River governance is made, one way or another

The story is in the snowpack, plus a few snippets from the news.

Writing about the Colorado River over the past few years has felt, at many times, a bit like Groundhog Day, the repetition of patterns and clear realities (demand exceeding a shrinking water supply), told repeatedly in photos, charts, forecasts and stories.

In my old job, as a full-time journalist, one of the last stories I wrote each year came out of the Colorado River Water Users Association conference held every December. At each conference, I’d ask: Has anything really actually here? Or is it the same story?

To be sure, in that time, the status-quo governance system (seven states negotiating compromises, usually facing the threat of federal action or real physical hydrological constraints) produced collaborative compromises, layered on top of existing rules, that stabilized management in moments of acute crisis. But for every step forward, there were signs the status-quo system of deferring to seven-state compromises, as climate change drove 21st-century flows far below the 100-year average, was showing cracks.

Colorado River Delta (EcoFlight)

The public signs might have seemed small and relational, but they snowballed. In tone and in consequences. Negotiators declining to sit on the same panels, hosting dueling press conferences. Then missed deadlines after missed deadlines to reach a consensus.

The divisions reflect longstanding fundamental differences in foundational quesitons about how governance documents allocate water in times of shortage. They also show (and foreshadow) difficulties of adapting to climate change, more broadly. As they say, we’re stuck with 19th Century law, 20th Century infrastructure, 21st Century climate. In the past, negotiations made room for compromise to avoid these legal questions.

In this round, though, it seems that the scale of the cuts necessary drove the stakes of losing out on water to such a high level it was impossible to agree to disagree. Some states appear to now believe they can achieve a better outcome through litigating in court, despite it increasing risk for all involved — on a river that supports 40 million people — and potentially (if it doesn’t not turn out their way) risk for those states, too.

But the system needs stable governance now, not at the conclusion of a court case.

The snowpack this winter is grim. Median peak snowpack (marked with a green x on the chart below) usually comes in April. This year it peaked in early March. Peak runoff is expected to come earlier too, and runoff is forecast to be about one-third of average, or just 2.3 million acre-feet for a river where rights to use water are seven times that.

So in the tradition of reporting on this topic, I’ll ask two obvious questions:

• Is the status-quo consensus-based governance changing?

• What comes next?

We’re watching this play out in real time. With the states failing to reach a consensus on a long-term deal for the river’s operational rules, the federal government has said it will announce a shortage plan by July. Few are pleased with any of the options they’ve so far proposed. And one way or another, litigation is on the horizon, as the Colorado Sun’s Shannon Mullane (who is doing essential work on the water beat) reports.

With such low runoff forecast for this year, a near-term question remains, even amid the threats of lawsuits: Who will actually manage the river on a month-to-month and year-to-year basis? As in, structurally, what will be the process for decisions? Will it be intentional, imposed, or come together in a last-ditch attempt to avoid collapse?

In the past, the federal government and other diverse water users have relied on the states to help shape these decisions. If they cannot come to a consensus, what then? Not in the abstract, but in the real-world day-to-day operations of making choices.

A couple of weeks ago, when states were asked to provide comments to the federal government as it develops a shortage plan, Nevada alone put forth a stopgap proposal. I mentioned it in my newsletter a few weeks ago, but I thought it worth highlighting, strictly from a governance perspective, and thinking about how things are changing.

It offers short-term operational recommendations to stabilize storage reservoirs but what I found truly notable was it calls for a more structured path forward. It calls on the federal government to “adopt a decision-making process” and lays out what that could look like, with meetings among the state at least twice a year (in March and August) to review hydrology, water use, conservation, and recommend a consensus recommendation. And it’s gained some traction, prompting the states to talk again, despite continuing disagreements and interpretations of who cuts water in shortage.

The alternative? Uncertainty? Risk? A concentration of decision-making power? The rupture in the river’s governance at a time of hydrologic instability raises immediate concerns, and it will be replaced with something else, one way or another.

This is not to say that the status-quo approach was working perfectly. Deferring to the interstate consensus-based negotiations have historically excluded important parties and perspectives, including Tribal nations, limited the adoption of innovative ideas, and lacked transparency. At UC Davis this year, I’ve been helping to co-facilitate a graduate seminar on the Colorado River, and the questions that have come up have brought this into relief: Why are these meetings closed to the public? Why are there no meeting minutes? Transparency? Why does the fate of this important river rest on the ability of seven negotiators to come to a consensus? Is this a fair process?

Clearly it could be improved. And there have been strong and persuasive proposals, for decades, on creating an entity to make basin governance structurally inclusive, more transparent, and intentionally-centered around common goals, most recently in a report from the Colorado River Research Group in December. It’s worth reading.

One final thought here: It’s easy to lose focus on the bigger picture. I want to take a moment to recognize and emphasize how bleak and scary the snowpack was this year, even when compared to an average of the past 30 years that fully incorporates climate change. What is taking place on the Colorado River is a climate adaptation story as much as anything else. The change is here, and it is happening now. We need to adapt.

---

In the weeds: Groundwater science, law, and conjunctive management

In 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled, in a landmark case, that Nevada’s top water regulator had authority to manage groundwater and surface water as connected, and recognized that groundwater flow patterns do not always follow topographic basin boundaries (i.e. interbasin flow). How the decision is implemented remains a major and contentious policy question. And the Nevada experience is not unique. States across the West have struggled (and are struggling) to implement policies to address streamflow depletion caused by groundwater pumping within existing water law.

For my Nevada subscribers (and others might be interested too!), I stumbled upon this podcast earlier in the week from with Justice Patricia Lee, who authored the decision. It’s two years old, but I’m about halfway through and found it clear and illuminating.

---

Pushing back against a groundwater pipeline in the Great Basin

From the Salt Lake Tribune’s Brooke Larsen:

“A diverse group of rural Utah counties, ranchers, environmental groups and a tribe are raising red flags about a recently approved water pipeline in the West Desert.

The Indian Peaks Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, the Center for Biological Diversity and a coalition that includes Utah and Nevada counties, residents and the Great Basin Water Network filed three separate appeals with the Interior Board of Land Appeals on Wednesday, challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Pine Valley Water Supply Project last month.

…

The project proposed by the Cedar Valley Water Conservancy, formerly known as the Central Iron County Water Conservancy District, would pump up to 15,000 acre-feet of groundwater from Pine Valley in Beaver County and pipe it to Iron County.”

Copy of the lawsuit available here.

---

Low snowpack sets up a difficult summer

From the San Francisco Chronicle’s Kurtis Alexander:

California is ending the winter season with its second-lowest snowpack in modern times, a troubling distinction reflective of the warming climate, which could, in coming months, pose problems for water supplies, wildfires and wildlife.

State measurements on April 1, the closely watched date when snow levels historically reach their peaks, show that snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades and Klamath Mountains is a meager 18% of average.

…

“It didn’t snow where we needed it to snow, and where it did snow, it didn’t stick,” said Jeff Mount, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center. “This is going to be an ugly summer.”

---

I’ll be back with more soon! Until then, let me know what you think in the comments. And as always, feel free to reach out with tips or suggestions. Be safe and stay well,

Daniel