Aniston Hanks, a 20-year-old Diné citizen, stood knee-deep in the waters of the Colorado River, reflecting on her connection to this vital waterway, while her friend Shauna Belone, 21, sat on its banks near Moab, Utah. Both young women participated in The Nature Conservancy’s NATURE Program, a 10-day immersive experience focused on water, land, plants, and conservation across the Colorado Plateau. For Hanks, the river’s flow evoked deep familial reverence for the Little Colorado River near her home in Cameron, Arizona, a sentiment encapsulated by the Diné belief that "we think of it as a relative" and that "we’re born for water." This profound spiritual and cultural connection underscores the multifaceted importance of the Colorado River system, which provides water to over 40 million people across seven U.S. states and Mexico.

The geographical realities of the Colorado River basin, however, create complex divisions, even for those with shared cultural heritage. Hanks, residing in the Lower Basin in Arizona, and Belone, from Naschitti, New Mexico, in the Upper Basin, both belong to the Navajo Nation, a vast homeland that spans across these legally defined boundaries. These distinctions between the Upper and Lower Basins, established by the 1922 Colorado River Compact, are becoming increasingly critical as the federal government implements new operating guidelines for the river’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, in response to a devastating 26-year megadrought.

The Bureau of Reclamation finalized its environmental review on July 31, paving the way for Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to sign a record of decision on August 21, establishing initial operating guidelines for 2027 and 2028, with new rules taking effect on October 1. This decision, while setting a framework for reservoir management, does not resolve the long-standing dispute among the seven basin states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—regarding a permanent formula for sharing water during times of scarcity. The Interior Department has introduced a flexible framework designed to remain in place through 2036, allowing for adjustments to reservoir operations based on changing water levels, snowmelt runoff, and ongoing negotiations.

Celene Hawkins, Colorado River Program Director for The Nature Conservancy, explained that the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental review provides essential analytical support for future decisions. "They’ve essentially developed a 10-year framework for the basin," she noted, with operational plans slated for revision every two years unless the basin states reach a consensus-driven solution. This adaptive management approach is immediately being tested, as Lake Powell and Lake Mead are currently at their lowest combined levels since Lake Powell began filling in 1963.

Under the new operating interval, Reclamation intends to manage water releases from Glen Canyon Dam to maintain Lake Powell at or above 3,510 feet, an elevation deemed crucial for the dam’s continued operational reliability. This measure necessitates significant water use reductions in the Lower Basin, with Arizona, California, and Nevada collectively required to draw 1.25 million acre-feet less from the river over the next two years. The proposed allocation of this reduction places a greater burden on Arizona, which would see a 760,000-acre-foot decrease, compared to California’s 440,000 acre-feet and Nevada’s 50,000 acre-feet, contingent on the three states finalizing their sharing agreement. Furthermore, the Lower Basin plan encourages water users to voluntarily conserve and store an additional 700,000 acre-feet during this period. The Upper Basin, in contrast, does not face a comparable fixed reduction but is expected to negotiate coordinated operations with its reservoirs—Flaming Gorge, Aspinall, and Navajo—in consultation with Lower Basin states and tribes, should additional water be needed to protect Glen Canyon Dam.

A less publicized, yet significant, aspect of the decision involves a federally controlled water pool designed to fulfill federal delivery obligations, honor congressionally approved Indian water-rights settlements, partially offset tribal shortages, and safeguard federal infrastructure. The record of decision specifies that this tribal-firming provision applies to a select group of Lower Basin tribes with federal firming commitments in their settlements, notably excluding the Navajo Nation from this immediate provision. Hawkins emphasized that the impact of the post-2026 framework will vary significantly among tribal nations due to their diverse settlement agreements, legal standings, and water supply infrastructure. "I don’t think there’s an easy or a single answer because I think different tribal nations in the basin are going to be affected differently," she stated, highlighting that some Arizona tribes depend on the Central Arizona Project, while others draw directly from the Colorado River’s main stem, and that tribal water settlements and legal positions are far from uniform across the basin.

This disparity is central to understanding the framework’s implications. Some tribes possess quantified, senior water rights directly from the Colorado River, while others rely on water delivered through federal infrastructure as part of settlement agreements. A third group holds unquantified rights or legally recognized water that remains largely unusable due to a lack of necessary infrastructure. While the Interior Department’s record of decision establishes the initial operating rules, it does not fully address the legal, infrastructural, and water-access challenges that tribal officials raised during the federal environmental review process.

The complexities are starkly articulated by Crystal Tulley-Cordova (Diné), principal hydrologist with the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources, who succinctly describes the core issue as "an imbalance between paper water versus wet water." She observes the tangible effects of declining water availability across the Navajo Nation, noting reduced snowpack, diminished snowmelt runoff in local creeks, and changes in the growth patterns of plants like green thread, traditionally gathered for tea. Furthermore, monsoon rainfall patterns have shifted, bringing less consistent summer showers and, at times, intense, flood-inducing downpours. "Ultimately, Mother Nature is in charge here," commented Bidtah Becker, chief legal counsel for the Navajo Nation Office of the President and Vice President and a member of the Navajo Nation Water Rights Commission, an entity tasked with settling the Nation’s water-rights claims. The commission is actively pursuing the proposed Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025, which aims to secure water rights for communities within the Lower Basin.

