As new regulations for the Colorado River come into play this Thursday, the immediate impact on Arizona’s water supply will be minimal. Arizona is still in the process of finalizing a tripartite agreement with California and Nevada to distribute water cutbacks equitably. The changes in Arizona’s water usage will not be realized until January 1, 2027. Arizona’s chief water negotiator expressed optimism in an interview with KJZZ about the progress of the deal among the three states.
Understanding the timeline of these new water rules requires delving into the unique scheduling of the Colorado River’s water management.
Typically, federal regulations for the Colorado River and its major reservoirs follow a distinct “water year,” which spans from October 1 to October 1. As of this Thursday, a new federal plan will alter the volume of water transferred from Lake Powell to Lake Mead.
However, the distribution of water from Lake Mead to downstream areas such as cities in the Phoenix area and large agricultural districts in California adheres to the conventional calendar year, from January 1 to January 1.
Consequently, although the inflow into Lake Mead will vary this week, the outflow will remain unchanged until 2027.
The states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, which draw water from the Colorado River downstream of Lake Mead, must finalize an agreement by the end of the year to align with the new federal rules. The federal strategy largely impacts Arizona, but California and Nevada have agreed to absorb some of the reductions to alleviate Arizona’s burden.
What’s Causing Delays?
Despite initial confidence in the trilateral agreement following the federal government’s announcement in August, several obstacles have prevented its finalization.
The primary challenge lies in determining which specific cities and farms will need to reduce their water usage.
John Berggren, a water policy expert with Western Resource Advocates, explained, “It’s kind of been the story of the Colorado River for many years now. The people negotiating these agreements reach a high-level agreement of ‘Here’s what we’re willing to do,’ and then they have to go back and shop it around their state and make sure they can get their water users on board with what they are tentatively agreed to.”
Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s leading water negotiator, noted that Arizona and Nevada have already established their plans, while California is finalizing its strategies involving major water consumers such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Imperial Irrigation District.
Buschatzke mentioned that the states are “putting all the final touches” on the agreement before presenting it to the relevant boards.
“It’s more dotting I’s and T’s,” he stated. “I’m very optimistic, based on recent discussions, that we’re going to close on the agreement language in a way that it will be then ready to go to various boards over the next few weeks.”
Nevada’s Legal Challenge
A recent legal move by Nevada has further complicated the tri-state negotiations. Nevada filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that the Interior Department overlooked certain legal prerequisites while formulating its new plan.
This lawsuit, still pending in court, has potentially delayed negotiations involving Nevada.
“People are interested in waiting to see how the federal government responds,” Berggren noted, “Which we should know in the next month or so. So, depending on how they respond, I think that will dictate what other people do.”
Nevada is suing the federal government over cuts to its allocation of Colorado River water. It came as a surprise to many who follow water policy.
Arizona’s Buschatzke acknowledged that the lawsuit has impacted discussions among the three states.
“The Nevada lawsuit was something we did have to deal with in regards to the Lower Basin Agreement,” he said. “It did take some time, I think, to work through how that all would fit together. But I do think there’s a positive path forward to deal with the Nevada complaint and to get the Lower Basin Agreement over the finish line.”
In correspondence to the federal government, John Entsminger, Nevada’s principal water authority, affirmed that his state remains “committed to working cooperatively towards finalizing and implementing the Lower Basin agreement.”
Arizona’s Legislative Role
Before the three-state agreement can take effect, it must pass a significant obstacle: the Arizona Legislature. Among the seven states utilizing the Colorado River, Arizona is unique in requiring legislative approval for interstate water-sharing agreements.
Earlier this year, Buschatzke told KJZZ that he would not endorse a tri-state agreement unless confident of its passage through the Legislature, potentially necessitating a special session.
Since then, water issues have emerged as a political focal point. Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs and Republican Congressman Andy Biggs have made water policy a central theme in their gubernatorial campaigns. Across various races, candidates have spotlighted water management in speeches, advertisements, and campaign materials.
In early September, Republican legislators requested more updates from Buschatzke’s department, the Arizona Department of Water Resources, on Colorado River developments, suggesting a lack of communication compared to Governor Hobbs’ office.
Despite the politicization of water issues, Buschatzke remains hopeful about bipartisan support for the tri-state Colorado River agreement.
“We’ve been briefing the legislature quite a bit on the agreement itself and its status,” he said. “I believe, at the end of the day, that the agreement will go through the legislature once we get there. It is an agreement that shows strong collaboration among the three states.”
