Stymied Colorado River negotiations may need federal intervention and outside facilitators to reach an agreement

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, center, meets in January with governors and representatives 
of the seven Colorado River basin states. (Department of the Interior photo)

As negotiations among seven Western states stall over how to share the drying Colorado River, complex water negotiation experts Karen Schlatter and Sharon B. Megdal, writing for The Conversation, believe there is a path to end the deadlock and begin meaningful discussions that could lead to a water division agreement.

Schlatter and Megdal say the way to create successful discussions on contentious issues involves "learning together, understanding one another’s interests, working through conflict and developing inclusive solutions for diverse participants. And that works best with an outside facilitator."

Right now, the states are divided into subgroups "based on whether they are in the river’s Upper Basin – Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico – or the Lower Basin, which includes Arizona, Nevada and California," Schlatter and Megdal explain. "Each basin group holds strong positions and has generally been unwilling to shift."

Schlatter and Megdal point out that the Colorado River water conflicts seem like a battle because they are. The Colorado River negotiations include "all five of the most common sources of conflict between people: values, data, relationships, interests and structure."

Over time, negotiations between state water experts have likely become stagnant after so many conflict-filled discussions that a fruitful give-and-take agreement isn't currently possible. Schlatter and Megdal explain, "We believe it’s unreasonable – and unrealistic and unfair – to expect them to be experts at designing and facilitating an effective process for sorting out their differences. . . . Federal officials are not necessarily the best people to run the process either."

Perhaps the most hopeful possibility is for the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which has the authority to decide on water issues for states, to adopt "short-term rules that would give the states another chance to negotiate a longer-term deal – ideally with an unbiased third-party facilitator for support," they explain.

Recent historical water compromise agreements, such as the "collaborative and consensus-based planning process in the Yakima River Basin in Washington state or the Colorado River contingency plans to manage drought in 2019," can serve as examples, Schlatter and Megdal explain. "We believe that an agreement between the seven states is still possible."