The 75th gathering of the Colorado River Water Users Association drew 1,700 stakeholders from across seven states, 30 Native American tribes and Mexico.
By Amanda Pampuro, Courthouse News Service
Water cuts are going to be painful — that’s one thing seven state representatives agreed upon Thursday at the 75th meeting of the Colorado River Water Users Association held at the Paris Las Vegas Hotel.
Governor-appointed representatives from the lower basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona largely disagree with upper basin representatives from Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming on the thresholds of pain tolerance required to manage future sustainable use of the vital resource and reach a post-2026 operative agreement.
“What often keeps me awake at night is having enough water for our children and grandchildren,” confessed Aaron Chavez, president of the Colorado River Water Users Association, in opening remarks before the 1,700 stakeholders in attendance. Hailing from the lower basin, Chavez additionally sits as executive director of the San Juan Water Commission in New Mexico.
“Will the seven states be able to reach a consensus? Do we shift to a different paradigm? Do we leave our future in the hands of the Bureau of Reclamation?” Chavez asked the crowd.
Forty million people living in the southwest U.S. and Mexico depend on the Colorado River, including 30 Native American tribes. In addition to generating power for 2.5 million people, 70% of the river’s water nourishes 5.7 million acres of crops.
Several century-old agreements govern the law of the river, including the 1922 Colorado River Compact which doled out 17.5 million annual acre-feet of water to numerous stakeholders, an amount that was unsustainable even then.
While the Colorado River supplied an average 15.2 million acre-feet per year through the 20th century, water flows have decreased by an estimated 4 million acre-feet over the last 100 years.
Water use in the lower basin averages 9 million annual acre-feet and continues to surpass use in the upper basin which averages 4 million annual acre-feet — even though the law allocates both areas the same 7.2 million annual acre-feet to use. The imbalance continues to drive tension as the river shrinks and the states negotiate future agreements.
Three key agreements expire in just two years: the 2008 interim guidelines, Minute 323 to the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico, signed in 2017, and a 2019 drought contingency plan. Updated governing documents must reflect complex stakeholder needs as additional modernisms further strain the river: climate change, drought, industrial agriculture and sprawling metropolitan development.
In efforts to begin to balance the equation, lower basin states have agreed to cut 3 million acre-feet by 2026, with California committing to a reduction of 1.6 million acre-feet driven by local water agencies. Golden State water districts signed contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation on Wednesday moving toward a third of the state’s goal.
J.B. Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River Board of California and governor-appointee to the Colorado River Commission, encouraged other states to make similar pledges.
“This is a big problem that’s just one component,” Hamby said. “Looking toward a future of climate change, there is no user, no country, no basin that can opt out.”
Colorado commissioner Becky Mitchell said there is one thing the people in the Centennial State will not accept from her: the status quo.
“They will not let me take a deal that will continue to deplete the storage,” Mitchell said. In dry years, many Coloradoans with junior river rights have had the faucets turned off — a sacrifice Mitchell hopes to rectified by future agreements.
“When there isn’t snowpack in the waters and streams, people get cut off,” Mitchell said. “That means some producers don’t get to produce. They don’t have a job, and that’s hard.”
Mitchell encouraged decisions to be made on hydrology, that address the structural deficit and doesn’t prioritize users based on arbitrary allotments.
If the states do not reach an agreement, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will step in with a plan of its own. In the meantime, the federal government has provided funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and the Inflation Reduction Act to compensate water users for losses and to fund projects that increase more efficient use of the precious resource.
Another threat driving compromise is litigation, which would likely put the future of Colorado River disbursements in the hands of Supreme Court, a move one panel member likened to playing Russian roulette.
“Anyone telling you we should pursue the litigation path, all they’re saying is they’re willing to roll the dice on your future, because they’re going to change out seasoned water professionals for nine people with black robes,” warned Nevada commissioner John Entsminger.
As tensions rose on the panel between members representing the two basins, Entsminger reinstated his belief that through negotiation and compromise the stakeholders would reach an imperfect but workable agreement.
“There is no silver bullet,” Entsminger said, “but there is silver buckshot.”
