At a packed conference in Las Vegas, seven states that rely on the Colorado River still fail to agree on a long-term water sharing plan.
Conference Highlights
The annual Colorado River Water Users Association meeting drew representatives from California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, along with federal and tribal officials. The gathering focused on the river’s future as the existing guidelines that dictate water use will expire in 2026.
Nevada’s lead negotiator, John Entsminger of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, told the Associated Press that a quick consensus is unlikely. “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,” he said.
Deadlines and Negotiations
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation set a new deadline of February 14 for the states to submit a plan. The states had previously missed a November deadline for a new agreement that would address drought and water shortages after 2026.
The federal government has so far refrained from imposing its own solution, preferring that the basin states reach consensus. If no agreement emerges, a federally imposed plan could leave parties dissatisfied and lead to costly litigation.
Stakeholders and Stakes
More than 40 million people across the seven states, Mexico and Native American tribes depend on the river’s water. Farmers in California and Arizona use the water to grow winter vegetables such as broccoli, cabbage and carrots. The river also supplies water and electricity to millions of homes and businesses.
Drought, chronic overuse and rising temperatures have forced a reckoning on the river’s future. Existing conservation agreements that determine who must use less in times of shortage expire in 2026. After two years of negotiating, the states still have not reached a deal for what comes next.
State Positions
During a Thursday panel of state negotiators, each side highlighted conservation projects-turf-removal and canal lining-to reduce seepage-and explained why they cannot take on more cuts. Instead, they asked others to shoulder the burden.
Lower Basin states pitched a reduction of 1.5 million acre-feet per year to cover a structural deficit that occurs when water evaporates or is absorbed into the ground downstream. An acre-foot is enough to supply two to three households a year.
Upper Basin states, however, argue they should not make additional cuts because they already do not use their full share and are legally obligated to send a certain amount of water downstream. “Our water users feel that pain,” said Estevan López, New Mexico’s representative for the Upper Colorado River Commission.
Upper Basin states want less water released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, said he has not seen any proposal from the Upper Basin that would compel him to ask Arizona lawmakers to approve those demands.
Federal Role and Future Proposals
Within the coming weeks, the Bureau of Reclamation will release a range of possible proposals but will not identify a specific set of operating guidelines the federal government would prefer.
Scott Cameron, the bureau’s acting commissioner, urged the states to find compromise. “Cooperation is better than litigation,” he said during the conference. “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.”
Key Takeaways
- The seven Colorado River basin states have not agreed on a long-term water sharing plan before the Feb. 14 deadline.
- Nevada’s negotiator sees only a short-term deal as feasible, while Upper Basin states refuse additional cuts.
- The federal Bureau of Reclamation will propose options but has not set a preferred plan.
The conference underscored the complexity of balancing water needs among urban, agricultural, tribal and environmental interests. Without a consensus, the basin faces the risk of court battles and a federally imposed solution that could leave many stakeholders dissatisfied.
