The seven states that depend on the Colorado River have missed a Jan. 31 federal deadline for reaching a regionwide consensus on how to sharply reduce water use, raising the likelihood of more friction as the West grapples with how to take less supplies from the shrinking river.
In a bid to sway the process after contentious negotiations reached an impasse, six of the seven states gave the federal government a last-minute proposal outlining possible water cuts to help prevent reservoirs from falling to dangerously low levels, presenting a unified front while leaving out California, which uses the single largest share of the river.
The six states — Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — called their proposal a “consensus-based modeling alternative” that could serve as a framework for negotiating a solution. They submitted the proposal to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ahead of an end-of-January deadline that federal water officials had set for the states to present a consensus proposal.
A large portion of the proposed water cuts would involve accounting for evaporation and other water losses in the river’s Lower Basin, a change that would translate into large reductions for California, and which the state’s water officials have opposed.
In announcing the proposal Monday, water officials acknowledged that it was not an official agreement between the basin states. Instead, Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, called the proposal a key step in the “ongoing dialogue” among the seven states “as we continue to seek a collaborative solution to stabilize the Colorado River system.”
John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said that “while our goal remains achieving a seven-state agreement, developing and submitting this consensus-based alternative is a positive step forward” as federal officials carry out an expedited review to revise the current rules for dealing with the shortage.
Federal officials told the region’s water managers at a mid-December conference that they will weigh immediate options to protect water levels in depleted reservoirs this year, and that the region must be prepared for the river to permanently yield less water because of climate change.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the country’s two largest reservoirs, are now about three-fourths empty. The river, which supplies cities, farming areas and tribal nations from Wyoming to the U.S.-Mexico border, has been pushed to a breaking point by chronic overuse, years of drought and global warming.
Nevada presented a proposal to the federal government last month that, among various measures, included starting to account for the water lost to evaporation from reservoirs and along the river in the three Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada.
But the latest talks in Denver last week ended with the states still at an impasse, said Bart Fisher, president of California’s Palo Verde Irrigation District board.
“It’s become combative and adversarial, rather than collaborative toward a consensus,” Fisher said. “Nobody wants their own ox to be gored. And so it’s become, everyone’s backed into their respective corners, and focused on the largest target, which is California.”
Fisher and other California officials said they were working on a separate proposal that they planned to submit to the federal government.
California water managers and farmers have said those with lower-priority junior water rights, such as Arizona’s cities, should be in line for larger cuts first.
Farm landowners in the Imperial Valley, who hold senior water rights and use the single-largest share of the river’s water, have said they are willing to cut back in exchange for compensation, but they argue the water-rights priority system should be upheld and respected.
“Other states are trying to advantage themselves by urging the federal government to disregard existing law and perform some reallocation of the river that would benefit themselves, as an alternative to collaborating toward a common consensus,” Fisher said.
Fisher and others who manage California water agencies acknowledge that the river is in a severe water deficit.
“In the situation that we face today, of course, the river is overallocated,” Fisher said. “We must adjust demand to fit supply.”
Federal officials in June called for the seven states to come up with plans to drastically reduce water diversions by 2 million to 4 million acre-feet per year, a reduction of roughly 15% to 25%. But negotiations among the states grew tense and acrimonious and didn’t produce a deal.
In October, the Biden administration announced plans to revise the current rules for dealing with shortages and pursue a new agreement to achieve larger reductions in water use. Interior Department officials have said they will consider alternatives for reductions in their review and may need to significantly reduce the amount of water releases from Glen Canyon Dam, where water levels have been sinking closer to a point at which the dam could no longer generate power.
So far, four California water districts — the Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Palo Verde Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District — have proposed to reduce water use by up to 400,000 acre-feet per year. That would amount to about 9% of the state’s total water allotment from the river for the next four years, through 2026.
But politicians and officials in other states have called for California water agencies to make larger water reductions.
Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., directed strong words at California while urging the Bureau of Reclamation to consider the six-state proposal.
“The depletion of the Colorado River is a slow-moving natural disaster — one that threatens the livelihoods of 40 million people across seven basin states,” Stanton said. “While many of the states have worked together to reach an agreement that works for everyone, California refuses to do its part.”
Stanton urged the Bureau of Reclamation to act on the proposal and said, “We cannot wait any longer.”
Officials representing the six states said their proposal is not a formal agreement but is an “alternative framework” for the Bureau of Reclamation to consider as part of its review process while preparing what is called a supplemental environmental impact statement.
They said the proposal would help protect water deliveries and hydropower production, and would reduce the risks of reservoirs declining to “dead pool,” a point at which water would no longer flow downstream.
The proposal outlines reductions for Arizona, California and Nevada beyond those the three states have agreed to previously. It calls for accounting for more than 1.5 million acre-feet of water losses, primarily caused by evaporation, which would translate into the large reductions.
The proposal also calls for implementing various efforts in the four Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — including “additional voluntary conservation measures.”
This approach “appropriately distributes the burden” across the Colorado River Basin, said Becky Mitchell, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
Brenda Burman, general manager of the Central Arizona Project, said the region needs to move on a “path forward to lay the groundwork for finding durable long-term solutions.”
“We have a lot more to do and this is a critical next step,” Burman said.
Adel Hagekhalil, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District, said California water managers have worked with their counterparts over the past two months to “produce a consensus-based alternative”
“While we were not able to reach agreement among all seven states on an alternative,” Hagekhalil said, “we were in agreement on the reductions that need to be modeled.”
He said the main stumbling block was “requiring the cuts to be allocated and assigned to contractors and states prematurely, prior to the modeling results.”
“Nevertheless, we will continue working hard, building on these recent efforts, to develop a consensus-based approach to addressing the drought conditions on the Colorado River,” Hagekhalil said in an email. “California recognized many years ago the impacts that climate change would have on this important water supply and has made significant investments to be more efficient.”
While focusing on negotiating immediate water reductions, the seven states also need to begin talks on new rules for managing shortages after 2026, when the current guidelines expire.
“We must do everything we can to finalize realistic and tenable solutions that can be immediately implemented over the next three years,” Hagekhalil said, “so that we can turn our collective focus to working even harder to develop long-term, post-2026 solutions for lasting sustainability on the Colorado River.”
The task of reaching an agreement is complicated by the overlapping needs to handle the emergency of managing very low reservoirs while also preparing to negotiate long-term rules for after 2026, said Elizabeth Koebele, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno.
“I think states haven’t wanted to say, ‘We’ll give up X amount of water,’ and show their cards on that, because my hunch is that that sort of sets the precedent for what they might be able to give up post-2026,” Koebele said. “That makes this so challenging, because we’re trying to kind of put out the fire as we’re also thinking about long-term sustainability.”
Koebele said she thinks many observers expected either a seven-state plan or nothing, but what has emerged so far is a proposal minus California that will hold less weight or persuasive power.
“Reclamation is less likely to push for strong adoption of an alternative only six states agreed to because they will face litigation from California,” Koebele said.
She said that doesn’t mean the six-state proposal is worthless, though. She said it’s both strategic and substantive.
“It puts hard numbers on what the other basin states expect California to cut, which is frankly a lot of water right away,” Koebele said. “It puts the ball in California’s court to respond.”
