Leaders in California, Arizona and Nevada have criticized the Trump administration’s proposals to cut off water along the Colorado River, urging it to take a different approach and avoid court battle.
Three downstream states said in letters to the Interior Department this week that the agency’s first draft of five mitigation options ignores the basic “River Law” that has underpinned how the seven western states have operated for more than a century.
Federal officials have so far failed to assess whether their options are consistent with the 1922 Colorado River Compact, and this is a “fundamental deficiency that must be addressed,” JB Hamby, a leading negotiator from California, wrote in a letter to the Trump administration.
That agreement divided the water between four states upstream – Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico – and those downstream – Nevada, Arizona and California.
It required water withdrawn from Upper Basin dams in Nevada, Arizona and California to average 7.5 million acre-feet in any given decade, plus Mexico’s share – the official “triwire” some government officials argue that it may be violated soon, paving the way for a lawsuit to violate the agreement.
The Colorado River supplies water to farms, cities and tribal communities from the Rocky Mountains to northern Mexico. The 1922 treaty promised more water than the river can provide, and now climate change is causing drier conditions and reducing the river’s flow.
Monday was the deadline for water agencies and individuals to submit comments to the Trump administration about it to choose from to deal with severe water shortages. The current rules expire at the end of 2026.
Indigenous leaders, academic researchers and environmental advocates were all sent comments.
Officials in California, Arizona and Nevada said the Trump administration’s current five options would put the burden of cuts on them only while protecting Upper Basin states, and allowing them to use more water.
If Upper Basin states fail to deliver the needed water, Lower Basin states can make a “collective call” to sue, Arizona water chief Tom Buschatzke said in a statement. a book in the Trump administration. He said if that happens, the court will apply the terms of the agreement.
“There is no legal consequence when the depletion … is placed almost entirely in the Lower Basin,” Buschatzke said. Each of the five proposed federal options, he said, unfairly “requires Lower Basin states to accept disproportionate and inequitable cuts.”
The letters provide an indication of which states will oppose them in court if the Trump administration imposes cuts they don’t support. The legal battle could take years and be decided by the US Supreme Court.
Leaders of the Upper Basin regions also raised objections, saying that the current options of the Ministry of the Interior are based on faulty thinking, fail to decide on a large enough cut in the Lower Basin and exceed the authority of the federal government. They say that the officials should not only count the water districts they take from the river but also their own water it evaporates from lakes and rivers.
Colorado water officials Rebecca Mitchell and Lauren Ris he wrote that all government options would “prioritize” Lower Basin water use at the “expense” of the Upper Basin. This would violate the “equal division of the river” under the 1922 treaty, they said.
Ris called a government agency that “recognizes the hydrologic reality of a shrinking river.”
The US Bureau of Reclamation’s initial options will cut water in Arizona between 33% and 69%, and Nevada between 24% and 67%. Under the other options, California could see a reduction of between 29% and 33%.
Such cuts may cause Arizona cities to be grab other sources then pump more underground water, ie going down in many places. California farmers, who are already there leaving some fields dry half of the year in exchange for government funds, they are under pressure to save more.
One important complaint for California, Arizona and Nevada is concentration Glen Canyon Damlake that forms Lake Powell on the Utah-Arizona border. The three states have urged the federal government to repair or rehabilitate the dam to correct the defects in its construction. creating problems when the lake is something down.
If the level of Lake Powell drops to the point where water can only pass through tubes larger than 8 feet in diameter, that would limit how much water can reach California, Arizona and Nevada.
Nevada water officials John Entsminger and Eric Witkoski wrote that trying to shore up water levels at Glen Canyon Dam instead of repairing it is “a misunderstanding” and could harm the three states by “reducing water available to our farmers, communities and economies.”
They called for “some combination of direct engineering fixes, diverting water to Lake Powell from upstream dams,” and cutting districts in the Upper Basin states.
Another concern raised by California officials is how the reduction will affect the Salton Sea. The water that flows from the farms flows into the saline lake, and less water will reduce the lake quickly, it is affected wild animals and the surrounding communities there dust blown by the wind it leads to higher rates of asthma and other health problems.
California’s Imperial Irrigation District, which uses a large portion of the Colorado River’s water, said the federal government needs to assess how water cuts will affect the Salton Sea. IID General Manager Jamie Asbury said not considering the effects on the Salton Sea was “a critical mistake.”
Representatives of seven states could not agree on a plan to cut off water, but negotiations continue.
