As Arizona’s record-dry winter continues, Western water managers are quietly preparing for what many have called a “nuclear option” in the ongoing battle for who-gets-what from the quickly drying Colorado River.
Seven states are locked in a standoff right now over who should use less water from the river, as climate change continues to dry it up. They’re facing a 2026 deadline to create new rules to govern it.
Last month, Arizona rocked the boat by proposing a state budget that included millions to pay for a court battle over Colorado River water, they say, just in case those negotiations don’t work.
Alex Hager covers the Colorado River for KUNC in Colorado and joined The Show to discuss.
Full conversation
SAM DINGMAN: Good morning, Alex.
ALEX HAGER: Thanks for having me.
DINGMAN: Thanks for being here. So speaking of water, Arizona's government made a bit of a splash by proposing $3 million for litigation on the Colorado River, even though no one has taken anyone to court yet. What was the reaction to that move?
HAGER: Well, the reaction is widely that it is not, not necessarily serious, but it is not an indication of any further progress towards the Supreme Court. Basically states across the West say, “look, we really want to avoid this going to the Supreme Court."
We are actually spending time and money now specifically on avoiding that outcome, and we don't think that we should necessarily be preparing. We should be spending all of our time and energy on avoiding the Supreme Court. So you know, the reactions so far have been from some people that this is a sign that we should be a little worried, that states may actually be, you know, losing confidence in their ability to come to an agreement among themselves.
But other people say, Look, this, this is actually not a sign that we're going to the Supreme Court. Instead, it's a negotiation tactic. It's a sign that Arizona thinks it has the higher hand in these talks.
DINGMAN: And why is going to the Supreme Court seen as the quote, unquote, "nuclear option"? What is the concern about it reaching that point?
HAGER: Western water is very complicated. The Colorado River supplies 40 million people across seven states. It supplies 30 federally recognized native tribes, a massive agricultural industry, and it is very carefully subdivided, the water supply.
And Western water leaders worry that if they take it to the Supreme Court, they will lose their own autonomy in managing that very complicated system. You know, the people who make decisions about our water in the West are qualified technical experts, people with degrees in water law, people with degrees in hydrology, and they worry that if you send it to the Supreme Court, you're now giving governance power of that very complicated system to a body of people who are not technical experts.
DINGMAN: So as all of this brinksmanship unfolds, the situation on the Colorado River is getting worse all the time because of climate change, right? What are the sides saying about that piece of this?
HAGER: Well the nice thing about Colorado River negotiations is the states are able to agree on one thing, and that is that the river is much smaller than it used to be due to climate change, and that we need to rein in demand in response. The particulars of how to do that are where we start to lose some of that agreement.
So you have states in the Upper Basin, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico disagreeing with their counterparts in the Lower Basin. That's California, Arizona and Nevada. And at the heart of that disagreement is, look, we know that climate change is shrinking the amount of water in the river. We just disagree about whose responsibility it is to take less water in response to that.
DINGMAN: So one of the other, as you alluded to earlier, very important stakeholders here, is the tribal nations, and they'll be a part of this if it ends up in court as well. What are they saying, and where are they on this question?
HAGER: Well, the tribes have access to a lot of the Colorado River's water. They have the legal rights to it, but a lot of them lack the funding and infrastructure to use their full allotments of water. But because they have those rights, they are very likely to get involved.
If this goes to the Supreme Court, they may try to seek, you know, they may try to seek more access to funds to develop that water, or, you know, claim to make sure that the water they are owed actually gets to them.
DINGMAN: And as all of these differing interests are jockeying for position, when is the next deadline on this?
HAGER: Right now, the next deadline is kind of summer 2026, but really, action is needed as soon as possible. Like I said, this is a very complicated system, and so to make sure that the water gets divvied up and make sure that any plan the states agree. Beyond gets kind of approved.
There's just a lot of paperwork, and the lead time for that is pretty long, especially with a federal government that has sowed a lot of confusion and discord. You know, basically, there is no time that would be too soon to come to an agreement. And a lot of onlookers of the river here say that the states really need to get moving faster.
DINGMAN: So we started this conversation off by talking about Arizona, kind of throwing a grenade here. What has Arizona's response been to the pushback from the other states?
HAGER: Well, at the end of the day, you know, some of the onlookers here say this is just a negotiation tactic, and Arizona denies that. Arizona's response is basically, look, we're just kind of, you know, covering ourselves here. We understand that if this goes to the Supreme Court, we will need money to fight it.
And Arizona's top water leader, Tom Buschatzke, said this is just a backstop in case we don't come to a collaborative agreement. So they're saying it's kind of just in case, and not a sign that things are moving any closer to a court battle, but it definitely ruffled some feathers.
DINGMAN: All right. Well, just about 30 seconds left here, Alex, what are the next steps you're watching for? Are the leaders coming back to the table for more negotiations anytime soon?
HAGER: Well, they are constantly meeting behind closed doors. We don't often know when, and we don't often know what they talk about, but we are eagerly awaiting for some of those closed doors to open and some of the leaders to come out and say, actually, we are willing to give up a little bit of our ideological ground and come closer to something that will end with the river being shared fairly and sustainably.
