This new Colorado River plan could give Arizona a ‘lifeline and cause for hope’

There’s a new plan on the table for managing the Colorado River after more than a year of deadlocked negotiations. Arizona, California and Nevada are proposing to cut back on the amount of water they receive from major reservoirs through 2028, propping up shrinking water reserves while states talk about a long-term solution.

The proposal, which was announced Friday evening, would see those states leave 700,000 to 1 million acre-feet of water in the Colorado River system, helping protect against dropping levels at the nation’s two largest reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to fill one acre of land to a height of one foot. One acre-foot generally provides enough water for one to two households for a year.

The newly-announced water conservation measures would add on to earlier proposed cutbacks. State leaders say total cuts would add up to more than 3.2 million acre-feet of water through 2028. They framed the plan as a “bridge” while talks continue.

Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s top water negotiator, was unavailable for comment, but was quoted in a written statement from the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

“This proposal reflects the creativity and commitment of water users across the Lower

Basin who continue to step forward with solutions that support the river,”

Buschatzke wrote. “We have shown that collaborative, voluntary efforts and reductions that are certain can produce meaningful water savings.”

Alex Hager

/

KUNC

It is not yet clear which particular cities, towns, or farms would use less water to make the cutbacks possible These voluntary reductions are likely a way for states to make cutbacks on their own terms. Prior to this new plan, the federal government proposed massive, mandatory cuts to the Central Arizona Project, which supplies the Phoenix and Tucson areas.

The agency’s leaders petitioned against that plan, calling its cutbacks “devastating.”

This proposal may save Arizona from the worst of those cuts while still protecting infrastructure and water reserves at Powell and Mead.

Now, CAP leaders are backing the new plan, calling it a “welcome lifeline and cause for hope.”

The need for a new water management plan — even a short term one — became much more urgent in the past few months as the realities of a historically dry winter began to set in. Prior to the announcement of this plan, projections for Lake Powell showed water levels dipping critically low as soon as this summer, threatening the ability to generate hydropower at Glen Canyon Dam and potentially jeopardizing the ability to send water from the reservoir to the Colorado River on the other side.

The new proposal would need federal approval before moving forward.

It appears designed to steer states away from a legal battle. Arizona, California and Nevada have long been at odds with their upstream counterparts of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. With negotiations at a standstill and reservoirs dropping, states were on course for big lawsuits. These cutbacks could be enough to stabilize the Colorado River and its reservoirs long enough to avoid those lawsuits.

The Lower Basin states pitched their new water-saving plan as a way to buy time for a new round of negotiations aimed at forging a longer-term deal. Those talks may go differently than previous iterations after Upper Basin states called for a mediator to join the discussions and help policymakers bridge their divides.

“The Lower Basin states recognize the Upper Basin’s call for mediation and are open to that process,” Arizona, California and Nevada leaders said in a press release.

Hear Alex Hager on The Show with Lauren Gilger

Listen • 7:29

Full conversation

LAUREN GILGER: Next up this morning we have some big news on the future of the Colorado River. Arizona, California and Nevada have struck a deal about the river's management after more than a year of deadlocked negotiations.

The so-called Lower Basin states are putting forward a proposal that would make sweeping cuts to our water use across the Southwest and prop up the nation's two largest reservoirs, which sit in northern Arizona: Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

At this point, water levels are so low amid climate change and ongoing drought that the reservoirs might just stop working — and that is something everyone wants to avoid. But states across the West have not been able to agree on how and who should take most water cuts.

KJZZ's Alex Hager is covering it all and he joins me now to talk more about it. Good morning, Alex.

ALEX HAGER: Good morning, Lauren.

LAUREN GILGER: OK, Alex, what is in this plan?

ALEX HAGER: So, the plan is to leave water in the river across Arizona, California and Nevada. It is not yet detailed how exactly that would happen. We can make some informed guesses, but at the end of the day what it does is leave water in the Colorado River system to keep those reservoirs operating normally. And what it does is kick the can down the road a little bit on negotiations; it buys us time through 2028 to come to a bigger agreement about managing the river among all seven states that use it for a longer amount of time.

LAUREN GILGER: OK, so kicking the can down the road, but cuts are involved here. I mean when we're taking less water from the river that means we're getting less water from the river, right? Who's going to take those cuts?

ALEX HAGER: We don't know yet, but like I said we can make some informed guesses. So, in the past, similar cutback plans have been facilitated by writing checks to farmers to pause irrigation on some of their crops.

We are almost certainly going to see cuts to the Central Arizona Project; that's a big canal that brings water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas. And cities that draw from that canal, they can use less Colorado River water especially for short periods of time, by leaning harder on other sources, like the Salt River Project here in Phoenix or drawing more groundwater during that time. And these cuts are likely going to be easier to tolerate whether you are a farmer or a city because they are only expected to last through 2028.

