The battle over water in the West has gone on for over a hundred years. Now, the federal government is stepping in to mediate state infighting.
The two-year stalemate over how to make cuts to the amount of water used from the Colorado River was partially put to bed last week after the Interior Department released a preferred Colorado River management plan that will set new guidelines for states after several drought-stricken years.
Upper Basin states — Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming — are celebrating the proposal. But Lower Basin states — Arizona, California and Nevada — are fuming.
The current low-water guidelines expire on Oct. 1 and the involved states have been unable to come to an agreement about how much they will scale back. If the states are still deadlocked when that deadline arrives, the Interior Department will impose the proposed guidelines.
Years-long fighting over conservation
Over the last 25 years, water levels in the Colorado River have been steadily dropping. Reservoirs have been depleted and millions of people in the region have been impacted. The seven states, tribal nations and Mexico, which are all connected to the river, have all felt the pain of attempting to cut water consumption over the years.
While the last agreement between the states was in place for two decades, current negotiations were focused on a short-term agreement, since the heat and drought are worsening. However, the states could not reach a resolution.
The original 1922 agreement was based on pre-population booms in the region and unusually wet years that are growing increasingly uncommon in the modern era, with flows decreasing 20% over the last 26 years.
“The reality of the 21st Century was that the reservoirs in the basin are at unprecedented low conditions, and the annual runoff primarily produced out of the Rocky Mountains of snowmelt has decreased,” Jack Schmidt, a Senior Research Scientist at the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University said in an interview with the Deseret News.
“We have less water flowing through the system, less water in storage, and so we have very little water to allow us to eke through those years when it’s exceptionally dry, and that’s what we’ve got right now.”
Most of the upper and lower basins’ water use is for agriculture and livestock. Between 2020 and 2024, the Upper Basin’s total use averaged 3.8 million acre-feet a year, which is 29% of the total water output. The Lower Basin used 6.5 million, which is 49% of the total. Mexico accounted for 11% of the total water used and evaporation accounted for another 11%, according to the Bureau of Reclamation. One acre-foot is more than 325,000 gallons.
The Upper Basin has been subject to “natural” mandatory cuts for each dry year and the Lower Basin is subject to mandatory federal cuts.
Lower Basin states argue that all seven states should share the burden of cutting back on water. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs said the federal government is trying to put the water shortage completely on the Grand Canyon State.
All three Lower Basin states committed to scaling back their water use, but Arizona believes the responsibility should be on all seven states reliant on the river to equally share the responsibility of conserving water.
Meanwhile, Upper Basin states like Utah say it’s not true that they were unwilling to work with Lower Basin states to find a middle ground, but they’ve also had several low snow years recently that impact their water levels.
Now, the Interior Department and the Bureau of Reclamation have issued a proposal — a final Environmental Impact Statement — to the seven states impacted, detailing how the federal government views the cuts that need to be made. It’s unlikely that all of the states would agree to the plan, potentially ending up with litigation before courts.
In accordance with how much water the West will receive, the department will reissue guidelines every two years until the states can reach some sort of agreement. Policymakers will have to head back to the negotiating table every two years to tweak the agreement and reassess the state of the river.
The announcement Friday wasn’t entirely unexpected, since the draft had been in the works, but it still further pits Lower Basin states against those in the Upper Basin and makes the battle for the vital resource that much more bitter.
Details of the plan
The Interior that the basin’s primary reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, have fallen to historically low levels. The department acknowledged that while previous agreements were significant, they were not “sufficiently robust” enough to prevent the continued decline, plus several of the agreements are set to expire this year.
The proposal, put forward by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, intends to create “coordinated management strategies” to address the shortages and operation of both Lake Powell and Lake Mead, with strategies primarily focused on Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona and the Hoover Dam between Arizona and Nevada.
The department also acknowledged that setting new guidelines for the complex basin is difficult, particularly since they are predicting more dry years in the future. The proposal came after a historic decades-long drought, but also was prompted by extreme dry conditions, with the lowest snowpack since at least the 1930s.
Schmidt noted that the proposal was “needed” since the states weren’t able to come up with consensus and the Oct. 1 deadline would have put the water allocations back to a decades-old plan.