Despite nature’s ultimate authority, human endeavors have shaped the allocation of this precious resource for over a century. The 1922 Colorado River Compact, which divided the river into Upper and Lower Basins, became a cornerstone of the "Law of the River"—a complex web of statutes, legal agreements, and court decisions. Crucially, tribal nations were not sovereignly consulted during the creation of this compact. "The Indians were not at the table 100 years ago," stated Peter Ortego, president of Acadian Desert Consulting and former general counsel for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. "They weren’t invited."

The Navajo Nation exemplifies the intricate challenges posed by these century-old boundaries under the new post-2026 rules. Under the proposed Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement, the Navajo Nation is slated to receive approximately 47,000 acre-feet of Upper Basin Colorado River water for its Arizona communities. However, some of these communities are situated south of the legal demarcation line separating the basins. "We didn’t draw those lines," Becker added, emphasizing the imposed nature of the system. The distinction also carries significant weight because not all tribal water rights have been legally quantified. The post-2026 framework does not directly alter the Navajo Nation’s water rights under the proposed settlement, as Arizona’s Colorado River settlement for the Nation remains pending congressional approval. Until then, the 47,000 acre-feet remains more of a potential allocation than realized "wet water," according to Becker. Tulley-Cordova further clarified that quantified and decreed rights allow a specific volume of tribal water to be factored into a state’s overall Colorado River allocation, whereas unquantified rights are "not really included into the management framework." This situation does not resolve existing claims nor does it determine the future of crucial projects like the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, which relies on San Juan River water secured through the Navajo Nation San Juan River Basin Water Rights Settlement and is largely funded by Reclamation. Tulley-Cordova highlighted that the current framework’s primary focus is on the operational management of the reservoir system, including decisions on water storage and release.

The notion of a singular tribal experience on the Colorado River is an oversimplification. "We are not a monolith," Becker asserted, underscoring that the impacts of Colorado River management decisions vary widely among tribes, depending on the quantification of their water rights and their specific water usage patterns. For the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the current situation highlights the critical gap between holding a water right and possessing the infrastructure to fully utilize it. The tribe has settled its water rights in Colorado, and Peter Ortego pointed to water stored in Lake Nighthorse near Durango, Colorado, which must flow through New Mexico before reaching a small portion of the reservation. Approximately 16,000 acre-feet of water that the tribe cannot currently access bypasses the reservation annually, he explained. This presents a complex dilemma during periods of scarcity: developing this water would enable the tribe to exercise its rights, while leaving it in the system could potentially benefit an already stressed Colorado River. Ortego proposed that the tribe should either receive the necessary infrastructure for water utilization or be compensated for deferring its development. "None of us is in the exact same situation," he concluded, speaking for the tribes in the Upper Basin.

The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT), a federally recognized tribe whose reservation spans the Colorado River in Arizona and California, approaches the process from a distinct legal standpoint. Their water rights are governed by a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California, which CRIT Chairwoman Amelia Flores described as the most senior tribal water rights in the Lower Basin, dating back to 1865. CRIT had previously voiced strong opposition to language in earlier federal proposals that tribal leaders believed could have imposed unlawful reductions on its allocation. In a statement released on August 21, CRIT acknowledged that Reclamation had affirmed its commitment to adhere to the court decree and would not impose such reductions. "The efforts of CRIT have made a difference," Flores stated, adding that "numerous meetings and discussions between CRIT’s Tribal Council and the Bureau of Reclamation have clearly had an impact." The record of decision also mandates the formal inclusion of tribal nations, including CRIT, in a basin-wide consultation structure. CRIT leaders welcomed this commitment but emphasized their continued engagement as Reclamation develops successive two-year operating guidelines, particularly if deteriorating reservoir conditions lead to further reductions in water supplies for central Arizona. "Given the critical status of the river, tribal consultation is mandatory in every discussion and decision regarding the Colorado River," CRIT Councilmember Raeanne Patch stated in their release.

Celene Hawkins of The Nature Conservancy noted that tribal nations are contributing innovative solutions to discussions about the Colorado River’s future, although they "don’t have the same level of access to decision-making tables as their state and federal counterparts." Peter Ortego suggested that enhanced tribal participation in the post-2026 framework could bolster tribal sovereignty and amplify their influence over future operational decisions. "When the tribes have the power and the ability to put their perspective on the table, and other people actually listen to it and actually respond to it in a positive way," he remarked, "that’s the best way tribes can exercise their sovereignty."

Back near Moab, far upstream from Lee Ferry, Arizona, the legal dividing line between the Upper and Lower Basins, the abstract boundaries seemed to dissolve. For Aniston Hanks, the pressing question of how humanity will coexist with a diminishing river returned to a fundamental principle: "There has to be a balance," she reflected while standing in the river’s embrace. "You walk with beauty, with nature, not against it."