- Deadlock deepens: Negotiations between Upper and Lower Basin states have stalled, with no joint panel or pre-conference talks for the first time in years at the Colorado River Water Users Association meeting in Las Vegas.
- Competing visions: After failing to reach a consensus nine months ago, both basins remain dug in, proposing starkly different water management plans and refusing to absorb additional cuts.
- Legal threats loom: Lower Basin negotiators warn of a potential “compact call” to force cuts on the Upper Basin, while states like Arizona prepare for courtroom battles if a deal can’t be reached.
- Federal push and faint optimism: The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is set to unveil more detailed proposals by year’s end, and despite the high tensions, officials on both sides still hold out hope for a seven-state compromise.
December 10, 2024 — The following article was written by Jeniffer Solis, Nevada Current
, December 6, 2024, and is republished under the Creative Commons License.
Western states that rely on the Colorado River are in a heated deadlock over how to manage the troubled river, and are doubling down on their own regional plans, despite growing pressure from the federal government to reach a compromise.
Top water officials for the seven Colorado River Basin states — Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming — gathered for the Colorado River Water Users Association conference at the Paris Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas Thursday.
But for the first time in years, representatives from Lower Basin states — Nevada, Arizona, and California — and Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming — did not appear on a panel together or meet during the conference to negotiate the future of the Colorado River.
“It’s been customary that we get together beforehand,” said Colorado River Commissioner for Colorado, Becky Mitchell, during a news conference. “Unfortunately, we weren’t able to do that. I don’t think that means that we will never be able to do that again. It just means this time we weren’t.”
Nine months ago, the two basins submitted competing water management plans to the federal government after state negotiators could not reach a consensus on how to share the river’s dwindling water supply.
Since then, the basin states have not moved any closer to negotiating a compromise on how to equitably share and cut Colorado River water use once current management rules expire in 2026, leaving states up a creek without a paddle.
One of the biggest sticking points between the two basins is whether or not Upper Basin states should absorb mandatory water cuts during dry years, despite using significantly less than their 7.5 million acre-feet Colorado River allocation year-after-year.
Historically, Lower Basin states have used nearly all their 7.5 million acre-feet Colorado River allocation under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, compared to the 4.5 million acres-feet used by the Upper Basin states.
Lower Basin states argued all seven states should share water cuts during dry years under the new post-2026 guidelines. If they don’t, downstream states warned they could face water cuts they can’t feasibly absorb.
Those tensions were reflected Thursday when Lower Basin water managers told a ballroom full of water managers, researchers, agricultural producers and others from across the drought-stricken river that if their Upper Basin counterparts did not sign onto the Lower Basin plan and accept cuts, they would be at greater risk of triggering a “compact call,” which could force cuts on the Upper Basin.
Upper Basin states argue they don’t have the legal authority to significantly reduce flows to water users on their own under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, unlike Lower Basin states.
“They might have that authority if we make a compact call. So perhaps we’ll make that compact call, then they’ll have the authority to cut flows,” said Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s top Colorado River negotiator. “Maybe that’s an easy path compared to going to their water users with some voluntary program or their legislatures to get authorities to do the things we have to do in the Lower Basin.”
In September, Buschatzke asked Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs to set aside $1 million for litigation in the event states can’t reach a compromise and Arizona needs to take the issue to court.
“I have to do my due diligence for all potential outcomes,” said Buchatzke about his request.
Negotiators in both the Lower and Upper Basin states all acknowledged they have three options to decide how states will share the river’s waning water supply going forward: litigation, legislation or negotiation.
“When we put forward our Lower Basin alternative, we were looking to offer a compromise,” said JB Hamby, Colorado River Commissioner for California. “We want a seven state agreement. We don’t want to have to go litigate stuff and force these really difficult outcomes in the Upper Basin.”
Mitchell, the Colorado River Commissioner for Colorado, was critical of how the Lower Basin states have approached negotiations with the Upper Basin.
“I think going in, not willing to change your deal at all, is probably the first problem. You cannot say there’s a compromise, if we have to accept a deal in its entirety,” Mitchell said, adding that Upper Basin states are open to adjustments to their plan.
To spur a compromise, the federal government released an initial outline detailing four different river management options last month, including a hybrid management option that blends components from both basin state plans.
Representatives for both camps said they would need to see more details before throwing their weight behind any of the federal management proposals.
“They did provide a bit of additional information today as to some of the elements, but still not enough,” said Estevan Lopez, New Mexico’s representative on Colorado River matters, during a news conference Thursday.
Representatives for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said the agency intends to publish a more detailed analysis of the federal proposals by the end of the year. Maximum cuts could range from 2.1 million acre-feet to 4 million acre-feet, which could be divided based on who has the oldest rights, or distributed proportionally across all seven states.
Despite the lack of comradery among the Lower and Upper Basin states at the annual conference, both camps expressed optimism they could reach a compromise, eventually.
“I want everybody from the upper basin to hear from Nevada: We believe compromise is possible. We think it’s the first, second and third best option. But we need a dance partner, so let’s get back to the table and make this happen,” said John Entsminger, Nevada’s representative on river issues and general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
Mitchell said it was clear to her from panel presentations during the conference that all seven states want to reach a consensus plan on how to manage the future of the Colorado River.
“I think there’s still a possibility. I’m still hopeful. And I think if we want a seven state consensus, we’re going to have to have seven leaders come to the table,” Mitchell continued.
Brandon Gebhart, Wyoming’s state engineer and Colorado River negotiator, said he believes the seven Colorado River Basin states can come up with a better management plan than one imposed by the federal government, although “it won’t happen next week.”
“We really need to understand that the enemy we’re battling right now is not the Upper Basin, it’s not the Lower Basin. It’s hydrology,” Gebhart said.
Nevada Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nevada Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Hugh Jackson for questions: info@nevadacurrent.com. Follow Nevada Current on Facebook and X.
Leave a Reply