7 US States Fail To Agree On How To Share Colorado River Water

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

If you want an illustration of how fraught climate action can be — and why it is unlikely to succeed anytime soon — the ongoing negotiations between several states and Mexico on how to divvy up the water in the Colorado River is an accurate portrayal.

The issue could not be more clear. The Colorado River supplies water to some 40 million people. Major US cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles depend on it, but public drinking water is just a small portion of how the water is used. According to The Guardian, 80 percent goes to irrigate crops — crops that are essential to feeding 330 million Americans. If you think grocery prices are high today (and they are), they will get much higher if there is not enough water available in the future for irrigation.

Less Water, Higher Demand

Global heating may be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity, according to a certain pudgy potentate, but the fact remains that there is less water flowing along the 1450-mile-long Colorado River basin than there used to be. Lower snowfall in the Rocky Mountains is attributable for some of that reduction, but higher temperatures also bake the soil adjacent to the river, evaporating much of the water that is already available.

Today, communities draw 3.5 million acre-feet more water from the Colorado River than it can supply. An acre-foot is how much water it takes to cover an acre of land with water 1 foot deep. That amounts to 326,000 gallons. Using the adding machine in the executive offices at CleanTechnica headquarters, we calculate that 3.5 million acre feet is equal to 1 trillion, 140 billion gallons.

Forget the 140 billion gallons. That is just a rounding error. What our readers need to know is that the reserves in the Colorado River are being overdrawn by a trillion gallons a year. Surely that should be a red flag for all concerned. The river has lost more than 10 trillion gallons of water in the last two decades, while the the two largest reservoirs along the route of the river — Lake Mead and Lake Power — are projected to reach historic lows in the next two years.

There is more at stake than just irrigation. The Hoover Dam, which created Lake Mead, and the Glen Canyon Dam that created Lake Powell, both supply hydro electricity to much of the US Southwest. No water, no hydro. Uh, oh.

Two Years Of Negotiations

For the past two years, the states that draw water from the Colorado River have been meeting to discuss how to address the issue of overuse. They were under a directive from the federal government to find a solution by November 11, 2025, but failed to do so. The alternative is for the feds to step in and impose an agreement on the states — something no one wants.

The issues involve a number of historical agreements and a treaty with Mexico. Some or those agreements occurred when Las Vegas and Phoenix were little hamlets in the desert. Subsequent agreements provide for their water use, but being younger in time, they are subject to those prior claims. Is Los Angeles going to agree to take less water so Phoenix can have more? Is Mexico going to accept a situation that brings less water to its farmers so Las Vegas can continue to expand? What do you think?

The representatives from the seven US states and federal officials issued a statement that said the discussions had made sufficient progress to warrant an extension of the negotiations. But there is a deadline rapidly approaching that must be met. October of next year marks the beginning of the 2027 water year. Final details of any agreement are due by February 2026.

Time is running short to schedule several of the steps needed to implement any new plan, including public engagement and environmental analysis. If the negotiators are unable to agree to a new plan, it is possible the federal government will step in and impose one. That is an outcome experts say could lead to years of delay since the states who see themselves as losing water rights would sue. Such litigation could take years to resolve.

“There are external factors that make this deadline real,” said Anne Castle, a water policy expert and a former chair of the Upper Colorado River Commission. “It’s unfortunate for all the water users in the Colorado River basin that the states have been unable to come to an agreement on the next set of operating guidelines for the river.”

Scott Cameron, the acting assistant secretary for water and science at the US Department of the Interior, put out a statement on this in August. “The urgency for the seven Colorado River basin states to reach a consensus agreement has never been clearer. The health of the Colorado River system and the livelihoods that depend on it are relying on our ability to collaborate effectively and craft forward-thinking solutions that prioritize conservation, efficiency, and resilience,” he said. His statement accompanied the release of a two-year federal study that highlighted the impacts of the unprecedented drought in the basin.

Time For Specifics

Among the key questions in the negotiations are what the specifics will be for the terms of a new agreement, how to measure shortages and conservation efforts, and who would bear the brunt of the badly needed reductions in water from the Colorado River. The needs of upper basin states such as Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico are pitted against those of the lower basin states such as California, Arizona, and Nevada. “They had to reach an agreement that almost by definition is going to result in hardship to some of those water users,” said Castle. “That was the crux of the problem.”

Communities across the Colorado River basin are already navigating the challenges but lack clarity on how to prepare without a concrete plan. A statement by a broad coalition of conservation and groups representing those who rely on the Colorado River for fishing, boating, and other outdoor activities said, “Without a clear operating framework, the basin remains exposed to escalating risks.” They are calling for action and federal leadership as a result of the missed deadline.

That group, which includes American Rivers, the National Audubon Society, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, and Western Resource Advocates, urged the Bureau of Reclamation not to let the failure to reach an agreement affect the overall timeline for setting new guidelines.

“We understand the extraordinary complexity of this challenge and the difficult trade-offs the states are working hard to navigate, but the River isn’t going to wait for process or for politics,” the statement said.

The Elephant In The Room

The point that will be interesting to CleanTechnica readers is that none of those involved in the negotiation are talking about the cause of the reduced amount of water in the Colorado River — an overheating planet. Some may find that curious. It’s a little like trying to adapt seaports to higher ocean levels without addressing why the water is rising in the first place. Humans seem to have an inexhaustible ability for focus on minutia while studiously ignoring the elephant in the room.

Meanwhile, Phoenix continues to expand while the state of Arizona is trying to attract more industries and data centers to relocate there — even though there is already not enough water for those who live and work there now. And so, humans continue to lurch from one crisis to another without any attempt to address the underlying causal factors. The human propensity for self-deception seems to know no bounds.