The policymakers responsible for steering the Colorado River’s future say they will forge ahead with ongoing negotiations regardless of shifts in federal leadership, as a deadline to determine long-term conservation strategies looms near.
“Elections don’t add water to the river,” John Entsminger, Nevada’s lead Colorado River negotiator, told The Hill. “The same problem we were facing on November 4, we’re facing today, and it’s the same problem we’ll be facing into the indefinite future.”
“This river has a track record of working across Republican and Democratic administrations and getting big wins for everyone,” added Entsminger, who is also the general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
The deadline concerns a long-anticipated update of the Colorado River’s operational guidelines, which are set to expire at the end of 2026. These 2007 interim rules govern conservation policies for the over-tapped, 1,450-mile river, which provides water to about 40 million people in the U.S. and Mexico
Ahead of the forthcoming presidential transition, the Biden administration this week propelled the process of determining new guidelines forward — releasing a bullet-point list of five potential alternatives for the watershed’s long-term management.
Alongside the publication, Interior Department officials also said they would provide further details about the options in an “alternatives report” next month, with the goal of keeping National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures course.
Speculation abounds as to whether the Biden administration’s decision to make the alternatives public at this stage was at all influenced by President-elect Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.
The list of alternatives revealed Wednesday and the forthcoming “alternatives report” are not required by NEPA but instead represent what Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Touton described in a Wednesday press call as the “collective work” of the agency’s staff members.
Officials in March had said they planned to release a NEPA-mandated draft environmental impact statement — which includes analyses of the alternatives — by the end of 2024, but the issuance of that document was since postponed to 2025.
Speaking alongside Touton, Interior Department acting Deputy Secretary Laura Daniel-Davis expressed hope that the publication of alternatives could “keep the process moving and meet the requirement to have this operational plan in place by 2026.”
“It’s an important transparency opportunity to make sure that everyone is updated and tracking how we are moving along in this moment,” Daniel-Davis added.
Figuring out ‘how we’re going to live with less’
Megadrought conditions coupled with overconsumption have become increasing threats to the Colorado River’s two key reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead — and are putting pressure on negotiators to find a way to conserve the river’s dwindling reserves of water moving forward.
The states that rely on the river are divided on the best way to do that in the long term, however.
The domestic portion of the Colorado River watershed has historically been regarded as consisting of two halves: a Lower and an Upper basin, which respectively include California, Arizona and Nevada, and Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.
A 1922 compact granted annual water allocations of 7.5 million acre-feet to each basin, while a 1944 treaty then gave an additional 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico. For reference, a typical suburban U.S. household uses about an acre-foot of water each year.
Also spanning the region are 30 tribal nations, many of which have substantial rights to water within the broader totals.
The Bureau of Reclamation had given the Colorado River states an early March 2024 deadline to submit a consensus-backed alternative for updated guidelines for the river’s management. That proposal was supposed to be analyzed within the NEPA-mandated environmental impact statement.
But two days after the March 2024 deadline, rather than submitting a unified alternative, the basins published competing proposals.
The Lower Basin states presented a document that included reductions of their own but advocated for cuts across the entire watershed — calculating storage capacity not just on the massive Lake Powell and Lake Mead, but also on five smaller reservoirs, including three in the Upper Basin.
The Upper Basin states, meanwhile, released a plan that they said would account for real-time hydrological conditions in a region that depends on mountain snowpack for its water supply.
The alternatives offered by the Bureau of Reclamation on Wednesday represent a range of management solutions, none of which precisely match either basin’s proposal.
Within the list are four viable options as well as a fifth “no action” alternative, which officials described as a NEPA requirement that would revert to guidelines in place before 2007.
While federal officials made clear on Wednesday that they did not have a preferred alternative, they said that Alternative 4, which includes elements of both the Upper and Lower Basin proposals, could help facilitate collaboration.
Under Alternative 4, Lake Powell releases would be based primarily on this reservoir’s elevation but would also take Lake Mead’s levels into account. This option would also make basin-wide cuts more equitable by basing up to 2.1 million acre-feet of Lower Basin usage reductions upon the full seven-reservoir storage and by requiring some Upper Basin conservation.
Although the states technically cannot choose with which alternative the Bureau of Reclamation ultimately proceeds, if they do come to an internal consensus, the terms of their agreement can significantly influence the final text of the chosen path — as it is in the interest of all parties and of the river itself to have a cooperative management plan in place.
In 2023, the states were able to overcome differences with a short-term conservation agreement to tide the region over until 2026. But in that case, the gap to bridge was between six states and California, rather than two entire basins divided in their interests.
“There is still a lot of uncertainty at this point in time,” Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s chief Colorado River negotiator, said at a meeting of Arizona water community leaders this week, prior to the publication of federal alternatives.
