MARK BRODIE: The federal government has finally released details of new rules for allocating Colorado River water. The feds last month unveiled a framework for how cuts might work. Now that framework has been filled in with big cuts to the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada. With me now to talk about what all of this looks like is KJZZ’s Alex Hager. Hey, Alex.
ALEX HAGER: Good morning, Mark.
MARK BRODIE: So let’s go back to late July when this framework came out. What — remind us what that all looked like, what that all entailed.
ALEX HAGER: Yeah, the big headline was that the federal government said two things. One, “We’re going to put out this framework that will manage the river for the next 10 years, but we’re going to do new plans in two-year increments within those 10 years.” So basically every two years, we’re going to get all of the policymakers together and tweak the exact amount of water reductions we’re making over the course of two years in response to river conditions.
That was the first thing. The second thing they said was, “We are giving ourselves the authority — we believe we have the legal authority — to cut water for the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California, Nevada by up to 40%.” So those were the two things that made waves here in Arizona.
MARK BRODIE: And at the time, Arizona folks, water officials and others, they weren’t that thrilled with all that.
ALEX HAGER: That’s right. They spent the last few weeks expressing that pretty vocally. I mean, they said that these cuts could be catastrophic to the people and economy of this state. They have long described the potential for cuts of that size as devastating. And they made the case to the federal government that they needed to adopt the counterproposal from Arizona, California and Nevada that would soften the blow of those cuts and avoid the most devastating, most catastrophic outcome.
MARK BRODIE: So how closely did the federal government kind of hew to what the Lower Basin states wanted?
ALEX HAGER: Well, we know that they chose not the worst option in the eyes of the Lower Basin states. They are going to cut water by about 20%. This is actually a combination of two things. So they are going to mandate a certain amount of cuts, and then in conjunction with that, Arizona, California, Nevada are volunteering additional cuts. And that all adds up to a little more than 20% of the water that typically in the past few years has ... flowed to Arizona, California, Nevada.
MARK BRODIE: So it could have been worse.
ALEX HAGER: It absolutely could have been worse — and it still could. That’s the big thing, is so far in the limited reaction we’ve seen since these rules came out less than an hour ago, we have seen some leaders saying, “Look, this is a bridge. This is not a permanent solution. We expect these rules to last — we know these rules will last for two years, and in October of 2028, we are going to have to have some new ones.”
So we still could see the kinds of catastrophic, drastic cuts starting in 2028 that Arizona’s been talking about. But we know that for at least two years, there’s a little bit of stability knowing that these Lower Basin states are not going to have that worst-case outcome.
MARK BRODIE: Upper Basin states have been making the case that they shouldn’t take any cuts at all. Lower Basin states, of course, disagree with that. What did the feds say about the Upper Basin?
ALEX HAGER: The upper basin states are not going to be required to make mandatory water cutbacks under this new plan. So that’s Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico. They have long argued that they already take cuts. Even if they are not mandated by the government, their argument is that they have a legal obligation to send a certain amount of water down basically every year to Arizona, California and Nevada. But because the river starts in those upper states as snow in the Rocky Mountains, they say low-snow years, which we’ve been having a lot of lately, throw that balance out of whack. Basically, they have to send a fixed amount of water down every year, but the amount of water they are given to send has been a lot lower. And the difference, they say, amounts to the kind of cuts that the federal government might otherwise mandate.
MARK BRODIE: So 20%, a little more than 20% cuts to Arizona, California, Nevada. What might that mean? What might that look like here?
ALEX HAGER: Well, the interesting thing is it’s not going to show up at your home or business, for the most part. These cuts are not a surprise. The Colorado River has been really sagging under drought and climate change for 26 years now. And these kinds of cuts, maybe not the specific amount, but this kind of cut has been on the radar of the people who manage our water here for a long time. And for the most part, the cities that are going to be hit the hardest have been putting contingency plans into place for the better part of a decade. And because of that, the utilities that bring water to our homes have a huge backup plan in place.
MARK BRODIE: So in theory, then, as you say, we’re not in a situation where we’re going to turn on our tap and nothing’s going to come out or there’s not going to be water for the kinds of things that we need.
ALEX HAGER: I can say with almost universal certainty that that will be the case, at least for the next two years. Most cities and utilities have a diverse water portfolio, so they’re not just getting water from the Colorado River. So when you cut into the amount of water that those cities can access from the Colorado River, they can just lean harder on one of those other sources of water — groundwater, for example, water from the Salt River. And even cities that don’t have these robust portfolios where they can go and get water from another system, there are exchanges in place where cities that have a lot of water are entering deals to share some of it with cities that don’t.
MARK BRODIE: So what might the next two years look like, because as you say, this could get worse in two years. Is there a sense that the states might start — or maybe they’ve already started talking about what the 2028 version of this might look like?
ALEX HAGER: I am going to make an educated guess here and say that the states have not necessarily done that. They have spent basically the last two-plus years negotiating over the rules that came out today — and they could not come to an agreement. They failed to agree.
MARK BRODIE: Which is why the feds had to step in.
ALEX HAGER: Exactly. And so the seven leaders from the seven states that use water from the Colorado River, they do not see eye to eye on how it should be shared. That is the reason that we are in this position today. They have spent a lot of time in closed-door meetings disagreeing with each other. ... So the idea that they have to go back quickly and restart those negotiations is probably pretty unsavory to most of the people who have lost a lot of sleep over the same negotiations for a couple years now.
MARK BRODIE: So would that indicate — and of course, this is very speculative at this point — but is it a reasonable assumption then that there’s at least a chance that the feds might have to step in in 2028 and do this whole process again and say, “OK states, this is what we’re telling you to do,” as opposed to you figuring it out for yourselves?
ALEX HAGER: There is definitely a chance that that happens. I think the federal government has made it very clear that they do not want it to happen. The states, for the most part, also do not want it to happen. These guidelines, this 10-year system that I’ve been talking about, it is designed to allow the states to agree and kind of throw everything else out the window. So they said they’re going to keep all meeting together, the state leaders, the federal leaders, and if they can put their heads together and come to a consensus, they kind of just scrap the plans we’ve been talking about today and replace them with the new ones. They would prefer to agree, and they’ve built a system that accommodates that.
MARK BRODIE: Alex, we’ve been hearing a lot about lawsuits potentially and the states setting aside money for that. Do you get the sense that might still be on the table, or since the feds basically adopted what the Lower Basin states had asked for, that maybe that’s not going to be an issue right now?
ALEX HAGER: I would say we are not out of the woods yet on that. The states have been quietly jostling around and hinting that they could take this to court if they wanted to. I have not yet seen Arizona’s reaction to today’s announcement, but in their most recent reaction, they said, “Look, remember, we are not not going to sue.”
MARK BRODIE: OK, see what happens. That is KJZZ’s Alex Hager. Alex, thanks as always.
ALEX HAGER: Good to be back, Mark.
-
Then join us at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 8, as KJZZ senior field correspondent Alex Hager presents your questions and concerns to a panel of experts. -
A professor at Northern Arizona University teamed up with Navajo communities to test water quality in remote wells. The map is meant to help tribal members still struggling with the effects of past uranium mining. -
Republican state lawmakers want the state’s water agency to keep them apprised of all Colorado River negotiations, indicating that the governor is getting more updates than them. -
Leaders with the Central Arizona Project opened the door to potential lawsuits over the federal management of Colorado River water. -
Cataloging information from the Confluence may also be used to potentially deter future commercial development by industries like hydropower — while the Trump administration is eyeing energy projects on tribal lands.
