to tell air regulators how air pollution and lingering odors from the Lineage warehouse fire have affected their health, homes and daily lives.

Some boarded buses before 8 a.m. to travel the 25 miles to the South Coast Air Quality Management District hearing, where the agency is considering whether to order stricter cleanup requirements and penalties against Lineage Logistics.

The hearing board is considering whether to issue an order of abatement, which would require Lineage to take specific steps to address air pollution from the warehouse fire and meet stricter cleanup standards at the site.

The hearing comes after AQMD said it received more than 4,000 odor complaints since early July and issued 19 notices of violation to Lineage, alleging the odors created a public nuisance.

Lineage said it had removed about 80% of the food waste from the facility and expects to spend between $80 million and $100 million on cleanup.

The air district hearing board is expected to continue its review Thursday as it considers issuing an order and possibly charging fines for the air quality violations. Board and Lineage representatives are scheduled to give presentations tomorrow on the cleanup and related pollution.

Here are five takeaways from the testimony.

1. Residents made the trip to make sure their voices were heard

Several speakers said it was frustrating that residents had to leave their communities, miss work and travel to Diamond Bar just to be heard. They called on AQMD to hold future hearings in Boyle Heights, closer to the people most affected by the fire.

On the bus ride to the hearing, residents told Boyle Heights Beat that they were coming to speak for their children, for neighbors who feared reprisal and because they had lived through environmental crises, like the Exide battery recycling plant, which contaminated neighborhoods in Southeast Los Angeles for years.

2. Weeks later, people say they still don’t feel safe

Speakers told the hearing board they are still dealing with foul odors from rotting food and health issues, including nausea, headaches, bloody noses, rashes, sinus and eye infections, asthma flare-ups and breathing problems. Many said they worry about the long-term effects of exposure and whether the air will be safe when kids return to school.

Amanda Diaz carried her newborn son with her to the microphone. She told the board her son was about two weeks old when the fire broke out . Her voice shaking with emotion, Diaz said she had to take her child to a hospital after he broke out in rashes, and she is worried that the exposure has caused harm that isn’t yet apparent.

“The fire has robbed me of these chances to recover from childbirth in peace and enjoy these precious first weeks with my son,” she said.

Several people said the impacts extend beyond the streets closest to the warehouse and that more people across Boyle Heights and East L.A. have been affected.

“Does the air have a ZIP code?” resident Margarita Gonzalez asked the board and Lineage’s representatives, inviting them to spend time in her home to better understand the extent of the odor problem.

“Our community deserves fresh air,” Erika Jimenez, who lives near Mariachi Plaza, added.

3. Elected leaders call lingering odors a public health crisis

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass addresses the board and residents via remote video at a hearing held in the William A. Burke Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) in Diamond Bar.

(

Gary Coronado

/

The LA Local

)

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, District 14 City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado and State Sen. María Elena Durazo urged the board to require stricter cleanup standards and impose financial penalties against Lineage.

Bass called on the board to use its enforcement authority to require a stronger cleanup plan, including financial support for impacted residents.

“What the residents of Boyle Heights are facing is not just a nuisance, but it is a public health crisis that requires urgent and actionable measures,” Bass told the board.

Bass said Lineage should be required to establish a fund dedicated to the ongoing support of impacted residents, including relocating them until the issue is completely resolved. She added that the company has made some effort to provide help but only after pressure from residents and elected leaders.

Jurado said the sheer volume of complaints and notices of violations is evidence enough that Lineage’s management of the crisis has been inadequate.

“Residents should not have to file complaint after complaint to force a multi-billion-dollar corporation to contain the harm that it created,” Jurado told the board.

She added that any order against Lineage should include firm deadlines, aggressive odor control, public reporting and meaningful consequences if it is violated.

Durazo echoed outrage that residents are expected to endure unsafe conditions while the cleanup unfolds at the “company’s pace.” She said the rotting material should be removed before students are expected to return to school on Aug. 12.

