LAS VEGAS — Colorado River farmers, water managers and officials were gearing up for the largest gathering of the year for months expecting some kind of update about how the water supply for 40 million people will be managed going forward.
Some walked away frustrated, while others clung to do-or-die optimism or wondered why the people negotiating the rules still have their jobs.
When seven state negotiators took to the stage for the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference, they didn’t have much progress to report about how the river’s main reservoirs will be managed once the current operational rules end in fall 2026. Instead, for the second time this week, many of them used their time to highlight the same concerns they’ve shared for years. With the clock ticking down, federal officials started to ratchet up the pressure.
“If you distill down what my six partners just said, I believe there’s three common things: Here’s all the great things my state has done. Here’s how hard/impossible it is to do any more. And here are all the reasons why other people should have to do more,” John Entsminger, the governor-appointed negotiator for Nevada, told the gathering.
“As long as we keep polishing those arguments and repeating them to each other, we are going nowhere,” he said.
The state officials are negotiating an agreement on how to store and release water in the basin’s main reservoirs, like lakes Mead and Powell. That agreement requires tough decisions about water cuts in dry years that could impact ecosystems like the Grand Canyon, a powerful agricultural industry that provides food for the nation, hydropower generation that supports Western power grids and more.
If the states agree, then federal officials have said they will use the states’ proposal to manage the Colorado River’s water supply.
If they can’t agree, the Department of the Interior will choose how to manage the river. Or the states, or powerful water users in the basin, could take it to court — the “nuclear option” that would lead to millions of dollars in legal expenses and years of uncertainty.
The Lower Basin, which comprises Arizona, California and Nevada, has said it will take the first 1.5 million acre-feet in cuts in the basin’s driest years. One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons, enough to cover one-acre of cropland in a foot of water or provide two to three homes with a year’s supply of water.
“It is a huge step. But what Mother Nature has said is she is demanding more. And where do we go from there?” Colorado’s negotiator Becky Mitchell said.
The seven governor-appointed negotiators have been debating that question for two years. After missing a federal deadline in November, the states face another deadline Feb. 14 to share a detailed plan with the Department of the Interior, which is managing the rulemaking process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
“Delay is unacceptable,” Scott Cameron, acting commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, said Wednesday.
The federal officials urged states to collaborate and be willing to make uncomfortable compromises. Water users, like farmers, ranchers, cities and industries, should give their state representatives room to negotiate, said Andrea Travnicek, assistant secretary for water and science for the Department of the Interior.
“If you can’t do that, send us representatives who have the authority to best serve your interests but are willing to break through the barriers and get to a consensus deal,” she said, suggesting a cast change might be needed to break the logjam.
What the negotiators said
One of the top issues is who will cut back on water use in the river’s driest years and by how much. But the issue has split the basin into two camps for months: the Lower Basin states and Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
The Colorado River Basin is taking a one-two punch: Warming temperatures, drought and climate change are shrinking its water supplies and changing its water cycle, while the ongoing water demands of millions of people have pushed its stored water supplies to historic lows.
Entsminger said the basin could agree to a short-term, five-year deal as a stop-gap measure to avoid the uncertainty of going to court.
“I went into this process advocating strenuously for a 20- to 30-year deal … to give certainty to the basin,” he said. “I no longer believe that’s possible.”
One option is for the Lower Basin to agree to temporarily waive its ability to force Upper Basin states to release water downstream if the river’s flows fall too low, Arizona’s top negotiator, Tom Buschatzke, said.
For Arizona to agree to the waiver, the upstream states need to commit to conserving a set amount of water in dry years, he said.
After the downstream states take the first cuts in dry years — up to 1.5 million acre-feet — Buschatzke called for the two basins to split any additional cuts 50-50.
“I have to go to my legislature and get that approval,” he said. “And I will say right now, I do not think there is anything on the table from the Upper Basin that would compel me to do that today.”
The Upper Basin states say they cannot commit to water cuts. The upstream water cycle — when snow and rain fall and by how much — fluctuates too much, and they can’t send water downstream that doesn’t exist.
The states already cut off farmers, ranchers and other water users early, particularly late in the summer when the snowmelt has flowed past and the flow through irrigation ditches is reduced to a trickle, the state officials said.
“This has led to a death of a thousand cuts. Over the last 20 years, many water users have had to make heartbreaking decisions,” Mitchell said. “They’re on the front lines. They cull their herds, fallow their fields, lay off workers and go out of business, even entirely.”
“I don’t know my next steps”
After the panel wrapped, people lingered in the conference room and Roman-themed hallways of Caesars Palace to discuss what they heard.
“It was a lot, and of course we were all hoping that there would be something more positive,” Abby Burk, Western Rivers program director for The National Audubon Society. “Folks need to go back to their state and say, ‘Hey, this is what we want to do, and we want to do more.’”
Some walked away hopeful the states can get an agreement done in the fewer than 60 days before their next deadline in February. It was positive that everyone seemed like they were still trying to avoid litigation, said Monte Montague, assistant water technician of the Quechan Indian Tribe near Yuma, Arizona.
Hundreds of farmers, water managers, officials and other Colorado River water users listen as state negotiators share their perspectives on future water management Thursday, Dec. 18, 2025, at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas. (Shannon Mullane, The Colorado Sun)
Some walked away concerned.
Christopher Avery, a water attorney for the city of Tucson, Arizona, is trying to plan large city projects that require decades to plan, build and pay off. A five-year agreement wouldn’t provide enough certainty, he said.
“I don’t have my next steps. I don’t know what we need to do next,” he said. “Until there’s a deal, it’s really hard for Tucson to put any kind of long-term plan together.”
What would help is a commitment from the Upper Basin to conserve water. It could be a hard, absolute number or a more flexible percentage, he said.
Gabriel Lopez, tribal chairman of the Ak-Chin Indian Community in southern Arizona, was worried about future water cuts. The community gets a significant amount of water from the Central Arizona Project. If its supply is cut, so is theirs, he said.
Colorado farmers said they appreciated Upper Basin negotiators’ comments about the cuts that are already happening in the Upper Basin.
“I would love to farm with a full supply of water. You’d have a consistent income. You’d be able to make your payments,” said Landan Wilson, who uses water from McPhee Reservoir to grow crops in southwest Colorado. “Our water allocation is so different every single year that it’s hard to farm.”