Colorado River states missed deadline to agree on a water deal. This expert is not optimistic

Tuesday, Nov. 11, was the deadline for the seven Colorado River basin states to come to an agreement on new rules for the over-allocated river. They did not; but the U.S. Department of the Interior agreed to wait before it imposed its own set of rules, citing progress being made toward a deal between the states.

At the same time, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and bipartisan legislative leaders have sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum accusing the Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — of refusing to implement cuts to their water supplies.

Ted Cooke is a board member of the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona and former general manager of the Central Arizona Project. He joined The Show to talk about what might come next.

Bret Jaspers/KJZZ

Full conversation

MARK BRODIE: Ted, good morning.

TED COOKE: Good morning.

BRODIE: So I'm curious, like what you make of the fact that the states didn't come to a deal by yesterday, but that the feds seem to be saying, we're willing to wait and see if you guys maybe can come to a deal before the federal government comes in and sets the rules.

COOKE: Well, yesterday's news was disappointing for sure, but really I think it's pretty much what everyone expected to happen. And this will give some more time for the states to continue to work together.

Unfortunately, it's pretty common over the last couple of decades for the United States to do that. Everyone believes that a seven-state deal is better than any other outcome because basically everybody agrees going into it during the environmental impact statement evaluation process rather than having the United States come in and impose something that increases the likelihood of lawsuits.

But despite that belief that the seven-state deal is better, no such deal has come forth. And my beliefs from having been involved in those type of conversations before is the references to progress are encouraging, things that are maybe satellite issues that, that don't constitute a deal on their own but, but might be things that would be included if they could get to agreement on the key issues that have basically been in deadlock for a year and a half.

BRODIE: I mean, do you share the federal government's seeming optimism that a deal can be reached?

COOKE: Well, I think that's a matter of time, No. 1, and we're running out of it, if not having run out of it, No. 1. And No. 2, there's also is a tendency, I think as time wears on, at least based on my past experience, that the bar is lowered as time goes on and the willingness to accept compromises that really are not in the best interest of the river and declare victory when it's really not, then becomes a problem.

BRODIE: It's interesting because as you say, the bar gets kind of lowered, but at the same time, it doesn't seem as though the rhetoric is necessarily being lowered. I mean, I mentioned Gov. Hobbs' letter to the Interior secretary, where she basically blamed all the problems on the Upper Basin states. And we've heard Upper Basin states kind of blue, blaming Arizona, California and Nevada for all the rivers problems.

So I wonder if that is just sort of the rhetoric of it or of itself somewhat of an impediment to reaching a deal.

COOKE: Well, all of the rhetoric does, from both sides, does include at least a kernel, I'll call it, of maybe legitimacy, where there's a legitimate beef or a legitimate point of view that may be at odds with each other. And those issues need to be to be worked out in order for the states to come to a deal.

The increase in the rhetorical vehemence over the last couple of months is probably not really helpful. It has a side benefit, though, I think of illustrating some of the difficulty that there is and the complications, the complex nature of some of these issues that need to be resolved.

And there's really two of them, if I may, of these two issues that have been at an impasse for a year and a half. One of them is basically who among the states and how much each state is going to take in reductions that are necessary to stabilize the river and its reliability. And the other one is how Lake Powell is operated to release water from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin and in what quantities each year and based on which rules.

Those are the two main things, and they're not coming to any kind of conclusive end on those type of things and just going around in circles.

BRODIE: Well, and you reference the timing of this and obviously the longer it takes to come to a deal or have the feds impose a deal, the longer the current rules are in place. And as you've alluded to, the river needs help at this point.

So I wonder what the fact that we're delaying for some more amount of time, what does that do to the supply of water that the states will ultimately be divvying up?

COOKE: Well, the current set of rules, it's the 2007 guidelines that were from 2007 and were to last for 20 years, don't expire until Sept. 30, 2026. So those rules are in place. Everybody knows what to expect for the next nine or 10 months.

But if that period of time expires and there's no deal, then we don't go back to the 2007 rules. We go back to the long term operating criteria that were formulated in the 1970s, which is a pretty scary scenario right there.

So as we're running out of time, if the states don't complete a deal and they have not been successful in doing that despite the claims of progress, and then so the next thing would be, well, does the United States impose a plan of its own and risk litigation and things like that?

What if that doesn't happen? What if it gets put off indefinitely? And to your question then, well, what happens then? The United States will not, despite their reluctance to actually take charge and put a plan of their own in place, they will not let the infrastructure fail. But a last minute, we're going to do this tomorrow because we have to, type of action is even less preferable than them stepping in earlier.

So the real question is, well, at what point in time between now and Sept. 30 of next year does the United States really, really, really need to step in and do something on their own if the states continue to be at an impasse? And there is a process, the NEPA process, National Environmental Policy act, that has to happen, that will take several months to do.

So lots of folks are referring to yesterday's deadline. There was a second deadline, yesterday's deadline being have the outline, let's call it, of a deal among the states available and then that would be finalized between now and mid-February or thereabouts.

MARK BRODIE: Got it.

COOKE: So there's another deadline and I think that's one of the excuses. Why? Well, we really do have more time, so why don't we just use it? Well, what'll happen if we get to that point?

And I'm not optimistic that three more months is going to make a difference after a year and a half of basically going around in circles.