The seven states that use the Colorado River are deadlocked about how to share it in the future. The current rules for dividing its shrinking supplies expire in 2026. State leaders are under pressure to propose a new sharing agreement urgently, so they can finish environmental paperwork before that deadline.
Right now, they don鈥檛 appear close to an agreement, so a group of prominent Colorado River experts co-signed outlining seven things they want to see in the next set of rules.
The letter gives a clear, concise list of recommendations for ways to keep taps flowing while protecting tribes and the environment. Whether the states will listen is another matter entirely.
鈥楽hared pain鈥�
The letter, written by a group of academics and retired policymakers, makes no bones about it: states need to find a collective solution to their collective problem. And some of them might not be happy.
State leaders have been reluctant to volunteer cutbacks, and have largely stayed divided along a decades-old fault line. On one side, the Upper Basin 鈥� which consists of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. The other side, the Lower Basin, is made up of California, Arizona and Nevada.
The recent letter is interesting in part because it鈥檚 co-authored by people from both sides of the Colorado River debate. Eric Kuhn led an agency that defends Western Colorado鈥檚 water. Kathryn Sorensen led Phoenix鈥檚 water department.
The letter was also written by Anne Castle, who has worked in federal water policy positions, and Jack Schmidt, a water researcher at Utah State University. Co-authors John Fleck and Katherine Tara research water policy at the University of New Mexico.
The authors write that states need to engage in some level of 鈥渟hared pain,鈥� meaning cutbacks to the amount of water that flows to farms, homes, and businesses.
鈥溾�楽hared鈥�,鈥� the letter writes, 鈥淒oes not mean equal, either in amount, triggers, or duration.鈥�
The Lower Basin states have already proposed relatively modest cutbacks, and the Upper Basin seems to be digging in its heels on the idea that they should not have to give up any water at all.
This letter pushes back on that stance.
鈥淭here's lots of wonderful legal arguments about why it shouldn't be me that needs to use less water,鈥� Anne Castle, one of the letter鈥檚 authors, told KUNC. 鈥淏ut in order to have a viable and politically viable agreement, everybody has to do a share.鈥�
Other recommendations
In addition to calling for states to put their heads together, the authors also warned against leaning too hard on federal checks as a way to conserve water. Money from the federal government has been a key part of avoiding catastrophe on the Colorado River in recent years. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to big water users, often farmers, as an incentive to use less water.
Those funds have come under threat during President Donald Trump鈥檚 second term. The letter says new rules for the Colorado River 鈥渃annot assume that federal taxpayers will reimburse Western water users over the long term to forgo the use of water that does not exist.鈥�
The letter goes on to advocate for groups that can sometimes be an afterthought in Western water policy. It essentially re-ups an earlier call from a group of tribes in the Colorado River basin, which are asking for a bigger seat at the table after more than a century of exclusion. It also pushes for new rules to be more flexible, which would make it easier to protect river ecosystems. That mirrors similar comments from a group of nonprofits.
The shortest and final recommendation in the letter says that any new Colorado River rules have to make sure there鈥檚 enough water to keep people safe and healthy.
鈥淭here must be absolute protection of domestic water deliveries for public health and safety,鈥� it reads.
In short, it鈥檚 asking to make sure that a worst-case-scenario doesn鈥檛 see drinking water reserves go dry, while agriculture and other industries keep their faucets flowing.
鈥淚 don't think that would happen,鈥� Castle said. 鈥淚 think the market would intervene and take care of this situation.鈥�
The reaction
KUNC reached out to top water negotiators in Arizona and Colorado for this story. Their answers fell in line with oft-repeated talking points from each basin.
A spokesman for the Arizona Department of Water Resources wrote that its director, Tom Buschatzke, 鈥渁greed with the authors that 鈥榚very state and sector of the economy must contribute to the solution to this imbalance.鈥欌��
Colorado鈥檚 top water official, Becky Mitchell, wrote that the recommendations overlooked climate change鈥檚 impact on Upper Basin water supplies, and that states already take 鈥渕andatory and uncompensated鈥� cuts.
鈥淐olorado water users do not enjoy a guaranteed delivery of the full amount of their water rights each year,鈥� she wrote.
Jennifer Gimbel, Colorado鈥檚 former top water official, did not contribute to the letter and also took issue with the suggestion that both basins could afford to make cutbacks.
鈥淎re the authors of the paper thinking that federal law should be enacted to override state law?鈥� Gimbel wrote to KUNC in an email. 鈥淎re they thinking that users in the Upper Basin, who they say should not rely on federal compensation, should just give up their livelihoods voluntarily or be compensated by the state legislatures? I don鈥檛 know because they don鈥檛 say.鈥�
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
