States still at odds but working toward 5-year plan

With just weeks to decide how to
share the Colorado River’s shrinking water supply, negotiators from
seven states hunkered down in a Salt Lake City conference room.

Outside was busy traffic on State
Street and South Temple. Inside was gridlock that eased up for a time,
only to return, Utah’s chief negotiator, Gene Shawcroft said Tuesday of
last week’s meetings.

The states moved forward on a deal for two-and-a-half days, then went back by almost as far as they’d come, Shawcroft said. 

“I would just tell you that four days is too long. We got tired of each other,” he said. 

Shawcroft reiterated Tuesday what he
and his counterparts from the other Colorado River states have said in
recent months: They don’t have a deal, but they do have a commitment to
keep talking and meet their upcoming February deadline. 

The earlier goal was to reach a
20-year deal, but Shawcroft told Utah News Dispatch the states are now
working on an agreement for a shorter time frame. 

“I think it’ll be fairly simple, but I think it’ll allow us to operate for the next five years,” Shawcroft said.  

The river provides water to 40
million people across the U.S. and Mexico, contributing 27% of Utah’s
water supply. It is shrinking because of drought, overuse and hotter temperatures tied to climate change.

Time for negotiators is also drying
up as a Feb. 14 deadline set by the federal government approaches. The
current agreement runs through late 2026.

The four Upper Basin states — Utah,
Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming — are at odds with the Lower Basin
states of Nevada, Arizona and California.

The upstream states don’t want to
make mandatory cuts in dry years, saying they typically use much less
than they’re allocated. The downstream states say all seven need to
absorb cuts in difficult years.

Conservation groups have criticized
the states for not reaching a deal yet, saying “escalating risks” —
including declining storage in lakes Powell and Mead — are piling up
every month they fail to agree on a plan.

The debate centers in part on
upstream reservoirs like Flaming Gorge on the Utah-Wyoming border and
whether they’ll be managed under the new plan. 

“Lower Basin believes those
reservoirs ought to be used at the beck and call of the lower basin to
reduce their reductions,” Shawcroft said at the meeting. “Obviously, we
think differently.” 

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, for her part, has criticized
the upstream states’ “extreme negotiating posture,” saying they refuse
to participate in any sharing in managing water shortages. 

Demand for water is outpacing the
river’s supply, and extended dry periods aren’t helping. At the meeting,
board members viewed a map covered in yellow, orange and red, noting
the entire Colorado River watershed is experiencing some level of
drought. 

Earlier this month, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency that oversees water in the West, released five options for a framework on managing the river’s biggest reservoirs, Lake Mead in Nevada and Lake Powell on the Utah-Arizona line.

Amy Haas, executive director of the
Colorado River Authority of Utah, said she and her colleagues were still
reviewing the 1,600-page document but one thing is clear.  

“None of the five can provide what
for Utah is really the central consideration for the deal, and that is a
waiver of compact litigation,” Haas said. 

States can sacrifice more than just time and money in lawsuits over water use. In Texas, similar litigation gave the federal government more leverage in negotiations. 

One of the Bureau of Reclamation’s plans would have Nevada, Arizona and California face potential water shortages. It could go into effect next year if the seven states don’t reach a deal.  

“The river and the 40 million people
who depend on it cannot wait,” Andrea Travnicek, assistant interior
secretary for water and science, said in a Jan. 9 statement announcing
the five alternatives. “In the face of an ongoing severe drought,
inaction is not an option.”