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."

Pilot program that pays irrigating farmers for their water rights helps Nevada aquifers recover from overuse

Retiring groundwater rights helps depleted aquifers 
recover from overuse. (The Nature Conservancy map)

After years of battling water overuse by irrigating farmers, Nevada officials decided to use $25 million in federal funding to launch a pilot program that paid farmers for their water rights," reports Daniel Rothberg of The Daily Yonder. Once the state compensated irrigators for their groundwater rights, the state would retire the rights and no longer allow irrigation from that land, thereby conserving water.

Launched in 2023, the program has proved to be an effective way to protect some of the state's threatened aquifers. In fact, Nevada has used "federal funds to retire about 22,500 acre-feet of water, roughly the same amount of water Nevada was required to cut from its Colorado River allocation last year," Rothberg explains.

State water officials have been pleasantly surprised at how popular the pay-for-groundwater-rights option has become. Rothberg reports, "There was so much demand that two bills, passed unanimously by the Democratic-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo in 2025, allow for the expansion of the program."

After asking lots of questions, alfalfa farmer Denise Moyle decided to sell some of her groundwater rights to the state. Moyle shared the thought process she and many area farmers consider when debating groundwater rights sales: "If I sell a little bit of water and I pay off debt, do I have to farm as hard? Do I have to pump as hard? Do I have to go for three (alfalfa) cuttings? Can I just do two cuttings?"

Meanwhile, state water officials and conservationists are considering how to keep the program going, which could lean on donations and federal funding. "A donation could target a specific area or ecosystem in need of protection from groundwater overuse," Rothberg explains. "But state funding would help to raise matching federal dollars and maximize the program’s value."

Going against the current, Utah works to change an old western water rights rule to encourage conservation

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food photo

Many western states apply the "use it or lose it" rule to water rights, which penalizes land owners for using less water.  But Utah is working to reward conservation, reports Nina Elkadi of Grist. "Amid climate change, drought, and increased demands for water, Utah is trying to change the system, bucking one of the oldest water rules in the western U.S."

In the West, water rights come down to the 'beneficial use' principle that "declares that water rights holders must use their water for beneficial purposes, such as agriculture, or give up those rights," Elkadi explains. "In Utah, though, the state legislature has passed multiple statutes that are attempting to encourage farmers to use less water without losing rights to it."

Even as the federal government works with western states to reorganize the Colorado River Compact, Utah is doing its own water resource management. Utah wants "to encourage farmers to conserve water without punishing them for it," Elkadi reports. "It's tackling the problem through its Agricultural Water Optimization Program, which awards farmers funding to become more efficient with their water use. . . . [It's] meant to address stress and uncertainty for farmers. And aims to thwart, or at least delay, catastrophic water shortages in the region."

Utah's Agricultural Water Optimization Program provides support to farmers through grants "to improve water practices," Elkadi writes. "Farmers can also file a 'change application' to lease out any 'saved water' through a water marketplace. Utah's State Engineer Teresa Wilhelmsen told Elkadi, "It kind of gives an incentive to save that consumptive use and potentially be able to lease it or do something else with it."

Despite its benefits, some farmers have avoided participation. Wilhelmsen told Elkadi, “As you can imagine, there’s a fear of the state engineer with some folks." Elkadi adds, "This is why she is trying to frame these programs as opportunities to 'tune up your water rights.'"

While the state's water optimization program is a start, "some believe more needs to be done. Burdette Barker, an irrigation expert at Utah State University, thinks efficiency is not the only issue that needs to be addressed; adaptation needs to be at the forefront, too," Elkadi reports. Barker asked her, “Will [the optimization program] alone meet the objectives that the state and others have? Probably not. Will it allow farmers to adapt better as tighter crunches come? I think so. They will help provide farmers with tools to cope or adjust.”