I heard an interview the other day where it was stated the one of the largest water users (there are many) in California is alfalfa and hay production. Not for domestic use, but to ship to China and the middle east, largely for dairy production. California in a good or normal year can not meet it's water demands on snow melt from the Sierra Nevada or Colorado river supplies, it has to use ground water, something like a 1/3 in those years. Far more in bad ones, like 2015.
In Arizona, we had been pretty stable until we tied on to the Colorado and began to ship water to the SE via the CAP. Pinal county farmers will lose big if there are supply cut backs from the Colorado. We are actually much the same, with Saudi Arabian's buying land with old water rights so they can grow and ship hay and alfalfa home for their cattle. We could be in a terrible drought, but if there are supplies they can still grow and ship, essentially shipping water from Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico to Arabia. But the cities?
The fire risk is not as easy to mitigate with winter rain or snow, alone. Warm dry summers, summer drought in the 4 corners that dries vegetation in the growing season, and the long talked about overgrowth of vegetation aren't fixed in a 2 month precipitation period. It might be important that ALL western states receive water, but that isn't reality. Nor is it reality that the water that comes be snow, or consistent. Whether you still think global warming is a hoax or you think it is the single greatest threat liberal man has ever known, fact remains that droughts in the west have always occurred, with today's being something like the really bad drought in the 800 to 1200 years ago. We made it worse, though, by altering the ecosystems.
The new agreement between the Colorado basin states might affect us more in 5, 10, or 30 years. What will the economics of water dictate happening? Obviously, the extremist arguments of Las Vegas or Phoenix not existing are crap, but what will farmers grow?