Colorado River water negotiators appear no closer to long-term agreement

Seven States Struggle to Reach Agreement on Colorado River Water Sharing

Water negotiators from the seven states dependent on the Colorado River failed to make significant progress this week on a long-term plan for sharing the increasingly scarce resource, raising concerns about potential legal battles and federal intervention.

The annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas brought together water officials from California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, alongside federal and tribal representatives. The gathering came after states missed a November deadline to develop new drought and water shortage guidelines to replace current agreements expiring in 2026.

With a new February 14 deadline set by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Nevada’s lead negotiator expressed pessimism about reaching a comprehensive agreement in time.

“As we sit here mid-December with a looming February deadline, I don’t see any clear path to a long-term deal, but I do see a path to the possibility of a shorter-term deal to keep us out of court,” said John Entsminger of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

The Colorado River serves as a vital lifeline for more than 40 million people across the American Southwest. It provides water and electricity to homes and businesses throughout the basin while supporting agricultural operations in California and Arizona that produce much of the nation’s winter vegetables, including broccoli, cabbage, and carrots.

Native American tribes and Mexico also depend heavily on these water allocations, further complicating negotiations between numerous stakeholders with competing interests.

“It’s a rabbit hole you can dive down in, and it is incredibly complex,” noted Noah Garrison, a water researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. The complexity stems partly from the sheer number of water agencies involved – California alone has over 200 water agencies with their own constituencies.

During Thursday’s panel discussion, state negotiators appeared entrenched in their positions. Each representative highlighted conservation efforts their state had implemented while explaining why they couldn’t bear additional cutbacks, suggesting instead that others should make greater sacrifices.

Lower Basin states (California, Nevada, and Arizona) proposed reducing water usage by 1.5 million acre-feet annually to address a structural deficit caused by evaporation and ground absorption as water flows downstream. An acre-foot provides enough water to supply two to three households for a year.

However, Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) argue they shouldn’t face additional cuts because they already use less than their allocated share and are legally obligated to send specific amounts downstream. They instead want less water released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead – the two critical reservoirs in the system.

“Our water users feel that pain,” said Estevan López, New Mexico’s representative for the Upper Colorado River Commission, referring to existing conservation efforts.

Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, countered that he hasn’t seen any Upper Basin proposals compelling enough to justify asking Arizona lawmakers to approve their demands.

Entsminger suggested a possible five-year interim agreement that would establish new rules for water releases and storage at Lakes Powell and Mead, potentially buying time for more comprehensive negotiations.

The Bureau of Reclamation plans to release a range of possible proposals in the coming weeks but will not specify preferred guidelines, continuing its approach of encouraging states to reach consensus independently. If they fail to do so, a federally imposed solution could trigger expensive and protracted litigation.

“Cooperation is better than litigation,” urged Scott Cameron, the bureau’s acting commissioner. “The only certainty around litigation in the Colorado River basin is a bunch of water lawyers are going to be able to put their children and grandchildren through graduate school. There are much better ways to spend several hundred million dollars.”

The ongoing stalemate reflects the mounting challenges facing water management in the American West, where climate change, population growth, and historical overallocation have created unprecedented pressure on a resource that once seemed abundant but now requires increasingly difficult compromises.