As a critical federal deadline passed on November 11th, negotiations over a water management plan for the Colorado River remained in deadlock, casting uncertainty over the future supply of water for millions of people. With hours to spare before the deadline for states to submit their plans, a resolution appeared increasingly improbable, raising the prospect of federal intervention with an imposed plan or protracted litigation among the affected states. Negotiators and stakeholders involved in the complex discussions expressed a palpable sense of frustration and deep concern regarding the escalating crisis.

For over two years, seven Western states have been locked in arduous discussions, attempting to forge an agreement that would mandate significant water use reductions and revise the operational rules for the river’s major reservoirs. This protracted struggle stems from a quarter-century of record-breaking heat and sustained, severe drought, which has drastically depleted the Colorado River’s flow. On average, the river’s volume has diminished by 20% compared to the previous century, and with projections indicating a continuation of hotter, drier conditions, the states are also confronting the limitations of aging water infrastructure. These existing systems, built in an era of perceived abundance, are now facing urgent challenges due to low water levels and inherent legal ambiguities.

"There is very little to no resiliency built into the river system right now, because the system is very depleted," stated J.B. Hamby, California’s representative in the ongoing negotiations. His sentiment underscores the precarious state of the river, a vital artery for agriculture, urban populations, and ecosystems across the American West. The Ute Mountain Ute Farm in Colorado, for instance, has already experienced significant cuts to its water access, leading to thousands of acres left unplanted in the driest years.

The current negotiations are being spearheaded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency tasked with overseeing a vast network of dams and water infrastructure across 17 Western states. Should the Colorado River Basin states fail to reach a consensus on a joint management plan, the federal government has signaled its intention to step in and implement its own directives. Regardless of whether a plan emerges from state-level cooperation or federal imposition, it must grapple with deepening legal uncertainties, the long-standing and often unresolved water rights of Native American tribes along the river, and the fundamental challenge of managing a system designed for plenty in an era of persistent scarcity.

The legal framework governing water allocation in the West, a system deeply rooted in the doctrine of prior appropriation, was not designed to withstand the prolonged drought conditions now afflicting the Colorado River. Under prior appropriation, water rights are prioritized based on the date of their establishment; in times of shortage, users with more recent rights are expected to curtail their use before those with senior rights. This has resulted in communities with newer water rights experiencing fluctuating access, and in the most extreme cases, 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, a partner at the Akin law firm and representative for the Gila River Indian Community, a key participant in the current negotiations. "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." This stark reality highlights the inadequacy of existing legal structures in addressing the fundamental challenge of a shrinking water supply.

As the pressure mounts, states have begun to question the foundational Colorado River Compact of 1922, the century-old agreement that established the initial framework for water allocation within the basin. "Previous negotiations did not address core issues. They either delayed them or worked around them, making do based on the circumstances of the time," Hamby noted. This time, however, the severity of the crisis demands a confrontation of these foundational issues. "It’s really about much deeper roots that all fundamentally get back to the compact and what it means or doesn’t mean," he added.

At the heart of the dispute lies a disagreement over the compact’s interpretation. The Lower Basin states—Arizona, California, and Nevada—contend that the compact obligates the Upper Basin states to deliver a specific quantity of water. Conversely, the Upper Basin states—Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—argue that their obligation is to ensure that their water use does not cause river flows to drop below a certain threshold. This distinction, largely irrelevant when water was plentiful, has become a critical point of contention. As shortages intensify and the required downstream deliveries approach critical levels, Upper Basin states argue that climate change, rather than their water usage, is the primary driver of declining flows, a claim disputed by Lower Basin states.

Historically, when water users in the West fail to reach agreements, litigation has served as a default mechanism for dispute resolution. "I really think it is worthwhile to consider whether litigation is the best way for states to deal with managing conflicts," commented Jason Robison, a law professor at the University of Wyoming. He points to the protracted legal battles between Arizona and California over water rights and their differing interpretations of the compact, a case that ultimately evolved into one of the longest in Supreme Court history. "Over time, as is often the case with litigation, the case morphed like a river," Robison observed. "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 illustrates the unpredictable and often drawn-out nature of resolving water disputes through the courts.

