Arizona and Nevada on Friday opposed a Colorado River usage reduction plan by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which could define the crucial waterway for 40 million people over the next decade.
The Colorado River Final Environmental Impact Statement by the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Department of Interior emphasized the federal government’s preference for negotiations to take place among states, but set in motion plans for the next decade of water conservation. The proposal, which was released Friday, included up to 3 million acre-feet in annual Lower Basin water usage reductions.
“Arizona recognizes the serious condition of the Colorado River, and we are prepared to be part of a responsible solution,” Arizona State Senate President Warren Petersen said in a statement sent to The Center Square. “What we will not accept is a federal plan that protects some states while placing a devastating and disproportionate burden on Arizona.”
Negotiations among Colorado River states have repeatedly failed to meet deadlines over the past year, leading at least four states, including Arizona, to build legal teams for potential litigation over the river’s water sharing. The Colorado River states are California, Nevada and Arizona in the Lower Basin and Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico in the Upper Basin.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources toed the line on potential legal action. The department told The Center Square in a statement that it would “work to complete the agreements necessary to implement the Lower Basin Proposal while preserving Arizona’s legal rights.”
“We appreciate the Trump Administration’s willingness to continue working with us toward a fair agreement, but the Senate stands ready to use every legal and legislative tool available if Arizona is forced to carry this burden alone,” Petersen said.
The previous Colorado River water usage guidelines from 2007 are set to expire at the end of 2026.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s new guidelines included “sideboards” to protect against extreme flow reductions in the river. The largest announcement among them was the potential annual 3 million acre-feet of water reductions that could be required from California, Nevada and Arizona.
The Colorado River Compact, originally signed in 1922, allocates each basin 7.5 million acre-feet of annual river water. Today, the agreement applies to seven states and 30 tribes.
“While our community is prepared to manage through short-term reductions to protect the Colorado River system, as the basin’s smallest water user, Nevada cannot solve the river’s imbalance alone,” John Entsminger, Southern Nevada Water Authority’s general manager, told The Center Square in a statement.
“Unfortunately, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released by the Department of the Interior today seeks to impose unrealistic reductions on Nevada and our water users,” Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, added in a statement Friday.
While Arizona and Nevada widely expressed opposition to the Bureau of Reclamation plan, the Colorado River Board of California expressed more optimism about the future of the inter-state agreement.
“The experience of California, Arizona, and Nevada shows that communities and economies can grow while using less Colorado River water,” board Chairman JB Hamby said Friday in a statement. “California’s use has fallen to its lowest level since 1949, even as the state and the communities served by the river have grown to 19 million people and a $1.6 trillion Southern California economy. This did not happen by accident. It took investment, conservation, and hard decisions.”
The Colorado River Board of California did not immediately respond to The Center Square’s request for comment.
John Berggren, a regional policy manager for Western Resource Advocates, an environmental organization, told The Center Square that he expected the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to hope for a multi-state proposed solution, instead of a federally imposed one.
“They’ve been clear that they’re not moving forward because they want to,” said Berggren. “They’re going forward because they have to, but they’re very open to the seven states reaching an agreement.”