LAUREN GILGER: OK, short term in that sense. This plan, Alex, comes from Arizona, California and Nevada as we said, after the federal government put out its own proposal, right? Which would have been really, I think the quote was "devastating" to particularly the Central Arizona Project, you mentioned there.

ALEX HAGER: That's right. The initial plan to cut back on water use and help prop up these reservoirs was made by the federal government and when it was released, leaders here in the Valley pushed back hard. They said that this plan was unacceptable, they said it would be devastating. The leader of the Central Arizona Project said it appeared that they were trying to wipe us here in the Valley off the map.

This would not do that. I talked to the Central Arizona Project earlier this week, and they said these cuts have gone from devastating to difficult but still possible to be managed.

LAUREN GILGER: OK, so it's kind of doing it on their own terms.

ALEX HAGER: That sounds about right.

LAUREN GILGER: OK. So this is just a proposal from the Lower Basin states and just a proposal, right? What about the Upper Basin states? What do they have to say?

ALEX HAGER: They're not wild about this plan. I know that, I've talked to a representative from the Upper Basin states, and they have some big issues with the details. Part of this plan involves drawing down some other further upstream reservoirs in Wyoming and in Utah, taking that water and not only leaving water from down here in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, but taking water from upstream and adding it to Lake Powell.

They have an issue with that plan, and they also pointed out that this does not save the river, it keeps both major reservoirs kind of on the precipice of crisis without letting them fall over, but it keeps them close to the edge of crisis.

So, it is yet to be seen whether their approval is necessary. Basically the next step is for the federal government to decide whether to sign off on this plan wholesale, take parts of it and incorporate it into a different plan. They might take parts of suggestions from the Upper Basin states and incorporate those into a final plan.

But now it seems like the decision-making power is in the hands of the federal government. The federal government was fairly significantly involved in the development of this proposal from the Lower Basin states so there is reason to believe that they will likely implement a lot or at least some significant portions of this Lower Basin proposal.

LAUREN GILGER: And does this, Alex, avoid the kind of big elephant in the room that everyone's been talking about for the last year as these negotiations have been deadlocked, that, you know, this is going to end up in court and that will be bad — particularly for us? Are we maybe not going to end up in court if the feds approve this plan?

ALEX HAGER: It turns down some of the heat. There's the potential that lawsuits could fly in a lot of different directions depending on what happens. So, because this does not cut so severely into the Central Arizona Project's allocation, some of the potential for a lawsuit from Arizona towards the federal government or from Lower Basin states towards the federal government, maybe that goes down a bit.

But, you know, this does not necessarily eliminate the potential that the Lower Basin states sue the Upper Basin states or maybe the Upper Basin states sue the federal government. So it turns down the heat a bit but does not eliminate the chance of a big messy court battle. That's what they're trying to solve in those longer-term negotiations.

Between now and 2028, if this plan in whole or in part gets implemented and preserves the reservoirs long enough to have more time for more talks, those talks will really be focused on, how do we manage the river with cuts that we can survive without having to sue each other?

LAUREN GILGER: You mentioned these are less severe cuts to the Central Arizona Project, but those still will be cuts, right? How will we or will we feel this, at least in the short term, under this proposal here in the Valley, in cities? Like will this impact people's lives?

ALEX HAGER: It is unlikely to impact people's lives in a big way. First of all, we don't know that this plan's going to be implemented yet, it would still need a sign of approval from the federal government.

But the way that I think it'll show up in the Valley is mostly going to be behind the scenes. A lot of city water departments around here, they are working feverishly in the background to make sure that people who own kitchen faucets and lawn sprinklers do not have to deal with this by making sure that their cities have a diverse portfolio to draw from.

So, in times when there's less Colorado River water available, those cities will draw a little bit more from another part of their portfolio, like the Salt River, like groundwater. A lot of these cities have been storing a little bit of excess water in underground savings banks for times just like this.

There are some cities that are better prepared than others, but we're even seeing programs get set up by Phoenix and Tucson to create exchanges, to create a way for cities that are better prepared to help out the cities that are less well prepared in times just like this.

LAUREN GILGER: This though, as you said, is only a two-year plan, it's sort of a stopgap. Why would this look any different in two years, or maybe it will look worse in two years when negotiators have to come to a broader proposal?

ALEX HAGER: That's right, this is buying more time for negotiators, and I think it really does raise the question if they couldn't solve it in the past few years, what difference is two more years going to make?

One thing that might be different is that states are talking about bringing a mediator into those negotiation rooms. The Upper Basin states were the ones who suggested it most directly and it sounds like there is some interest from the Lower Basin states.

Basically we have been sending the same seven individuals and their support staffs to the same negotiation rooms for a number of years now, and they have not come out with anything. Bringing a third party in there to help them bridge their differences might make a difference and it sounds like they might be enthusiastic about doing that.

LAUREN GILGER: KJZZ's Alex Hager, thank you so much.

ALEX HAGER: Thank you, Lauren.