The seven Western states that use the Colorado River are on the hook to come up with a new agreement for sharing water by Saturday, and it does not appear that they will have a deal by the deadline.
Negotiators from those states have been deadlocked for the better part of two years. The Colorado River supplies water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas through the Central Arizona Project. It also feeds nearly 40 million people and a massive agricultural industry. The river is in the grips of a megadrought stretching back more than two decades, and policymakers have struggled to agree on ways to rein in demand.
After months of talks, they can’t agree on who should feel the pain of necessary cutbacks.
The states are split into two camps — the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada. Arizona and its downstream neighbors have proposed some mandatory cutbacks to their water supply, but their upstream counterparts have not.
Earlier this month, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs told reporters she was “cautiously optimistic” about the direction of talks, but thought states would hit the deadline without an agreement.
“I think we'll be on a path to get to a deal,” Hobbs said. "Not a deal by February 14, but on February 14 be on a path to get to a deal.”
As talks between the states drag on, a spectacularly dry winter around Mountain West threatens to send already-beleaguered reservoirs even lower.
The nation’s second-largest reservoir, Lake Powell, has reached all-time lows in recent years and could drop even farther without new policies for managing the Colorado River water it stores.
If levels drop much lower, it could force the shutdown of hydropower turbines inside Glen Canyon Dam in Page. Further drops could make it impossible to send water from Lake Powell to the Colorado River — and Grand Canyon — on the other side.
In the high-mountain watersheds where the Colorado River begins as snowmelt, this year’s bleak conditions are only adding pressure to negotiations. Federal data shows the lowest-ever regionwide snow measurements since tracking began in 1986.
“The hydrology that we find ourselves in right now for the short term means that the reservoirs are going to go down to scary low levels,” said Anne Castle, a former federal water official. “We need, collectively, to come to an agreement about how to share the burden of reduced supplies.”
The current set of guidelines for managing the river expires in October, but there is a long process of environmental review that must be done by the federal government before new rules are put in place. The Department of the Interior gave states this February deadline to leave time for that environmental review process and avoid potential hiccups in implementing new guidelines between now and the fall. The states previously missed a November deadline and faced no formal consequences.
If states are still without a deal by October, the federal government will impose its own plan to protect the reservoirs and dams it operates. Federally-imposed rules would likely trigger lawsuits, sending Colorado River states to a messy Supreme Court battle.
State water leaders in Arizona and beyond have been vocal about their desire to avoid litigation and have recently turned their efforts toward forging a short-term deal that would keep them out of court.
“There is a strong desire, I think, among all seven states, to avoid the litigation outcome,” said Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s top water negotiator. "So if that means we could cut a deal for five years with a great likelihood that we won't have to litigate, great. If it's two years, maybe we buy into that.”
A five-year deal would probably not provide the kind of sweeping, long-lasting cuts to water demand that are likely necessary for managing the river into the future. However, policy experts say it could be a helpful way to keep water flowing to people who need it while states work on something more substantial.
“A five-year deal seems like it would be tight, but a five-year deal is better than no deal,” said Katherine Tara, a staff attorney and water policy analyst at the University of New Mexico. “Coming to a deal, even if it's a five-year deal, gives people who drink the water and irrigators, farmers, folks working in agriculture, you know, guaranteed minimum water deliveries, which is crucial.”
Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, said a short-term agreement could help states test out water conservation programs and lay the groundwork for a longer-term agreement. He conceded that such a deal could send policymakers back to the negotiating table quickly, but said it might be worth it to stay out of a courtroom.
“The people that have been in that room for three years are not looking forward to immediately starting to negotiate something after the first five years,” he said. “Because it's been such a slog. But nevertheless, I think the strongest driver right here is a reasonable outcome in which we can avoid litigation.”