Any future agreement must also comprehensively address the water rights of the 30 federally recognized Native American tribes within the basin, the original inhabitants of the region, who hold rights to a significant portion of the river’s flow. Historically, tribal nations were largely excluded from water infrastructure development and the critical negotiations that shaped water management policies, leading to considerable legal and physical challenges.

In the Lower Basin, the Gila River Indian Community possesses substantial water rights. Their water use rights settlement, reached through legal means, involves receiving a portion of its allocation via the Central Arizona Project, a complex system of canals, dams, and aqueducts. However, under the Supreme Court’s interpretation in the landmark case Arizona v. California, the entirety of this project is considered junior to California’s water rights. Consequently, in scenarios of severe shortage, if proposed cuts to the Central Arizona Project are enacted, the Gila River Indian Community would face a significant reduction in its promised water supply, with the federal government obligated to find an alternative source—a prospect fraught with uncertainty.

The Gila River Indian Community’s leadership and willingness to implement water conservation measures have been instrumental in the success of past basin-wide agreements. Yet, the current negotiation proposals, particularly regarding the magnitude of proposed cuts, have deeply frustrated the community’s leadership. "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," stated tribal Governor Stephen Roe Lewis via email. "We remain opposed to all current proposals at this time because our concerns have not been adequately addressed." The complex task of reconciling these legal entitlements and proposed reductions is a central challenge facing the tribal nation, the federal government, and the state of Arizona. Governor Lewis added, "We hope to be able to say yes to a consensus approach if the Basin States can reach agreement and our concerns are addressed."

Similar to 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 mid-20th century, were primarily built for irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control, with few built-in contingencies for managing significantly reduced water levels. At Colorado’s Morrow Point Dam, for example, falling water levels can trigger concerns about landslides, while at Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, extreme low levels could restrict water flow through the Grand Canyon to downstream users to only four 8-foot-wide tubes.

These infrastructure limitations were not a pressing concern when reservoirs like Lake Mead and Lake Powell, which together hold 90% of the river’s stored water, were full. However, these crucial reservoirs are now less than one-third full, amplifying the urgency of the ongoing negotiations. Water managers are tasked with maintaining minimum operational levels at each dam to ensure continued functionality. If shortages persist and reservoir levels approach these critical thresholds, water may need to be diverted from smaller upstream reservoirs, such as Flaming Gorge and Blue Mesa, to sustain essential levels at Glen Canyon Dam, the pivotal point between the Upper and Lower Basins. In 2022, insufficient cuts necessitated such diversions, depleting reserves that communities could previously rely on in drier years. Now, however, states must contend with the water available in the current year without the buffer of banked resources.

The question of what comes next looms large over the Colorado River Basin. For a century, the basin states have largely managed their water resources independently, pursuing individual development strategies for their allocated shares. The current crisis forces a confrontation with deep-seated philosophical differences, long-standing unresolved issues, and legal ambiguities that trace back to the very inception of the 1922 compact. Negotiators are grappling with complex questions of equity, assessing multifaceted risk scenarios, and navigating the immediate impacts of climate change. Fundamentally, they are confronting a core challenge: after a century of competitive water development, can all stakeholders unite to forge a cohesive and sustainable vision for managing the Colorado River?

To date, the answer to this critical question appears to be a hesitant "no," or at least, "not yet." 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 begins. However, he also reiterated that should the states fail to produce a joint plan, federal intervention is inevitable, though the specifics of such intervention remain unclear. Compounding the uncertainty, recent shifts in federal funding priorities and a perceived downplaying of climate change impacts by the administration further cloud the outlook for federal support.

It is within this atmosphere of intense uncertainty that the seven states continue their critical negotiations. "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," commented Kathy Sorensen, a water policy expert at Arizona State University’s Kyl Center. She offered a cautiously optimistic perspective: "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 crucial in determining whether states can overcome their differences to secure a sustainable future for this vital Western resource.