Durazo said Lineage should pay for the full cost of housing and home remediation for residents, and the board should enforce the maximum financial penalty against the company. She also asked that another hearing be held in Boyle Heights rather than miles away during the workday.

“Residents deserve to be heard,” Durazo said.

Concerned residents of Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles at a hearing held in Diamond Bar. The South Coast AQMD Hearing Board held a hearing listening to proposed conditions to reduce odors impacting the nearby community from the Lineage Warehouse fire cleanup in Boyle Heights.

(

Gary Coronado

/

The LA Local

)

4. Residents say they don’t want history to repeat itself

For many speakers, the Lineage fire was not an isolated incident. They said it was another example of Boyle Heights and East L.A. communities being forced to live with the impacts of policies and businesses that create health hazards for the community.

Several people compared the situation to Exide. Others questioned why communities near industrial facilities are often asked to endure pollution and health risks while waiting for action.

“We are witnessing environmental racism,” Eve Sanchez said.

Alma Martinez, of Monterey Park, weeps during public comments at a hearing held in the William A. Burke Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Diamond Bar.

(

Gary Coronado

/

The LA Local

)

Some called for the warehouse and other industrial facilities to move away from residential neighborhoods.

“I need you to pay attention to what’s happening in our community and for these factories to move from their location please,” said Cristina Fernandez, an East L.A. resident, with help from an interpreter.

She also invited Lineage representatives to visit her home and experience the poor air quality.

5. Students and parents describe a disrupted summer and back-to-school concerns

Leonardo Gutierrez, 8, and mother Maria Patiño Gutierrez, of East Los Angeles, address the board at a hearing held in the William A. Burke Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) in Diamond Bar.

(

Gary Coronado

/

The LA Local

)

Several youth who are members of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice spoke on behalf of their families and their neighbors and highlighted the uncertainty of going back to school in the aftermath of Lineage.

“Am I expected to go into my senior year in these conditions? It’s ridiculous,” said Isabella Hernandez, a Boyle Heights resident.

“Lineage is banking on the fact that we’re poor,” Hernandez said. “They think we’re stupid and uneducated and that we’re just going to lie down and take this.

“We’re not. We deserve clean air and a safe place to live,” she continued.

Another Boyle Heights youth spoke about a lack of purifiers being distributed.

“I come from a multigenerational home and we only have one air purifier … How does this make sense?” she said.

Maria Patiño Gutierrez said she’s not comfortable with her son going back to school, which is less than two miles away from Lineage.

“Our summer plans were ruined because of this fire,” she said.

Her son also addressed officials during the hearing.

“It was my birthday when the fire started," he said. "My baseball game was canceled. Everything was canceled because of the fire.”

An effort to put a rent control measure on the November ballot in Anaheim has fizzled. That means Santa Ana is likely to remain the only Orange County city with rent control, at least for now.

The group Tenants United Anaheim launched an effort in January to put rent control on the November ballot. The initiative proposed to cap rent increases in the city at 3% annually. It also would have required landlords to pay relocation assistance to tenants forced to move through no fault of their own, such as when an owner takes a rental unit off the market.

Why did it fizzle?

Tenants United Anaheim has yet to release an official statement, but an organizer with the group told LAist the group had decided to suspend signature-gathering in order to improve and strengthen the text of the ballot measure.

This week is the deadline to submit ballot initiatives for the November election in Orange County. The group expects to resume the effort for a future election.

The context

Tenant advocates in Anaheim had hoped to follow in the footsteps of neighboring Santa Ana, which became Orange County’s first city to adopt rent control in 2021. It was upheld by voters in 2024. The efforts in both cities have faced strong opposition from the California Apartment Association, which represents landlords.

What's next

Some cities have had to pare down their protections for renters after negative court rulings. Los Angeles and Pasadena have stopped enforcing mandatory relocation assistance following legal victories by landlord groups.

Tenants United Anaheim's members hope their revised rent control proposal will make it on the ballot in 2028.

