New federal rule would increase water cuts in the Colorado River Basin; Native American tribes say they weren't consulted

Colorado River Indian Tribes say the U.S. Department of the Interior did not provide them with enough notice or allow them sufficient input about its newly proposed plan of "future cuts to Colorado River water deliveries to three lower river basin states," reports Daniel Herrera Carbajal for ICT. 

The plan dictates that California, Arizona and Nevada would take less water from the Colorado River "to stave off a crisis in the river." Arizona and Nevada have taken water usage cuts before, but this proposal "could lead to more significant reductions, impacting agriculture, cities and tribes," according to the ICT report. 

In a release letter earlier this month, The Colorado River Indian Tribes' attorney general, Rebecca Loudbear, wrote that the decision does not "reflect the nature and extent of [The Colorado Indian Tribes's] water rights," because the Tribes "holds water rights to over 23 percent of Arizona’s entire allocation of Colorado River water."

The Tribes is a major shareholder of Colorado River water in Arizona and has "some of the most legally untouchable water rights pertaining to the river." The Tribes, along with the Gila River Indian Community, pledged to "'stand ready" to challenge the plan if it does not meet their needs.

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."