The Colorado River is entering a new chapter. New rules for managing its shrinking supplies are here, dealing big cuts to the amount of water that flows to Arizona, California and Nevada.
Reactions from Arizona and its neighbors are mixed. Officials are breathing a sigh of relief that the new plan avoided even deeper cuts, but say they are uneasy about the future, since its rules will only last for two years.
Arizona’s top water negotiator, Tom Buschatzke, told reporters that he was “pleased” with the new federal plan, which incorporated many important elements from a proposal written by his state, California and Nevada.
“[The reductions] will provide substantial stability for folks as we continue to negotiate and figure out how we're going to operate over a longer term period, which is what we all want,” Buschatzke said.
The new cutbacks come from two sources — a federal plan that mandates water reductions in Arizona, California and Nevada, and a separate plan from those states that volunteers additional cutbacks. In total, the states will cut back on their take from the river by about 20% over the next two years.
Those three states seemed relieved to only be cutting their take by 20%. The federal government had announced that cuts could reach up to 40% of the Colorado River supply for those states each year. Arizona leaders previously called that scenario “devastating” and “catastrophic” for the state’s people and economy.
“Today’s decision appears to provide a workable path forward over the next two years and avoids some of the most damaging scenarios our state was facing,” Danny Seiden, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, wrote in a statement.
The seven states that use water from the Colorado River spent years in closed-door negotiations trying to agree on a new plan for sharing water, but they failed to do so. With no state agreement, the federal government had to draw up its own plan for the river. The Bureau of Reclamation, which manages major dams and reservoirs across the West, was in a tricky position. It was forced to come up with a strategy that protected water levels at its reservoirs without overstepping its legal authority and triggering a lawsuit from one of the states that uses the river.
This plan appears to do so, for now.
Arizona responded to a first draft of the plan with sharp critiques, explaining that it could bring a lawsuit to protect its water.
Now that the new plan is finalized, Arizona reiterated that position. It could still take the federal government, or another state, to court if it feels like its rights to access the Colorado River are being violated.
“Arizona will continue to protect its legal right to its Colorado River water,” Buschatzke said. “Arizona can challenge actions taken in subsequent guidelines that do not comply with the law.”
How other states reacted
A statement from California’s top water negotiator expressed some concern about the future of water-sharing under the short-term plan.
“This is a bridge, not a permanent solution,” wrote JB Hamby, California’s delegate to Colorado River talks. “California, Arizona, and Nevada have shown that states can compromise, make difficult decisions, and reduce water use when the river demands it. But three states cannot carry the responsibility of all seven.”
The new federal rules do not force the upstream states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming to take any mandatory cuts.
“The reality is simple,” Hamby wrote. “There is less water in the Colorado River, and the reductions ahead may be greater than anything we have faced before. A durable agreement must spread that responsibility fairly across the basin, with all seven states and [the United States and Mexico] doing their part.”
A statement from the four Upper Basin states seemed to celebrate the new federal rules. Those states have long argued that they should not be forced to take cuts because they are affected more directly by dry conditions. They are legally obligated to send a fixed amount of water to their downstream neighbors, and are effectively already taking cuts because Mother Nature often gives them less water to send.
“The Department’s approach appears to represent a constructive step toward more closely aligning Colorado River operations with available water supply, which must remain the foundation for future operating decisions,” the Upper Basin states wrote in a statement.
In previous negotiations, those Rocky Mountain states did not volunteer for any new mandatory cutbacks going forward. Leaders from those states wrote that they are still open to further negotiations.
“The immediate operating framework is important, but the larger work must continue,” said Wyoming Commissioner Brandon Gebhart. “The Upper Division States remain committed to working with our federal and Basin State partners toward a sustainable consensus-based solution for the long term.”
Environmental groups push back
Some environmental groups pushed back on the new federal plan, which they say prioritizes protecting reservoir levels instead of protecting people who use the river’s water.
The plan appears largely focused on propping up water levels in Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir. Powell hit a record low earlier this month. If it drops much further, federal officials could be forced to shut down hydroelectric turbines inside the dam that holds it back. Further drops could make it difficult or impossible to send water through the dam at all, jeopardizing flows for the Grand Canyon, major cities and a massive agriculture industry downstream.
Lake Powell straddles the Arizona-Utah border, and is held back by Glen Canyon Dam near Page, Arizona.
Eric Balken, director of the nonprofit conservation group Glen Canyon Institute, wrote in a statement that perilously low reservoir levels are a sign that Glen Canyon Dam should be modified or bypassed entirely.
“Propping up Lake Powell is not a long term strategy,” Balken wrote. “The current approach from Reclamation will hamstring the entire Basin to avoid operational failure at Glen Canyon Dam.”
Gary Wockner, director of the environmental group Save The Colorado, echoed the sentiment in a separate press release.
“Reclamation's 'Save Glen Canyon Dam or Bust' decision sets a powerful precedent that the federal government will sacrifice water users and the Grand Canyon's aquatic ecosystem in a near-desperate attempt to try and save the dam,” he wrote.