Dire water conditions, missed deadlines and uncertainty on the Colorado River are complicating critical water decisions in California.

No single state, water agency or federal official has shown the power, or the will, to break the deadlock among Colorado River basin states over how to share the dwindling supplies.

Years of fraught negotiations have failed to yield consensus even as major reservoir storage plummets to record lows — ratcheting up the tensions, and the stakes, for the states’ negotiators.

Now, key agreements for managing the river are expiring at the end of this year. These include agreements reached in 2007 that lasted nearly two decades, which took fewer than three years to craft.

This round of talks has already taken longer — and, so far, produced nothing so durable.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the federal steward for the river under the Department of the Interior, last week released a 10-year framework that establishes rough parameters for managing the river, but imposes no specific long-term plan.

The federal provisions include cuts of up to 40% to the shared supply of California, Arizona and Nevada in the lower basin. They also allow releases from Lake Powell, which collects flows from the upper basin, to dip low enough that they risk violating a legally required threshold for water deliveries to downstream states.

These dramatic cuts are an upper limit for future operations. The federal government plans to roll out more detailed management plans every two years if the states continue their impasse.

The agency will release the first of those plans any day, imposing cuts in the downstream states of California, Arizona and Nevada — an estimated 10% cut to California's supply through 2028, or roughly 440,000 acre-feet a year.

No mandatory cuts are expected in the upper basin states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, according to those involved in negotiations. The Los Angeles Times first reported the split.

It reflects the limits of federal power and political will: The Interior Department can force cuts in the lower basin, but has no comparable authority to impose cuts in the upper basin states — the limits of which the Congressional Research Service said are the subject of “ongoing debate.”

This isn’t the long-term plan that California’s water suppliers were hoping for.

Building anything to store, move or make more water typically takes decades and billions of dollars. Without longer-term certainty about how states will share the river’s water supply among 40 million people, millions of acres of agriculture and two states in Mexico — cities and irrigation providers are struggling to plan how to close the gaps.

“A cut is never fun, but you can deal with it. But not if you say, ‘Well, we have a cut here, and then maybe a cut in two years, and maybe another cut in two more years,’” said Bill Hasencamp, Metropolitan Water District’s manager of Colorado River resources.

“We need to plan for our future. And this deal does not let us do that.”

The future of Southern California’s water 

In California, where the availability of water is never certain, nature-defying engineering keeps dry parts of the state flush with water even when little falls from the sky.

Much of that engineering converges around one Southern California supplier: the Metropolitan Water District. The giant wholesaler imports water from Northern California and the Colorado River to supply cities and other retailers serving 19 million people across six counties.

Metropolitan’s imports are so central to the region that when its Northern California supplies dropped to a trickle during the most recent drought, 6 million Southern Californians faced unprecedented water restrictions in 2022.

Southern California isn’t facing such serious shortfalls again yet. But uncertainty over the Colorado River compounds the risks the next drought will bring.

“There's a good chance it'll be as bad as it's been, and there's a reasonable chance that it'll be worse,” said Hasencamp’s colleague, Keith Nobriga, whose job as an operations manager at Metropolitan is helping the district prepare for the future amid climate change.

The uncertainty also throws a wrench in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration’s water machinations to the north. Metropolitan's board will play an outsized role in deciding the fates of Sites Reservoir and the Delta tunnel because of the district's water needs and spending power.

Both multibillion-dollar projects, decades in the making, aim to send more of Northern California’s water south. Metropolitan is also planning a large-scale water recycling and reuse program, called Pure Water Southern California, with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.

Metropolitan has already committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Delta tunnel’s planning costs and about $31 million for Sites Reservoir. The board hasn’t committed to receiving water or contributing to construction for either yet, though board votes on whether to approve the tunnel and recycled water project could come as soon as next year.

Subtracting one part of the equation, such as the Colorado River, could change the calculus for the others. But Metropolitan has to know how much water it stands to lose, and for how long.

