California and two other states avoided severe water cuts that would have been imposed by the Trump administration over the next two years to deal with the ongoing crisis on the Colorado River.
The Times has learned that federal officials agreed to a proposal made earlier this year by California, Arizona and Nevada to reduce river withdrawals by at least 3.2 million acres between now and the end of 2028.
Under the plan, California would reduce its use of Colorado River water by about 12% by 2028, Arizona would take about 31% less and Nevada 28% less, according to two officials at state and local agencies who spoke on condition of anonymity as details of the announcement were being finalized.
In May, three districts proposed this cut over the next two and a half years, and now the federal government will sign off on most of their proposal. The Trump administration would require more than double the cuts.
The Colorado River provides water for about 35 million people and 5 million acres of farmland, from the Rocky Mountains to Southern California and northern Mexico. It has declined significantly over the past 27 years, and studies show climate change intensifying very dry conditions.
The Trump administration’s two-year plan aims to broker a deal between two warring factions: the three downstream states of California, Arizona and Nevada, and the northern states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.
There was chaos in the negotiations as the dams on the river continued to collapse. Last week, the Great Lakes Lake Mead and Lake Powell fell to their limits lows combined on record.
Near Las Vegas, Lake Mead is now 27% full. Lake Powell, on the Utah-Arizona border, is over 23% of capacity. If it goes down an additional 33 meters, the water will not reach its intake hydroelectric power generation.
Although lower states exist to avoid even bigger cuts For now, the Trump administration is rejecting some parts of its proposal. For example, downstream states unsuccessfully pushed back on a federal promise to release more water each year from lakes upstream to Lake Mead, which stores water in California and other downstream states.
Federal officials have been consulting with state negotiators as they prepare new rules to deal with the deficit over the next 10 years. The federal government must adopt a new framework this year because the old laws, established in 2007, are expiring.
US Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum met almost and seven state governors on Tuesday and said next week his agency will issue a document – officially called a final environmental impact statement – outlining a “new framework for action.”
One representative said the draft would essentially “define the corners of the football field” by explaining that major cuts should be based on swimming levels. The official said certain reductions in 2027 and 2028 would be detailed in a separate plan, which could be revised later if larger cuts are needed to prevent reservoirs from reaching dangerously low levels.
What happens after 2028 is still to be discussed between the states.
The state’s 10-year plan would enable much larger cuts if deemed necessary in future years — up to 40% of California, Arizona and Nevada’s combined allocations.
The Bureau of Reclamation does not require water cuts in the top four states for the next two years, state and local officials said.
The Trump administration, however, is providing funding for water conservation efforts, including $350 million for low-lying states and $100 million for high-lying states. The money comes from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, and will pay urban centers that leave water in Lake Mead, as well as farmers and ranchers who agree to leave dry fields.
Some agreements are already in place signedwhile others are drawn.
For the Trump administration, accepting the three-state proposal “takes the path of least resistance,” said Felicia Marcus, a water researcher at Stanford University.
“It’s bigger than a Band-Aid, but smaller than the tourniquet we really need,” he said.
This year, the upper reaches of the Rocky Mountains had the least amount of snow on record.
Although the state plan aims to slow Lake Powell’s decline, it may not be enough to prevent the loss of power at Glen Canyon Dam as water levels continue to drop.
And there are no guarantees that states won’t be forced to take drastic measures in the next two years, Marcus said.
Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the US Bureau of Reclamation, said the agency is working with state officials to develop a framework to “provide stability while allowing flexibility” to include in any future agreement between the states.
After the meeting of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Burgum and other governors, spokesman Anthony Martinez said: “We look forward to the federal government finalizing long-standing regulations, so the entire region has clarity and confidence entering the new water year.
“That said, we still have real concerns, and we will continue to seek a plan that will be shared equally across all seven states.”
California uses more water from the Colorado River than any other state, mostly for agriculture, although the state has taken lightly in recent years.
Farms in the Imperial Valley, producing crops from hay to vegetables, are completely dependent on the river.
Cities across Southern California have been getting about a quarter of their water from the river in recent years. It is not yet clear how much they will need to make the cuts. The agencies are still working on that.
In the past three years, California and other states have turned to them voluntary dehydration again government payments to farmers who agreed to leave the fields dry for part of the year.
Representatives from California, Arizona and Nevada agencies are meeting with federal officials in Las Vegas this week to finalize a series of water conservation agreements for the next two years.
“This is a step in a long process,” said Bill Hasencamp, Colorado River resources manager for the Metropolitan Water District. “There is a lot of work that we have to do so that this program is up to standard.”
Hasencamp said that many of the participants in these negotiations hope that this two-year program will keep them out of court. But he said the fact that there is a plan does not remove the fact that there is a legitimate fight between the states.
Obviously, it would be better to have a seven-state consensus, he said, and the 10-year federal framework leaves room to continue trying to reach one.
