Deadlocked Colorado River Compact negotiations continue

BOR releases range of solutions: “Our perspective is that none of them make sense…”

By Katherine Nettles

In addition to preparing for drought conditions after a dry winter so far, local water experts are also bracing for continued challenges in Colorado River Basin water management and preparing comments on federally proposed solutions released last month. Persistent declines in reservoir storage and below average precipitation have compounded issues across the West, highlighting the need for agreement on how to manage the over-allocated Colorado River among the seven states the river serves. 

Since the 2007 Interim Guidelines for the operations of Lake Powell and Mead expire at the end of 2026, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has requested that the seven basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, California and Nevada) reach a new agreement on how to manage key reservoirs after this year, for up to 20 years into the future. Those negotiations have been in deadlock since they began in 2024, and several deadlines for proposals have passed—the latest of which was February 14. One major issue is how to allocate reductions in Colorado River use.

On January 16, the BOR released its own proposed range of alternatives for how to manage operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead after 2026. Gunnison County commissioners discussed these alternatives during a work session with Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (UGRWCD) general manager Sonja Chavez last week.

The BOR’s study, called Proposed Alternatives for the Post 2026 Operating Guidelines for Lake Powell and Mead, identified five alternative management options in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and stated if the seven basin states reach their own agreement that would become the agency’s preferred alternative—otherwise none is elevated as a preferred option. The study’s geographical scope was limited to Powell and below, but the Colorado Water Conservation Board summary, which Chavez shared, noted that “upstream actions impacting Lake Powell are contemplated,” and that the BOR indicated “a consensus-based approach incorporating elements or variations of draft EIS may be used in the final EIS.”

The first option listed is essentially no action, which Chavez said basically describes what existed before the interim guidelines of 2007.

“So in this case the Lower Basin states would take shortages based upon allocations of water storage in Lake Mead,” she said. The BOR would distribute up to 600,000-acre feet of water based upon priority. There would be no new surplus water created, and no specific conservation measures or actions taken relating to Upper Basin states such as Colorado.

“The state studies show that this would drain [Lake Powell] in one-and-a-half to two years,” said Chavez.

The other options range from distributing 1.4 to 4-million-acre feet of reductions in the Lower Basin based on priority, and from ceasing efforts to create surplus water to forcing upper basin conservation based on conditions.

Chavez acknowledged that the alternatives include contradicting concepts of conservation in Upper Basin states. 

“Our perspective is that none of them make sense,” she said.

Chavez said the discussions around water shortages and the need for conservation are becoming very real, especially as conditions at Lake Powell deteriorate. She said it is unclear in the DEIS who would pay for water conservation, as such efforts so far have been expensive and only wielded about 40,000-acre feet in total, versus BOR goals for 200,000-acre feet or more.

“Clearly this is magic water,” she summarized. “It’s a ridiculous exercise, trying to get consensus agreement by showing worst case scenarios.” Chavez said it appears the BOR wants the seven basin states to come to agreement, and the threat is that otherwise the BOR will come up with their own solution which would be less desirable for all basin states.

Gunnison County attorney Matthew Hoyt asked if there was any way any of the alternative paths could possibly avoid litigation.

Chavez agreed that lawsuits seemed inevitable.

“We’re thinking the most likely thing that would happen is there would be an injunction that would prevent [BOR] from taking any action on any of these alternatives,” said Chavez.

Commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels asked what would happen to the water in the meantime.

“We would all have to come up with some kind of operating agreement while it sits in litigation,” said Chavez.

“Isn’t that what we’re trying to do right now?” asked Puckett Daniels.

“Yes, only now the interim operations agreement would be in the hands of the court” agreed Chavez. 

“Just keep in mind that a suit between the states in the compact goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Hoyt. He describes several complications to that.

Commissioner Liz Smith asked how the broader current political context might affect things and what would be the best option given the circumstances. “What should the upper basin states be doing in response?” she asked.

Chavez said the state is trying to keep conversations going and doing extensive water modeling on the alternatives. “Obviously we’re concerned about any alternative that involves tapping the water resources of one of our most important recreational features because of its impact on our rural community and our economy.” She noted that lower lake levels would likely decrease tourism, and possibly lead to larger and more frequent algae blooms that create toxins and are a public safety issue.

“There’s a lot of politics going on, and at this time we’re trying to let the state do its important work and not get in the way,” said Chavez. “But we have every intention of participating in the public comment process.”

She spoke of Arizona’s stated need to not curtail its supply due to its data centers as part of national security, and California’s assertion that it is the highest priority water right of the lower basin. “One thing is clear, it’s not appropriate for the BOR to allow the Lower Basin states to keep the system in crisis and then look upstream to solve their problems.”

Meanwhile, Chavez said she and the District’s general counsel are drafting comments on the draft EIS. She invited the county to sign on to those comments to make a bigger impact or provide their own comments. She said including any economic data would be helpful. Commissioners indicated their support and offered to contribute insight to the comments as a collaboration.

The deadline for comments is March 2.