The two teams of states battling over the Colorado River are nearing the end of a game they might both lose. Now, one of them is calling for last-minute, third-party intervention.
In a Thursday joint statement, the Upper Colorado River Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming called for “immediate mediation” in the yearslong deadlock with the Lower Colorado River Basin states of Nevada, California and Arizona. They offered no details about who could fill that role or which entity would pay for the costs.
“Time is short, but structured negotiations through mediation offer a new path for authentic discussions,” New Mexico’s Upper Colorado River Commissioner Estevan López said in a statement. “Even at this late stage, we should pursue every opportunity to reach a workable agreement.”
John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the state’s Colorado River negotiator, said in a Tuesday interview that he is ambivalent about the idea but is willing to try it. Entsminger said he has never gone through mediation on a water deal, and he didn’t know how costs would be allocated or whom the Upper Basin states may have in mind.
“It’s disappointing that seven professional water managers appointed by our governors can’t find a common-sense solution,” Entsminger said. “But on the other hand, I’d rather mediate than litigate.”
Any meaningful mediation to avoid a costly U.S. Supreme Court battle would have to happen fast. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has indicated a final plan could come as soon as this summer, with a critical Oct. 1 deadline on the first day of the water year that runs October through September of the following year.
The push comes about a week after the Bureau of Reclamation and Interior Department announced an emergency plan to move water into Lake Powell from an upstream reservoir and reduce releases into Lake Mead. Record low levels at Lake Mead could halve hydropower production at Hoover Dam as soon as this fall.
But it’s unclear how the federal government may resolve longstanding issues between the states, namely whether the Upper Basin will be forced to accept mandatory cuts in water use and how steep mandatory cuts will be in the Lower Basin. No official has said whether a deal will span 20 years or less in the face of the basin’s worst hydrology in decades.
A ‘marriage counselor’
The Interior Department has indicated in previous public documents that it believes it has the legal authority to effectively cut Nevada’s share of the Colorado River in half. But such a bold curtailment decision would not come without a fight in court.
In an interview last week, Entsminger said the short-term plan for 2026 aligns pretty closely with what Nevada officials proposed last month. A 20-year deal has not been ruled out, but Entsminger said he doesn’t believe one would be in place until 2027.
Conversations between the states continue, he said, and officials from all seven states spoke on a call last week.
Asked about how a mediator could differ from the federal government’s intervention or the appointment of a so-called “water master” at the U.S. Supreme Court, Entsminger said states are unlikely to view a mediator’s decision-making as binding.
“It’s certainly not litigation; it’s not even arbitration,” Entsminger said. “It’s more of a marriage counselor.”
Through a spokesperson, Tom Buschatzke, director of Arizona’s Department of Water Resources and the state’s Colorado River negotiator, declined to comment Tuesday.
Colorado River Board of California Chairman JB Hamby said in a Tuesday statement that his state proposed a mediation process last year. California officials see the need for both long- and short-term solutions, and mediation could push the Upper Basin toward “verifiable water contributions,” Hamby added.
“Effective mediation requires common ground, and the system cannot wait,” Hamby said. “Current conditions require immediate, measurable water reductions from every state.”
Contact Alan Halaly at ahalaly@reviewjournal.com. Follow @AlanHalaly on X.