The good news, he said, was that all seven states and the federal government agree something needs to be done about water conservation. But in regard to the proposal, some states are asking, is it being done fairly?
, Lower Basin states could be required to cut up to 3 million acre-feet of water, which is 978 billion gallons. The Upper Basin could give up 200,000 acre-feet voluntarily, which is about 5% of the basin’s annual water use.
The proposal doesn’t change the Lower Basin’s legal 7.5 million acre-feet allotted to Arizona, Nevada and California under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, but instead establishes operating rules for the states to reduce actual water use by as much as 3 million acre-feet through 2036 due to drought conditions.
Most of the cuts, 60%, would come from Arizona, with about 35% coming from California and 4% from Nevada.
Amy Haas, the executive director of Utah’s Colorado River Authority, said she believes the department recognized that Upper Basin states don’t have any water to be cut outside of pre-compact water and that the “water just simply isn’t there for the Upper Basin” after years of dry winters.
Schmidt said the Upper Basin’s negotiation, spearheaded by Colorado, was of the position that the Lower Basin should see a higher amount of cuts for using more water than the Upper Basin, and that Upper Basin states like Colorado, Wyoming and Utah have seen their own cuts in recent years from nature not producing as much snow.
Additionally, the plan details how Lake Powell’s minimum dry-year release was lowered, meaning that if the plan is adopted, the lake would be required to release between 5 and 12 million acre-feet each year.
Burgum said in a statement that it’s his department’s responsibility to ensure the Colorado River remains “reliable and resilient” for the 40 million Americans who depend on it. Since the plan would require states to reconvene every two years, the department’s proposed guidelines provide flexibility for changing conditions while also allowing the states to work toward a “durable” solution, he said.
Are there winners or losers in this plan?
The proposed cuts are setting off an already tense dynamic between Upper and Lower Basin states and conversation since the announcement Friday has focused on winners and losers.
Upper Basin states aren’t outwardly celebrating not having to make cuts to water use, which is what they essentially asked the federal government for, but they are welcoming the Interior’s proposal. Lower Basin states are angry and say they’ve been deprived of a human necessity and the federal government catered to the Upper Basin.
Schmidt argued that while some view winners and losers as appropriate titles, those titles would be more accurate if the Colorado River water usage issue was a board game and the Upper Basin states “won” and the Lower Basin states “lost.”
Read more Meet the Church of Jesus Christ’s new Primary general presidency
“But, we’re talking about real, wet water, and we’re talking about real water that goes to real people and real industries and real municipalities,” he said.
Schmidt noted how years ago, debate centered around the Central Arizona Project, a 300 mile aqueduct that diverts water from the Colorado River into central and southern Arizona. No one 15 years ago would have imagined letting the canal go dry and stop serving the nation’s fifth largest city in the country, he said.
“There was a much broader sense in the United States that we were all in this together and that we were all on the same team,” Schmidt said. “And because we were all on the same team, and we all wanted the best for the United States, we would find a way out so that there were no winners and losers. And I think the saddest thing about the dysfunctional negotiations … is the fact that there is a perception of winners and losers, and all one needs to do is look at the headlines that have come out.”
“The headlines say ‘the Upper Basin won’ … as if this were some crazy game,” he added. “I mean, it’s like we forget that we’re all on the same team, and so that’s the saddest thing is that the perception of winners and losers and the inability of the seven states to work together.”
Arizona decries proposal as devastating to state water use
The reactions among basins are split. Lower Basin advocates say that the idea that just three states would be responsible for helping out all seven with conservation efforts is misguided.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources issued a statement after the proposal was released, saying the framework is “unacceptable” for the state of Arizona, including the 3 million acre-foot annual reduction.
“Such reductions would devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy,” the organization said, noting that the proposal “fails” to include Upper Basin reductions.
The organization said it would continue to work to complete its goals, both with the federal government, tribal, agricultural and municipal partners in Arizona and the six other states reliant on the Colorado River.
However, Terry Goddard, the organization’s president, accused the Interior Department of siding with Upper Basin states at Arizona’s expense.
