As a critical November 11 federal deadline for submitting a water management plan for the Colorado River looms, negotiations among seven Western states remain deadlocked, casting uncertainty over the future management of a vital water supply relied upon by millions. With the current operating guidelines set to expire in the fall of 2026, the lack of an agreement raises the specter of federal intervention with an imposed plan or prolonged legal battles among the states. Negotiators and stakeholders involved in the process have expressed a palpable sense of frustration and deep concern as they grapple with the escalating crisis.

For over two years, the seven states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—have been engaged in arduous discussions to devise a plan that necessitates significant water use reductions and reformulates the rules governing the operation of major reservoirs along the river. The Colorado River system, already strained by a quarter-century of record heat and persistent, severe drought, has diminished significantly; its average flow is now 20% less than it was last century. Compounding the challenges, hotter and drier conditions are projected to persist, while the aging infrastructure, originally designed for an era of abundance, now confronts its limitations, a reality amplified by critically low water levels and lingering legal ambiguities. "There’s very little to no resiliency built into the river system right now, because the system is very depleted," observed J.B. Hamby, California’s representative in the negotiations, highlighting the precarious state of the river’s capacity to withstand further stress.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency tasked with managing this intricate network of dams across 17 Western states, is overseeing the current negotiations. Should the Colorado River Basin states fail to forge a consensus plan, the federal government has signaled its intention to step in and implement its own framework. Regardless of who ultimately authors the agreement, it must contend with escalating legal uncertainties, the long-standing water rights of tribal nations who are the river’s original inhabitants, and the fundamental challenge of adapting infrastructure built for a wetter past to an increasingly arid future.

The legal framework governing water allocation in the Western United States, rooted in the doctrine of prior appropriation, was not conceived to withstand prolonged and intensifying drought. This system dictates that during periods of scarcity, users with more recent water rights are the first to face reductions, while those with senior rights maintain greater security. Over the past two decades of drought, this principle has led to increasingly precarious and unpredictable water access for communities with newer rights, and in some extreme instances, a complete loss of river water for the foreseeable future. "The Western legal system was designed to encourage development. The prior appropriation system is really about rewarding those that develop their water the fastest," explained Jason Hauter (Gila River Indian Community), a partner at the Akin law firm representing the Gila River Indian Community. "But you can only keep developing water if there is plenty of water in the system… and right now there is no more water to develop."

As pressure mounts, the foundational Colorado River Compact of 1922, which established the framework for water allocation within the basin and underpins Western water law, has come under scrutiny. Hamby noted that "Previous negotiations did not address core issues. They either delayed them or worked around them, making do based on the circumstances of the time." This era, however, demands a more fundamental reckoning. "It’s really about much deeper roots that all fundamentally get back to the compact and what it means or doesn’t mean," he stated, underscoring the gravity of the current discussions. The crux of the dispute lies in differing interpretations of a few key sentences within the compact. The Lower Basin states—Arizona, California, and Nevada—contend that the compact obligates the Upper Basin states to deliver a specific quantity of water to them. Conversely, the Upper Basin states—Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—assert that their usage should not cause water flows to drop below a certain threshold. This divergence in interpretation, largely inconsequential during periods of ample water, has become a central point of contention as ongoing shortages push downstream delivery requirements perilously close to the critical average levels. Upper Basin lawyers argue that climate change, rather than their water use, is the primary culprit for reduced flows, a position disputed by their Lower Basin counterparts.

Historically, when Western water users fail to reach agreements, litigation often becomes the recourse. "I really think it is worthwhile to consider whether litigation is the best way for states to deal with managing conflicts," remarked Jason Robison, a law professor at the University of Wyoming. He cited the protracted legal battle between Arizona and California over water rights and their differing interpretations of the compact, which spanned over four decades and became one of the longest cases in Supreme Court history. Robison observed that "Over time, as is often the case with litigation, the case morphed like a river. It changed form, it changed identity, and the legal issues that ended up being resolved were not the original ones that had been posed." This historical precedent suggests that litigation, while a potential outcome, is a lengthy, complex, and often unpredictable path.