Buschatzke, who also serves as director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, argued that although the Upper Basin’s proposal protects Lake Powell elevations, it does so “at the expense of elevations in Lake Mead,” which is in the Lower Basin.
“Basically, it puts all of the onus on us, the lower division states, to take action,” he said.
On the other hand, he described a robust relationship among Lower Basin states, noting that the “partnership we have right now with Nevada and California is as strong as it has ever been.”
JB Hamby, Colorado River commissioner for California, echoed these sentiments, telling The Hill that Lower Basin states recently “went from a real nadir” to building a strong collaboration.
Parties across the region, he said, must acknowledge “the real differences” dividing the two basins while also recognizing the system’s vulnerabilities.
“There’ll be real risk of litigation and conflict if we don’t collectively figure out how we’re going to live with less,” Hamby added.
Although Buschatzke had expressed some disappointment in the content of the alternatives, he told The Hill that Reclamation’s publications of the list “in terms of timing, is a positive thing.”
“It helps to clarify where they’re heading, in a way that might help us in discussions among the states,” he said.
While Trump has announced his Interior secretary pick, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), he has yet to tap a candidate for Bureau of Reclamation commissioner.
Entsminger acknowledged that whoever ultimately fills the roles of Reclamation commissioner and Interior assistant secretary for water and science could affect some operational details.
“But what I want to make clear to everyone is it’s not an excuse for the states not to be working during that interim,” he said. “There’s plenty of problems to be solved.”
‘The last bipartisan solution’
Regarding the potential impact of the impending changeover in administration on the negotiations, Buschatzke told The Hill that he has “no crystal ball.”
“I think whatever progress we can make in the Biden administration, while they’re still there, on these issues regarding the river, will be a positive,” he said. “I hope that will be viewed positively in the next administration.”
Buschatzke noted that there is some precedent fueling his optimism. For example, he recalled that “things went smoothly” on Colorado River work during the transition from former President Obama to Trump’s first term.
“President Trump’s administration didn’t come in and say, ‘Oh, we’re going to just throw all that out and start over again,'” Buschatzke said.
Specifically, the negotiators were able to trudge forward with Minute 323, an agreement with Mexico that was completely negotiated before Trump took office but finalized during his tenure.
“I’d like to believe that sometimes history repeats itself on the good side,” Buschatzke said.
Echoing these sentiments, Hamby, the California commissioner, said Colorado River negotiations also continued without much interruption during the shift from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration — at which time, the federal government pushed California to reduce its basic water apportionment.
“Reclamation and Interior played a very strong role in making that happen,” Hamby said. “Sometimes that hammer-to-come-down is an important tool to be able to motivate action.”
Buschatzke agreed that Reclamation “fills a critical role” in the Colorado River’s management and said that going forward, the role of the federal government “will remain crucial.”
Entsminger added that the federal government has always been involved in such major deals in the past, particularly because of its responsibility to operate infrastructure on the Colorado River.
“But I do think the majority of the policy negotiations in how to solve some of these long-standing issues falls primarily to the states,” the Nevada negotiator added.
As for the Upper Basin’s negotiators, New Mexico’s commissioner, Estevan López, offered similar remarks, with an emphasis on future collaboration.
“I do not anticipate that the upcoming change in administration will affect either the approach to Colorado River negotiations or the timeline for completing the necessary NEPA analysis for new operating guidelines for the Colorado River,” López said in a written statement.
“I remain committed to representing New Mexico’s interests and working toward a seven-basin state consensus for post-2026 Colorado River operations,” he added.
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources, meanwhile, shared remarks on behalf of the state’s commissioner, Becky Mitchell, noting her commitment “to working with the basin states, the federal government, tribal nations and others towards sustainable management of Lakes Powell and Mead.”
Gene Shawcroft, Utah’s commissioner, said in a statement that his “focus is on ensuring Utah’s interests are represented in the ongoing Colorado River negotiations, regardless of changes in administration.”
“While shifts in leadership bring different perspectives, the federal government’s role remains critical in facilitating collaboration among the basin states and upholding the legal framework that governs the river’s use,” Shawcroft added.
The Hill also reached out to Brandon Gebhart, Wyoming’s commissioner, for comment.
Despite current tensions, Buschatzke reiterated his optimism that the parties could arrive at a consensus that would be agreeable to everyone.
“We do not want litigation,” Buschatzke said. “I’m trying to still be positive and find a collaborative path forward.”
Expressing similar support for a consensus among states, Entsminger backed the notion that the region’s policymakers tend to tackle U.S. West water issues across party lines.
“Every human on the planet is 80 percent water,” Entsminger said. “So it’s the last bipartisan solution.”