The consequences of picking the wrong path could leave Southern California thirsty during the next drought, on one hand, or unnecessarily increase water rates, on the other.

Nobriga compares his job to insurance planning. The costs of nudging these water projects along, he says, are like paying an insurance premium.

“We'll keep these projects alive. We'll keep looking down the road,” he said. “And if it gets to a point where we really think these droughts are imminent, then we'll … construct and pay the big money for one or several of these projects. And we don't know which ones yet.”

Agriculture in limbo

California uses the largest share of the Colorado River’s water among the states. And the Imperial Irrigation District uses the largest share of that to supply half a million acres of alfalfa, grasses, winter vegetables and other crops in the southeast corner of the state.

As climate change and a megadrought plunged the Colorado River into its driest decades in over a century, the Biden administration struck a deal with the Imperial Irrigation District, trading more than half a billion federal dollars for short-term water conservation.

Growers cut irrigation to their alfalfa and other forage crops for weeks at a time, and the district conserved enough water to add more than 12 feet to Lake Mead on the Colorado River, according to Tina Shields, water manager for the irrigation district.

Now, those conservation programs are coming to the end of their funding and regulatory lifetimes. Starting new ones would require new plans and approvals to address the environmental impact of reduced irrigation runoff that feeds the Salton Sea.

Seeking those permits and environmental approvals “needs to be done on a longer term, not on a two-year term,” Shields said. “Because it’ll take us at least a year to negotiate, probably longer, the environmental actions necessary to move forward.”

In the meantime, negotiations are ongoing with other California water users about how they’ll share the coming cuts, including who is going to pay for it, Shields said. The district has not yet committed to anything.

“The district's perspective is: We've done a lot. We're doing a lot. It's challenging to do more,” she said.

Art of the deal

Though the U.S. Department of the Interior has not yet released its plan for the river’s next two years, those involved in negotiations expect that it will call for reductions and conservation in California, Arizona and Nevada similar to what the states proposed in May.

The three lower-basin states then must agree among themselves and with the federal government on how to implement it. After that, individual water suppliers in California will seek approvals from their boards for their share of the cuts.

Jay Weiner, an attorney representing the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, whose reservation lies on both sides of the Colorado River, compared the plan to a Band-Aid, not a long-term path to sustainability.

“To a large extent,” Weiner said, “it leaves us at the mercy of this coming winter.”

The Trump administration relied on the states reaching consensus rather than imposing terms — an approach that so far hasn't broken the deadlock.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs called for the federal government to step in and broker a deal. But federal leverage looks different in the upper and lower basins. Lower basin stakeholders say there are other strings the federal government could pull upstream, such as forcing water out of reservoirs, but isn’t. And cloistered negotiations and hardline positions among negotiators have driven an impasse.

Arizona negotiator Tom Buschatzke publicly lambasted the upper basin in The Denver Post for failing to propose “One. Single. Gallon.” of mandatory, verifiable reductions. Colorado negotiator Becky Mitchell wrote in The Colorado Sun that had the lower basin states lived within their means, “the reservoirs would not be in crisis today.”

Elizabeth Koebele, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno said that negotiations have been most productive when participants had strong working relationships. Without clear federal leadership, she said, the same conflicts keep resurfacing.

The fraying relationships, she said, could stem from turnover. But years of constant crisis have also worn people down.

“We have been governing in crisis for a long time, and so every time we meet at the table, there's this big problem to solve,” she said. “The house is on fire.”

While the lower basin may sue the upper over deliveries that dip below a legally required threshold, both sides would risk the uncertain outcomes of litigation.

“In essence, this federal action has 40 million people living from paycheck to paycheck on water supply,” said Mark Gold, an environmental scientist and board member of the Metropolitan Water District.

That paycheck comes due again in two years with the same states, and the same asymmetry of power, still in place. Until then, the interior secretary can still force deeper cuts on the lower basin. No one, right now, is willing to force the upper basin to do the same.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.