States that share water from the Colorado River are working to balance the needs of farmers and cities

Upper Division: Colo., N.M., Utah and Wyo.
Lower Div.: Nev., Ariz. and Calif. (Wikipedia map)

Contention over how to share water from the Colorado River has rankled seven Western states and the federal government for more than 100 years. The stakes have only increased in recent years. "The future of the American West is quietly being hashed out in the conference rooms of a Las Vegas casino this week," reports Annie Snider of Politico. "Just across the strip from the Bellagio's fountains, in the shadow of an enormous Eiffel Tower-knock-off, negotiators from the seven states that share the Colorado River are racing to reach a deal on how to share the West's most important — and shrinking — waterway."

Over the past 20 years, climate change and drought have shrunk the river's flow by more than 20 percent, and "the only question now is how much worse things will get," Snider writes. "The negotiations over how to share the pain of bringing water use in line with the shrunken waterway will have huge implications for the 40 million people who rely on it at their taps in metro areas. . . as well as for the powerhouse farming operations that use roughly three-quarters of the river's water to irrigate some of the country's most productive agricultural land. Also on the line are the interests of 30 federally-recognized tribes along the river and the 11 national parks and monuments it courses through, including the Grand Canyon."

Colorado River Basin (Wikipedia map)

Politically, the conflict is a "landmine for the Biden administration, which has taken a much more aggressive approach with the affected states than its predecessors," Snider reports. "The sharpest pain will be centered on the three lower river states: Arizona and Nevada — two crucial political swing states – and California, home of the Democratic Party's most deep-pocketed donors and whose governor is widely believed to harbor presidential ambitions."

The roil doesn't stop there. "Especially contentious is the fault line between farmers, who typically hold the most protected rights to the river," Snider explains, "and the urban areas that are states' economic engines and are home to their voting bases, but are first in line for water delivery cuts under the century-old legal regime that governs the river."

This past year's record snowpack melt, paired with a three-state agreement to "conserve water over the next three years in exchange for $1.2 billion in federal funding, have headed off the disaster for now," Snider reports. "But crafting new rules to govern the river through a much drier future beginning in 2026 will be exponentially harder." 

Calif. offers Colorado River plan, saying lack of consensus means 'law of the river' rules; that law favors Golden State

The Colorado River flows near Hite Overlook, Utah, upstream from
Lake Powell. (Photo by Carolyn Cole, Los Angeles Times)

California has entered the Colorado River water battle royale with a counter-proposal that refutes plans from the other six states in the watershed and says their plan "would disproportionately burden farms and cities in Southern California," reports Ian James of the Los Angeles Times. Wade Crowfoot, the state’s natural resources secretary, told James, "It doesn’t seem like a constructive approach for some states to fashion a proposal that only impacts the existing water security and water rights of another state that’s not part of that proposal.”

The “consensus-based modeling alternative” plan offered by Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming included "an accounting for evaporation and other water losses along the lower portion of the river — a calculation that would translate into especially large reductions for California, which uses more Colorado River water than any other state," James writes. "Crowfoot said the other states had devised an approach that would go beyond anything established in the agreements and laws that govern how the Colorado River is managed and used. . . . The proposal by California water agencies, in contrast, lays out practical and achievable changes that can be made starting this year to stabilize reservoir levels."

California officials noted that the state has water rights that are senior to those of the other states, but “I don’t think there is disagreement on the magnitude of the reductions that are needed,” John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, told James. “We need this magnitude of cuts in order to stabilize the system. . . . he’s hoping “we can come up with something everybody can live with.”

J.B. Hamby, chair of California’s Colorado River Board, told James, the state’s alternative “provides a realistic and implementable framework by building on voluntary agreements and past collaborative efforts in order to minimize the risk of legal challenge or implementation delay. . . . California is not wavering from our legal position. We continue to look forward to developing a seven-state consensus if possible, but in the absence of that, it defaults to the law of the river.”