How failing talks could spark a legal fight over Colorado River water

With leaders in seven states deadlocked over the growing Colorado River crisis, negotiations appear increasingly likely to fail, which could lead the federal government to impose unilateral cuts and trigger lawsuits that would result in a complex court battle.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has urged state negotiators to reach an agreement by Feb. 14, but substantial disagreements remain.

“All seven states know that if we can’t reach an agreement, it would probably go to the courts, and it would be a long and uncertain process,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in an interview.

“I’m confident that Colorado would prevail on merits,” Polis said, but a court battle is “something that I don’t think any state wants.”

The Colorado River provides water for approximately 35 million people and 5 million acres of farmland, from the Rocky Mountains to northern Mexico. The water was initially divided among the states in 1922 in an agreement called the Colorado River Compact.

This deal overpromised what the river could deliver. And over the past quarter century, relentless drought, intensified by climate change, has undermined the flow of the river and left its giant tanks severely depleted.

The three Lower Basin states – California, Arizona and Nevada – are at odds with the four Upper Basin states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.

At a meeting this week, Arizona officials seemed to expect failure. They pointed out that the amount of water flowing into Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir, could soon reach a trigger point — a “legal trigger point.”trip wire” which would allow Arizona to demand upstream reductions and sue for violating the compact.

The century-old agreement requires water released from dams in the Upper Basin of Arizona, Nevada and California to average at least 7.5 million acre-feet over each decade, plus an allowance for Mexico.

Water reaching the lower basin will likely fall below that point later this year or next year, which has never happened, said Brenda Burman, executive director of the Central Arizona Project. It’s sobering, she said. “Our neighbors in the Haut Bassin have always respected this obligation in the past. »

Arizona likely won’t abandon that issue unless Upper Basin states take “significant steps” by agreeing to deeper water reductions, said Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s lead negotiator.

If the states don’t reach an agreement, federal officials could significantly reduce Arizona’s water starting next year, and at that point a lawsuit is likely, Buschatzke said.

“I can’t tell you when, but that seems to be the path we’re taking.”

Lower Basin state representatives have proposed accepting substantial reductions: 27 percent for Arizona, 17 percent for Nevada, and 10 percent for California.

“We’re prepared to do more if our partners in the Upper Basin states come up with their own reductions,” Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs said during Monday’s meeting.

Hobbs was one of six governors who met with Burgum last week in Washington.

California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, who attended in place of Gov. Gavin Newsom, said negotiators were “reducing the issues of divergence between the two basins, and that gives me optimism.”

They have been discussing for more than two years to try to agree on new rules which will come into force in 2027. At the beginning, the negotiators spoke of a 20-year agreement. Today, they lowered their target to five years maximum.

The Trump administration has hinted at what could happen without a deal. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation presented several options that would reduce Arizona’s water by between 33% and 69% and Nevada’s water by between 24% and 67%. Under some options, California could see reductions of between 29% and 33%.

Cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles would be forced to turn to other water sources, and some regions could face shortages and increased restrictions on outdoor watering. Some tribes may receive less water. And farms, which use about three-quarters of the water, could be forced to cut back and leave some fields dry.

At the same time, Buschatzke said, the federal proposals would actually allow Upper Basin states to increase their water use.

“As they continue to grow, we will have to cut back even more,” he said.

Negotiators from Arizona, California and Nevada say they are pushing for Upper Basin leaders to commit to reducing water use to help boost low reservoir levels, and those states’ resistance to firm commitments is a sticking point.

Polis, however, stated that requests for mandatory reductions are a “failure” for Colorado.

“Upper Basin states cannot legally commit to mandatory reductions,” Polis said, because they have landowners with superior water rights, and if states were to take away those rights, they “would be responsible for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.”

“That being said, we definitely want to do our part when it comes to conservation,” Polis said. “We are ready to put specific conservation objectives on the table. »

He said he hoped federal funds would be available to support water conservation efforts.

This has already happened. Under a temporary agreement reached in 2023, for example, farmers in California’s Imperial Valley and other areas were paid to leave hay fields dry part of the year.

Polis said the Lower Basin’s proposed reductions would be sufficient during average snow years in the Rockies, but the plan should also include larger reductions for dry years.

States also disagree on how much water should be released from dams in the upper watershed to prevent the river’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, from falling to dangerously low levels.

Lake Mead is now only 34% full and Lake Powell is 26% full.

This winter’s hot, dry conditions aren’t helping. THE Rocky Mountain The snowpack is only 57% of average, one of the lowest in decades.

One of the objectives of the negotiations is to prevent “dead Pool” levels in the reservoirs, where water would hit the concrete at the bottom of the dams, unable to pass downstream – a scenario that would mean catastrophic water cutoff for California, Arizona and Mexico.

Last year, a group of experts called on both regions to accept ‘shared pain’ enforceable water cuts. Without agreement on that, “it’s hard for me to be optimistic,” said Anne Castle, a senior researcher at the University of Colorado’s Getches-Wilkinson Center. “The only way around this problem is for states to agree on how to share the river fairly. »

As the Feb. 14 deadline set by the Trump administration approaches, Buschatzke said, federal officials are “pushing us very hard to try to get at least some consensus on the concept,” although they have not said what they would do if states don’t meet the deadline.

The chances of reaching a deal “seem pretty low at this point,” said Stephen Roe Lewis, governor of the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona.

“I know we are all preparing for the possibility of failure,” he told state officials.

Buschatzke said he is focused on protecting Arizona. The state relies on the Colorado River for more than a third of its water.

“I won’t consider it a failure if we don’t achieve a collaborative outcome,” he said.

“The only real failure for me, when I look in that mirror, is if I give away the water supply of the state of Arizona for the next generations,” he said. “And that’s not going to happen.”