Climate change is making the Colorado River drier, and the cities and farms that use it need to make big changes to their demand for water. Negotiations about the future of sharing the river have stalled, and the promise of sweeping, long-lasting changes to water use in the Southwest seems less likely as the weeks pass by.
Now, a short-term fix may be on the horizon.
Negotiations have been at an impasse for months, and officials are wringing their hands about the possibility of a big multi-state court battle. Given the circumstances, some experts say a short-term agreement might be a useful, albeit imperfect, solution for the Colorado River.
The seven states that use the river are stuck in talks about the future of water sharing. They put forth competing proposals nearly two years ago and haven't budged much since. They're still stuck as the clock ticks towards October, when the current rules for managing the river expire and need to be replaced to avert catastrophe at the nation's biggest reservoirs.
The river's Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico are balking at the prospect of promising any new cutbacks to water use. On the other side, the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada have promised some cutbacks.
If they can't agree, they're likely to end up in the Supreme Court. State leaders insist they want to avoid that.
"If the alternative is litigation, by August, then a five-year deal starts pretty good," said John Entsminger, Nevada's top water negotiator. "So it just depends on what you're measuring it against."
Entsminger and other policymakers have indicated that they're backing off a multi-decade plan for the river and instead focusing on a five-year plan. Utah's top negotiator, Gene Shawcroft, said as much to the Utah News-Dispatch.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs said a five-year deal "sounds like it's on the table" in a meeting with reporters. Representatives from all four Upper Basin states either did not respond to requests or declined to be interviewed for this story.
"There is a strong desire, I think, among all seven states, to avoid the litigation outcome," said Tom Buschatzke, Arizona's top water negotiator. "So if that means we could cut a deal for five years with a great likelihood that we won't have to litigate, great. If it's two years, maybe we buy into that."
The exact details of a hypothetical short-term deal are still hidden behind the closed doors of negotiation rooms, but the very fact of its length has some implications for the region.
While a short-term deal might not deliver the kind of massive, wholesale reset of the region's water use that might be needed given the drying trends outlined in climate forecasts, some onlookers think it could put states on the path toward some meaningful changes.
"What water managers want is flexibility in the hard times," said Kyle Roerink, executive director of the nonprofit Great Basin Water Network. "And for any water manager to be locked in a deal that gives them heartburn before they go to bed is a deal they're not going to want to take."
That flexibility could do two big things.
First, it would generally keep water flowing to people who need it. That matters at the nation's largest reservoirs and on the ground in Arizona.
Record-low water levels at Lake Powell have threatened the ability to generate hydropower and even the ability to pass water from one side of Glen Canyon Dam to the Colorado River on the other side. If the states can't agree, a federal plan to help protect reservoir infrastructure would mean "devastating" cuts for the Central Arizona Project, which supplies water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas.
"A five-year deal seems like it would be tight, but a five-year deal is better than no deal," said Katherine Tara, a staff attorney and water policy analyst at the University of New Mexico. "Coming to a deal, even if it's a five-year deal, gives people who drink the water and irrigators, farmers, folks working in agriculture, you know, guaranteed minimum water deliveries, which is crucial."
Second, a short-term agreement would allow states to test out components of a longer deal.
"It can incentivize the standing up of these conservation programs in the Upper Basin states," Buschatzke said. "It could have the Lower Basin take the next step in learning how to deal with the reductions that it would take under a five-year deal."
Given that negotiations have apparently ground to a halt, a short-term deal could be the only way to open the door to those reductions.
"Sometimes people see a boogeyman in 'We're going to have to conserve water, this is never going to work,'" Buschatzke said. "Once you actually start implementing something like that, you learn how to live with it."
Nevada's Entsminger said a short-term deal would allow water managers to respond more nimbly to wet years and dry years.
"I think the states are going to be negotiating on the Colorado River perpetually," he said. "Whether you sign a five-year deal or whether you sign a 20-year deal that will probably have some off ramps, you're probably still going to be meeting on a year-to-year basis and adjusting operations for what the hydrology actually looks like and what Mother Nature gives."
A five-year agreement would come with some drawbacks, though.
For example, it might make it hard for some cities and farms to plan their future water use. Those among the first in line to lose their water when mandatory cutbacks are issued — like Phoenix-area cities that depend on the Central Arizona Project — wouldn't have a clear picture of how much water they can access in a decade.
Perhaps more importantly, a short-term deal could very quickly plunge negotiators back into the kind of tense, unproductive talks in which they are currently stuck. Even a five-year agreement could send policymakers back to the negotiating table much sooner than 2031, since they would have to talk about the next set of plans well before their short-term deal would expire.
Tara, at the University of New Mexico, said that might not be long enough.
"I don't know if that's enough of a cool down period from how heated things have been for negotiators to really come together in a meaningful way," they said. "So my only concern would be a short-term deal requires immediately getting back into these conversations, immediately trying to figure out what to do next."
That return to negotiations is a challenge that isn't lost on the negotiators themselves, either. However, Arizona's Buschatzke said it might be worth it to stay out of a courtroom.
"The people that have been in that room for three years are not looking forward to immediately starting to negotiate something after the first five years," he said. "Because it's been such a slog. But nevertheless, I think the strongest driver right here is a reasonable outcome in which we can avoid litigation."
The states are currently staring down a Feb. 14 deadline to hand an agreement to the federal government, but it seems unlikely that they will have a deal by then.
While the current rules expire in October, states are under pressure to agree as soon as possible so federal environmental authorities can complete the necessary paperwork to implement new water management plans.
Copyright 2026 KJZZ News