Any viable future agreement must also comprehensively address the water rights of the 30 federally recognized tribal nations, who hold rights to 25% of the river’s water and are the basin’s original inhabitants. Historically, tribal nations were largely excluded from both the negotiation processes and the development of water infrastructure that shaped their ancestral lands, leading to significant physical and legal challenges. In the Lower Basin, the Gila River Indian Community possesses substantial water rights. While the tribe agreed to receive a portion of its water through the Central Arizona Project—a vast system of canals, dams, and aqueducts—the Supreme Court’s interpretation in the landmark case Arizona v. California established that this entire project is junior to California’s water rights. Consequently, under severe shortage scenarios, any agreed-upon reductions to the Central Arizona Project would significantly diminish the water supply for the Gila River Indian Community, obligating the federal government to find an alternative, though unspecified, source. The Gila River Indian Community’s leadership and willingness to curtail water use have been crucial to the success of past basin-wide agreements. However, the current proposals have deeply frustrated the community’s leadership. Tribal Governor Stephen Roe Lewis stated via email, "What is being contemplated is a major disruption to half of our water supply, and we will not be cut without our consent. This is water we are currently putting to use and have long-term plans to use. We remain opposed to all current proposals at this time because our concerns have not been adequately addressed." Reconciling these complex legal issues is an urgent task for the tribal nation, the federal government, and the state of Arizona. Governor Lewis expressed hope, "We hope to be able to say yes to a consensus approach if the Basin States can reach agreement and our concerns are addressed."

Furthermore, much like the river’s legal framework, the physical infrastructure of dams and canals designed to store and transport its water was not engineered to accommodate the long-term shortages now confronting the West. The major reservoirs, constructed in the early to mid-20th century, were primarily built for irrigation, hydropower generation, and flood control, with few contingencies for managing operations when water levels fall below critical thresholds. At Colorado’s Morrow Reservoir, for instance, extreme low levels can trigger landslides, while at Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, reaching a specific low point would restrict water flow through the Grand Canyon to just four 8-foot-wide tubes, severely limiting supply to millions downstream. The physical limitations of infrastructure were less of a concern when reservoirs like Lakes Mead and Powell, which collectively store 90% of the river’s water, were near full capacity. Now, with these vital reservoirs less than a third full, the physical constraints on maintaining water flow through the extensive dam system during low-level periods add significant urgency to the negotiations. Water managers must preserve the minimum operational levels for each dam. If shortages continue and reservoir levels approach these critical points, water may need to be diverted from smaller upstream reservoirs to maintain essential levels at Glen Canyon Dam, the crucial dividing point between the Upper and Lower Basins, or water use must be drastically curtailed. Both measures may become necessary. This scenario unfolded in 2022 when initial cuts proved insufficient, necessitating releases from Flaming Gorge and Blue Mesa Reservoirs to replenish Lake Powell. With this banked water depleted, communities can no longer draw from past water years and must contend with the water available in the current year.

The path forward for the Colorado River Basin is fraught with uncertainty. For a century, the basin states have largely managed their water resources independently, pursuing their own development plans. Now, the region confronts deep philosophical divides, unresolved historical grievances, and legal ambiguities that trace back to the compact’s inception. Negotiators are tasked with navigating complex questions of equity, assessing risk scenarios, and adapting to the palpable impacts of climate change in real time. At its core, the challenge is to determine if, after a century of competitive water development, all stakeholders can collaborate to forge a unified vision for the Colorado River’s future.

Thus far, a consensus appears elusive. Scott Cameron, acting leader of the Bureau of Reclamation, has indicated that the federal government anticipates a finalized plan by May or June 2026, allowing time for legislative approval and implementation before the next water year commences. However, should the states fail to produce a joint plan, Cameron confirmed the federal government’s intention to intervene, though the specifics of such intervention remain unclear. Compounding the uncertainty are recent funding cuts and a perceived lack of robust federal engagement on climate change, raising questions about the extent of future federal support.

It is within this atmosphere of profound uncertainty that the seven states continue their high-stakes negotiations. Kathy Sorensen, a water policy expert at Arizona State University’s Kyl Center, stated, "Every state is having to make decisions that may set precedents—not just for 20 years, or the run of new operating guidelines, but for generations." She offered a glimmer of tempered optimism, noting, "The good news side of this story—if there is one—is water managers have long known this day might come and have been preparing. So, we’re not talking about taps running dry. We’re talking about things like water might become a hell of a lot more expensive, or there might be massive litigation. Things that are distinctly unpleasant, but we can withstand." The coming months will be pivotal in determining the Colorado River’s future, with the potential for significant economic, legal, and social ramifications for millions across the American West.