The identical desert landscape on both sides of the Utah-Arizona border may make it seem like the states have a lot in common. But in the deadlocked negotiations over the Colorado River, the neighbors appear worlds apart.
“If anything, it seems like that gap is widening, which is unfortunate,” said Kathryn Sorensen, director of research at Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy. “It doesn't seem like it's moving in the right direction.”
The federal deadline for seven Western states to reach a new deal on sharing the dwindling river came and went on Feb. 14. Despite years of negotiations, those in the upper basin — Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico — and the lower basin — Arizona, California and Nevada — have not been able to agree on how much water each should be allowed to use as megadrought, climate change and overuse stretch the vital water supply thin.
As the February deadline neared, the states tried to find common ground on a short-term deal through the next five years. Now, Utah’s Colorado River Commissioner Gene Shawcroft said the focus has turned to the even shorter term.
“What do we do for the next 12 months, and then potentially in the next 24 months?” the state’s negotiator said. “So, as we meet again, that will be the focus of our conversation, is how do we survive?”
The states are still talking, he said, and all seven met with federal officials earlier this week.
The historically poor snow season in much of the West this winter has heightened the stakes and the friction.
“There's just so little water to go around that positions become hardened,” Sorensen said. “Because you're talking about real cuts to real economies, and I just think that's extraordinarily difficult to do under the circumstances.”
Despite mid-February storms, snowpack across the Upper Colorado River Basin remains record low.
Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir, has seen its water levels shrink to just a quarter of capacity. It is unlikely to see a good bump from spring runoff. By the end of 2026, the lake’s water level will likely drop below the minimum elevation necessary to generate hydroelectric power at Glen Canyon Dam, according to the most probable scenario in the latest federal projections.
“The reservoirs are extremely low. The risk of litigation is high. The risk of meeting the lower basin’s position on compact allocation is real,” Shawcroft said, referring to the 1922 Colorado River Compact between the states.
He said what’s called a compact call is possible, where the lower basin states claim the upper basin is in breach of contract for not sending enough water downstream.
With the February deadline passed, it’s also more likely that the federal government will step in and create a river-sharing plan for the states. That could potentially mean water cuts for Utah cities, such as those within the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. More than two-thirds of Utah’s Colorado River use goes to agriculture, so farms would likely need to use less, too.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released five alternative strategies for managing the river in January and is accepting public comment on them through March 2. The current agreement between the states expires later this year, so a replacement needs to be in place by October.
If the seven states were to turn things around and reach a consensus in the next couple of months, Shawcroft believes the federal government would still accept the plan. Given the stalemate in negotiations, however, he doesn’t see that happening.
The federal partners will continue to encourage the states to talk, he said, “but I don't think they're going to spend a lot of time trying to get us to the table, based on the energy it's taken thus far and the results we've had.”
Arizona may have the most to lose, largely because its aqueduct system — the Central Arizona Project — is newer and therefore more vulnerable to cuts. The 336-mile project supplies water to around 80% of the state’s population, including the Phoenix and Tucson areas.
Cities, farms and Native tribes in Arizona may all face significant reductions, Sorensen said. Pumping water from underground aquifers could help the state get by in the short term, but that groundwater would also be less sustainable over time because Arizona uses some of its Colorado River water to refill those aquifers.
Sorensen hasn’t been involved with Arizona’s negotiations, but she said there isn’t enough water to let the lower basin continue using it at the same rate while allowing the upper basin to use the additional water it feels it’s entitled to.
Arizona has offered to reduce its use by 760,000 acre-feet per year. One acre-foot is enough water to cover an acre of ground a foot deep in water. And Arizona’s offer is enough to supply roughly 1.5 million homes. That would be a significant cut for the state, Sorensen said, equivalent to half of the water the Central Arizona Project delivers in a given year.
“In exchange for that, the lower basin was asking the upper basin to participate in mandatory cuts” if the river’s water levels get worse in the future, she said. “That's the fundamental sticking point.”
A coalition of Arizona mayors and tribal leaders has begun airing ads that say the state is being unfairly targeted in the negotiations and warns that some of the cuts proposed by the federal government would cripple the state.
Utah, however, disagrees that the upper basin states are responsible for the negotiations failing.
“That's simply not true,” Shawcroft said. “The upper basin did have a plan. We put that plan on the table, and it was not accepted.”
That plan would have approved releasing 500,000 acre-feet of water from upstream reservoirs, including Flaming Gorge on the Utah-Wyoming border, to boost Lake Powell’s levels, he said. It also meant the four upper basin states would collectively save an extra 300,000 acre-feet through increased conservation efforts by 2031.
“We put those things on the table with the intent that there would either be some countering or some additional conversations. But none of those things came to pass,” Shawcroft said. “So, that was disappointing, frustrating.”
With talks at a standstill, the states appear to be gearing up for a legal fight. Legislatures in Arizona and Utah have begun stashing away millions of dollars for potential lawsuits over the river.
“Whether that's for an actual concern about litigation or if it's more posturing, I can't tell you that,” Shawcroft said. “I can tell you, though, that there are those that believe the best solution — the only solution they have — is litigation.”
Even though negotiations broke down, he said, legal fights are not inevitable. In his view, taking this disagreement to court would not be worth the risk.
“I'm optimistic that people will recognize that once they pull that litigation trigger, uncertainty will rule for, probably, decades on the river,” Shawcroft said. “And I don't think anybody wants to see that.”
Letting a judge decide how states make water cuts would carry big potential downsides, Sorensen agreed, but for whichever side won, there could also be a big reward. If a state were to sue and prevail, it may be able to stabilize its water supply for the very long term.
“Arizonans would still hope that there's a way for all the states to come together and avoid litigation,” she said. “But I also think Arizonans are always up for a fight.”
Produced with assistance from the Public Media Journalists Association Editor Corps, funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.
