How failed negotiations could lead to a legal battle over the waters of the Colorado River

With seven state leaders deadlocked over the ongoing Colorado River crisis, negotiations are increasingly looking like they won’t work out — which could lead to the federal government imposing back-and-forth measures and removing lawsuits that will lead to a tough battle in the courts.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum urged negotiators to reach an agreement by February 14, but disagreements remain.

“All seven states know that if we can’t reach an agreement, we may end up in court, and that would be a long and uncertain process,” said Gov. Colorado Jared Polis in an interview.

“I hope Colorado succeeds based on achievement,” Polis said, but a court battle “is something I don’t think any state wants.”

The Colorado River provides water for approx 35 million people and 5 million acres of farmland, from the Rocky Mountains to northern Mexico. The water was originally divided between the states in 1922 under an agreement called the Colorado River Compact.

That deal went beyond what the river had to offer. And in the last half of the century, chronic droughts exacerbated by climate change have increased he was absorbed by the flow of the river and left its great lakes greatly depleted.

The three Lower Basin states – California, Arizona and Nevada – clash with the four Upper Basin states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.

At a meeting this week, Arizona officials appeared to be expecting failure. They pointed out that the amount of water flowing into Lake Mead, the largest lake in the nation, could quickly fall to the first place – the official “triwire” that would allow Arizona to demand a reduction in the river and sue for breach of contract.

The 100-year agreement requires water withdrawals from Upper Basin reservoirs in Arizona, Nevada and California to average 7.5 million acre-feet in any decade, plus Mexico’s share.

Water reaching the Lower Basin will likely fall below that point later this year or next, which has never happened, said Brenda Burman, general manager of the Central Arizona Project. It’s sad, she said. “Our neighbors in the Upper Basin have met that obligation in the past.”

Arizona won’t let go of the issue unless Upper Basin states take “significant steps” in agreeing to major water cuts, said Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s lead negotiator.

If the states don’t reach an agreement, federal officials could dramatically cut off Arizona’s water starting next year, and by then, there could be a lawsuit, Buschatzke said.

“I can’t tell you when, but that seems to be the way we’re going.”

Representatives of the Lower Basin states offered to accept the biggest cuts: 27% in Arizona, 17% in Nevada and 10% in California.

“We are willing to do more if our partners in the Upper Basin states come to the table with their reductions,” said Gov. Katie Hobbs of Arizona during the meeting on Monday.

Hobbs was one of six governors who met last week in Washington with Burgum.

The Secretary of the Environment of California, Wade Crowfoot, who was there instead of Gov. Gavin Newsom, said that the negotiators are “reducing the issues of difference between the two bases, and that gives me hope.”

They have been talking for more than two years, trying to agree on new laws that will come into effect in 2027. Initially, negotiators talked about a 20-year deal. Now, they have reduced their view to five years.

The Trump administration has hinted at what could follow without a deal. The US Bureau of Reclamation presented several options that would reduce water in Arizona between 33% and 69%, and Nevada between 24% and 67%. Under the other options, California could see a reduction of between 29% and 33%.

Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles will be forced to turn to other water sources, while other areas could face shortages and further restrictions on outdoor irrigation. Some tribes could get little water. And agricultural activities, which consume about three-quarters of the water, would be forced to retreat and leave some fields dry.

At the same time, Buschatzke said, the federal proposals would actually allow Upper Basin states to increase their water use.

“As they continue to grow, we will have to reduce even more,” he said.

Negotiators in Arizona, California and Nevada say they want Upper Basin leaders to commit to reducing water use to help raise lower reservoir levels, and those states’ resistance to stronger commitments is a sticking point.

Polis said that though demands for mandatory cuts “non-starters” in Colorado.

“Upper Basin states cannot legally commit to mandatory mitigation,” Polis said, because they have landowners with high water rights, and if the states take away those rights, “they would be liable for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.”

“That being said, we really want to do our part in conservation,” Polis said. “We are willing to put some conservation goals on the table.”

He said he hoped that government funds would be available to support water conservation efforts.

That has happened before. Under the interim agreement reached in 2023, for example, farmers in California’s Imperial Valley and elsewhere paid to leave fields of dry grass half a year.

Polis said the cuts provided by the Lower Basin will be sufficient for moderate snow years in the Rockies, but the plan must also include significant reductions in dry years.

The states also disagree on how much water should be released from surface dams to prevent the river’s main sources, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, from collapsing. dangerously low levels.

Lake Mead is now only 34% full, and Lake Powell is 26%.

This winter’s warm and dry conditions are not helping. I Rocky Mountain snowpack is just 57% of average, one of the lowest in decades.

One of the goals of the talks is to prevent “dead lake” levels in the dams, where water splashes into the concrete at the bottom of the dams, unable to pass through the river — a situation that could mean catastrophic water shutdowns in California, Arizona and Mexico.

A group of experts last year called for both regions to accept their “shared pain”. forced water cut off. Without an agreement on that, “it’s hard for me to be optimistic,” said Anne Castle, a senior fellow at the University of Colorado Getches-Wilkinson Center. “The only way around it is for the states to agree on how to divide the river equally.”

As the Trump administration’s Feb. 14 deadline approaches, Buschatzke said, federal officials are “pushing us hard to try to reach at least a consensus,” though they haven’t said what they will do if states miss the deadline.

Prospects for an agreement “seem bleak right now,” said Stephen Roe Lewis, governor of the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona.

“I know we’re all setting ourselves up for failure,” he told state officials.

Buschatzke said he is focused on protecting Arizona. The state relies on the Colorado River for more than a third of its water.

“I will not see that as a failure if we cannot reach the end together,” he said.

“The only real failure for me, when I look in that mirror, is if I’m giving the water to the state of Arizona for the next few generations,” he said. “And that’s not going to happen.”