“The Department of Interior basically bought their lies,” Goddard told KTAR News, referring to the Upper Basin states. “I think Arizona should be outraged at what came out today.”
In a statement, Hobbs, the governor of Arizona, said the federal government had the opportunity to adopt common sense and a proposal made on compromise. She also decried the proposal as unacceptable and said her administration would be advocating for sustainable cuts for the state.
Hobbs pointed to the large agricultural reliance the country has on Arizona, as well as the state’s emerging fields like defense manufacturing and semiconductor plants in the state that rely on water.
“We developed the Lower Basin Proposal to increase water resiliency for the region and ensure that no single state was bearing the burden alone,” she said. “Inequitable, federally imposed cuts to our Colorado River water allocation will be unacceptable to Arizonans, and will put every American at risk.”
Arizona Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego issued a joint statement saying the proposal places an “unfair burden” on Arizona without requiring “comparable commitments” from Upper Basin states.
“Arizona, California, and Nevada have already put forward a fair, practical proposal to stabilize Lake Mead and Lake Powell through shared conservation, and that proposal should serve as the foundation for the Colorado River operating guidelines in 2027 and 2028,” their statement said.
Litigation isn’t out of the question for Arizona, particularly after Hobbs hired a law firm in the past in case the proposal was enacted federally. The state Legislature also set aside millions in case they’d have to take the issue to court, the Arizona Capitol Times reported.
While most of the impacts of the cuts would be felt in Arizona’s agriculture industry, some experts are warning that prices for water services could increase in the state because of the cuts.
Upper Basin says proposal was encouraging, wants to avoid litigation
Meanwhile, the Upper Basin states released a joint statement on the Interior’s proposal.
The governors of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico all said they were “encouraged” that the proposed operating guidelines will “better reflect existing water supply.” They said many hours of meetings and negotiations were held and will continue as the states continue to feel the impacts of the lowest reservoir levels in history.
The governors said the framework proposed doesn’t represent a final solution but will allow the Colorado River to be managed at least in the short term while the states continue to negotiate a more permanent solution. The Upper Basin states said they were committed to “good-faith discussions” with their Lower Basin counterparts.
“The water supply realities of the Basin cannot be ignored or papered over. States in both the Upper and Lower divisions of the basin are feeling the pain of severe drought,” they said. “This is a reality that all states, and the federal government, will need to address practically, which is why a seven-state agreement will provide the best outcome for all water users in the Colorado River Basin.”
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said in July at a meeting of the Upper Basin governors that the federal proposal seems to be a short-term solution that can “actually get something done and not be in court.” All Upper Basin governors were “aligned” in their belief that they would not like to litigate the issue.
What now?
The impact statement released by the Interior essentially serves as the post-2026 operating guidelines for states regarding water usage. It’s expected to take effect Oct. 1, when the current guidelines expire.
If there’s no unanimous seven-state agreement that the federal government receives before then, which is highly unlikely given the two-year stalemate, the Interior can issue a Record of Decision and adopt its own operating rules that do not require the states’ consent.
Schmidt argued that he couldn’t imagine the Upper Basin states “ever” negotiating on anything since the federal government gave them what they negotiated for in the proposal.
Still, negotiations among the states could happen after the Oct. 1 deadline, but the federal rules would be in effect unless they were changed through appropriate legal channels.
The federal proposal could be challenged in court by Arizona or other water agencies with standing in the matter, but a lawsuit wouldn’t automatically stop the federal proposal from going into effect.
As it stands, Arizona officials say they’re waiting to hear what the operational guidelines would be for them for at least the next two years and the public comment period that precedes the Record of Decision before taking more action publicly.
Schmidt and others interested are also similarly waiting for the Interior to release the official guidelines of what the plans will look like.
However, as part of the proposal, they have released that details how cuts to water use in the Lower Basin will likely depend on how much snow the Rocky Mountains get over the winter. If there’s a lot of snow, there would be less pressure on Lower Basin states to cut usage, but if drought conditions persist, they will feel larger impacts come Spring.
Without a seven-state agreement before Oct. 1, the new federal guidelines will leave some states unhappy, some relieved, and the overall consensus of hope for a wet winter.
Read more Opinion: Now you can wager legally on life or death